Committee on Development Ordinary meeting HEARING Joint meeting Subcommittee on Tax Matters
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
DEVE European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Maria José Garde
Yeah, thank you very much. It's my pleasure, chairs, moderators, honorable members. First let me thank you for the invitation to the Global Forum to participate in this very interesting session. When we talk about promoting fair taxation or combatting tax evasion or inequalities, often attention turns to tax rules, talking about tax rates or policy debates.
Today, I would like to focus on something more fundamental in a globalized economy and a central pillar of the international tax architecture, which is tax transparency and exchange of information. Three messages I would like to share with you today. First, countries need access to reliable information if they are to enforce their own tax laws effectively. When the economy is purely domestic, tax authorities have direct access to the taxpayer information in order to apply the tax system because they have all the information in the same country. However, assets, investment, and financial activities routinely cross borders.
Without access to information held abroad, tax authorities are often trying to enforce domestic laws with only part of the picture. Over the past 15 years, the international tax community has established international standards that enable tax authorities to obtain information and exchange it across borders while respecting confidentiality, legal safeguards, and data protection requirements. As a result, tax administrations today have access to information on a scale that would have been difficult to imagine a generation ago. As an example, in 2024 alone, information on more than 171 million financial accounts with a value exceeding 13 trillions of euros was exchanged automatically under the CRS or automatic exchange of information framework. This information provides tax administration with a powerful detection tool, helping them identify previously undisclosed offshore assets, target compliance risks, and strengthen tax enforcement.
So transparency and information exchange, international exchange of information works, and the numbers show that it does. Now, the challenge today is ensuring that all countries can put it to practical use. With 174 member jurisdictions, the Global Forum is the world's largest body dedicated to the implementation of international standards of tax transparency and exchange of information. The Global Forum does not determine tax policy or advise governments on their choices of tax system, no. Our role is a little bit different.
Our role is to ensure that jurisdictions can access and exchange the information needed to administer and enforce their laws. We do so by conducting peer review evaluations and providing capacity building to assist and support countries so they can benefit of that information. The transformation that we has seen has been remarkable. Since 2009, our members have identified at least 135 billion of euros in additional revenues through tax transparency and exchange of information. And more than 47.5 billion of euros of that has been identified by developing countries, demonstrating that the benefits extend well beyond the largest economies.
But success also brings new challenge, and this is my second message: information alone does not increase compliance or raise revenues.
Capacity is key, is what enables tax administrations to turn information into concrete results by identifying risk, detecting non-compliance and taking effective action. This is why capacity building sits at the heart of our work. In 2023 alone, the Global Forum Secretariat provided bilateral technical assistance to 111 jurisdictions and supported close to 10,000 tax officials through training, guidance and practical tools. Let me give you two short examples demonstrating how capacity building can translate directly into stronger domestic resource mobilization. Uganda joined the Global Forum in 2012 with almost no experience in exchange of information.
Since then, Uganda has benefited from a comprehensive support from the Global Forum that has helped them to build a strong exchange of information framework with a network of 143 exchange of information partners. These efforts helped Uganda identify more than 136 million of euros in additional revenues and successfully launch automatic exchange in 2023. In also Uganda is committed to first exchanges under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework in 2027. Uganda has developed a strong expertise in the area of exchange of information, recognized not only in Africa but globally, sharing their experience with some other African tax administrations. Other example is Peru.
Peru joined the Global Forum in 2014 and since then sustained support has enabled exchange of information to become an integral part of tax compliance activities, contributing to 133 millions of euros in additional tax revenues. Since commencing automatic exchanges in 2020, Peru has increasingly integrated international tax information into its compliance strategy, strengthening risk assessment, audits and tax recovery, and helped identify 26 billion of euros in assets held abroad in 2023. So looking ahead, this work becomes even more important. New transparency initiatives, including the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework and updates of the Common Reporting Standard, create significant opportunities for all tax administrations. Without the capacity, valuable information remains underused and the potential benefits of transparency are left unrealized.
So let me conclude with my third message. The foundations of global tax transparency are now firmly in place. The task before us is to ensure that every jurisdiction can participate fully and turn transparency into meaningful results. The capacity need remains significant and the opportunities even greater. With continued support, more developing countries can strengthen their tax administration, implement international transparency standards and mobilize the domestic resources needed to support their own development priorities.
Continued investment in capacity building is therefore essential if countries are to translate transparency into stronger compliance, additional revenues and stronger institutions. On behalf of the Global Forum Secretariat, I would like to thank the European Union and its member states for their long-standing partnership and support for the Global Forum's capacity building program.
We therefore count on your continued partnership and support to ensure that the benefits of tax transparency are shared by all and that no jurisdiction is left behind. Thank you very much. I look forward for your questions.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you so much, Maria. And it's now my pleasure to welcome Mary Baine, as I understand connected from South Africa. Do we have confirmation on... Hi, we see you, we hear you. Same for you, welcome.
Mary Baine
Thank you very much and Chair, honorable members, fellow panelists, good morning. Thank you so much for the kind invitation to the African Tax Administration Forum, which brings together the tax administrations of 45 African countries with one practical mandate: to help our members build tax systems that fund development and that citizens regard as fair. Let me set out the reality that frames everything that I will say this morning in five figures, drawing on our own African Tax Outlook publication and the African Development Bank's latest African Economic Outlook. On tax revenue, around 16% of GDP across Africa is a reality, which is roughly half the OECD average. On debt, 35% of government revenue went into servicing external debt in 2024, up from under a quarter in 2017.
On health, in a growing number of our members, interest payments alone now exceed what government spends on health. Illicit financial flows are, like in the opening of the Chair, indeed 90 according to 90 billion US dollars go is lost in illicit financial flows every year, and a further 275 billion a year in profit shifting by multinationals. The last figure that I want to share is the gap and the prize: an annual development financing gap of more than 1.3 trillion dollars against 469 billion a year that the bank estimates could be obtained from stronger tax and non-tax revenue. So, Chair, members of the committees, fair taxation is therefore not an abstract principle for Africa. It is the difference between a state that can deliver for its people and one that cannot.
I was asked to give the African perspective and give an assessment of the UN process and the OECD framework. I will offer three perspectives, Chair, and close with three recommendations to the EU. My first perspective is that the rules still allocate too little to where value is created. The core fairness question in international tax is now is how taxing rights are shared between residence and source jurisdictions. Many African countries remain bound by treaties negotiated decades ago that hand taxing rights to the investor's home country, even when the activity, the customers, and the value are in Africa.
ATAF's response has been technical rather than rhetorical. Our revised model double taxation agreement gives members a negotiating text that protects source taxation while still eliminating double taxation, and we hope more members can take this on board. On the OECD G20 inclusive framework, let me be clear here, Chair: we value that partnership, but strongly believe the benefits could be better. ATAF has participated since inception. The BEPS measures and the global minimum tax have given our members very useful tools, and ATAF is helping them adapt domestic minimum top-up taxes so that the revenues are collected in Africa rather than ceded to headquarters jurisdictions.
I'm afraid that is where the good news ends, because the inclusive framework did not resolve the issue of the allocation of taxing rights. Pillar one, like we all know, which was to reallocate profits to market jurisdictions, has not materialized, and the rules that did emerge are hardest to administer for those with least capacity.
That is our candid assessment and we offer it in a spirit of partnership. My second perspective is that the UN framework convention is Africa's opportunity and it's also Europe's opportunity. This is why the UN framework convention matters so much to our members. It was driven by the Africa group and for the first time every state sits at the table with an equal voice. The negotiations are halfway and the next session will be in Nairobi in December.
It is great to see that the EU FISC sub-committee will send a delegation and we'd warmly welcome its contribution not only in assessing the impact on the EU framework but in helping to building the outcome. Three points on the substance. One, on complementarity, which is mentioned in this session. Africa welcomes it and I would like to share how we understand it. Complementarity means the convention draws on the work of other fora, including the inclusive framework, and adopts or sets it aside on its merits case by case.
