5 PROGRESS ON "THE MONTERREY CONSENSUS"
ON DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
(25441)
7108/04
COM(04) 150
| Commission Communication: Translating the Monterrey Consensus into practice: the contribution by the European Union
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 5 March 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
11 March 2004 |
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 19 March 2004 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| To be discussed in Council
| 26-27 April GAERC |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared but further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Prior to the European Council in Barcelona in March 2002,
the Commission issued a Communication in which it set out possible
commitments which the Member States might sign up to in advance
of the International Conference on Financing for Development in
Monterrey on 18 March 2002. The aim, which the Commission claimed
was subsequently achieved, was to work towards a positive outcome
to the Conference. The commitments made at Barcelona were reflected
in the final declaration of the Conference, the "Monterrey
Consensus".[9]
5.2 The Member States made eight commitments covering: aid volume;
co-ordination and harmonisation; aid untying; trade-related assistance;
global public goods;[10]
innovative sources of financing; reform of the international financial
system; and debt relief.
5.3 The Commission is mandated to report annually
on the extent to which EU Member States and the Commission implement
these commitments and in December 2003 it completed a survey of
current and future Member States to collect information for this
second report on progress.
The Commission Communication
5.4 The Commission notes that:
- the EU is on track to meet
its 2006 targets for an increase in the volume of Official Development
Assistance as a share of Gross National Income;
- measures have been taken to meet the commitments
on aid untying and debt relief; and
- progress on Global Public Goods, trade-related
assistance and innovative sources of financing is also promising.
5.5 The Commission says that, in contrast to progress
on these issues, little has been done to achieve closer co-ordination
of policies and harmonisation of procedures. It comments that
this is striking in view of the Barcelona Council Conclusions
that practical steps should be taken before 2004. Member States
appear unwilling to apply, in their bilateral programmes, policies
and operational frameworks agreed at the EU level. In this Communication,
therefore, the Commission focuses on making a case for faster
progress and puts forward proposals for further action both centrally
and at country-level. Specifically it recommends:
- A more closely coordinated
policy of EU donors should inform the aid systems of the individual
Member States and the Union's position in the international debate.
Sector and thematic guidelines should apply to bilateral assistance
as well as to Community aid.
- By 2006 all Member States should work on the
basis of multi-annual programming based on the existing "Common
Framework for Country Strategy Papers". EU programming cycles
should be harmonised around the national policy framework and
budget cycle of each partner country.
- The EU should take initiatives to jointly develop
key inputs for the multi-annual programming process. The Council
should debate a proposal by the Commission for a common framework
for aid implementation procedures, which could take the form of
a Directive.
- A strategy for complementarity[11]
within the EU should be debated by the Member States before the
end of 2004 and "operationalised" by 2006. The Commission
identifies the main need for coordination as being to avoid overcrowding
in countries or sectors which appeal to many donors and underinvestment
in more challenging areas.
- An EU Action Plan for coordination and harmonisation
should be established in any partner country where two or more
EU donors have a cooperation programme.
- The practice of an annual report on EU coordination
should be extended to all partner countries. The Member States
and the Commission should undertake to step up information-sharing.
The Government's view
5.6 The Secretary of State for International Development
(Mr Hilary Benn) says that the Government accepts the Commission's
assessment that progress is satisfactory towards meeting the EU
targets for an increase in the volume of Official Development
Assistance. It also accepts the view that no major further initiatives
at Community level need to be taken during 2004 on untying of
aid, global public goods, trade-related assistance, innovative
sources of financing and debt relief.
5.7 On co-ordination of policy and harmonisation
of procedures on development assistance, the Minister says that
the Government agrees that the EU has the potential to make progress
and, in doing so, to set an example to others. However, he comments:
"particularly at the country level, we believe
that the EU should not act independently where more broadly-based
initiatives are underway. Nor should it adopt standardised approaches
to aid policy and programmes inconsistent with supporting partner
country-led initiatives for harmonisation. Accordingly, on the
specific proposals put forward in the Communication, our view
is as follows:
- We disagree with the view that EC-developed sector
and thematic guidelines should apply to bilateral assistance as
well as to Community aid. Central policy prescriptions can only
be applied at a very general level. It is inappropriate to seek
to apply common approaches regardless of local circumstances.
The best that can be achieved is that generally sound developmental
principles for specific sectors be applied. We will be willing
to engage further with the EU as it strengthens its policy capacity.
- We have no objection [to] moving towards shared/integrated
country programming with other donors where this is clearly based
upon partner countries' poverty reduction strategies. We do not
consider it appropriate however to limit such approaches only
to EU members, and to exclude other donors who might otherwise
also join in the development of integrated country programmes.
- We support the idea of the EU taking initiatives
to jointly develop key inputs for the multi-annual programming
process. In this context, DFID has already made a commitment
to move towards a shared analysis within partner countries/sectors.
- The Commission proposes to develop a common framework
for aid implementation procedures, which could take the form of
a Directive. We believe the best solution is to help build partners'
capacity to manage development resources using their own public
financial management systems. Where this is not yet feasible,
common donor systems, whether among EU Member States or more widely,
have value as a step towards this goal and we support them on
that basis.
- We have no objection to developing
and discussing a strategy for complementarity
within the EU.
- We do not support the Commission's idea to establish
an EU Action Plan for coordination and harmonisation in partner
countries where two or more EU donors have a cooperation programme.
The aim for EU members should be to support development and implementation
of a nationally-owned plan to harmonise donor practices.
- In principle we support the proposal to produce
an annual report on EU coordination. But we must be careful not
to duplicate existing reporting mechanisms.
- We agree, that the Member States and the Commission
should undertake to step up information sharing in general."
Conclusion
5.8 The Commission has measured progress against
the Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 2002. In
seeking to promote progress where little or none has been made,
it opts for formulas which seem to us, as also (apparently) to
the Government, to be too prescriptive. Whereas there may be
value in common donor systems being more widely adopted, particularly
if they are simple to operate and work well, we have doubts about
the need for a Directive which sets out a common framework for
procedures for implementing aid, and would not expect it to be
proposed by the Commission unless it can make a good case. We
agree with the Minister that local circumstances, and coordination
with donors beyond the EU, should be taken more into account than
the Commission appears to visualise. Practices and thinking on
these subjects have moved on since 2002, with greater attention
now being paid to local capacity building.
5.9 Whilst we note that the Government supports
in principle an annual report on EU coordination, we wish to see
the general trend of long time-consuming bureaucratic exercises,
in which too much information is committed to paper, reversed.
If an annual report is to be produced it should be very short,
with future intentions described succinctly.
5.10 We now clear the document but ask the Minister
to report on any substantive points raised in any discussion of
it in the Council.
9 (23287) 6564/02; see HC 152-xxix (2001-02), para
17 (15 May 2002). Back
10
Global or international public goods are public goods whose provision
or associated benefits spill over national boundaries, such as
eliminating or preventing the spread of disease across borders. Back
11
Bilateral and EU-level programmes should complement each other. Back
|
