4 Operations financed under the decentralised
cooperation Regulation
| (a)
(24748)
11465/03
COM(03) 412
(b)
(24749)
11466/03
COM(03) 413
|
Commission Communication — overall assessment of the operations financed by the Community under the regulation of decentralised cooperation.
Draft Regulation extending and amending Council Regulation 1659/98 on decentralised cooperation.
|
| Legal base | (a) —; (b) Article 179 (1) EC; QMV
|
| Documents originated | 11 July 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 July 2003
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EMs of 28 July 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
The proposed Regulation and the Commission Communication
4.1 The Communication outlines the findings of an assessment of
operations financed under the "decentralised cooperation"
budget line, B7-6002. It was created in 1992 to promote a more
participative approach to development cooperation in all developing
countries, and to incorporate better the concept of decentralised
cooperation into the development cooperation programmes financed
by the Commission. It is intended to support operations and initiatives
that promote:
- A more participatory approach to development that is responsive
to the needs and initiatives of people in developing countries;
- A contribution to the diversification and reinforcement
of civil society and grassroots democracy in the countries concerned.
4.2 It is intended as a catalyst to promoting political
and social dialogue in the beneficiary countries, to support local
development, and to involve local partners in development cooperation
and the programming process.
4.3 The assessment was commissioned to fulfil the
Commission's obligations under the existing Regulation,[4]
which is due to expire on 31 December 2003, and also to help it
to decide whether to extend the budget line's legal base. After
taking into account the conclusions and recommendations of the
assessment, the Commission proposes to amend and extend the legal
base for a further three years. In order to make a clearer distinction
between decentralised cooperation and NGO[5]
co-financing budget lines, the Commission proposes to:
- define the value added by decentralised
cooperation more precisely; and
- to target each budget line's potential partners
more specifically. To this end it proposes to replace Article
3 with a text which provides a broader definition of potential
partners for decentralised cooperation, so that it reads:
"The cooperation partners eligible for financial
support under this Regulation shall be decentralised cooperation
agents in the Community or the developing countries, such as:
local (including municipal) authorities, non-governmental organisations,
local traders' associations and local citizens' groups, cooperatives,
trade unions, economic and social actors organisations, consumer
organisations, women's and youth organisations, teaching and research
institutions, universities, churches, media, political foundations
and any non-governmental association likely to contribute to development".
4.4 The report assesses:
- consistency with the principles
of decentralised cooperation and with other Community instruments;
- relevance to decentralised cooperation partners;
and
- management of the budget line.
4.5 According to the report, there is very little
documentation on the impact and results of projects but, since
2000, there has been a greater emphasis on building institutions,
rather than building capacity in specific areas. The creation
of the B7-6002 budget line has been a trigger for discussion on
the concept of decentralised cooperation. This has paved the way
for the changes introduced in the Cotonou Agreement on the participation
of civil society.
4.6 The report concludes that, though relevant, decentralised
cooperation lacks consistency and is not sufficiently coordinated,
and a lack of resources prevents it from achieving the desired
impact. Added value came from the instrument's flexibility, particularly
making it possible for partners from the South, that is the developing
world, to conclude contracts directly with the Commission. The
fact that 40% of these partners were NGOs meant that the decentralised
cooperation line had not yet managed to involve all the categories
of partners who, potentially, could benefit.
4.7 Assessing the management of the budget line,
the report says that the line had been massively over-subscribed,
leaving the selectors and the applicants frustrated. The selection
process lacked transparency, particularly as far as the partners
from the South were concerned, and information on how to draw
up proposals was inadequate. The failure to monitor and evaluate
projects is severely criticised, with the management of the project
cycle heavily dominated by evaluation at the expense of monitoring
which, despite the small number of projects financed, had been
confined to contractual and budgetary issues. There was still
no real evaluation system. Furthermore, there had been a failure
to capitalise on experience, identify good practice and disseminate
results, despite these obligations being listed in the operational
guide.
4.8 The recommendations concentrate on suggestions
for improving the consistency and quality of the proposals and
the results achieved, for cost-effectiveness and for targeting
the budget line more precisely in the new Regulation. Two options
are put forward on targeting, each with its pros and cons. Targeting
could be at broad geographic areas, or confined exclusively to
the ACP countries.[6]
4.9 Options to improve the quality of the proposals
include:
- the use of networks to increase
the transfer of know-how from North to South; technical assistance
networks for partners in the South; increased monitoring and evaluation
to improve knowledge of the impact of operations and to provide
a sounder basis for future decisions; and
- improved website content.
