TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OFFICES (TAOS)
64. This understaffing has forced the Commission
to resort to the system of Technical Assistance Offices (TAOs).[87]
Chris Patten explained to the Committee, "We have not got
any staff to deal with it, so what do you do? You establish a
bureau d'assistance technique, a TAO ... There are 80 of
those employing about 800 people at a cost of about 
170 million.
The system has been rightly criticised for being largely outside
proper budgetary and political control".[88]
The Communication on the Reform of the Management of External
Assistance notes that "unfettered sub-contracting has shown
its drawbacks: the annual cost of TAOs in the RELEX field is estimated
at around 170 million out of 190 for the whole Commission. To
give an indication of the order of magnitude, this figure is equivalent
to around 80 per cent of the total administrative budget of the
Commission's delegations worldwide".[89]
A group of Commissioners, chaired by Commissioner Prodi, is currently
in the process of conducting a Peer Review of the resource implications
of the reforms set out in the Commission White Paper.[90]
The purpose of the review is to examine redeployment within and
across DGs and assess overall staff needs, look at externalising
non-core activities and, if necessary, propose additional resources.
Whilst the Committee has no objection in principle to the use
of contractors to implement EC programmes, we support the Commission's
conclusion that a workable, more cost-effective alternative to
the TAOs is urgently required.
65. Clare Short told us that she was adamantly opposed
to allowing the Commission to recruit more staff, "I think
staffing is a trap. They are inclined to say, 'We can't improve
without more staff'. Then you are supposed to throw good money
after bad, and I do not think Member States will agree to just
increase their staffing. What they need to do is use the staff
they have well, and then co-finance with Member States in other
areas rather than duplicate on Member States' staffing strengths
in all areas".[91]
She went on to state "I personally will fight to the death
to not give them any more staff until they improve the quality
of what they are doing, otherwise we are just throwing more and
more resources away".[92]
66. Chris Patten noted that Member States were unlikely
to endorse any proposals for more staff, "I am sufficiently
politically experienced to know that if I simply go to Member
States and say, 'We want another n hundred people permanently
on our staff', they are going to tell us to get lost. So what
we are proposing is that we should use the operational credits
which are available in the budget to take on contracted staff
to work for Europe Aid. Does that just mean transferring people
from the technical assistance offices to the Europe Aid? No, because
we think that we can actually deliver what the TAOs are doing
already with fewer people than they are doing it ... It does not
involve any breach in budgetary principle or concept since we
already use operational credits for employing people out in our
delegations for managing projects and we already use operational
credits for some people who are contracted to work for us".[93]
67. DFID has broadly welcomed these proposals. Clare
Short told the Committee, "the reorganisation of the management
structure has been done in such a way that the Commission will
be able to use programme funds to employ people to help deliver
its programmes. That will be part of the answer to its staff shortage
problem. We think it is sensible — we do it too —
but it needs watching to make sure it is done well, rather than
a proliferation of people who do not deliver specifically. So
they are going to get new staff through this mechanism".[94]
68. There can be no doubt that parts of the Commission,
in particular those DGs responsible for external assistance, are
severely understaffed. Constanza Adinolfi told the Committee,
"just to give you an indication we have at the moment between
200 and 300 partners we work with. We have an average per year
of some 1,000 contracts to manage ... We have a huge administrative
burden to support in managing the aid ... each desk which is managing
funds and contracts manages between 10 and 12 million euros and
something like between 50 and 70 contracts per person, which is
completely crazy. I do not know how they do it. I admire my desk
officers for the professionalism they put into this, but this
is done by enterprise, by being in the office sometimes 12 hours,
by coming to work on Saturday and Sunday, by having very long
periods of leave which are not taken and so on".[95]
Such incidences are not isolated examples.
69. The Committee has repeatedly heard —
from NGOs and Commission officials — that the Commission
simply does not have enough staff to cope with the vastly increased
sums that it is required to spend and the increased financial
controls that have been imposed on it as a result of fraud allegations.
Any reassessment of staffing in DGs Development and External Relations,
however, must first take account of the proposals to rescind dormant
commitments and of changes in staffing requirements as a result
of Commission proposals to concentrate on six core areas. Only
then should the issue of staffing be addressed. We look forward
to the conclusions of the Peer Review on staffing in the Commission,
subject to the conditions set out above.
