DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MEDITERRANEAN
NEIGHBOURS (MEDA)
(20973)
5104/00
COM(99) 494
| Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1488/96
on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of
economic and social structures in the framework of the
Euro-Mediterranean partnership (MEDA).
|
| Legal base:
| Article 308 EC; unanimity
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 20 October 1999 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 16 December 1999 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 15 February 2000 |
| Department: |
International Development |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 3 March 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested.
|
Background
6.1 The MEDA Programme is the main financial
instrument of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. It provides
development assistance to those 12 neighbouring countries in the
Mediterranean which agreed to form the Partnership, enshrined
in the 1995 Barcelona Declaration[13].
The Commission proposal
6.2 This draft Regulation establishes MEDA
II and streamlines the procedures for decision-making and for
implementing the programme. It does not include a financial reference.
A report from an external evaluator is summarised in the Commission
document. This was provided for in the Regulation[14]
establishing the first MEDA programme (1995 to 1999) and the amendments
to the Regulation proposed here take into account the main concerns
highlighted in the report.
6.3 The Commission comments that, as well
as certain provisions in the MEDA Regulation, the complexities
which need to be simplified include some internal procedures of
the Commission. These are the subject of an in-depth revision
procedure and are not examined in this document.
6.4 The evaluation report questioned the
appropriateness of the current procedure whereby the MED Committee,
which assists the Commission in managing the programme, examines
implementation twice. It first examines the indicative programmes,
both national and regional, and then the individual projects.
The Commission comments that "the result is a wasteful, heavy
and not very effective duplication."
6.5 Under the proposed amendments, the MED
Committee would approve the annual financing plans, while the
Commission would ensure that the programmes were consistent with
the indicative programme and financing plans. Only financing proposals
outside the indicative programmes and exceeding 2 million euro
would be referred to the MED Committee. The Commission comments
that this is consistent with the management procedure laid down
in the recent Council Decision on comitology.[15]
6.6 As well as streamlining the decision-making
process, the amendments are also aimed at improving programming
and shortening the procedures, to achieve more efficient implementation.
In addition, it seems advisable, the Commission suggests, to make
changes to the programme mix in the medium term to take into account
the key objectives of the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements;
but these improvements can be made without adapting the Regulation.
6.7 In presenting the proposal, the Commission
makes a case for 25 more staff to administer the programme, arguing
that the Mediterranean Directorate in the RELEX DG[16]
does not have sufficient human resources, the quality of the EC's
co-operation being directly related to the quality and quantity
of human resources allocated. It recalls that the scarcity of
staff in the Directorate was acknowledged, and criticised in the
past by the Court of Auditors, the Council and others, including
external evaluators and the OECD Development Assistance Committee.
6.8 Article 7 of the Regulation would be
amended to allow for direct budgetary support to advance economic
reform and for costs related to technical and administrative assistance
"when such assistance is to the mutual benefit of the Commission
and the beneficiaries of the activity and does not belong to the
permanent tasks of the public service."
6.9 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 3 March,
the Secretary of State for International Development (The Rt.
Hon. Clare Short) notes that the amendments also propose removing
any reference to a financial envelope from the Regulation, and
extending the scope of support to the area of migration.
The Government's view
6.10 The Secretary of State comments:
"We believe that the present MEDA programme
is badly focussed and poorly managed. Our objective for the negotiation
of this Regulation is to increase the poverty focus of the programme
by amending the objectives and instruments set out in the text
so that they reflect the international development agenda and
targets. We also believe that the levels of funding for the MEDA
programme are unrealistically high — in 1997 only 64% of
allocated MEDA funds were spent; in 1998, 79% — and unjustified
by the needs of the MEDA countries, which are all middle-income.
Given the poor levels of spend, the UK fully supports
significant improvements in the procedures for considering MEDA
programmes and projects. The UK's objective is to secure procedures
that are analogous to those we have agreed in the Lomé
negotiations for the European Development Fund. However, improved
strategic focus and simplification must be balanced by adequate
member state scrutiny and control. Quality, effectiveness and
evaluation should be as important programming considerations as
financial commitments and disbursements."
Conclusion
6.11 The Secretary of State does not
explain in her Explanatory Memorandum that the Commission has
deliberately omitted an end date from the draft Regulation as
it does not want to have to renegotiate it. We understand that
the Government's policy is to press for an end date of 2006, precisely
because the UK does want to renegotiate.
6.12 The draft also proposes to omit
a financial reference. We understand that the Government wants
the overall division of the external actions section of the EC
budget, Category 4, to be based on objective priorities, rather
than on a 'first come - first served' basis, which could mean
that the poorest areas, Africa, Asia and Latin America, are allocated
funds last. The Commission is believed to have acknowledged that
the budget should be drawn up in this way and is expected to publish
a breakdown of Category 4 "soon". Regional commitments
will be decided once this breakdown has been agreed.
6.13 The Minister of State at the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (Mr Vaz) commented in his Explanatory
Memorandum on a recent Commission communication on the Stabilisation
and Association Process in South Eastern Europe that any increase
in spending on the new assistance programme associated with the
Process would have to be met through reprioritisation of existing
EU external spending budgets.
6.14 We ask the Secretary of State for
International Development to inform us of the outcome of the negotiations
on the setting of an end date to the programme and of the agreed
financial commitment covered by this draft Regulation, including
whether the Government has successfully argued for funds to be
diverted from the MEDA programme as part of this reprioritisation,
rather than from programmes aimed at poverty reduction in developing
countries.
6.15 The Minister also refers to the
scope of the Regulation being extended to cover migration, but
makes no comment. We note that the MEDA programme is already more
of a programme of partnership in economic and social co-operation
than a development programme aimed at poverty reduction. To strengthen
support to discourage migration from middle-income countries would
appear to move the MEDA programme even further away from the Government's
policies for the use of development funds.
6.16 We ask the Secretary of State whether
MEDA should be fully funded from development funds and whether
the programme includes actions to encourage poverty reduction
by the Mediterranean partners within their own borders.
6.17 Finally, we ask the Minister whether
she agrees that the Mediterranean Directorate should be allocated
more staff. Until we have had a response to the questions we raise
here, we shall not clear the document.
13 Under MEDA National Indicative Programmes, bilateral
financial partnership is restricted to Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia,
Egypt, West Bank/Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey;
whereas Israel, Cyprus and Malta benefit from financial allocations
under the MEDA Regional Indicative Programme. Back
14 OJ
No. L 189, 30.7.96, p.1. Back
15 Decision
1999/468/EC, OJ No. L 184, 28.6.99, p.23, laying down the procedures
for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Back
16 The
Directorate-General for External Relations. Back
| 