It should not mean that the UN process simply inherits outcomes that many of its members had no point in shaping. Countries should remain free to choose the OECD standard or the UN standard according to their own circumstances and we believe that freedom is what a fair system should protect. Second, the first protocol on income from services delivered across borders including automated digital services is Africa's priority. Highly digitalized businesses earn substantial income from our markets with no taxable presence. Europe shares that problem and so a common solution serves everyone.
Third, freedom to choose comes with a duty to honor. Once a state signs the convention or a protocol, it should be bound to implement it in good faith and to discharge its obligations in full. Africa holds itself to that standard and we ask the same of all our partners. A framework that is signed but not honored would repeat the disappointments of the past. My third perspective: what are we doing to build fairness at home?
International rules matter but fairness is experienced at home. Three practical examples from African tax administrations with ATAF support. On wealth, ATAF's study has identified more than 18,000 high net worth individuals across three countries alongside wide compliance gaps and thin capacity to enforce the taxes already on the statute book. We hope that the guide that we have developed will continue to help members to build dedicated units and national strategies giving practical effect to the G20 commitment that this parliament welcomed. On transparency, like Maria Jose has said, a lot of work has been done and we partner with the Global Forum and we welcome this partnership.
Exchange of information only reduces inequality if African administrations can actually use the data. ATAF, Zambia and the World Bank are in the process of building a solution that will enable smaller administrations acquire it and to make sure that they are no longer priced out. On results, ATAF's technical assistance including direct audit support on complex cases has helped members raise assessments of 6.5 billion US dollars and collect around 3 billion over the past decade. The partner support behind that work has been repaid many times over in revenue for our members and the demand for it keeps growing, results increased resources requirements for ATAF.
With the African Union and Tax Justice Network Africa, we have developed the anti-IFF tracker that helps countries to measure and close their own gaps. On partnership, this could not have been done alone and the European Union's multi-donor action on illicit financial flows implemented by GIZ has anchored much of ATAF's work on tax-related IFFs together with our other partners like Germany, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway and Switzerland. Beyond this union, this has sustained our work and this partnership is the reason our results exist. Continuing and strengthening this is the surest way to sustain them. So my three quick recommendations: one, on Global Europe.
In Sevilla, development partners pledged to double support for domestic revenue mobilization by 2030. When this parliament votes on its negotiating mandate on 19th October, I would respectfully ask that this commitment be made concrete, a predictable multi-year and identifiable allocation for domestic revenue mobilization with a deliberate share channeled through African regional institutions rather than only through bilateral projects because the work we do supports the 45 members at once. We believe this is among the most effective uses of development resources available to the Union. Second, on the UN process, come to Nairobi as a partner in building the outcome, support a workable services protocol and allow complementarity to mean that the convention weighs the work of other fora on its merits rather than deferring to them. Third, on policy coherence, the Global Gateway resolution rightly expects partners to meet international standards on illicit finance.
We'd respectfully ask that the same standard guides Europe's own footprint in Africa: treaties that reflect a fair allocation of taxing rights, exchange of information that is reciprocal and usable, and beneficial ownership transparency on both sides. As I close, Chair, Africa is not asking for exceptions to the rules. We are asking for rules that are fair, for a seat alongside others in shaping them, for the freedom to choose what serves our people, for the discipline to honor what we sign, and for partners who invest in our capacity to apply it. ATAF stands ready to work with the European Union, its member states, and our development partners to turn these objectives into revenue and revenue into development. I thank you, Chair.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you very much, Mary Baine. Allow me for two technical remarks before I pass on the floor to Conor O'Neill, our third speaker who is with us today on the podium. Please, speakers, all a bit slower because our interpreters are doing as always an excellent job but they need some space for the translation work and if you are speeding too much then it's getting more and more difficult. And the second thing, Mary was being well informed about the ongoings in the European institutions as I realized and had additionally a whole lot of good proposals, same with Maria next to me. We saw that Conor already had submitted his introductory remarks to this discussion to the secretariat.
Please help us if you like to transmit your inputs to the secretariat, then it's much easier for us to follow up and to make use of your excellent proposals. Conor, you have the floor for seven minutes.
Conor O'Neill
Thank you. Hello everybody. First off, I would just like to sincerely thank the members and the committee chairs for the opportunity to speak today and particularly to welcome the fact that this hearing is being hosted jointly by both DEVE and FISC.
As a representative of an international aid and development organization that has worked for several decades focused on issues of economic justice, including debt, trade, and tax policy, this joint context in particular is hugely important. I think it is a recognition of the fact that tax policy is critical for international development. And a key principle of our work and in the development sector more broadly, I would say, is that we must not only respond to acute cases of humanitarian need, poverty, and inequality, but also seek to address their underlying symptoms and root causes. This is exactly why we invest in research on tax avoidance, because it fundamentally shapes states' capacity to raise revenue, to fund essential public services, and consequently to fulfill their human rights obligations. Without fair and functioning taxation systems, efforts to deliver adequate housing, healthcare, and education, and indeed to tackle poverty and inequality meaningfully, are badly undermined.
But crucially, these impacts are just no longer limited neatly within national boundaries, and in the modern global economy in which we live, wealthy individuals and multinational corporations continue to exploit divergent national tax laws and a climate of competition rather than cooperation between states to dramatically reduce their overall tax bills. Corporate profits are shifted across borders into low or no tax jurisdictions, both inside and outside of the European Union, sheltering billions every year. This erodes tax bases, national budgets, and ultimately public trust. I think a few key elements are important to frame today's discussion. Firstly, for the context, despite significant efforts at reform and some very notable advances made over the past decade, corporate profit shifting continues at a very significant scale.
Recent academic research, including from the EU Tax Observatory, has estimated that approximately one trillion US dollars in corporate profits are shifted into low or no tax jurisdictions per year, leading to annual losses of between 267 and 347 billion US dollars. That is about 8 to 10 percent of all corporate tax revenues collected globally. For context, this revenue alone would be sufficient to meet the 300 billion US dollar climate finance target agreed at COP29 in Baku, but still hugely under-delivered. Ultimately, recent reform initiatives have managed to stem the huge explosion in corporate profit shifting witnessed since the 1970s, but they haven't yet been sufficient to end it. They have not also comprehensively addressed the fundamental asymmetries and injustices underpinning these transfers of revenue and wealth, which often flow from south to north.
Second, while the EU as a whole experiences significant aggregate losses due to these practices, individual European countries continue to play an oversized role in the global corporate profit shifting landscape. While it is challenging to disaggregate country-specific estimates, recent research also suggests that in 2023, the world's largest recipients of corporate shifted profit was Ireland, followed by Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. Estimates vary depending on methodological differences, but a consistent finding is that European countries play a central role in facilitating avoidance. Thirdly, this is not, despite how it's often discussed, just a question of competition between larger, more powerful economies. These practices are particularly harmful for lower income countries, which tend to be more reliant on corporate income tax, and most global estimates find that a greater proportion of profits are shifted out of lower-middle and lower income countries.
Vital revenue is siphoned away, prolonging a reliance on aid, exacerbating inequality, and keeping people trapped in poverty. In this sense, the policies set in national capitals across Europe, and indeed at EU, OECD, and UN levels, have a very significant impact on development goals in the rest of the world.
Fourth and lastly, let me give you a very concrete example. Across 2021 to 2023, we published detailed research which demonstrated how one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, Abbott Laboratories, had constructed a tax shelter which enabled it to legally avoid paying millions in tax on enormous profits, generated through billions of dollars in sales for COVID-19, HIV, malaria, and other disease tests at the height of the pandemic, including in lower income countries. This particular structure relies on the interplay of domestic tax law and policy in both Ireland and Malta to function. And it has enabled the company to shift profits away not just from the US and France and Germany, but also countries like Ethiopia, Nepal, and South Africa. The end result was an effective tax rate on nearly half a billion euro of related profits of not 15% set as the new global target, not 12.5% which is the headline statutory rate in Ireland, but just 4%.