Micromanagement
70. The Communication on the Reform of the Management
of External Assistance explains that, because of the weakness
of EC programming, Member States are encouraged, through a range
of approximately 50 management committees to give disproportionate
attention to the Commission's decisions on individual projects,
rather than to concentrate on more strategic issues. This inevitably
leads to considerable delays. Chris Patten told the Committeee
during its visit to Brussels that "at present we have to
run an aid programme with Member States wanting to micro-manage
every national programme rather than agreeing a strategy and then
letting us manage, with all sorts of procedures regarding procurement
and contracts which were frankly I think often devised in order
to try to enable Member States to get a bigger share of the action
for their own companies. All those problems make it a wonder that
we manage anything at all".[96]
Clare Short, however, appeared reluctant to relinquish control
over the detail of EC policies, "If you have a completely
malfunctioning bureaucracy I suppose you try to intervene at every
point in which decisions are made to try and both get better quality
decisions and more effectiveness. I imagine we are involved right
down the line in all the different programmes. You might call
it micro management, we are trying to get increased effectiveness
and better quality".[97]
She went on to state that "I am not saying we would not give
it up until we see better effectiveness on the ground, we would
give it up as part of the reform package".[98]
71. The Member States and the Commission appear
to have reached an impasse on the issue of micromanagement with
the Commission keen to change the emphasis from detailed management
before project implementation to evaluation during and after completion
of the project. Member States are reluctant to relinquish control
until there has been some discernable improvement in the Commission's
own evaluation of development assistance. Member States and the
Commission should seek to agree, at the earliest opportunity,
an overall policy framework for EC development assistance and
an action plan for its implementation. Once such a policy has
been agreed and as soon as suitable accounting mechanisms have
been put in place Member States should seek to reduce their day-to-day
involvement in the management of Commission-run development projects.
Conclusion
72. A great deal has changed in the European Commission
since the last time the Committee examined this issue. The financial
perspectives for the period 2000-2006 have been agreed, the resignation
of the Santer Commission has led to Commission reform. The new
Commission is in the process of re-examining its management procedures,
and a number of proposals have been made for the reform of external
assistance. Further changes are afoot. However, if the EC is to
realise the its own objectives of improving the management of
its external assistance a number of additional reforms will be
required both on the part of the Commission and on the part of
Member States. The momentum of recent change must be maintained.
This will require nothing less than a comprehensive action plan
for the reform of EC development assistance, endorsed by the Commission
and Member States, with clear commitments and a timetable for
their implementation. To this end, we recommend an extraordinary
meeting of the Development Council focussed entirely on the reform
of the EC's development budget and programme.
73. Clare Short has stated that "the Commission
is the worst development agency in the world. The poor quality
and reputation of its aid brings Europe into disrepute".[99]
The Commission has itself recognised its poor performance in the
past. The Communication on the Reform of the Management of External
Assistance noted that "the EC's management performance has
deteriorated over time to the point of undermining the credibility
of its external policies and the international reputation of the
European Union".[100]
74. None of the issues raised in this Report are
new. We are exasperated with the failure of the Commission to
reform its development activity effectively. We have no doubt
that were the development reforms we outline implemented, the
EC could make a real difference to the elimination of poverty.
The EC is living on borrowed time — the Commission should
give up its addiction to half-measures and have the courage to
reform for the benefit of the world's poor.
66 First Report from the International Development
Committee, Session 1998-99, The Future of the EC Development Budget,
HC 44, para.52 Back
67
Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.6 Back
68
Q.52 Back
69
Q.191 Back
70
Q.162 Back
71
Q.162 Back
72
Statement on Development Policy, p.14 Back
73
Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.20 Back
74
Q.1 Back
75
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/echo/en/operatio/index_en.html Back
76
For example, the independent evaluation of Community Humanitarian
Activities carried out under Article 20 of Regulation 1257/96 Back
77
Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.7 Back
78
Ibid, p.12 Back
79
Ibid, p.19 Back
80
Q.145 Back
81
Qq.146-7 Back
82
Q.44 Back
83
Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.5 Back
84
Evidence p.75 Back
85
Evidence p. 62 Back
86
SEC(2000)2000 Back
87
A list of TAOs, in French, has been received by the Committee
and placed in the Library of the House Back
88
Qq.95-6 Back
89
Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.5 Back
90
COM(2000)200 Back
91
Q.18 Back
92
Q.23 Back
93
Q.96 Back
94
Q.20 Back
95
Q.81 Back
96
Q.96 Back
97
Q.45 Back
98
Q.46 Back
99
"Aid that Doesn't Help", Financial Times, 23 June 2000 Back
100
Communication on the Reform of the Management
of External Assistance, 8889/00, May 16, 2000, p.5 Back
