APPENDIX 7
Memorandum submitted by Simon Stocker,
Director, European Solidarity Towards Equal Participation of People
(Eurostep)
INTRODUCTION
The current proposals of the Commission for
re-organising the external services have profound implications
for the EC's Development Co-operation. While the rationale for
the proposed changes are largely defined as being concerned with
the effectiveness of the programme, this hides crucial political
differences within the Commission. At issue is the survival of
a development co-operation approach with its own rationale, as
set out in Title XX of the Treaty on European Union.[4]
If the proposals are implemented as defined within the Communication
to the Commission on the Reform of the Management of External
Assistance, [5]
the EC development programme will lose its independent characteristics
and be defined by the external political priorities of the European
Union.
There is no doubt that reforms are necessary
to ensure that the EC development programme can be effectively
implemented. Many of these are addressed in the Communication
to the Commission. However, the main problem is political in nature
and until the political framework has been clearly defined, it
is hard to see how the technical and administrative arrangements
can be properly determined. Without clarity at this level the
management and administrative reforms take on political dimensions.
At best they become substitutes for resolving political differences.
At worst they are used to secure specific political objectives
without open debate. In either case these reforms are unlikely
to succeed in achieving their stated objectives.
CONFLICTING INTERESTS
WITHIN THE
COMMISSION
Without doubt there is a conflict within the
Commission between perspectives on development co-operation and
external political policies, in which the latter is becoming increasingly
the dominant determinant. The recent Communication from the Commission
on EC Development Policy[6]
acknowledges this and is confirmed by the Communication on reforming
the management of the external services. The recent personal Communication
to the Commission from the Commissioner for External Relations[7]
emphasises this further.
THE FUTURE
OF DG DEVELOPMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
The reforms proposals for the external services
will lead to a further transfer of functions from the current
DG Development to the extent that its very existence will be questioned.
Indeed there are already widespread expectations that by the end
of the current Commission reform process DG Development will no
longer exist, with its functions being transferred either to the
new EUAid office, or to DG External Relations. If this is the
case what will become of development policy? Transferring policy
functions to the EUAid office would not seem appropriate as the
whole basis for establishing the office is that this should be
a technical service. Transferring development policy to External
Affairs would most certainly ensure that co-operation policy became
an instrument of external political policies.
Such a process also runs counter to the principles
on which the recent Commission Communication on Development Policy
is based. For poverty reduction to be the over-arching objective
of the EC's co-operation with developing countries requires dedicated
capacity within the Commission whose principal task is to develop
strategies for ensuring this is integrated into the EC's programme.
This is unlikely to happen if development co-operation policy
was integrated into DG External Relations whose principle objectives
are those defined by external political priorities. Should this
happen development co-operation would soon become an instrument
of the EU's external political policies.
It should be clearly recognised that should
a separate Directorate for development no longer exist it is likely
that the Development Committee within the European Parliament
would soon follow. This would in itself have far reaching consequences
as the Development Committee is arguably the most important body
within the EU's institutions in which the independent interests
of EU's development policies and programmes can be championed.
While Member States and the Development Council are also critical,
there will always be a tendency for national interests to more
likely prevail.
EC CO -OPERATION
THROUGH CIVIL SOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS
The way in which the reforms will effect co-operation
through NGOs is symptomatic of the internal agreements. In the
first instance the fact that no contracts have been signed for
NGO co-financing in the first six months of 2000 cannot be merely
attributed to administrative consequences of the reform process;
it is more fundamental than that and is a reflection of internal
differences within the Commission. Within the Communication on
reforming the management of external services it was suggested
that relations with civil society could be seen as having a special
characteristic that warranted it remaining within DG Development.
However it also indicated that further consideration should be
given to this. It now appears likely that the management of the
financing of NGO activities will indeed be placed in the EUAid
office.