And that is just one case of one company using one particular tax structure that is in fact relied upon by many, many more. And it is replicated in different shapes and sizes right across the European Union. And it demonstrates how this culture of intense tax competition rather than cooperation between EU member states results in important revenue losses not just for the EU as a whole, but for countries in the global south where local communities and civil society organizations like ours are trying to pick up the pieces. In response to these ongoing justice, we would have two very specific asks for the, for the committee members and for the European Union. First, it's critically important to seek to advance the important work already undertaken at EU level, which has been very necessary, but as I said at the beginning, insufficient.
In particular, the upcoming review of the EU's public country-by-country reporting directive offers an important opportunity to deliver a directive truly worthy of the name and address fundamental gaps in the legislation regarding company scope, data aggregation, information access, and exemptions and carve-outs. But second and most importantly, and I want to really support Mary's intervention on this particular point, we must push for the EU and its member states to take a clear supportive and constructive position in the negotiations on a UN framework convention on international tax cooperation, which has regrettably not been the case today. The overwhelming and clear message from civil society organizations, tax justice networks, and our partners in the global south, and crucially the vast majority of governments of the world, as mandated at the UN General Assembly, is that the UN is the appropriate body to address the clear, persistent, and unjust gaps in the current global tax architecture. It provides for the first time an inclusive, transparent space in which all countries can participate on an equal footing in both design and implementation. Its terms of reference set by the UN General Assembly give it a unique and specific mandate to move beyond this current patchwork of national and regional agreements and instead to establish, and I quote, "an inclusive, fair, transparent, efficient, equitable, and effective international tax system for sustainable development, which must take a holistic sustainable development perspective that covers in a balanced and integrated manner economic, social, and environmental policy and be aligned with states' obligations under international human rights law."
This mandate framing and objective is precisely why we believe that the UN process is so important, something that we would urge the EU and its member states to genuinely support, beginning in Nairobi at the end of this year and of course continuing in the final negotiation sessions in 2027. Thank you.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you so much, Connor. We had excellent reports from three excellent speakers. Let me share my impression for the discussion and then explain how we work it out. Well, the impression I have is that we hear excellent contributions from three excellent speakers who come from different institutional backgrounds, from different viewpoints, and from different experiences. Everybody tries to solve a problem where we already see the successes of our single approaches, but not the solution of the problem.
We can identify the shortcomings, the successes as well as the shortcomings, and now the question is obviously how do we deal with the asymmetric power structures that hinder us from progress in the past and how can we develop strategies for a coherent approach of the multitude of actors of goodwill to have final, final is never, but really crucial solutions to a problem that is growing, growing, growing, and a pain in the life of the people all around the globe. So perhaps we could try to reflect kind of these questions in our discussion. I will first of all give the floor to the members in the room. I will go back to the chairs. I will then invite the Commission.
Thank you for being with us this morning. And then come back to our speakers here in the podium. Any wishes to taking the floor in the room? I see Lleras from the S&D, please.
Leire Pajín
Thank you, chair. Voy a hablar en español. Señora, señor presidente, señor Gaid, Vaini, señor O'Neill. Quiero empezar diciendo que este debate es tremendamente oportuno. En esta, en este comité, en muchas ocasiones discutimos sobre los compromisos de financiación para el desarrollo.
Pero ¿de qué sirve la financiación para el desarrollo si la evasión fiscal, como se ha dicho aquí, y los flujos financieros ilícitos privan a millones de personas de recursos para hospitales, para escuelas, para servicios básicos? Como también se ha dicho aquí, según todos los organismos internacionales, África, por ejemplo, pierde cerca de cien mil millones de dólares anuales en flujos financieros ilícitos, el triple de la ayuda bilateral de los países de la OCDE, lo que pone de manifiesto la dimensión de lo que estamos hablando. Por eso es muy importante reforzar los sistemas fiscales de los países para que puedan recaudar mejor y para que puedan también gestionar mejor esa recaudación. Pero también es fundamental la cooperación técnica.
Y aquí quiero poner en valor algunos proyectos que están siendo inspiradores en ese sentido. Por ejemplo, en México, la FIIAPP lidera el programa europeo EU4Equity, que lo que hace es en más de 20 estados fortalecer las capacidades de recaudación de los estados, también gestionar esa recaudación para poder invertir en políticas públicas. Esto es tremendamente importante. Me querría preguntarles a los ponentes, porque creo que esa capacidad fiscal supone autonomía para poder financiar políticas públicas sin depender de la ayuda de otros. Le quería preguntarles qué apoyo europeo creen que permitiría transformar esa cooperación y el intercambio de información fiscal en mayores ingresos efectivos para los servicios públicos y garantizar así una justicia fiscal concreta cuando los recursos lleguen a las personas.
Gracias.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you, Leire. Now we give the floor and welcome Bruno Gonçalves from the FISC Committee and S&D.
Bruno Gonçalves
Thank you very much. We will have a very plural overview in this room from S&D. I'd like to start by thanking the experts who joined us today and for their perspective. And my intervention will focus mainly on the fiscal perspective and also on the shortcomings that we have had in terms of the financing of the Global South or even the developed countries. Every year hundreds of billions of euros continue to evade taxation, vanishing into a maze of different offshore accounts.
This is a problem for developing nations who are deprived from vital resources from hospitals to schools and essential infrastructure. But it is also a challenge for the European Union and its member states, most of which register significant losses in tax revenue. In this matter, we are not just discussing development aid, but rather cooperation with mutual benefits. And while we have seen some progress in recent years regarding corporate tax, most notably Pillar Two of the OECD that we now also see backtrailing, I don't think this is sufficient. First, because the recent side-by-side agreements waters down the initial outcome to the benefit of large multinational corporations, some of those actually avoiding taxes in the countries that you have reported.
And the second is the issue of wealth management services that remain largely unanswered and keeps enabling the top 1% of the richest or even the 0.01% of the richest citizens to avoid tax. A recent report by the International Tax Observatory on global offshore wealth shows that there are 13 trillion dollars held in such jurisdictions. The problem is well acknowledged. Now we need to show solutions. My first question to Ms. Gard would be what initiatives at the OECD level could support countries in more effectively taxing the most mobile individuals, notably also the ultra-high-net-worth individuals?
To Ms. Bane, are there significant exchanges of best practices between countries, including the incorporation of new technologies to empower the Global South into upskilling their tax administrations? And last but not least, to Mr. Conor O'Neill, I don't really have a question for you, but I wanted to thank you and your organization for showing us how tax evasion is directly linked to actual loss of lives in the Global South, because we really need to close the loop and we really need to close the hole as well. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
And, you know, coming from Ireland, one has to acknowledge that it's an uncomfortable hearing, especially from my fellow Irishman at the end of the bench here. So, but these are realities. Of course, Ireland has adopted the OECD BEPS process and made significant changes. I'm not here to defend Ireland. But now we've moved to have this new document which has been published just in July, the UN framework document on tax cooperation.
Thanks, Bruno. And now I give back to the chairs. I see Barry Andrews wishing for the floor.
Thank you, Udo. Yeah, thank you also to the speakers.
So, and based on the paper that we received here in both the DEVE and FISC committees, the criticism of the OECD BEPS process from the perspective of developing countries is that it's too complex. And you identified capacity as a key recommendation. So it seems to me that we're moving to the UN framework convention because that is the main problem that is identified according to this paper for developing countries, is the capacity and the complexity of the rules. Do you accept that analysis? I should ask that to Mary Baine, of course, from the point of view of developing countries.
