Brussels – “Fighting poverty in Africa is an absolute priority for the European Union. And we have identified three sectors thanks to which we can strengthen sustainable and inclusive growth in the African continent. These are human development, access to energy and agriculture.”  In office since 2010, the European Commissioner for Development Andris Piebalgs is a politician who likes to stay focused.

The new EU development strategy – “The Agenda for Change”, presented by Piebalgs in October 2011 on behalf of the European Commission aims to mark the end of the era of European support for a “wide number of sectors” which allowed EU to “achieve good results, but not on a large scale.”  In order to close this gap, Piebalgs is convinced that the relations between the European Union and African countries need to be based around “predictability”, one of the Agenda for Change’s key words. “If you don’t speak clearly about the issues that separate the EU from recipient countries, problems will sooner or later emerge” says Piebalgs. Among the issues that regularly create friction between EU and Africa there are, obviously, human rights, a ‘sector’ that has been politically shaken by the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions. And it is not surprising that Piebalgs wants to keep up with modern times. Which in Africa means not just human rights. African governments have to face huge challenges such as food security, terrorism, corruption or climate change. In the meantime, Africa is a continent in full economic growth that faces an onslaught of political and commercial interest by the emerging countries. And the presence of new actors such as China, Brazil or India spreads a sort of ‘panic’ among Western countries. Last but not least, the EU Member States’ contributions to MDGs risk to be affected by the economic and social crisis that Europe is going through and which is threatening the longevity of public European development funds. Moreover, the problem of aid is not just a matter of quantity. More then  ever before, European taxpayers’ money needs to be well spent. But despite the fact that Europe is facing terrible difficulties, “we need to strengthen our efforts” says Andris Piebalgs in this interview realised by Afronline.org and six independent African newspapers (Sud Quotidien, Senegal; Addis Fortune, Ethiopia; The Zimbabwean, Zimbabwe; Les Echos, Mali; Le Républicain, Niger and Le Calame, Mauritania).

The European Commission’s ‘New Agenda for Change’  promises to direct foreign aid to areas in which it will have a high impact.  Which sectors has the EC chosen to prioritise? To what extent has the EC aligned its strategy with the development strategies of aid recipient countries?

The European Union has a lengthy experience in the field of development cooperation. One of the challenges we have faced has been that of operating in a wide number of sectors and because of this we have achieved good results, but not on a large scale. Our new ‘Agenda for Change’ first and foremost works alongside government development plans and in agreement with our partner countries which identify where the biggest impact might be achieved. It may vary from country to country, a lot of countries have the potential to access energy, however it could be roads, such as in Ethiopia where we have worked very successfully. It could be also health, and in this case the idea is to make substantial investment in health systems. So we are really trying to find the areas where the biggest impact can be achieved with European tax payers’ money. However, we have identified 3 sectors thanks to which we can put the ground for sustainable and inclusive growth. These are human development, access to energy and agriculture.

We must not forget that aid conditionals attached with Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) have caused irreversible damage to the economies of many African countries. How will the EC avoid such damage considering the democracy, human rights and reform conditionalities that will be attached to upcoming aid from the European Union?

I believe that human rights and democracy are universal values and I would never consider them as an obstacle for development. All of the societies in the world aspire to democracy, respect for human rights and the prosperity of their citizens. In my view, it’s obvious that all development programmes should relate to these values. This was especially highlighted by the events in North Africa as we have had to explain our support for regimes in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, where there was no democracy. And we have received a lot of criticism European citizens who have asked us why we invest in countries where democracy is not credible. When we engage in political dialogue with any country it is important for both sides to express what their expectations are. This allows us to chose the type of aid that is most suitable for countries. I recently travelled to Myanmar, where we know that democracy and human rights were not being respected. Here we adopted restricted measures, but we provided support for the people working through UN agencies or NGOs. This is one way of safely ensuring that even in those countries we support the most vulnerable people. If a country is oriented towards receiving support for its governance system through budget support, in that case the understanding needs to be from both sides because the EU has great expectations when it comes to public finance management and fighting corruption. Both of us are on the same boat and both of us are honourable. At the end of the day, we depend on European citizens to support this process so we should speak openly and truthfully to each other and avoid unpredictability.

