APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by Dr Gordon Crawford,
Lecturer in Development Studies, Institute for Politics and International
Studies, University of Leeds
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
AND THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
I have conducted research and written on this
topic over the past few years. Most recently, detailed research
was undertaken in mid to late 1999, with results published in
a (forthcoming) book chapter.1 This written evidence is in three
main parts. First, pertinent background information is provided.
Second, a summary of the main findings is given, and finally some
proposals for improvements are made. The main submission is that
EC assistance in this field can be characterised as ad hoc,
fragmented and incoherent, with adverse implications for effectiveness.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Policy objectives
Over the last decade the promotion of human
rights and democracy has become an increasingly important part
of EU policy, including within development co-operation. The (Maastricht)
Treaty on European Union provided a legal basis for Community
development co-operation for the first time by defining its goals
and objectives (Title XVII, Articles 130 u-y), inclusive of the
general objective of promoting democracy and human rights as a
priority aim (Article 130u, paragraph 2).
Prior to the Maastrict Treaty, the European
Commission had initiated discussions on the promotion of democratisation
within development co-operation, leading to the Resolution of
the Council of Ministers (Development) on "Human Rights,
Democracy and Development" of 28 November 1991. The Resolution
made the promotion of human rights and democracy both an objective
and a condition of development co-operation, both for the European
Community and Member States. It remains the pivotal policy statement.
1.2 Policy Instruments
Financial resources for positive measures in
support of democratisation are available from two main sources:
mainstream regional development co-operation funds and dedicated
budget lines. The clear message of the November 1991 Council Resolution
was to encourage the use of funds from mainstream regional budgets,
given further emphasis by the redefinition of the legal basis
of regional co-operation programmes, inclusive of respect for
human rights and democratic principles, for example, the 1995
Mid-Term Review of the Lome Convention. The specific budget lines
are intended to have an "innovative" or "catalyst"
role, providing initial support for short-term, pilot projects,
potentially leading to medium or longer-term mainstream funding.
Nevertheless, the main emphasis in the 1990s was on budget line
funding, examined briefly here.
At the instigation of the European Parliament,
budget lines specific to the promotion of human rights and democracy
were grouped together in 1994 as Chapter B7-70, the "European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights", covering
the following 11 budget lines2:
— B7-7000 Support for democracy
in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including Republics
formerly part of Yugoslavia, (including the PHARE Democracy
Programme). Established in 1992, managed by DGI "Human Rights
and Democratisation Unit", with a budget of 15 million euro
in 1999.
— B7-7010 Support for democracy
in the New Independent States (of the former Soviet Union) and
Mongolia, (the TACIS Democracy Programme). Established in
1993, managed by DGI "Human Rights and Democratisation Unit",
with a budget of 10 million euro in 1999.
— B7-7020 Human rights and democratisation
in developing countries, especially ACP countries. Created
as a direct result of the November 1991 Council Resolution, initially
as a resource for all developing countries except Latin America.
It is now focused on ACP countries, after the establishment of
other regional budget headings. It is managed by DGVIII, "Democratisation,
Good Governance, Institution Building" section, with a budget
of 17 million euro in 1999.
— B7-7021 Human rights and democracy
in southern African countries. Managed by DGVIII, with a budget
of four million euro in 1999.
— B7-7022 Special programme
for democracy and good governance in Nigeria. Managed by DGVIII,
with a budget of four million euro in 1999.
— B7-7030 Democratisation process
in Latin America. Created in 1990 at the initiative of the
European Parliament, its original aims were to support the democratisation
process in Chile and the peace process in Central America, but
was extended from 1991 to cover all of Latin America. It is managed
by DGI, "Democracy and Human Rights in Latin America"
section, with a budget of 14 million euro in 1996.
— B7-7040 Grants to certain
activities of human rights organisations. Established in 1979
with a global remit, including Member States, this was the original
human rights budget line with a focus on torture. By 1999, thematic
coverage had expanded considerably, including women's human rights,
minority groups, human rights education and training, abolition
of the death penalty, although 40 per cent remained allocated
to support for torture victims. Managed by DGI "Human Rights
and Democratisation Unit", with a budget of 15 million euro
in 1999.
— B7-7050 MEDA (Mediterranean)
Programme for Democracy and Human Rights. Established in 1996
at the initiative of Parliament, with a budget of nine million
euro.