Is that why we're moving to this UN framework convention? There are other reasons given in this paper, to be fair, not just the complexity, but it's the one that's identified as the predominant one. They also talk about the limited scope of Pillar One of OECD BEPS, etc. So the second point then is on the UN framework convention. Those negotiations are going on now.
And what are the points of resistance, particularly for EU member states? So we want to hear what are the issues, what are the headline negotiation points at this point. Mary, you've already identified some of the issues in your opening comments. And I just want to ask you specifically, Mary, on the debt quest. You brought up debt servicing as a major expenditure item, increasing from 25% to 35% in the last 10 years as a percentage of overall revenue, I think.
Or is it expenditure, I'm not sure. But you are, you know, why you're just making that reference to debt servicing, but how does it link to this issue? Can you maybe expand on that a little bit? Is there any other question I want to... oh yes, the last thing was on the potential for digital services taxation in developing countries. Is that something that is being discussed at ATAF?
Mary, you can maybe address yourself to that question as well. Thanks, Udo.
Pasquale Tridico
Thank you very much, Mr. Rapporteur. I don't want to exploit your time, but actually something I need to say, at least for the experience that I've had in my position as chair of FISC, dealing with all this international attempt to cooperate, to avoid illicit behavior. Well, recently it has become very, very, very difficult to combat tax avoidance and to foster international tax cooperation. I have to say that in the last year, well, FISC was more or less set up with a very good taxpiration in 2016 as a special committee after the Panama Papers, as you all know, remember.
And this has been since 2016, there was a, I would say, being an observer, not more than that at that time, there has been a strong attempt, an international cooperation, a very good civil society answer to fight against tax avoidance, tax evasion, illicit behavior, and of course international cooperation, because international cooperation is the key to solve all these issues. Well, in the last two years, this has been, I would say, practically impossible. I need to say as well, and I would like to know the impression of the speaker here, that since the new US administration entered in force, well, all the steps that we have made in Europe with Pillar 1, Pillar 2, BEPS, base erosion, tax base erosion rule, well, all these behaviors, all these steps that were done in Europe were basically frozen, are actually frozen. And we all know that in Europe, Barry, we know that, frankly speaking. Pillar 2 is not really in place any longer.
There is something which has been named as side-by-side, which I, being a professor of economics, do not know what does it mean. Oh dear. Pillar 2, Pillar 1, sorry, which is basically an international cooperation in order to let big corporations pay their fair share with the proportion where they produce, where they have a business, and with the digital economy, this has become a big issue. Well, Pillar 2 is basically blocked. It was blocked as well during the previous US administration, to be fair, but has been disappeared from the debate.
So, we have been working ten years within European Parliament until few years ago, have done strong important steps forward, but in the last two years, this has been impossible. So I would like to know what our speaker think about this, how do you say, my frustration basically.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you, Pasquale. Allow me to bring in at this stage the European Commission, because many questions that especially our two chairs have raised, how do you analyze the means that we have on the table already, that was Pasquale on Pillar 2, how do we relate to the proposals in the international discussion, for instance the UN framework, that was the question of Barry, would need a response from the European institutions, and it's my pleasure to give the floor to DG TAXUD, Reinhard Biebel.
Reinhard Biebel
Thank you very much, dear chairs, honorable members, dear panelists, dear colleagues. Thank you for offering the opportunity to us to contribute to this interesting discussion. The European Union is a strong supporter of multilateralism and of fair, inclusive, and effective international tax cooperation. Tax challenges are increasingly global. We have seen that, we have heard that.
And addressing them requires coordinated solutions and a broad international consensus. And that includes, for example, issues like profit allocation and the Pillar One discussions. Over the past decade, we have seen significant progress, and with this, I want to give a bit more comfort to you, chair, not ignoring your disappointment overall with the process. There was significant process in strengthening the international tax architecture. We cannot ignore that.
The OECD G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS involving around 140 jurisdictions has played a central role in this process, bringing together the jurisdictions from across the world to tackle base erosion and profit shifting and to develop common international standards. And the EU, let me stress that, has been a kind of first mover on all this in terms of implementing international agreements, and not just by way of recommendations or gentlemen agreements. No, by way of hard legislation. All these agreements, be it part of BEPS, be it Pillar Two, be it all the initiatives in the area of tax transparency, have been implemented at European Union level via directives, which means they are transposed into national law in 27 EU member states. We should not ignore this development in the whole debate.
So there are concrete results in that sense, such as stronger rules against harmful tax practices, the global minimum tax, which is in place in the European Union and in many other countries as well, greater tax transparency, was almost a revolution if you look back 10 years what happened in the area of tax transparency, improved mechanisms for resolving tax disputes. There is even a directive at European level to resolve tax disputes, if necessary, by arbitration. The continued effective and consistent implementation of these results must be safeguarded going forward. At the same time, we realize that the international tax landscape, of course, continues to evolve. The European Commission recognizes the potential the UN has as a forum to complement and strengthen the international tax architecture.
The negotiations of the Framework Convention provide a very good opportunity to leverage the inclusivity of the UN and foster synergies with progress already achieved in other multilateral fora. Our goal is an agreement that commands broad support, is fit to confront future challenges, and builds on what we have so as to truly strengthen cooperation at the global level. Now, discussions are ongoing, and next year may be very crucial. The upcoming sixth substantive session of the UN negotiations in December, as mentioned, is likely to be focused on the text of the Framework Convention itself and the second protocol, which is on dispute resolution and arbitration.
The European Commission will, together with EU member states, continue to work constructively with our international partners to achieve progress on these items, bearing in mind European principles and EU legal obligations. This is also important to consider. And with this, I hand over to my colleague from DG INTPA, who will add points that I have not mentioned yet.
Udo Bullmann
Perhaps just a second. We are delighted to having you here, but taking the opportunity once you are here, perhaps to add two questions. Could you, we would like to invite you to comment on the question of the FISC chair that was given to the speakers, but perhaps also to you. Could you comment on the functioning of Pillar Two from your point of view? And could you perhaps also be a bit more concrete under what kind of conditions the European institutions would move to a positive stance on the UN framework convention and what your concrete demands are for Nairobi?
Reinhard Biebel
On the first point, I already said that from our perspective, the adoption and implementation of the Pillar Two directive, it's a European directive, is a big success. We have to keep in mind that it not only resolves problems at the global level, we also have issues at the European level. And in that respect, the implementation of this directive introduces a floor of 15% effective tax rate, which is extremely important in order to eliminate certain aggressive tax planning arrangements. What is important if you look at it globally to keep in mind, a jurisdiction that adopts the Pillar Two as a global minimum tax does not necessarily see a high increase in tax revenues in its own jurisdiction because the way Pillar Two is constructed and designed provides an incentive for each jurisdiction to basically collect as a minimum 15% in their own country. But it does not mean that suddenly these countries benefit from profits that are shifted to somewhere else.
The important thing is here that it creates a level playing field around the globe between those countries that implement it to play according to the same rules and reduce the incentive to shift profits around. So overall, the incentive to engage in aggressive tax planning is reduced, substantially reduced. Is it a success? It is a bit too early to judge that. Pillar Two has just come to fruition.
We have now in front of us the first information returns, GloBE information returns, which show how companies deal with this new requirement, which is quite burdensome, quite detailed. And it's a little bit too early to judge that Pillar Two basically achieves fully its objectives, although we are very positive in that respect. We would, as a European Commission, also have preferred that countries like the US would join the same system, but at the same time, we accept the analysis and the decision that the side-by-side agreement provides similar results in that respect. On the second question, the EU institution and the involvement in the UN, I think that was the question.
