Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-First Report


HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IN THIRD COUNTRIES


(21505)
10654/00

Special Report No. 12/2000 from the Court of Auditors on the management by the Commission of European Union support for the development of human rights and democracy in third countries.



Legal base:
Document originated: 6 July 2000
Forwarded to the Council: 6 July 2000
Deposited in Parliament: 8 August 2000
Department: International Development
Basis of consideration: EM of 18 October 2000
Previous Committee Report: None
To be discussed in Council: No further substantive discussion expected at this stage of the proposal
Committee's assessment: Politically important
Committee's decision: Cleared

The Court of Auditors Report

16.1  The report describes the Court of Auditors findings on European Commission management of support for the development of human rights and democracy in third countries, for the period 1994-1998.

16.2  Introducing the report, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) notes that:

    "Since the latter part of the 1980s, as democratic transitions spread through various parts of the world, there has been a rapid and significant expansion in programmes of assistance financed by the European Union and other major donors to support the development of human rights and democracy. The overall purpose of these programmes is twofold:

      "a)  to promote human rights and democracy for their own sake, as a political good that will improve the lives of citizens by bringing more freedom, political representation and government accountability;

      "b)  to support the idea that promotion of human rights and democracy is an essential part of the process of furthering sustainable social and economic development."

16.3  The Court recalls the role played by the Copenhagen criteria on democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the accession process, including the granting of pre-accession aid. In protecting and promoting these values in its development programmes it has operated on two fronts:

    "—  firstly, by applying political pressure on governments (establishing agreements which require governments that receive EU assistance to respect the principles of liberty, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, freezing assistance when such principles are flouted);

    "—  secondly, by funding measures through public authorities and institutions, and through NGOs and voluntary bodies."

The Court's findings

16.4  The main weaknesses identified in the report centre around the need for a more clearly defined framework of priorities and selection criteria.

Programming

16.5  The Court identified weaknesses in programming which included:

    —  a need for the Commission to improve the way in which measures to support human rights and democracy are defined in the country strategies;

    —  in many cases, projects were proposed by local communities and organisations, and then appraised and decided upon by the Commission. This demand-driven approach is appropriate to enhance ownership but should be applied within a more clearly defined framework of priorities and selection criteria. The most systematic procedures were those for Central and Eastern European programmes;

    —  when selecting projects, the Commission did not pay sufficient attention to assessing the capacity of implementing bodies, though improved procedures were used in June 1999.

Outcomes

16.6  Weaknesses in the outcomes of the programmes included:

    —  projects were often too small and too thinly spread over too many intervention areas. Individual projects were relevant but there was a lack of indicators to measure their effectiveness and impact.

Management

16.7  The report highlights the inappropriateness of the Commission trying to manage implementation of a large number of small and medium-sized contracts, when it had neither the staff resources, nor the systems, to do so effectively. It recommends that the Commission adopt a different approach, focussing more on what is achieved by partners with the funds received, while obtaining reasonable assurances that the funds are used correctly for the purpose for which they are granted.

The Commission's response

16.8  The Commission agrees with the Court on a number of points:

    —  the country-specific strategic approach should be extended. It comments that there is a delicate balance to be struck between selection of projects on the basis of their priority, and the use of calls for proposals as a way to improve project and partner selection procedures;

    —  the quality of projects may be improved by using verifiable indicators, but creating reliable indicators is a complex task as the aim is not simply to measure the impact and effectiveness of a particular project, but also the evolution of the overall situation throughout a given country;

    —  the desirability of following up the activities of organisations after support has ended. In so far as resources permit, it says, this will be borne in mind in future;

    —  there is no doubt that the Financial Regulation[46] needs updating as a tool for management of projects.

16.9  Finally, the Commission comments that the Court says that it should focus more on what has been achieved by its partners. It says:

    "Results-focused management, along with greater decentralisation, may well be the way forward. However, the mismatch between funds and human resources, in the face of the tasks undertaken, remains a key constraint".

The Government's view

16.10  The Secretary of State for International Development (the Rt. Hon. Clare Short) says:

    "Much of the criticism made in the report is already known. Member States, including the UK, have pressed the Commission to address these problems.

    "DFID is represented on the UK delegation for the Committee on Human Rights and Democracy. This was established in 1999 to provide expert advice, from Member States to the Commission, in relation to support for the development of human rights and democracy. At the sixth meeting of the Committee, held on 11 October 2000, the Commission's Human Rights and Democracy Unit accepted the shortcomings that the Report highlights and undertook to address them in future.

    "DFID will continue to use its place on the Committee on Human Rights and Democracy to press the Commission to take a more strategic, and better prioritised, approach."

Conclusion

16.11  The Report gives us a useful analysis, if only in confirming that many of the weaknesses in this area of the Commission's work are those we have observed, and drawn attention to in our Reports, in its external aid activities generally. Reforms are under way.

16.12  We note in this context that the Commission's Human Rights and Democracy Unit has undertaken to address the specific shortcomings highlighted in the European Court of Auditors report. We also note that the Government will continue to press the Commission to take a more strategic, and better prioritised, approach, and we now clear the document.



46  (21749) 12598/00; see paragraph 11 of this Report. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 15 December 2000