UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
from
To the general debate on
Geneva Session
October 2014

2
Professor Ulrich Schöler
Deputy Secretary-General of the German Bundestag/Vice-President of the ASGP
Introduction to the general debate
“Co-ordination of assistance and support to Parliaments”
Geneva, 14 October 2014
Colleagues,
I am very pleased that today, for the second time this year, we will be dealing with a topic which is very important to me. By examining the question of how we can potentially enhance the co-ordination of assistance and support to other parliaments, we are again discussing a challenge which encompasses much more than just organisational or administrative issues. For it is unquestionably linked to the image we have of our parliaments. This applies, for example, when we examine the role we ourselves play and seek to identify shared interests which we could, or must, agree on.
In my view, the ASGP is an excellent forum for this, since it, more than any other institution, serves as something like a parliamentary memory and a source of administrative continuity, without which parliaments cannot hope to develop an enduring vision of themselves. This was clear, incidentally, from the many engaging contributions made during our general debate in March.
As some of you may remember, the reason I suggested that this topic should be debated within the ASGP goes back to events at our spring conference in Quito in 2013. In his report on the activities of the IPU, Martin Chungong – now Secretary General of the IPU, but at the time in a different function – thanked the ASGP for its role in co-ordinating assistance and support measures for the Parliament of Myanmar. At that point it became clear that the various actors providing assistance in Myanmar did not know which other institutions or parliaments were also active there. This led me to reflect on how we could achieve better co-operation and co-ordination in international parliamentary support.
Against this background, the German Bundestag hosted an international workshop in autumn 2013 on the subject of “International Advice and Support for Parliamentary
Administrations”. Ultimately, the representatives of the IPU, the UNDP, the European

3
Parliament, and colleagues from Poland and France, together with experts from national associations and foundations, all agreed at the workshop that greater transparency and enhanced international co-operation and co-ordination were desirable. The IPU then held a “meeting of parliamentary development practitioners” a month later, at which I presented the results of our workshop. The IPU has also established a working group tasked with developing common principles for actors involved in parliamentary development support. I am pleased that Martin Chungong will later talk to us about the progress in developing “Common Principles for Parliamentary Development”.
All of these deliberations have centred on the question of how transparency and efficiency, together with better co-operation and co-ordination, could help to ensure focus and enhance the long-term effectiveness of the measures.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity today to follow on from the intensive general debate which we had in March and – I hope – to examine these central issues in more detail.
The four main conclusions from our debate in March are as follows:
1.
It is necessary to make our work in the field of support and advice for parliaments more transparent and to enhance co-ordination. This raises the unresolved question of the extent to which the UNDP’s digital platform “AGORA” could be useful.
2.
We need to develop answers to two issues. We must ask ourselves whether we can identify criteria for minimum democratic standards in recipient countries before we begin to provide support and advice. We should also, however, define guidelines for the actors involved in the other side of parliamentary co-operation
– the “Common Principles”.
3.
Support and advice for parliaments is only successful where it is tailored to the specific needs of the receiving country. Achieving this requires intensive communication and interaction in advance between the various actors on both sides.

4
4.
It would, however, also be desirable for the needs of the providing parliaments to be kept in mind, concerning, for example, the long-term effectiveness of expert secondments.
As you can see from our agenda, we are discussing these central points today.
The contributions during our debate in March from our colleagues from countries which receive international parliamentary support showed that we still have a great deal to do, particularly with regard to the third point – tailoring assistance to the specific local needs. National interests cannot be translated into principles in a simplistic fashion and then applied universally. I am therefore pleased that the first two speakers are our colleagues Daw Aye Aye Mu, a member of the Joint Coordination Committee at the
Myanmar Parliament, and Mr Amjed Pervez Malik, Secretary General of the Pakistani
Senate, who will talk about experiences with a programme of this type.
As I said, Martin Chungong, the new IPU Secretary General, will then speak on the state of play regarding the development of the “Common Principles for Parliamentary
Development”, which are due to be adopted within the IPU this week.
Since questions regarding the enhancement of transparency and co-ordination of support programmes were also raised in March, it makes sense for Julia Keutgen of the
UNDP to talk to us again in detail about the technical assistance which the AGORA internet platform is capable of providing. “AGORA” is conceived as an information and communication portal for inter-parliamentary exchange. In particular, she will present the mapping function, which was intended to provide an overview of current international projects in the field. Unfortunately, due to financial constraints and insufficient use, this platform was for a time out of operation.
Our debate in March also made clear that we should develop approaches which are as concrete as possible to enhance co-ordination of our parliamentary development support. It therefore seems logical to form four smaller groups to discuss the individual aspects:

5
1.
The first group, with the active support of Julia Keutgen, will deal with the
“AGORA” internet platform, examining experience so far, the question of how to ensure transparency, as well as confidentiality issues. This group could also discuss what requirements and standards should be met by a digital database.
2.
Norah Babic, the expert from the IPU Secretariat, has agreed to lead a further working group, looking more intensively at the implementation of the “Common
Principles for Parliamentary Development”.
3.
A third working group is to focus on the needs of the recipient countries. Our debate in March showed that more involvement by the recipient countries and stronger tailoring to their specific interests are necessary in order to achieve positive outcomes in terms of targeted and sustainable parliamentary development support.
4.
The fourth group will focus more on the needs of the providing countries. Here, the question is: how can long-term effectiveness be ensured? What instruments should be used to exchange information and create networks? And how can unnecessary duplication be avoided?
During my additional work as a university lecturer, where I occasionally speak about the workings of parliament, I am also frequently reminded that knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied.
On this note, I look forward to intensive participation by all present. This afternoon, the spokespersons for the working groups will then present the results of their work. I wish all of us a debate which is as engaging as the one in March.