— B7-7060 Support for the activities
of International Criminal Tribunals and to the setting up of a
permanent International Criminal Court. Managed by DGI with
a budget of 3.3 million euro in 1999.
— B7-7070 Human rights in Asian
countries. Established in 1998 and managed by DGI, with a
budget of five million euro in 1999. Current focus on China.
— B7-7090 Support for, and supervision
of, electoral process. Established in 1997 and managed by
DGI, with a budget of two million euro in 1999. Emphasis on funding
of international electoral observation in countries where electoral
assistance is not available from other instruments.
Budget lines have been created in the 1990s
in a largely piece-meal manner, differentiated by regional and
thematic foci, with their management reflecting the institutional
fragmentation of the European Commission in this field. Project
funding is generally "re-active" (that is, application-driven).
Priority areas and eligibility criteria have varied for each budget
line, with criticism of the lack of an overall, coherent strategy.
Two developments in 1999 aimed at improving
the coherence of Commission activities in this field, a Council
"Human Rights" Regulation and common Commission "Guidelines"
covering most budget lines. The Council Regulation (975/1999)
of 29 April 1999 provides the legal basis for operations with
the objective of "developing and consolidating democracy
and the rule of law and respecting human rights and fundamental
freedoms",3 found to be lacking by the European Court of
Justice in its judgement of 12 May 1998 (Case 106/96). Common
"Guidelines" covering nine of the 11 budget lines within
Chapter B7-70 were published in June 1999, not including those
for Latin America (B7-7030) and the Mediterranean (B7-7050).4
These establish common thematic priorities, chosen from the areas
of activity covered by the above Council Regulation, as well as
common criteria for project selection. Thematic priorities for
1999 were as follows5:
— education and awareness-raising of
civil society;
— protection and promoting of the Rights
of the Child;
— conflict prevention and resolution
in countries in crisis;
— promotion of inter-ethnic and inter-racial
tolerance (especially in view of the World Conference on Racism
in 2001);
— good governance—measures to
promote transparency, accountability and the fight against corruption.
Additionally, individual budget lines continue to
set their own priorities.
1.3 Policy Implementation
Research was undertaken by the author on the
implementation by the EC of positive measures to promote human
rights and democracy in developing countries. The period 1993-97
was examined, with data for 1997 being the most recent available.
Information from the Commission's annual implementation reports
up to 1995 was supplemented by (unpublished) statistical data
provided by the Commision to the author for 1996 and 1997. Data
covers expenditure from Chapter B7-70 and from "other sources",
essentially the mainstream regional funds. A summary of findings
is given below.6
2. FINDINGS
Despite the promotion of human rights and democracy
becoming a high profile objective of EC development co-operation,
policy implementation suffers from many deficiencies and inadequacies.
Shortcomings were identified as follows.
2.1 Reporting Obligations
The European Commission has failed to meet its
annual reporting requirements to Council and Parliament, as stipulated
in the November 1991 Council Resolution on "Human Rights,
Democracy and Development". As of late 1999, no report had
been submitted to the Council and Parliament since that for 1995.
The consequent lack of accountability and transparency is particularly
contradictory and ironic in a field that purports to promote good
governance and democratisation in other countries.
2.2 Regional Distribution
A regional analysis of positive measures in
support of human rights and democracy revealed a concentration
of assistance to Latin America and Africa, with an astonishing
neglect of Asia.7 The small share of assistance to Asian developing
countries, as low as 1.5 per cent of total EC political aid in
1994 and 1996, is particularly astounding given the large proportion
of the global population that inhabits this region. In 1997, there
was indication of an increasing focus on Asia, though expenditure
remained relatively low. Such disparities in regional support
indicate a lack of consistency in implementation of policy objectives
amongst the fragmented regional programmes.
2.3 Sectoral Distribution
The EC's political aid programme was mapped
against stated priority targets.8 Disappointingly, the overall
findings were of the arbitrary and ad hoc nature of policy
implementation. There has been no guarantee, nor even likelihood,
that a statement of policy intent will be translated into policy
practice. This was demonstrated repeatedly in failures to re-focus
on democratic consolidation to maintain the emphasis on civil
society measures, to prioritise good governance measures, and
by the decline, not increase, in conflict prevention measures.
The example of support for "good governance" is instructive.
