De Europese Commissie over een schuldenrechtbank
Datum: 22-04-2011
Afgelopen week publiceerde de Europese Commissie het 'EU Accountability report on Financing for Development'. Daarin wordt ook de noodzaak genoemd de de internationale architectuur voor de herstructurering van schulden te hervormen. Zoals bekend is Duitsland voorstander van een 'debt workout mechanism', of een schuldenrechtbank. Helaas blijkt uit dit rapport dat Nederland tegenstander van een dergelijke hervorming is.
Lees verder voor Eurodads analyse van het EC-rapport.
After the crisis: The state of EU development finance
This week the European Commission released the "EU Accountability report on Financing for Development” – an EC staff working document informally known as the "April Package.” Formerly entitled the "Monterrey Survey” – its original aim was to monitor the commitments made at the at the 2002 UN conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey – the report analyses the progress made by the EU and its Member States to fulfil their commitments for more and better financing for development. It covers a broad range of issues, including debt issues.
The staff working document is accompanied by the Communication "Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review”, an input by the European Commission to the upcoming meeting of the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council.
Specifically on debt, it’s first and foremost encouraging that it’s included in the communication, including the need for responsible lending and borrowing. Last year debt was not mentioned.
The recognition of increased debt vulnerabilities in low-and middle income countries following the financial crisis and the need to step up efforts to prevent new debt crises is most welcome. The report points out that "the risk of possible debt distress … will have to be taken into account when increasing the use of blending loans and grants in support of developing countries.” It also states that "to avoid new debt crises, support for improved capacity for sound debt management and for responsible lending and borrowing practices are needed.”
Almost half of the Member States see a need to "reform the international architecture for the restructuring of sovereign debts in order to deal with potential cases of debt distress in low-income countries.” While last year Member States did not see any need for the Commission to take a role in initiating discussions on alternative debt restructuring for developing countries, this year’s report stresses the need for the EU to develop a common position on this matter. They also map some of the member state’s responses on this specific issue (page 85- 86), saying that Germany supports the creation of a debt workout mechanism and wants to promote discussions, whereas Belgium sees no need for another international body and the Netherlands and the UK are not in faviour of a structural sovereign debt restructuring mechanism.
In the staff paper they devote a few pages to presenting and analysing debt sustainability and debt management efforts. While faithful to existing policies and mechanisms, it also says that policies aimed at mitigating the costs of debt crises include "the design of a set of guidelines to limit solvency crises by promoting responsible sovereign borrowing and lending to sovereigns; and the design of a mechanism for dealing with sovereign debt crises.”
Other key issues addressed by the report include transfer pricing rules, non-cooperative jurisdiction and tax information exchange. Despite the acknowledgement that enhanced global regulation on these issues helps developing countries to mobilise revenues, the report also points that Member States’ "support for this remains rather limited.” They tend to rely on OECD current processes (such as the Global Form) and rules (on transfer pricing) which civil society groups deem very limited in their scope and in their potential to genuinely address developing countries’ needs.
Likewise, Member States overly rely on International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank (Doing Business report) to monitor tax competition and provide advice on tax reform. These institutions "received by far the most financial support.” Excessive reliance on the IMF to provide advice on these matters is problematic due to the past track record of the institution in advising regressive tax reforms. Despite recent change at the IMF, the dismissal of the United Nations in providing advice on this area is disappointing.
The full analysis is available on Eurodad website
Delen:
Jubilee tweets > alles bekijken
