APPENDIX 2
Memorandum from Marie Stopes International
THE LEVEL
OF EC EXTERNAL
ASSISTANCE FROM
2000 TO 2006
The 1999 EC draft budget totals EURO 96.5 billions
in commitment appropriations of which EURO 5.88 billion in commitment
appropriations has been allocated to external actions (6 per cent
of the total EC budget). The 1999 amount represents an increase
of 2.7 per cent over the 1998 level, reflecting a general austerity
principle followed by the Commission in line with its approach
in previous budgetary years. However, compared to the 1998 Preliminary
Draft Budget (PDB), the share of the total budget is dropping:
in 1998, 6.3 per cent of the total budget was set aside for development
co-operation. Many international development NGOs, including Marie
Stopes International, are concerned about these repeated proposed
cuts by the Commission to the development co-operation budget.
ALLOCATION OF
EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE
AMONG VARIOUS
REGIONS OF
THE DEVELOPING
WORLD
It is recognised that the Commission's priorities
in external actions are to focus on co-operation with countries
of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs) as part of the new guidelines
for pre-accession strategy, as well as co-operation with Mediterranean
third countries (under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership). The
1999 PDB thus reflects the financing programming adopted at Cannes
in 1995 which aims to fulfil the political guidelines agreed.
Commitment appropriations for all budget lines
referring to PHARE, TACIS and ex-Yugoslavia represent almost 30
per cent of total commitment appropriations for external actions
in the 1999 PDB.
Allocations proposed for co-operation with Mediterranean
countries and the Middle East represent almost 20 per cent of
external actions in the 1999 PDB. Indeed, MEDA programmes cannot
be cut due to Cannes commitments—so much so that the amendments
by the Parliament's Development Committee last month were rejected.
This earmarking of substantial proportions of
the development budget to CEEC/NIS and the Mediterranean World,
at the expense of meeting the needs of poor people in other geographical
regions such as Asia and Latin America, is a worrying trend. In
fact, the budget allocations to Asia and Latin America are stagnating
at under 15 per cent of the budget for development co-operation,
whereas aid for the Mediterranean and CEEC/NIS has been steadily
increasing.
CONSIDERATION OF
THE NEEDS
OF THE
POOREST IN
THE ALLOCATION
OF EXTERNAL
ASSISTANCE
The budget title subjected to the most severe
reductions in the Commission's PDB's was "other co-operation
measures" (B7-6) with a proposed reduction of about 100 million
EURO (-26 per cent). This budget section covers co-operation with
the poorest countries, including support for NGOs. The Commission
justifies the reduction over the 1998 appropriations on the grounds
of overlap between some geographical programmes and the EDF. However,
the reductions in the EU budget have not been accompanied by a
corresponding increase in the EDF allocations.
DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS WITHIN
THE COMMISSION
BOTH AS
TO THE
LEVEL OF
ASSISTANCE PROPOSED
AND ITS
ALLOCATION
Reviews of EC aid, including by the OECD, pinpoint
the lack of human resources and technical expertise in the Commission—both
within Brussels and in-country Delegations. The fact that the
Commission DGs consist of a large number of detached national
experts (ENDs) and contract staff leads to a rapid turnover of
staff. This, in addition to the relatively low level of human
resources compared to other aid agencies (a DG IB official estimated
that for every $10 million of aid disbursed the Commission had
just 2.7 officials, compared to eight officials in the UK Department
for International Development) has meant that staff have responsibility
for a large number of projects and grants.
These factors inevitably lead to delays in managing
grants and releasing funds. It remains to be seen whether the
newly established common operational service, SCOOP, will help
alleviate these delays.
Marie Stopes International
2 October 1998
| 