We have contributed substantial resources as a European Commission to this process. We have been attending these meetings. We have supported Member States to the extent we can. At the same time, we as an institution also have limited resources and we need to make sure that we invest those resources actively in processes where we can make a difference and where we have an influence. So all in all, we continue to support our EU Member States in this process and we do the best to achieve the results that I have explained before.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you very much, Mr. Biebel. We now give the floor to Roxane Rua for DG INTPA.
Roxane Rouas-Rafowicz
Thank you very much for giving me the floor to add a few words on the cooperation angle. So I lead the fiscal policy sector in the DG for International Partnerships. As many of you recalled, domestic revenue mobilization is the most sustainable and predictable source of financing for development. It is essential for countries to invest in priorities such as education, public health, social protection, or infrastructure. Strong fiscal institutions, including both the revenue administration side and the side of public financial management, are also key to attract public and private investment.
This is true in Europe, but even more so in developing economies. Together with its partners, the Commission has developed a broad range of programs to support developing countries in implementing fair and effective taxation policies, in upgrading the capacities of their tax administrations, and in fighting tax evasion, tax avoidance, and other illicit financial flows. This includes EU support to the OECD G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, to the Global Forum, to the Addis Tax Initiative, from which the African Tax Administration Forum is a member, and to other capacity development activities. The Commission has also joined forces with five EU Member States to set up a Team Europe initiative that supports African countries in preventing and combating illicit financial flows and transnational organized crime through stronger governance, enforcement, and cross-border cooperation. The EU and its partners can see that these programs deliver concrete results.
I think Maria Jose Garde, you mentioned the examples of Peru and Uganda. One could also mention the examples of Senegal, Rwanda, and Togo, which have used digitalization to improve their revenue administration and revenue collection. One could also mention that Cameroon has implemented major reforms to enhance tax transparency, which has helped the country identify close to one million euros in additional revenues. Or one could quote also the example of Zambia, which has considerably strengthened its audit capacity, leading to the recovery of more than 130 million euros since 2013. The extent to which we can continue to achieve impact on domestic revenue mobilization and on fighting illicit financial flows will depend on how strong and how predictable the EU's external budget will be in the next MFF.
It's an investment that delivers lasting returns. And this is why the Commission endorsed last year after the FFD4 conference the Seville Declaration on DRM. What it means concretely is that we will continue working with our partners to build tax systems that are transparent, that are fair, that are accountable and that can finance the priorities of their citizens. Thank you.
I think it was clear from the various interventions, supporting domestic revenue mobilization is not a cost.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you so much, Mr. Rua, for your contribution from the stance of DG INTPA. I will now go back to the speakers. And the first speaker I will turn to is Mary Baine connected online again. Mary, we heard your ask for continuation of support of for instance digitalization, support of tax authorities, tax policies. And we have heard Roxane Rua with her commitment turning to the Commission.
I'm pretty sure that our rapporteurs for Global Europe will do their very best and our negotiation teams will be looking forward to the support of the Commission during the trilogue on that. So let's be optimistic. Ms. Baine, you have the floor for your final remarks.
Mary Baine
Thank you so much, Chair. And I will respond to the questions that were raised to me. And there was a question that spoke to are there exchanges in digitalization for effective results in the countries? I'd like to say that yes, there are some exchanges, some from the South-South cooperation where some of the countries on the continent are supporting others. For instance, Rwanda has developed an e-invoicing tool for VAT and this it has shared with for instance Kenya and Zambia.
Then South Africa also has a tool that it's sharing with other countries. And Zambia is sharing its ITAS tool with Lesotho and Malawi. And we are facilitating that to make sure that the gains are optimized. Then in with relation to our partners, I did mention the fact that the World Bank we are working with the World Bank together with Zambia to get an AOI project, an automatic exchange of information tool that would be then useful for our countries. And then we also do get we are getting support from VIRS-CAT and from House where we're going to be helping countries to improve their digitalization work together with the other partners that I mentioned earlier on.
There was a question that was asked about me about the complexities of the OECD system and if this is really the major issue. So there are a couple of issues. There are three that I noted. One, yes, is the complexity like I'd mentioned earlier. But number two, the solutions that were provided do not necessarily apply to the African situation.
And that's why we had given a proposal as ATAF especially regarding Pillar One, but that obviously was not taken on board. Then the third issue that I wanted to speak to is that the OECD solution relates to the members of the Inclusive Framework. African for Africa there are only 27, meaning that only half the continent is actually part of that discussion. And that's why I say that the solution would be limited in terms of implementation.
On debt servicing, the point that I was trying to make was that because of these low yields in tax revenue due to illicit financial flows, due to profit shifting, the tax revenue that countries would otherwise deploy into development are now, the little that they collect is now being used to service debt. And that's the connection that I was trying to make there. In terms of pillar two, I think whether it benefits, within the African context, I think ATAF is trying to make sure that some of the elements, like I mentioned, that relate to pillar two are helpful to our members. Where a member adopts a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax, the additional tax on low-taxed profits is collected in Africa rather than in the headquarter jurisdiction. This is our intention.
We are trying to help them to realize that. So ATAF is trying to support its members in this regard. But like the speakers said, pillar two was designed largely around the circumstances of capital-exporting countries. Its rules are among the most complex ever written, and for a situation where most of our countries are already struggling. So to conclude, I'd like to say that I want to thank the EU for this opportunity.
It is my sincere hope that what I've shared today will indeed enable the EU to continue supporting Africa and especially regional organizations like ours so that we can be able to support the whole continent, increase its tax capacity, its tax collection capacity. Secondly, in global tax standard setting, it is our hope that the EU will look at the UN, will work more closely and support the UN process so that indeed the outcomes are outcomes that are equitable for everybody. And number three, we hope that this partnership can really continue so that domestic revenue mobilization, like the previous speaker said, isn't seen as a cost but is seen as an investment to the countries. Thank you, Chair.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you very much, Ms. Payne, and be assured that this house will do its very best to follow up on this discussion and to find productive solutions to the questions which are really obvious. Let me now turn to Maria Jose Garde for the final remarks from her point of view.
Maria José Garde
Well, thank you very much. A very interesting debate and a lot of contributions. I mean, I just wanted to, some of the questions will be difficult to respond, but I mean, let me conclude saying that the Global Forum is, is our role, I mean, that's because some of the questions were talking about the rules, the OECD, but I think I need to remark that the Global Forum, we do not determine tax policy or we don't give any advice to governments or their choices of tax system. So our role is a little bit different. I mean, we try to ensure the jurisdictions can access and implement the international standards on transparency and exchange of information.
We're talking about the exchange of information request, the automatic exchange of information in the form of the financial accounts or the crypto assets infrastructure. So we are not telling countries how to change or how is the best system to tax system. So we just want to take that standard and we want to expand that standard to all the jurisdictions so they can benefit from the cooperation and the exchange of information. So we just try to support countries by one side doing the peer review, it's these reviews that countries of peers at an evaluation, but also providing the capacity building, they need capacity building to assist and ensure that all countries can have the system, legal system, administrative systems, tax administration with capacity enough to implement this exchange of information.
So that's our role is, as again, just to ensure that everybody, and when I say everybody I say a lot, everybody. So we are 174 members. We are very universal. But it's true that we are not setting standard. We are just implementing, helping countries to implement and benefit from them.
So that's what I also said, that our main role in the last couple of years is trying to support everybody, all the members, helping them, ensuring, support them in the implementation of the standard. So they can, as I said, I mean, have the information enough to apply, to enforce these systems and get that information that is offshore and they, in fact, they don't have access if it is not in this context. So I think this is our role and as I said, and I think you, Chair, also remarked that the cooperation is the key. I mean, if we don't have cooperation, if we don't have information, and everybody knows that, information is a key, it's a big value to apply a tax system and to have effectively used tax system. So that's very important for me and that's why I also thank the European Union for your support, as you said, and I really, I really like your sentence, I will take it, that you said the support is not a cost, is an investment.
