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:
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
| 