To enhance the line's specific nature, it is suggested
that the decentralised cooperation line is distinguished from
the NGO cofinancing line, participation is fostered, and the role
of Northern NGOs changed to one of offering experience and know-how.
It is also proposed that the line's financial resources are increased
and that the minimum size of projects is, in some instances, reduced.
4.10 The Commission says that it favours geographical
targeting that focuses on countries where traditional aid instruments
are unable to make a significant contribution to participatory
development.
The Government's view
4.11 The Secretary of State for International Development
(Baroness Amos) says that the Government believes the B7-6002
budget heading is still important as a complementary instrument,
particularly where traditional instruments fail, are inappropriate,
or have limited impact, although this must be part of a package
of overall improvements. The Minister comments that the Commission's
suggestion on targeting shows that it is modernising its thinking
with regards to development: "However, more structured coordination,
better monitoring and evaluation, wider involvement of all categories
of decentralised cooperation actors and better targeting would
make this a more effective budget line". The Government
therefore, supports the Commission's proposal to amend and extend
the legal base for a further three years.
4.12 On the issue of mainstreaming decentralised
cooperation into regional programmes, the Minister says that at
the moment this could lead to potential geographical issues.
"Once deconcentration has fully taken place,
(probably by 2005/2006), it may be appropriate to mainstream the
issue into regional regulations, as part of the negotiations on
the Financial Perspectives 2006-2013."
4.13 The Minister adds:
"The UK Government is content with the proposed
wording of the amended Regulation. It is encouraging that Article
1 recognises the need for a more participatory approach and the
need to take into account varying needs and conditions when adopting
country approaches. This is in line with our own thinking, and
also with the recent Commission Communication on the role of non-state
actors in EC Development Policy (COM(2002) 598 Final).[7]
The expansion of Article 3 to include a wider definition of potential
actors is also welcome".
4.14 On the assessment, the Minister says that the
Government strongly welcomes the focus on poverty reduction and
the focus on the role of Southern (developing country) partners.
The focus on the transfer of 'know-how' from North to South,
technical assistance for actors in the South, and the changing
role of northern NGOs to one of offering experience are all essential
in building up the capacity of southern civil society.
4.15 On the financial implications of the amended
Regulation, the Minister says:
"This is a small budget line — the proposal
specifies a reference amount of €18 million over 3 years
(of which the UK would contribute €3.4 million per annum).
The UK welcomes this increase although we would like to see some
information on staffing/administration costs. We would welcome
improvements to the monitoring and evaluation, but would not want
a significant increase on staffing/administration costs to allow
this. The Communication suggests that improvement to the selection
process would provide more time for monitoring activities —
it is important that this happens in practice".
Conclusion
4.16 Whilst welcoming the principle of decentralised
cooperation, and acknowledging that new practices take time to
bed in, we are disappointed that the assessment reveals that the
Commission appears to be incapable of structuring its development
programmes without incorporating fundamental defects. We ask
the Minister to comment on why she thinks this is the case. We
refer, for instance, to the severe criticism in the report of
the failure to monitor and evaluate projects and the comment that
there is still no real evaluation system, and that there is a
failure to capitalise on experience.
4.17 The budget line proposed is small and its
predecessor was heavily over-subscribed. We wonder whether the
changes proposed by the Commission will remedy this situation
soon enough to avoid further frustration amongst selectors and
applicants, and ask the Minister for her view. Like her, we also
wish to seea more precise forecast of the staffing and administrative
costs than given in the financial statement attached to the proposal
to amend the Regulation.
4.18 We shall hold these documents under scrutiny,
awaiting the Minister's reply.
4 Regulation (EC) No. 1659/98, extended and amended
by Regulation (EC) No. 955/2002. Back
5
Non-governmental organisation. Back
6
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which are signatories
to the Lomé Convention and its successor, the ACP-EC Partnership
Agreement, known as the Cotonou Agreement. Back
7
(23985) 14105/02; see HC 63-vi (2002-03), paragraph2 (8 January
2003). Back
| 