So I really, I really agree with that and thank you very much for the support of the European Union. That's what we need, we need the support also.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you so much, Ms. Gade, for your valuable contributions today. And now our last speaker, Conor O'Neill.
Conor O'Neill
Thank you, Chair. It's been a really interesting discussion and there's a number of kind of questions and points I'd like to pick up on just from the perspective, our perspective as a development organization that works directly with communities, local communities, partners in the Global South and our experience on these issues. Firstly, on this question of capacity building and domestic resource mobilization. I completely agree with everything that's been said on how important it is. It delivers real, genuine gains and additional revenues that would not have been there otherwise.
But at the same time, I think we need to be important not to overstate how much can be solved through simply increasing capacity. So you can have the best, most efficient tax administration in the world and the gains are always going to be limited if the tax base that you're levying your taxes on is shrinking simultaneously under your feet. So if you think about the example that I gave in my opening statement of that US multinational. That company, in our research, was shifting profits out of Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa and into Ireland and Malta and onto other places, completely within the rules of the game. You cannot capacity build your way out of what is fundamentally a political problem.
And unless you address what Mary highlighted in her excellent remarks, this imbalance between source and residence taxing rights, you're always going to be kind of skirting around the edges of the issue.
technical solutions to what is ultimately really a political problem. On pillar two in the OECD, I think this was a real missed opportunity. And it's not to undermine the amount of political capital and huge effort that went into it by a great number of people. But at the time all our partners in the global south were saying, look, 15% as a headline rate is too low. It's far below the global averages.
It's far below the average corporate income tax rates in Africa, for example. And really what we were doing is replacing a global race to the bottom, which saw corporate income tax rates fall from about 40, 45% in the 80s to about 20% when this was being negotiated. We replaced that race to the bottom with a race to the floor. And again, pillar two didn't address the source residence imbalance. Pillar one, which looked more closely at those issues, ultimately wasn't implemented.
And if we look at how pillar two has been implemented and we recognize the work done at EU level, especially in putting it in place via directive, you still see the fact that at the moment US MNCs are exempted. Exemptions are there that mean that you can, with the right substance-based carve-outs or tax credits, go below 15%. So even in pillar two, which was supposed to set this floor below which no one will fall, there are holes in the floor if the conditions are right, which is really, really important. And the result of it, all the best academic estimates seem to suggest that it's collected about half of the revenue that it could have if those carve-outs weren't in place. I want to just put a quote on the record.
I have it and just to maybe address very briefly, MEP Andrews was very right in saying we're an organization based in London and in Dublin. So a lot of our work is based on Ireland and the UK. But tax avoidance isn't an uniquely Irish problem. The structure I talked about used the gaps in laws between Ireland and Malta, but you can find the same structures in the Netherlands, in Luxembourg. The only way you're going to address this problem is through international cooperation.
And I think it's fair enough for member states to say, look, this has been a critical part of our economic policy. What's not fair is then when we do have real meaningful efforts to try and change those policies collectively, such as at UN level, the EU and its member states are at the best hesitant to really back the process that's happening. But when pillar one and pillar two were being negotiated, we spent a lot of time debating this, believe it or not, in Ireland. And the then Prime Minister, he said in parliament, and I quote, these negotiations have been about larger countries trying to get a bigger share of the pie. It has not been about ensuring that countries in the developing world get a fair share of international taxation.
I think that's a very fair assessment and it doesn't come from us as a civil society organization. It doesn't come from officials. It comes from the Prime Minister of a member state involved in the negotiations. That's what we should make sure we don't replicate in the UN process. And a third and final point, maybe to be a bit more optimistic on this sense of the progress that's been made.
We have made progress. I think if I, it's probably no surprise to the people in the room that I am not the kind of person that has hundreds of millions of euros sitting in an offshore bank account. But if I was, that's harder today than it was 10, 15 years ago. Things like the common reporting standard and automatic information exchange, I fully agree, have made that much more difficult. And all of the evidence, all of the academic research suggests that the amount of wealth offshore that's being untaxed is falling.
It's still in our view obscenely high, but I would be reluctant to say just because progress has been stalling at the moment that we shouldn't recognize that progress is possible. Even the minimum tax, which I'm critical of, that would have been deemed utopian about 10 years ago. One thing, one very tangible thing that the EU can do and this committee can do is look again really seriously at the public country-by-country reporting directive. The data that's available at the moment, it's not really public country-by-country reporting.
The first filings that were made in Romania, if you look through those documents which we have, about 74% of the information that's shared is in a single line which says other. So you have a public by-country, country-by-country information for about a quarter of the revenues and about three quarters of them are still aggregated. It could be the US, it could be Switzerland, it could be anywhere. So there's an opportunity coming up in early 2027 to look at that directive to try and make it more transparent, to make the data that's collected better. It's something we can do in the short term.
In the medium to long term, the UN tax convention is where we should be putting our efforts in my view. Thank you.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you very much for your inspiring remarks, Conor O'Neill. Only one quick comment on the country-by-country. This house was extremelyst involved in the fights of the past to get something done. That was true for CRD IV where no mentioning about country-by-country was foreseen, but the Parliament forced the Council in a battle of more than 12 months into doing something after the financial worldwide crash on country-by-country. Earlier to that, we had the first legislation on forestation and minerals country-by-country, and we have a certain legacy to defend.
You are totally right and inspiring enough, we'll take it on board and we are ready to go for it. Having said that, we give back the floor to our chairs for their final remarks.
Barry Andrews
Well, thank you Udo and thank you for initiating this debate, which has been very enlightening, I have to say. You know, we spend a lot of our time thinking about development finance, whether it's ODA or debt or illicit financial flows or domestic resource mobilization. And I think this debate we've just had is another piece of the jigsaw, frankly. And you know, we can't be defending the idea of putting air in the tire when there's a puncture somewhere else. And we certainly have to look at this collectively.
And this is part of the Sevilla process around financing for development. So I very much welcome this and it will be very informative, I think. Udo referred to this, the idea of our Global Europe instrument that we're currently negotiating at parliamentary level. We'll have votes next month and we'll have votes in plenary probably in November and then trilogues in next year. So it's a very crucial part of that.
And to thank particularly our guests for being here today and indeed to Conor for his tough analysis as a fellow Irishman. Hand over to you, Pasquale.
Pasquale Tridico
Thank you Barry, thank you very much. Thank you to all the speakers that have gave us extraordinary inputs. As I said, and as well you said, the Commission and some of you, basically we have done good progress in the past years. But what we are doing right now probably is just in the best case safeguard what we have conquered. We are not doing progress in the last two, three years.
And this has very specific reason, political reason. In particular, not having done progress in the last two years, being overwhelmed by digital economy in particular, this is really very bad. Meaning that the evolution of the economy in the last year has been so much in the direction which would have been very much coped by the so-called pillar one. So we need, we need desperately the evolution in pillar one because has really very much to do with what is happening in the current digital economy situation. FISC will be present in Nairobi for the mission there in December during the international tax convention venue.
And so we are very happy about that. Members are very excited to go. It is a pity that the Commission is not participating in this meeting. But anyway, the Parliament is going to play its role. So thank you very much for this extraordinary occasion today.
Barry Andrews
So we will resume the next agenda item in three minutes. Thank you.
Okay, folks, let's go on to item six on our agenda. Let's go and start with item six. Yeah, so this is a debriefing by members of the delegation to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development that traveled to New York in July, which was obviously a mission together with ENVI.