Despite being highlighted as a future priority in the Implementation
Report for 1993,9 activities that support the executive arm of
government have remained limited. Modest rises in annual expenditure
from 1994 to 1996 were not maintained, declining substantially
to just 2.8 per cent of total expenditure in 1997. Indeed, only
five measures globally were supported in this sector in 1997.
Such lack of policy coherence is of particular concern given the
insistence of the EU negotiators on the inclusion of "good
governance" as an essential element of the post-Lome IV agreement.
2.4 Programme Evaluation
At the end of almost a decade of democracy assistance,
evaluation of EC programmes in this area was conspicuous by its
virtual absence. As of late 1999, no major or comprehensive evaluation
of democracy and human rights programmes had been conducted. At
best, three studies can be pointed to, all limited in different
ways: an early (but now dated) evaluation of two budget line measures
(1991-93) by the German Development Institute (published in 1995);
an evaluation of the MEDA Democracy Programme 1996-98 (published
March 1999); and a large-scale evaluation of EU aid to ACP countries,
inclusive of a small section on "good governance" (published
November 1998). Currently a more significant evaluation is in
progress, though restricted to the ACP countries, to my knowledge.
It is due to be published shortly (late June) and its findings
could be most pertinent.
Evaluation is clearly essential to highlight
current deficiencies and to learn lessons in order to improve
future practices. A comprehensive study is needed, inclusive of
all geographical regions, as well as a series of thematic studies
on assistance to various sectors of democratic development, for
example, local government, legal sector reform, civil society
support, etc. All such evaluations could include a focus on the
inclusion of gender considerations and of women's political representation
and participation.
3. PROPOSALS
3.1 Reporting
An innovation in 1999 was the first Council
Annual Report on Human Rights, adopted on 11 October 1999. 10
One response by the European Parliament was to call for more information
in future reports, including the details of projects funded through
Chapter B7-70. 11 For projects in developing countries, such information
was provided by the annual Commission Implementation reports up
until 1995. Clarification is needed on the respective coverage
of Council and Commission annual reports. It is submitted here
that the Council report has a much broader remit and that the
(lapsed) Commission implementation reports should be revived,
inclusive of project information and analysis, with coverage extended
to include human rights and democracy funding to all non-EU states.
3.2 Conceptual Clarity: Democracy and Human
Rights
Within EC assistance, the two concepts of democracy
and human rights are discussed as one. Despite rolling off the
tongue together very easily, the interrelationship between them
requires clarification. Promoting respect for human rights is
a wider objective than democratisation, encompassing not only
civil and political rights, but also economic, social and cultural
rights, as well as the anti-discrimination covenants. Democracy
is a narrower concept than human rights but also broader than
civil and political rights, themselves constituting one component
of democracy. In practice, human rights have tended to be subordinated
to democracy, raising issues concerning the status of economic,
social and cultural rights. In their report on the EU and human
rights, Alston and Weiler expressed similar concerns that the
budget lines of Chapter B7-70, the "European Initiative for
Democracy and Human Rights", are largely confined to activities
relating to civil and political rights. 12
To achieve greater conceptual clarity, two suggestions
are made. One is that political aid measures be termed democracy
assistance programmes, inclusive of support for civil and political
rights as an integral element. The other is that the adoption
of a broader human rights-based approach to development should
entail by definition an increased focus on economic, social and
cultural rights, with specific programmes for the promotion of
those rights outlined in the UN International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
3.3 Strategy
A major obstacle to effectiveness is the lack
of a coherent democracy promotion strategy. EC policy implementation
remains fragmented and can be generally characterised as ad
hoc, reactive (ie application-driven) and lacking in coherence.
Whilst attempts in 1999 to improve coherence are acknowledged
(the Council "Human Rights" Regulation 976/1999 and
the Chapter B7-70 common guidelines), the underlying strategy
remains limited to a "menu" approach, providing a list
of institutional sectors from which the selection of democracy
assistance activities can be made, be it strengthening parliament
in country X or an independent media in country Y. The limitations
and weaknesses of such "institutional modelling", involving
an attempt to gradually transform the political institutions in
other countries in the image of established democracies, has been
clearly expounded by Carothers, with particular reference to US
democracy assistance. 13
Within the EC, research and reflection on democracy
promotion strategies and the role of external actors appear to
be urgently required. Such work could focus on at least three
areas. First, the elaboration of different strategies for the
range of different political situations encountered, at its most
basic, a distinction between countries where governments abuse
civil and political rights and where governments express a commitment
(at least rhetorically) to democratic principles. Second, a greater
emphasis on process rather than institutional end-points, for
example, the facilitation of processes of democratic decentralisation
or of enhancing political participation. Third, strategy at country
level should be based on domestic authorship, with external efforts,
focussed on fostering such internally-driven processes, for example,
the encouragement of national democratic dialogue on political
reform, bringing together key stakeholders, government and non-government.
