Video guest: Josephine Mwangi

January 2018
M T W T F S S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 1 2 3 4



SELECT_TAGS :
















Twitter

Follow the CTA Brussels Daily

 

twitter logo

 

facebook logo cta

EDITO
Saturday, 20 January 2018
The “Efico Fund, for the improvement of the living conditions of poor populations which produce coffee in developing countries,” managed by the King Baudouin Foundation, was set up with the aim of helping to create the Efico Foundation, a private foundation set up by notarial act on 5 December 2003.
The Fund is responsible for the selection, distribution of financial means and the follow-up of projects. These projects contribute directly or indirectly to the structural and sustainable improvement of poor populations which produce coffee in developing countries and also foresee humanitarian aid and rehabilitation activities for poor populations in these countries.

Application
You can introduce projects continuously by filling in the application form below and sending it by e-mail to the secretariat of the fund: efico.fund@kbs-frb.be.
Projects can be supported one or more years with a maximum amount of 20.000 € per year. The jury can grant an exception if this is well-founded in the project application.
Projects that wish to participate to the next selection roll should be introduced before 31 January 2006.
European Commission to pay additional 853,000 EUR to support Kyoto’s flexible mechanisms and technology transfer

The European Commission has signed agreements with the Secretariat of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to contribute an additional 853,000 EUR in support of the operation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the establishment of the International Registry System, which will keep track of transfers of Kyoto emissions credits. This amount also includes 100,000 to support information exchange on clean technology transfer. The contracted sums come on top of 1.2 million EUR already paid by the Commission over the last two years. EU Member States have committed 3.67 million EUR to support a streamlined and strengthened CDM, which is one of the outcomes of the Montreal Conference.
The European Commission's view on the reform of the international humanitarian system by Louis MICHEL,
In Commissioners’s view, there is a need for the equivalent of MDGs (Millenium Development Goals) in the humanitarian domain i.e. some sorts of Millenium Humanitarian Goals!In concrete terms
1. Increasing the overall humanitarian funding
The number of natural disasters with devastating consequences is on the rise. Current conflicts tend to last longer and to be more destructive. New forms of crises emerge with failed or failing regimes. All these crises generate higher number of victims most of whom live in developing countries. The humanitarian challenges ahead of us are immense. We need an international commitment of donors to increase the total volume of humanitarian aid worldwide. We have the 0,7 % target for Development aid. Why not having a specific target for humanitarian aid? It should be easier to reach, as we are talking of smaller amounts. I am convinced that an annual increase by $ 2 billions of the total humanitarian funding would make a huge difference and would help us to serve adequately all the humanitarian crises.
This increase should be made in accordance with some basic principles:
- Principle of additionality = These funds must be fresh/additional money. It should not be diverted from development.
- Principle of burden-sharing: humanitarian aid should not be seen as a ‘western businesss’. We must engage non traditional donors in the process.
- Principle of benchmarking: using transparent and objective indicators for the assessment of needs and the allocation of funds.
The European Commission will remain one of the major humanitarian donors. In the context of the new financial perspectives of the European Union for the years 2007-2013, the Commission has proposed to bring the level of its humanitarian (incl. emergency food aid) to over € 900 million per annum.
2. Ensuring equity in the response to humanitarian crises
The principle of equity is the direct translation at the donors’ level of the fundamental humanitarian principle of non-discrimination in the delivery of aid.
3. Improving the response capacity to humanitarian emergencies
The capacity to respond in a timely and effective manner to a crisis depends on a number of factors which go beyond the availability of funds. That is, we need to improve the operational capacities of the humanitarian system. The prepositioning of key-humanitarian supplies must be reviewed. A real international mapping and network with regional and sub-regional hubs must be built to mobilise resources as quickly as possible in the face of new emergencies.
The on-the-spot coordination capacity must be strengthened.
4. Improving risk reduction and preparedness strategies
The Commission is concerned, we follow a dual-track approach :
- Through ECHO we fund disaster-preparedness programmes, called DIPECHO, that aim at building local capacity and systems in the regions most exposed to natural hazards.
- Through development cooperation, we are now starting to integrate risk reduction in our country strategy programmes. I have agreed with Mr. Jarraud the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), that the next generation of Country strategy programmes for the ACP will be prepared with the WMO expertise, this in order to map the risk s for each country and integrate the risk factors in the development programmes.
The ACP Council of Ministers met in Brussels from 5 to 8 December 2005 under the chairmanship of Hon. Roger Marie RAFANOMEZANTSOA, Minister of Industry, Trade and Private Sector Development of Madagascar, President-in-Office of the Council. Council also approved the recommendations on ACP positions and strategies in view of the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference, as submitted by the ACP Ministers of Trade who met on 29 November and 1 December 2005.
Issues discussed by the Council of Ministers included the following:
- WTO. Council endorsed the ACP Declaration and the recommendations submitted by the ACP Ministers of Trade for the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference.
- ACP Summit. In the framework of implementing the decision taken by the ACP Heads of State and Government at their 4th Summit held in Maputo, Mozambique in June 2004, to hold the 5th Summit in Sudan in 2006, Council decided that it would hold the 84th session of the Council of Ministers, as well as a joint meeting of the Council of Ministers and the ACP Foreign Affairs Ministers before the Summit. The dates for the 5th Summit will be set following consultation with the Government of Sudan.
- Textiles. Deeply concerned by the dismantling of the Multifibre Agreement at the end of 2004, which led to the closure of several textile and garment factories in ACP States, the Council of Ministers adopted a decision on textiles and clothing in which it appealed for the implementation of the commitments made by international donors to provide support to the ACP cotton sector. The Ministers called upon the European Union and Commission to set aside a specific allocation in the 10th EDF to finance the textile and clothing Facility for ACP countries.
- Cotton. Gravely concerned by the maintenance of domestic support and export subsidies granted to farmers in developed countries, the Ministers stressed the urgency of finding a solution to the cotton dossier at the WTO in order to give a positive signal of the real commitment of partners, so as to ensure that the current negotiating round is truly a development round, and contribute to negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. The Ministers emphasized the fact that solutions sought under the African Cotton Initiative led by Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad, should not only benefit the LDCs but include support for all ACP cotton-producing countries.
- Bananas. The Ministers reiterated their appeal to the European Union to designate bananas as a sensitive product in the current WTO negotiations in view of the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. They expressed support for all the initiatives taken by the European Communities within the WTO to have the current waiver extended until 31 December 2007. The Council also asked the European Union to ensure that all efforts towards an agreement with MFN countries include real consultation with the countries, and that in the event of an arbitration process relating to the banana regime, the EU would support the right of the ACP countries to participate therein.
- Sugar. The Ministers called on the European Union to ensure that ACP sugar-supplying countries are not saddled with a disproportionate share of the cost of the EC sugar regime reform, and that the reform is implemented in full respect of the EU’s international obligations as defined in the ACP-EU Sugar Protocol, particularly guarantees regarding market access, intervention, indefinite duration and negotiated prices, as well as the possibility of exporting all types of sugar. They appealed to the European Commission to designate sugar as a sensitive product for the purposes of the negotiations on agricultural products under the Doha Work Programme and at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong. Council also asked the EU to ensure that the modalities for implementing the new regime, particularly regarding the warning mechanism for the control of the volume of imports from LDCs, are specified in such a way as not to hamper legitimate LDC exports to the EU.
- Food Security. Informed that Malawi and other Southern African countries such as Mozambique and Lesotho are currently facing a severe food crisis due to inadequate rainfall, the Council of Ministers urged the development partners, particularly the EU, FAO, WFP, UNICEF, WHO, CTA and CDE, to provide aid to these countries in the form of food and medicaments. The Ministers also asked the countries affected to set up early-warning mechanisms relating to food security and drought forecasts in accordance with priorities defined in the framework of the ACP-EU Facility for Natural Disasters.
  • Bookmark and Share
  • Email
  • Print
Different needs, different responsibilities: what is the EU asking from Developing Countries?
Hong Kong, 14 December 2005
Doha is a Development Round. The EU is fully committed to the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries based on their individual needs and vulnerabilities. In every sector of the negotiations, the EU has shaped its requests to reflect the different needs of different developing countries.

