3 Decentralised cooperation in overseas
development programmes
| (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 on decentralised cooperation.
Draft Regulation extending and amending Council Regulation 1659/98 on decentralised cooperation.
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 179 (1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 5 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxi (2002-03), paragraph 4 (10 September 2003)
|
| 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
3.1 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.
3.2 The assessment report concludes that, though
relevant, decentralised cooperation lacks consistency and is not
sufficiently coordinated. A lack of resources prevents it from
achieving the desired impact. After taking the report into account,
the Commission proposes to amend and extend the legal base for
a further three years.
3.3 We did not clear the document from scrutiny when
we considered it on 10 September 2003. It appeared that the Commission
was incapable of structuring its development programmes without
incorporating fundamental defects. We asked the former Minister
to comment on why she thought that this was the case. We drew
attention, for instance, to the severe criticism in the report
of the failure to monitor and evaluate projects and the comment
in it that there was still no real evaluation system, and that
there was a failure to capitalise on experience.
3.4 The report also noted that the budget line proposed
was small and its predecessor was heavily over-subscribed. We
asked the Minister whether, in her view, the changes proposed
by the Commission would remedy the situation soon enough to avoid
further frustration amongst selectors and applicants. Like her,
we also wished to see a more precise forecast of the staffing
and administrative costs than given in the financial statement
attached to the proposal to amend the Regulation.
The Minister's letter
3.5 The Secretary of State for International Development
(Mr Hilary Benn) has responded as follows:
"The report criticises the lack of monitoring
and evaluation for projects and I note that this is not an isolated
incident. The Court of Auditors report on the Implementation
of EDF Infrastructure projects[6]
raised this as an issue and this is a concern to my Department.
Projects financed under the decentralised cooperation are intrinsically
difficult to evaluate, as the results are not tangible and therefore
hard to quantify. The budget line has been heavily over-subscribed,
and the Commission understaffed to manage the fund. The Commission
admits that, due to the high number of proposals received, there
was a greater focus on selection of projects over monitoring and
evaluation. However, better targeting and improved selection procedures
will allow the Commission to place a much greater emphasis on
the monitoring and evaluation of projects. The Commission has
already implemented some reforms, which deal with some of the
concerns raised and aims to initiate a number of others that will
deal with the other concerns raised.
"We are aware of the heavy over-subscription
of the budget line, and of the frustrations and difficulties that
this has caused. Whilst the Commission's proposed changes will
not, in themselves, remedy this situation, a Member State working
group is looking at issues of better targeting, and representatives
from my Department are attending this working group. European
Confederation of NGOs for Relief and Development (CONCORD) are
holding similar working groups (BOND represent UK development
NGOs on this group), and the two groups will come together in
the Autumn to agree revised guidelines and selection procedures
for the fund.
"We do not yet have a more precise forecast
of staffing and administrative costs for the budget line, but
will raise the issue at the Development Cooperation Working Group
(DCWG)."
Conclusion
3.6 We continue to be puzzled by the time it
appears to take the Commission to respond to unsatisfactory situations.
In this case, for instance, it admits that it was understaffed
to manage the fund and that there was a greater focus on selection
of projects than on monitoring and evaluation. We would have
thought that the situation ought to have been clear to the management
and corrective action taken without the need to wait for a report.
The Government appears to have accepted the Commission's excuses
without serious challenge.
3.7 In his response to the question of the over-subscribed
budget, the Minister appears to accept that the solution is to
revise the selection procedures, rather than to argue for an even
greater increase in the budget than that proposed. We are unclear
as to the Government's reason for this, at a time when there is
a growing recognition in the international community that there
should be a shift away from "blue plaque" infrastructure
projects towards exactly the objectives of this budget line, with
its emphasis on a participatory approach to development and to
reinforcing civil society and grassroots democracy. If there
is reluctance among some Member States to respond to this recognition
and consider a more radical shift in budgetary allocations, it
would be helpful if the Minister could indicate this and the exact
position of the Government.
3.8 We ask the Minister to comment further on
these points, perhaps in the light of the recommendations of the
two working groups, if their agreement on revised guidelines and
selection procedures is imminent. We can well understand that
he may wish to see the more precise forecast of staffing and administrative
costs before he responds. We also ask him what amendments the
Government will require to be made to the proposed Regulation
before it is ready to support the Commission's proposal and when
he expects the proposal to be put to the Council.
3.9 Meanwhile, we shall hold both documents under
scrutiny.
6 (24742) 11238/03; see HC 63-xxxii (2002-03), paragraph
4 (17 September 2003) and paragraph 13 below. Back
| 