The location of the management of the NGOs budget
lines matters considerably. Placed within DG Development the role
of civil society will be more easily seen as being related to
policy dialogue. In the EUAid office NGOs will become instrumentalised.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
IN THE
REFORM OF
THE EXTERNAL
SERVICES
One of the major problems with the current approaches
to the effectiveness and efficiency of the EC development programme,
and the reforms in management of the external services, is that
many of the Commission's previous reforms have sought to provide
technical or administrative solutions to what are essentially
political problems. The establishment of the Common Service is
a graphic example where its establishment was a response to the
lack of capacity within the Commission to manage its broad programme.
This did not increase capacity, but in many ways produced further
duplications by breaking the project cycle.
The current management reform proposals do start
to address many of the technical and administrative weaknesses,
but in a context where the overall policy and political framework
have not been resolved. Not surprisingly much confusion and uncertainty
results. It is therefore crucial that the political policy framework
of the Commission's external services is properly addressed so
that there can be clarity around the specific roles and functions
of the technical services and functions of the Commission.
On the basis of the Treaty for European Union
which establishes the legal basis for the three specific elements
of the EU's external actions—trade, political external relations,
and development co-operation—the following steps need to
be taken:
1. The specific rationale and objectives
of the three pillars of the EU's external actions need to be clearly
defined, including the motivation for those actions, their orientation
and the specific policies on which they are based. This will provide
the basis on which consistency between the EU's different elements
of its external activities, as laid down in Article 3, will be
achieved.
2. For development co-operation its independent
nature as an independent pillar of the EU's external actions is
established in Title XX of the EU's Treaty. The EU's Development
Co-operation is orientated specifically towards developing countries
and defines the EU's approaches and objectives towards them. While
this includes political and trade elements it is derived primarily
from development policy objectives and not from the political
and trade interests of the EU. The recent Communication from the
Commission on development policy provides the latest opportunity
to develop these further. The over-riding objective of poverty
reduction in developing countries is a central defining element
of this part of the EU's actions, and on which the strategies
for the EC's co-operation programmes with developing countries
should be drawn.
3. To enable this to be realised requires
a distinct Directorate responsible for this task, which has equal
status with those of External Relations and of Trade. DG Development
needs to be retained with a Commissioner for Development charged
with defending its interests within the College.
4. DG Development should be responsible
not only for developing EC policies and strategies for their implementation
through the EC development programme, but also for the programming
process in all developing countries, not only those within ACP
countries. Responsibility for developing countries outside the
ACP group should therefore be transferred into DG Development.
5. The capacity of DG Development needs
to be increased to enable the EU's development policies to be
translated into practical strategies that are integrated into
the EC's programme. This does not mean that the Commission needs
to necessarily duplicate expertise that exists in other institutions,
but it does require the expertise to draw on this and to develop
effective strategies for its integrating into EC programmes. Such
capacity is required both in delegations, and in Brussels.
6. Since the EC's aid programme is primarily
concerned with implementing its co-operation programme with developing
countries, the Commissioner for Development must have the political
responsibility for its implementation, and therefore for the EUAid
office. This should not be seen as being the same as the role
of the Chief Executive Officer, which is more equated with the
role of a Director General within the Commission.
7. The management of the technical services
need to be organised on the basis of sound and effective management
principles in which the mandates are clearly defined, and accountability
is linear.
8. Decentralising more decision making to
the delegations is necessary, but this also requires clarity being
established on the management of delegations and their personnel
so that accountability for decisions taken is clear.
Simon Stocker,
Director European Solidarity Towards Equal Participation
of People (Eurostep)
June 2000
4 Commission of the European Communities, European
Union consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and
the Treaty Establishing the European Community incorporating
the changes made by the Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997. Back
5
Commission of the European Communities, Communication to the
Commission on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance,
May 2000. Back
6
Commission of the European Communities, Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament-The
European Community's Development Policy Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament-The European
Community's Development Policy, April 2000. Back
7
Communication from Chris Patten to the European Commission
aimed at engaging a debate on the EU's external relations,
June 2000. Back
| 