However there is a wide range of capacities among developing countries - Brazil and Benin are not the same. Advanced Developing Countries like Brazil, China and India cannot be expected to make the same commitments as developed countries, but they are asked to make a contribution. The EU’s positions reflect the principle of "different needs, different responsibilities".

Least Developed Countries
The EU has proposed a Round for Free for the 49 Least Developed Countries in all areas of the negotiations: no obligatory tariff cuts, market access commitments or support reductions.
The EU only encourages LDCs to increase the number of tariff rates bound in Geneva.

"Small and vulnerable economies"
The EU recognises that some countries that are not LDCs can nevertheless not be expected to undertake the same level of commitments as larger and more competitive Advanced Developing Countries.
Although no precise technical definition for these economies has yet been agreed, proposed definitions are based on criteria such as geographical status (islands, landlocked or otherwise geographically disadvantaged countries), non-diversified export profiles, low GDP and other vulnerabilities.
Appropriate solutions for the particular problems of these countries will have to be determined for each country in each specific area of the negotiations. So this not a defined group of countries, but a concept that will help better reflect the different needs of each country in each negotiation.
In Agriculture, under the EU proposal, tariff cuts for small and vulnerable countries would be set at 2/3 of the level of those for developed countries, and the tariff bands would be 1/3 higher. The maximum tariff for these countries would be 150% rather than 100%.
In NAMA a small and vulnerable country will be asked to make no obligatory tariff cuts, market access commitments or support reductions. However the EU will ask that all tariffs are bound at reasonable levels at the WTO - preserving policy space to protect growing industry.
In Services, a small and vulnerable country would be asked to make contributions based on its capacity.

Advanced Developing Countries
These include the large emerging economies of the G20, who combine developing country status with high competitiveness in one or more export sector, such as Brazil (Agriculture), China (Manufacturing) and India (Services). These countries have the potential to benefit.
The EU is offering considerable flexibility for these economies in the market access commitments accepted by developed countries.
The EU is asking that all Advanced Developing Countries offer tariff and quota free market access for all Least Developed Countries.
In Agriculture, under the EU proposal, tariff cuts for advanced developing countries would be set at 2/3 of the level of those for developed countries, and the tariff bands would be 1/3 higher. The maximum tariff for developing countries would be 150% rather than 100%.
In Agriculture, the EU has asked for support from these countries in improving protection of Geographical Indications. This is an important issue for producers of GI produce in advanced developing countries (eg: Indian Jasmin Tea or Basmati Rice or Brazilian Valhe dos Vinhedos wine).
In NAMA, The EU is also fully committed to less-than-full reciprocity in commitments. Advanced Developed Countries have the possibility to choose between excluding some products from tariff cuts or reducing proposed cuts by up to 50%.
In NAMA, the EU is also proposing longer implementation periods for market access obligations accepted by Advanced Developing Countries.
In Services, the EU is looking for a substantial contribution taking into account their level of development.
  • Bookmark and Share
  • Email
  • Print