STABLISATION AND ASSOCIATION PROCESS IN
SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE
(a)
(20979)
5962/00
SEC(00) 168
(b)
(20984)
6042/00
COM(00) 49
(c)
(20844)
14089/99
COM(99) 661
| Commission Staff Working Paper: EU Stabilisation and Association process for countries of South-Eastern Europe. Compliance with the Council Conclusions of 29 April 1997 and 21/22 June 1999 — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.
Commission Communication on Operational Conclusions on the EU Stabilisation and Association process for countries of South-Eastern Europe: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.
Commission Communication on Community assistance for the Stabilisation and Association Process for certain countries of SouthEast Europe: CARA Programme (Community Association and Reconstruction Assistance): Guidelines and detailed arrangements for assistance to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the future CARA Programme (2000-2006).
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| Department:
| (a) and (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(c) International Development
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 5 April 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) and (b) HC 23-xi (1999-2000), paragraph 7 (8 March 2000)
(c) HC 23-xi (1999-2000), paragraph 4 (8 March 2000)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| The principal findings of (b) were endorsed by the General Affairs Council 14 February
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
6.1 On 8 March, we considered the two documents
on the Stabilisation and Association Process considered here and,
separately, the Commission Communication on a new assistance programme,
which we also consider again here. The Minister of State at the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Vaz) commented in his Explanatory
Memorandum on the first two documents that the proposed assistance
programme might represent an increase on existing funding. No
figure had been agreed and the Government would argue that additional
funds must be met through reprioritisation within the EU's existing
budget for external spending (Category 4).
6.2 In our Report, we quoted the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International Development
(Mr Foulkes) as saying in the debate on Humanitarian aid and
external co-operation in European Standing Committee B on
1 March that, although the Government strongly supports Balkan
reconstruction, it does not believe that it is possible to spend
5.5 billion euro over the proposed period, and that this sum had
been allocated "for political reasons"[2].
6.3 We asked Mr Vaz what areas of existing
external budgets he would choose to see "reprioritised"
in order to provide funds for the assistance programme to South
Eastern Europe.
The Minister's letter
6.4 Mr Vaz has written saying that, first
of all, there is no difference of opinion between his Department
and the Department for International Development on this subject.
He is sorry if the Explanatory Memoranda gave that impression
and hopes that the fuller explanation of the position which he
now gives will make this clear.
6.5 The Minister points out that the figure
of 5.5 billion euro is only a Commission estimate, not a formal
proposal to the Council, and that this is made clear in the Communication
on the assistance programme which says that "an estimated
sum of 5.5 billion euro ... is conceivable for 2000- 2006".
He continues:
"... The figure (which includes 2 billion euro
for Serbia) is not based on any analysis or needs assessment.
Only once we have a thorough justification for any spending proposals,
including a detailed assessment of the region's needs, can the
Council begin a proper debate about how much money is needed for
the Balkans and where in the budget it will come from. We are
pressing the Commission for such an analysis.
"The spending ceilings agreed at the Berlin
European Council last year must be respected. If additional funds
do prove to be needed for the Balkans, they must be found via
reprioritisation within the external affairs budget (Category
4). Our priorities are value for money and the most efficient
use of resources. We would therefore like to see funds moved from
budget lines which are very underspent or have a record of offering
poor value for money. Examples might be the Mediterranean programme,
which has been underspent for several years, or food aid, which
has not always been well targeted and which has a large provisional
allocation. But of course the decision about reprioritisation
within Category 4 is for the Council as a whole. If cuts prove
to be necessary in other programmes, then we shall aim where possible
to preserve key activities such as those focused on poverty relief
or civil society.
"My colleagues at DFID and I will continue to
keep your Committee informed of developments in this area."
Conclusion
6.6 We thank Mr Vaz for his clarification
and his assurance that there is no difference of opinion between
his department and DFID on this subject. We look forward to further
correspondence from him, or his colleagues at DFID, keeping us
informed of the expected effects on the rest of the Category 4
budget of decisions on funding for South Eastern Europe.
6.7 Last week, we cleared the draft Regulation
on support for the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in
Bosnia and the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)[3]
and noted the Minister's comment in his Explanatory Memorandum
that a supplementary and amending budget will be required to establish
a funding line in the Commission budget for UNMIK. We look forward
to receiving an Explanatory Memorandum from the Government on
the Commission's detailed assessment of the region's needs, when
this is available, in which we expect that he will be able to
give us more specific information on how the reprioritisation
of the budget can be managed.
2 Official Report, European
Standing Committee B, 1 March 2000, col. 9. Back
3 (21030)
6459/00; see HC 23-xiii (1999-2000), paragraph 30 (5 April 2000). Back
|