We had nine members and six from our committee. So, unfortunately, Pierfrancesco Majorino, ENVI chair, could not be here, so, and neither can Abir, who was the co-chair for DEVE. But Lukas is here, and Lukas Mandl is a member of the delegation and he's kindly agreed to give an overview of the mission. Lukas, please, you have the floor.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, Barry. Thanks to everybody joining our mission to New York on the occasion of the High-Level Political Forum. The mission report in writing is in the hands of the colleagues, and it's fully-fledged. And I thank the Secretariat not only for accompanying the mission, preparing the mission, but also for the excellent work in the aftermath to have a good mission report and to one more time make clear how important the parliamentary endeavor of going there for the High-Level Political Forum, especially from the side of the European Parliament, is.
I even would claim that recent weeks with the General Assembly and everything around it shows obviously this system needs a parliamentary input. And this is what we have delivered in July again this year, as in years before. And this is why this mission, with all the details in writing that can be observed, is clearly an outline for our motivation to go there again and to contribute to, in my view, if I may put it in my words, to a UN system that's desperately needed on our planet, maybe more than before, that will also be reformed. And I think in a very good multi-partisan, of course, multi-national approach, our delegation in New York has listened a lot to experts, to officials, but also shared a lot of views on possible reforms for the UN system. And the parliamentary approach is only one of these angles, but an important angle, I think.
I would recommend for the future not to leave anything out we had in the past, in last missions and also in the recent mission this year, but to broaden the scope a bit. There might be UN agencies which we have not yet encountered so much with, but which are also very important for our DEVE committee work and will be important for a proper UN reform. I also want to thank the Parliament's representation in New York that hosted us very well, that made a lot of opportunities happen for us formally and informally in order to use every minute for whom, for the Europeans we have the privilege to represent in order to have a leverage in this UN system, UN headquarters in New York. And I can say even the encounter with the Secretary-General of the UN this year was even more, I would say, broad and easier in terms of a positive chit-chat, not too formal, not too diplomatic, very clear, very frank, more than the years before. And this should also be an outline for future persons in that position, that listening to parliamentarians, I would say listening or encountering especially with members of the European Parliament will be of utmost importance.
So, I think this is not only worth it, but one of the main pillars of our Development Committee's work, because a world without a strong UN system is unimaginable, nothing that can be in any way appreciated, but a UN without reform will be in trouble, and that means the world would be even more in trouble. That's why contributing with our missions to the UN reform will be important. Abir Al-Sahlani and Pierfrancesco Majorino served as the two co-chairs of the mission and also managed pretty well to have a multi-partisan and broad approach, and everybody could contribute positively to the whole thing.
So, thanks again. Looking forward to our future endeavors and to observe each and every part of the mission report, which is also content-wise meaningful for our committee work and for the files we will work on in the future. Thank you again.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Lukas. Great that you got to meet the Secretary-General and also that, you know, the clear convening power of the UN. Whatever its weaknesses, people showed up at the GA. It was a huge, you know, world headlines for the whole week. So, yeah, it's very weak, but we need it.
Anyway, let's hear from Udo briefly on, and then we'll come to... No, only short remarks. Congratulations, Lukas, to you and all the colleagues involved, the secretariat. I made experiences myself in former ongoings in New York. My only ask is that we continue to doing that, because it's exactly what makes us an international player, us as the European Parliament, us as the two committees.
And it's absolutely worthwhile, not only because it's eye-opening, not only to talk to the European colleagues, but to get a taste of the international global debate, where you come back to Brussels with fresh ideas and fresh inspiration. So, good luck for all the next rounds. Thank you, Udo. So we go to Tiago Moreira de Sá to make a few comments. Tiago, you have the floor.
Tiago Moreira de Sá
Thank you, President. I will speak in Portuguese because I have my remarks in Portuguese, so it's easier for me, if you don't mind. Senhor Presidente, caros colegas, queria começar por dizer que foi mais uma vez um gosto integrar esta delegação do Parlamento Europeu ao Fórum Político de Alto Nível em Nova Iorque, ao lado de colegas eurodeputados de diversos grupos políticos. É precisamente esta diversidade que torna o nosso trabalho parlamentar mais útil. Podemos discordar profundamente sem deixar de reconhecer os objetivos que nos devem unir: combater a pobreza, proteger a dignidade humana, criar condições para que ninguém fique condenado à exclusão.
Há contudo uma questão que atravessa praticamente todos os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável e que continua a receber atenção insuficiente: a corrupção. Há um ano apresentei a proposta de criação de um novo objetivo, o SDG 18, dedicado especificamente ao combate à corrupção. Sem instituições íntegras, transparência e responsabilização, muitos dos restantes SDGs ficam comprometidos. Segundo várias agências das Nações Unidas, milhares de milhões de euros são desviados e perdidos em esquemas obscuros, muitos acabam em bolsos privados e são presa fácil de burocracias corruptas. Isto não é uma falha técnica, é roubo institucionalizado.
Também por isso devemos olhar para o Global Gateway com ambição. O investimento europeu em infraestruturas, energia, transportes, saúde, educação e conetividade pode ser uma verdadeira ferramenta de desenvolvimento em certas zonas do mundo, desde que seja transparente, mutuamente benéfico, envolva o setor privado e respeite o Estado de Direito. E não podemos falar de SDGs sem falar das mulheres, um dos assuntos dominantes do Fórum Político, juntamente com os jovens. Combater a violência contra as mulheres e raparigas não é apenas uma questão de igualdade, é uma questão de liberdade, segurança, dignidade e direitos fundamentais. A União Europeia deve continuar a apoiar concretamente esse combate, incluindo através da cooperação internacional.
Neste âmbito, não posso deixar de condenar uma vez mais a decisão da Comissão Europeia de reunir com uma delegação dos Talibã. Quando a União Europeia recebe os Talibã, recebe mais do que uma delegação. Recebe um símbolo. Recebe a chibata que rasga as mulheres. Recebe o silêncio que é imposto às raparigas.
Recebe a ordem política e imoral que expulsou da escola, do trabalho e da praça pública metade da criação. Naquela delegação não havia uma única mulher e essa ausência não é um acaso. A desaparição da mulher é a forma como os Talibã se apresentam ao mundo e a nós. Não é nem pode ser a forma como nós nos apresentamos ao mundo e a eles. Thank you, President, for your tolerance.
Marc Jongen
Yes, thank you, Chair. This was a very interesting mission. It's always different seeing all this and meeting the people involved and the institutions in these important decisions rather than just discussing it here. The High-Level Political Forum has shown a clear implementation gap. Only around 36% of accessible SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress.
For DEVE, in our view, the priority should therefore be effectiveness and measurable results rather than adding further targets and commitments. The estimated USD 4 trillion annual SDG financing gap cannot simply become an argument of ever higher European development expenditure. EU taxpayers cannot be expected to compensate for a global financing gap of this magnitude. Development policy mainly must respect national sovereignty and partner country ownership. The HLPF itself emphasized country-led implementation.
Global Europe should therefore avoid overly prescriptive EU conditionalities and one-size-fits-all development models. And very important, private investment and development finance should complement limited public resources. The EU funding should seek leverage and additionality rather than treating increased grant expenditure as the principal measure of European engagement. And I was very impressed how clearly Secretary-General Guterres pointed out exactly this point and said and also admitted that there are significant bureaucratic hurdles that should, that can be removed and should be removed in order to get more private investment in this field. So, the political lesson from New York for DEVE, in our view, the remaining years to 2030 should be about delivery rather than expanding the catalogue of commitments.
National ownership rather than centralization, investment rather than dependency, and measurable results rather than expenditure targets. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Excellent, thank you. Now we go, give the floor to the Commission to react to these remarks from DG ENV, which is Mr. Giovanni Santambrogio, who's the Planetary Common Goods, Universal Values and Environmental Security Unit. So please, Giovanni, you have the floor for three minutes and you're very welcome.