14
3.4 Institutional Fragmentation and Management
Reform
Many of the deficiencies and incoherence of
EC human rights and democracy assistance stem from the extraordinary
institutional fragmentation and complexity that bedevil development
co-operation efforts more generally. A related element of these
bureaucratic constrains on effectiveness is the lack of transparency
and accountability regarding Commission efforts in this field.
Current management reform proposals deal briefly
and somewhat confusedly with EC "political air". The
management of "specific activities" such as human rights
(and presumably democracy) and CFSP is considered separately.
On the one hand, it is stated (correctly, in my view) that political
sensitivity requires that programming and implementation be retained
under the direct control of the lead DG. On the other hand, it
is stated somewhat contrarily that "the possibility of externalising
the management of the human rights budget headings should be explored".15
Two sets of institutional reforms are suggested.
First, there is the need for a single Democratisation Unit with
responsibility for taking the policy lead in this field for all
regions, inclusive of strategy papers, implementation and evaluation.
16 It could be argued that the best location of such a Unit would
be within DG RELEX, given the inclusion of democracy promotion
in Central and Eastern Europe. More fundamentally, however, all
development co-operation programmes should be managed by the Commission's
Development Directorate, not dispersed between DGs as at present.
Second, there is a need to examine the Commission's own structures
of governance and to engage in institutional reforms to achieve
a greater degree of transparency and accountability. Indeed, the
analysis of democracy promotion in EC external policy highlights
the democratic deficit to be addressed within the institutions
and structures of the European Union itself.
Dr Gordon Crawford
Lecturer in Development Studies, Institute for
Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds
June 2000
1 Crawford, G (2000), "European Union Development
Co-operation and the Promotion of Democracy" in P Burnell
(ed.) Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for
Democratization (Frank Cass, London).
2 Most confusingly, budget line codes are subject
to frequent change. Those given here were correct as of mid-1999.
3 This Regulation applies to financial measures
with regard to human rights and democracy in developing countries
only, whilst Regulation 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 applies to all
other countries. (OJ 120/8, 8 May 1999).
4 Only part of B7-7070 (Asia) is covered by the
guidelines, measures concerning China solely.
5 European Commission, European Initiative
for Democracy and Human Rights, June 1995, p 5.
6 See Crawford 2000 op. cit., pp 101-14.
7 Ibid. Table 2, p 105.
8 Ibid. pp 108-14.
9 European Commission, Report on the Implementation
in 1993 of the Resolution of the Council and the Member States
on Human Rights, Democracy and Development, adopted on 28 November
1991, p 15.
10 Council of Ministers, EU Annual Report
on Human Rights (11350/1999—C5-0265/1999).
11 European Parliament, Annual Report on International
Human Rights and European Union Human Rights Policy, 1999,
(A5-0060/2000).
12 P Alston and J H H Weiler, The European
Union and Human Rights: Final Project Report on an Agenda for
the Year 2000, (Florence: European University Institute, 1998),
para 106.
13 T Carothers "Democracy Assistance: The
Question of Strategy", in Democratization vol 4 no
3, (1997), pp 119-25.
14 The notion of national democratic dialogue
is one being promoted by International IDEA, including in the
context of ACP-EU relations. See International Institute for Democracy
and Electoral Assistance, Dialogue for Democratic Development:
Renewing the ACP-EU Partnership for the 21st Century, (Stockholm,
International IDEA, 1998).
15 European Commission, Communication to the
Commission on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
p 15.
16 Such views are not unique, of course. Indeed,
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has been
pressing for such reforms, with the Lenz Report of December 1997
precisely entitled "on setting up a single co-ordinating
structure within the European Commission responsible for human
rights and democratisation", Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Security and Defence Policy, 4 December 1997, Document number
A4-0393/97, (Luxembourg, European Parliament).
|