In this sense, what is the added value of the Agenda for Change?

Predictability is crucial because if you don’t speak clearly about the issues that separate the EU from recipient countries, problems will sooner or later emerge. Unpredictability is given by a lack of transparency that until now has to a certain extent conditioned the relationship between recipient countries and donor countries. An unspoken truth that then comes out, for example, causes unpredictability in our support. Take budget support for instance. The payments will never be made if there are some political difficulties in a country or lack of transparency and efficiency. This is a risk that the “Agenda for Change” hopes to avoid by making relations as transparent as possible: tell us clearly what your needs are and we will tell you ours. Once this has been clarified we find the most appropriate modality for our aid delivery. Today there are countries that decide to do without budget support, others that continue to adopt it. Such decisions have a huge impact on territories so it is best to be clear about each others commitments. Budget support is no good? Then let’s proceed with project support, either through the United Nations or through NGOs.

You succeeded Commissioner Louis Michel, who was stern but clear on France’s action to legitimise the Mauritian coup in 2008. What lessons do you draw from Mauritania’s experience and that of ACP countries (such as Nigeria, Haiti, Liberia or Fiji) for an impartial application of the provisions of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement ?

Article 96 is important, but where political discussions are involved article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement is even more so. Article 96 is a ‘nuclear’ option because if applied it has a huge impact on our relations with a country. Indeed our experience tells us that the application of article 96 affects the poorest people of these countries the most. To avoid this, it is fundamental to have sufficient political contact. This is the case for Mauritania and Niger, where things have been moving very quickly and where conditions can guarantee the rule of law, democracy and human rights and where we now have resumed our development support. Niger is an excellent example as here we can bring even bigger envelopes as it is fully part of our food security strategy. In Mauritania we need to create a strong political dialogue and political consultation process. Another lesson from Mauritania regards development policy coherence. The fisheries partnership agreement has hugely impacted the progress of this country however it is important that all EU action should be coherent and not privilege one sector over another. In this sense the impact of the fisheries partnership agreement on Mauritania can help us to find a political solution very rapidly.

Would the EU have the stomach to impose sanctions that really hurt in the event that the Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe refuses to fully implement the terms agreed to in the GPA and goes on to steal another election?

We are following the situation in Zimbabwe closely. Recently the EU partially lifted sanctions on Zimbabwe to encourage further progress in political reforms but kept restrictions on veteran President Robert Mugabe. This decision proves that there have been some encouraging developments as well as more discouraging events like the non-implementation of the global political agreement. The government of Zimbabwe is trying to do its best in a very difficult context. It has achieved economic stabilisation, the level of income population has partially improved, so we should expect positive development in this country. We try to distinguish between the actors who try to improve the situation and those that don’t and I think the decision of the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe but maintain restrictions on those people who make people life more difficult is right and fair. With all the cautions, I hope the international community and international organisations such as the SADC will do enough in order to guarantee fair, free and credible elections in 2013, and also bring the rule of government shared by the majority of people of Zimbabwe. The elections will be a key moment of truth for the development of the country. If the worst scenario were to take place we will continue to support the poorest Zimbabweans though United Nations agencies or NGOs, but definitely our willingness is to be engaged directly with a government that will be democratically and freely elected.

Download the full interview

Interview coordinated by Joshua Massarenti (Afronline.org), in collaboration with Sud Quotidien, Senegal; Addis Fortune, Ethiopia; The Zimbabwean, Zimbabwe; Les Echos, Mali; Le Républicain, Niger and Le Calame, Mauritania.

© EC Audivisual Service

You can also follow us on twitter and become a fan on facebook