9. COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTRY STRATEGY
PAPERS
(24101)
14865/02
SEC(02) 1279
|
Commission Staff Working Paper: Progress Report on the implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 26 November 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 18 December 2002
|
| Department: | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 9 January 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not expected
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared, but further information requested
|
The document
9.1 In November 2000, the Council asked the Commission
to draft Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) to provide a common framework
for programming Community aid to all developing countries which
receive assistance from the European Development Fund (EDF), the
Asia/LatinAmerica (ALA) programme and the Mediterranean (MEDA)
programme. This "CSP Framework" was later applied by
the Commission to the TACIS[30]
and CARDS[31] programmes.
9.2 In this first progress report, the Commission says
that its Services consider that "a qualitative leap in its
programming of external assistance has been achieved and that
the programming documents will serve as valuable, high-quality
management tools for the years ahead". The Commission says
that it regards the CSP Framework as a key vehicle for giving
operational substance to multi-annual programming and for improving
co-ordination and complementarity with the bilateral aid provided
by Member States. It will now be important to set up a mechanism
for monitoring and reviewing implementation of CSPs.
9.3 Setting out some basic principles, the Commission
suggests that the CSPs should be reviewed at the mid-term point
of the implementation period, except where this is short. The
review should be seen as an opportunity to:
- bring the strategy up to date;
- take account of and incorporate new EC/EU policy initiatives;
- measure results and performance; and
- improve the quality of the CSPs, correcting weaknesses in
the "first generation" documents.
9.4 The first generation CSPs were prepared in a relatively
short time and the Services believe that the process should be
continuous, with the programming documents being constantly improved.
Member States and the authorities of the partner countries were
closely involved in the programming process and this led to a
higher degree of ownership than had previously been the case.
The involvement of non-State Actors[32]
in the planning process, in particular in ACP[33]
countries, had been an important step forward.
The Government's view
9.5 The Secretary of State for International Development
(Clare Short) comments that the Government agrees with the report
that good progress has been made to date. However, she says the
quality of the first generation CSPs has not been universally
high — particularly in areas outside the ACP region. The
Common Framework aimed to focus Commission assistance on areas
within the EC Development Policy Statement of November 2000,[34]
but this has not been universally achieved.
9.6 The Minister says that:
"The introduction of the inter-service Quality Support Group,
which provides both a quality assurance and lesson-learning function,
was a welcome reform. This has helped to harmonise approaches
across the different regions and improve coherence with different
EC policies. The Commission has been working with other donors
to develop better performance indicators and these will need to
be integrated into CSPs.
"The UK Government has welcomed the progress made in introducing
the new CSPs, but has recognised that this is only the start,
and one part, of a wider process of improvement in the quality
and effectiveness of Commission assistance. The next phase of
CSP implementation and review will be equally important. DFID
will continue to monitor progress and participate in CSP Mid Term
Review processes, which will begin in 2004. Guidelines for the
review are still in preparation. We will work to influence the
shape of the reviews through contact in Brussels and through our
overseas offices".
9.7 The Minister says that, disappointingly, the CSP
exercise was not aimed at changing the lack of "poverty focus"
in the allocation of EC aid. Efforts to monitor and improve CSPs
are part of her Department's overall Public Service Agreement
strategy of increasing the impact that key multilateral agencies,
including the EC, are making in reducing poverty. She adds that
the work of her Department to try to improve the effectiveness
of EC development efforts has been much weakened by the decision
of the Seville European Council to abolish the Development Council.
Conclusion
9.8 This positive report on Country Strategy Papers
demonstrates that the institution of this process has been well
worthwhile. We welcome the ambition of the Commission to improve
on them, as a continuous process, and the Government's commitment
to monitoring progress.
9.9 We also note the remarks by the Secretary of State
about the abolition of the Development Council. We take this opportunity
to ask her to set out for us in rather more detail the practical
effect which the decision has had, and any suggestions which she
may have for restoring greater influence within the Council to
ministers responsible for development issues.
9.10 Meanwhile, we clear the document.
30 Eastern
Europe and Central Asia. Back
31 Western
Balkans. Back
32 Examples
of NSAs include non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based
organisations and their representatives, whether from trade unions
or employers' associations, business organisations, associations
of churches, universities, cultural associations, media groups
or the private sector. Back
33 The
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which have signed the
Cotonou Agreement. Back
34 (21703)
- ; see HC 23-xxviii (1999-2000), paragraph 31 (1 November 2000). Back
| 
