30 Pre-accession assistance in 2001
| (24651)
10655/03
COM(03) 329
ADD 1
| Commission general report on pre-accession assistance (PHARE
— ISPA — SAPARD) in 2001.
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 20 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxx (2002-03), paragraph 5 (16 July 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
30.1 This is the second annual report by the Commission on the
three pre-accession aid instruments, PHARE,[66]
ISPA[67] and SAPARD,[68]
and their coordination.[69]
It sets out the allocation of each instrument on a country-by-country
basis and explains the development of the two new instruments
introduced in 2000 (ISPA and SAPARD). All three programmes operate
under guidelines agreed in 1999 and first implemented in 2000.
To minimise the overlap between the three instruments, the areas
of responsibility were agreed as follows:
· PHARE'S
main purpose should be to assist the candidate countries to adopt
the acquis communautaire and to prepare them for using
Structural Funds;
· ISPA should
be to assist in the implementation of EC environment policy and
to build the Trans-European Transport Network; and
· SAPARD's purpose
should be to assist in the implementation of the acquis in
relation to the Common Agricultural Policy and all related areas.
In addition to primary agricultural production, projects to improve
product processing, marketing and quality are eligible for support,
as are more general rural development measures.
The Minister's letter
30.2 We did not clear this document when we considered
it on 16 July, but asked the Secretary of State when it would
be possible to make a sound assessment of the EC pre-accession
assistance programmes. We commented that it was disappointing
to learn from the Minister that the more recently established
programme, SAPARD, had not been very efficient in contracting
and disbursing funds. Once again, it appeared that the administrative
deficiencies of the candidate countries had been under-estimated.
We also said that it was just as disappointing to read that,
as recently as 2001, PHARE projects were evaluated as poorly designed
and prepared.
30.3 The former Secretary of State (Baroness Amos)
replied as follows:
"The new PHARE procedures introduced in
the 2000 programme cannot be properly assessed until its conclusion.
The programme will conclude in 2003, except for those elements
that have received extensions. It is disappointing that the Joint
Monitoring Committees concluded that an appreciable number of
PHARE projects in 2001 were poorly designed. It should be noted
however, that these projects belonged to older programmes (prior
to 2000) and as far as we can determine, future ones should prove
to be more effective. For example, recent initiatives to introduce
multi-annual programming in PHARE and more delegated authority
to the recipient governments should improve the effectiveness
of programming. DFID has requested that an evaluation seminar
be held later this year, specifically with regards to the PHARE
programme but also covering ISPA and SAPARD. This should enable
us to develop a clearer understanding of the current effectiveness
of programming."
Conclusion
30.4 We have indicated elsewhere in this Report[70]
that we may ask the current Secretary of State to give evidence
to us on the issues raised in this document and related issues
after the seminar on evaluation.
30.5 We now clear this document.
66 The PHARE programme supports economic restructuring
and democratic reform in the states of Central and Eastern Europe,
the Baltic States and in Albania, FYROM, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Back
67
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession. Back
68
Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development. Back
69
(24225) 5585/03; see HC 63-xv (2002-03), paragraph 15 (19 March
2003). Back
70
(24336) and (24660) ; see paragraphs 27 and 31. Back
| 
