STATEMENT OF EC'S DEVELOPMENT POLICY
(a)
(21117)
—
(b)
(21291)
8333/00
COM(00) 212
|
Draft Commission Paper on the European Community's Development
Policy.
Commission Communication on the European Community's
Development Policy.
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| |
| Document originated:
| (b) 26 April 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| (b) 8 May 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (b) 25 May 2000 |
| Department: |
International Development |
| Basis of consideration:
| (b) EM of 9 June |
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 23-xv (1999-2000), paragraph 4 (19 April 2000)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| November 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| (a) Cleared
(b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
3.1 In April, the Secretary of State for
International Development (The Rt. Hon. Clare Short) submitted
an Explanatory Memorandum on the draft Commission Paper, document
(a). It has now been issued as a Commission Communication, document
(b).
3.2 In an Explanatory Memorandum dated 9
June, the Minister says that the Communication contains much that
is in line with the draft, in particular that EC development co-operation:
- needs to be coherent and balance the EU's internal
and external objectives;
- should be centred on poverty reduction and the
integration of developing countries into the world economy;
- should be more poverty-focussed, both in its
allocations to low-income countries and, in middle-income countries,
by prioritising those with large numbers of poor people;
- should be made more effective by:
— streamlining the complex range of EC
aid financial instruments, procedures and institutional mechanisms
and, at the same time, increase accountability;
— taking a more consistent approach across
EC programmes;
— focussing on impact, rather than on
disbursing funds rapidly;
— allocating resources according to need
and performance;
— introducing rolling programming;
— increasing decentralisation from Brussels
to the EC delegations;
— increasing complementarity with Member
States;
— concentrating on fewer areas where it
can add most value;
— producing an Annual Report on EC development
assistance; and
— Member States focussing more on EC policy
than implementation.
3.3 However, the Minister says, some differences
between the Communication and the draft are worthy of mention:
"In the Communication
there is:
"— a stronger reference to poverty
reduction as the overarching objective of EC development assistance.
The qualifier 'where that proves necessary', which appeared
in the draft, has now been removed;
"— greater reference to the need for
coherence, although this is undermined elsewhere in the text;
"— reference to the need for conflict
prevention and management, and for natural disaster mitigation
and preparedness;
"— inclusion of institutional capacity-building,
good governance and the rule of law as one of the priority areas
for EC development assistance."
The Government's view
3.4 The Minister says that the UK welcomes
the focus in the Communication on poverty and on improving the
impact and effectiveness of EC aid. However, she says, several
of the concerns which she expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum
on the draft Commission paper remain:
"— Insufficient
attention is paid to the International Development Targets and
Comprehensive Development Framework principles;
"— we agree with the principle of
greater selectivity, but no justification is provided for the
suggested areas of EC comparative advantage;
"— the statement is not operational.
There needs to be a strategic and comprehensive action plan setting
out clearly how the new policy will be implemented;
"— the language on coherence is still
not strong enough. For example, the reference to the need to 'avoid
unintended incoherence' implies that intended incoherence is acceptable,
a view which we do not support. We have since learned that the
Commission will now not, as stated in the Communication, be producing
a separate paper on coherence. This is an added reason for us
to ensure that our views on coherence are included more fully
in the policy statement."
3.5 Finally, the Minister comments on the
fact that the procedural Conclusions agreed at the May Development
Council are in line with our Conclusions on the draft Commission
paper, in that they state that:
"— the Communication
is the start, not the end, of the process to produce the
EC development policy statement;
"— consultations with civil society
should continue;
"— the Action Plan to implement the
conclusions should be forward-looking and operational."
Conclusion
3.6 The Council stresses in the same
Conclusions that the planned structural reforms within the Commission
should provide an adequate basis for proper and effective implementation
of the Community's Development policy. We note that in the Communication
the Commission still refers to the desirability of Member States
focussing more on EC policy than implementation. Given the serious
weaknesses in the quality and impact of EC aid to which the Council
drew attention in its evaluation last year[11],
it strikes us as entirely understandable that the Member States
should have wished to focus on every aspect of the delivery of
EC aid. Indeed, it was important that they should do so. Only
when the Commission is able to show that its reforms are resulting
in effective implementation it will it be the time to step back.
Meanwhile, we strongly support the Government in its hands-on
approach.
3.7 This should not, however, stand in
the way of strategic thinking and guidance, underpinned by practical
action points. The Secretary of State's insistence on an Action
Plan has now been supported by the Council, but without a delivery
date. We should like to see one included in the Development Policy
statement before it is adopted.
3.8 We ask the Secretary of State to
submit a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum before the Statement
is put to the November Development Council, bringing us up to
date with the text. In it, we ask her to provide us with an assurance
that the Commission's consultation with NGOs has been full and
not a mere formality, or to explain why this has not happened,
if that is her assessment.
3.9 Meanwhile, we clear the draft Commission
paper, document (a), but hold the Communication, document (b),
under scrutiny.
11 (20048) - ; see HC 34-xix (1998-99), paragraph 11
(12 May 1999). Back
| 