Giovanni Santambrogio
Thank you very much and good morning, thanks for having me here. I would like actually to provide a bit of the taste of the mission of Commissioner Roswall to the High-Level Political Forum in July. As you know, she attended the, the Monday and the Tuesday of the high-level segment. And her participation was first and foremost politically important. Together with the Commissioner, the representation from the Parliament and also from the Economic Social Committee, we ensured a strong EU representation at the political forum, which was something very appreciated by developing countries who attach a very good value to this forum and of course showed again our continued commitment to the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs.
As head of the EU delegation, the Commissioner delivered our statement on behalf of the EU and 27 Member States, where of course we again reaffirmed our strong commitment to multilateralism, to accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
Even if she had only a day and a half there, she had a very intense program around three main priorities. First of all was water, because first of all it's under her portfolio, but it's one of the SDGs, 6, under review, and in view of the 2026 UN Water Conference. She met with the conference co-hosts, she participated in several side events about the conference, and the message was clear: our main flagship contribution will be the Water Resilience Strategy, sorry, Water Resilience Initiative, and we all look forward for an action-oriented conference. We also organized together with UNDP a high-level roundtable on mobilizing public and private investment for water resilience. It was very interesting to hear the private sector point of view.
The second priority was circular economy and pollution. The EU together with Germany and UNEP organized an event on pollution to kind of place pollution not just as an environmental issue, but as a sustainable development issue, as a health issue, as an economic issue, and so on, and of course as circular economy as a big contributor to address such issue. The third big priority was the forum provided an opportunity for the Commissioner to engage with the highest level of UN hierarchy. We also met the Secretary-General Guterres, the Deputy Secretary-General Mohammed, and UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo. Discussion there covered many things: SDGs, water, UN80, but it was very good especially with the Secretary-General to hear that the UN is also moving from a climate-focused, specific focus to a more holistic biodiversity, climate, and pollution approach, and that will be part hopefully of UN80.
Of course we also met in a EU team meeting the delegation from the Parliament and from the Social Committee, and we had good discussion there. The discussion on post-2030 were limited. Next year will be an important, one second, will be an important edition paving the way to the SDG Summit in 2027. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Giovanni, and thank you for everybody. I think next year is a crucial year for sustainable development goals. There will be a summit in September probably, and we didn't have a delegation to the summit in 2023, but I really think as a committee, as coordinators, Lukas and Udo particularly, something we should have a think about for 2027 as we think about what comes next after Agenda 2030. So that's it for that item. Item 7 is any other business.
As there are no indications, item 8 is the date of the next meeting, which is next Monday in Strasbourg. So in 10 minutes we will resume with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Human Rights on the Sakharov Prize presentations at midday. So thank you on my behalf to the interpreters and the secretariat, and Hildegard Bentele will take over the chair for item 9. Thank you.
The European Parliament awards the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
Hildegard Bentele
Dear colleagues, I was told that you are in a big, big hurry, as everybody on a, on a, on a Thursday, so let's jump to the next item, which is the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, the presentation of nominees. And this meeting will be co-chaired as follows: by me, by of course David, and by our colleague Mr. Säturi. I would like to welcome you to this joint meeting, and we mark today the beginning of the procedure for the selection of the 2024 Sakharov Prize laureate. Each year this prize affirms the European Parliament's unwavering commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights. By awarding this prize, we are honoring extraordinary women and men who, through their work, champion human rights, democracy, and freedom across the globe.
They are all a source of inspiration and should be commended and encouraged. We are seeing an increasing trend of attacks on the universality of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and international humanitarian law across the world. This Parliament must continue to stand up for those that actively promote the values our Union stands for, often at great danger to their lives and freedom. Six admissible nominations have been received for this year's Sakharov Prize. You have received short biographies of all nominees.
Without further ado, I will now give the floor to my colleague David McAllister to lead the presentation of nominees.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear Hildegard, and I can only echo the words you have found.
I would also like to welcome you all, and without any further ado, we can now proceed with the presentations of this year's Sakharov Prize nominees. These, dear colleagues, will be, as per standard practice, done in alphabetical order. Since we have to close this meeting at 1:00, I will be very strict, together with my co-chairs, that we all keep and follow the agreed speaking time of six minutes each for the presentation. The first nominee is Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya from Palestine, nominated by the Greens/EFA group and by the Left, and I give the floor to our colleagues Catarina Vieira and Rima Hassan to present the candidate. Six minutes, please.
Catarina Vieira
Thank you very much, Chair. Dear colleagues, on behalf of the Greens/EFA group, it is my profound honor to nominate Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Dr. Abu Safiya is a leading Palestinian pediatrician and director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Northern Gaza. In December 2024, the hospital was brutally stormed by Israeli forces and Mr. Abu Safiya was forcibly disappeared. Today, nearly 21 months later, like many others, he remains in arbitrary Israeli detention, without formal charges nor incriminating evidence, and has reportedly been subjected to abuse and ill-treatment.
UN experts have urgently called for his release. Before his arrest, the doctor, like many others, treated the wounded, especially children, while courageously documenting the reality on the ground and pleading with the world to protect medical workers and facilities. He stayed with that important work through the worst conditions, through severe shortages and relentless attacks, through repeated evacuation orders and danger to his own life, through the total collapse of Gaza's healthcare system. He continued to run one of the two last operating hospitals in Gaza, saving children of others, even after the unimaginable pain of the killing of his own son in October 2024. His is not an isolated tragedy.
Mr. Abu Safiya is a symbol of the broader reality facing many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including thousands of those who remain in detention without due process. Beyond, he also represents not only the brave medical professionals, aid workers, and journalists who have been killed in Gaza, but also around the world, where first aid responders increasingly become targets of warring parties and in a blatant disregard for international humanitarian law. His case must compel us all to demand answers and accountability. Colleagues, awarding the Sakharov Prize to Dr. Abu Safiya is a powerful declaration that we stand firmly with those who should never be the targets of war: the doctors, the nurses, the aid workers, the journalists. And this, on itself, is also a declaration of our commitment to upholding international law.
This is a candidacy that today is being brought forward by two political groups, the Greens and the Left, but importantly, this is a candidacy that represents deep values that I know I share with many other colleagues in this European Parliament, values that run much deeper than political lines.
Rima Hassan
Merci Katarina pour cette pour ce début de présentation. Donc je vais poursuivre pour défendre effectivement cette candidature. Le docteur Abou Safia est l'un des visages du système de santé que l'armée israélienne a méthodiquement détruit à Gaza. Cette destruction systématique n'est pas étrangère au génocide en cours, elle en est l'un des instruments. Détruire les hôpitaux, cibler les soignants, empêcher l'entrée des médicaments, rendre impossible les évacuations médicales, c'est priver toute une population des moyens de survie.
Aujourd'hui, selon l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, 36 hôpitaux que comptait Gaza, seuls 19 fonctionnent très partiellement. Pas un seul hôpital de Gaza n'est aujourd'hui pleinement opérationnel. Depuis octobre 2023, l'OMS a recensé au moins 920 attaques ciblant spécifiquement le système de santé de Gaza. Plus de 1700 soignants ont été tués et aujourd'hui encore des dizaines de milliers de patients ont besoin de soins spécialisés et qui ne sont tout simplement plus disponibles à Gaza. C'est aussi cela détruire un peuple, détruire les conditions qui lui permettent de vivre.
La commission d'enquête internationale indépendante des Nations Unies a conclu qu'Israël avait commis à Gaza quatre des cinq actes constitutifs du crime de génocide. Parmi eux, tuer les membres d'un groupe, leur infliger des atteintes graves et leur imposer des conditions d'existence susceptibles d'entraîner leur destruction physique. Alors quand nous parlons du docteur Hussam Abou Safia, nous ne parlons pas seulement d'un individu, d'un médecin, nous parlons de centaines de médecins, d'infirmiers, d'ambulanciers et de personnels de santé qui ont continué à maintenir des Palestiniens en vie au milieu de ce génocide.