3 EC External Action — new instruments
for co-operation
| (a)
(26041)
13686/04
COM(04) 626
(b)
(26042)
13687/04
COM(04) 627
(c)
(26043)
13688/04
COM(04) 628
(d)
(26044)
13689/04
COM(04) 629
(e)
(26045)
13690/04
COM(04) 630
|
Commission Communication on the Instruments for External Assistance under the Future Financial Perspective 2007-2013
Draft Council Regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
Draft Council Regulation establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
Draft Council Regulation establishing an instrument for development cooperation and economic cooperation.
Draft Council Regulation establishing an establishing an Instrument for Stability
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 181a EC; unanimity for candidate countries, QMV for others; consultation
(c) and (d) Articles 179 and 181a EC; QMV; co-decision
(e) Article 308; consultation; unanimity
|
| Documents originated | 29 September 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 October 2004
|
| Department | (a) and (d) International Development
(b), (c) and (e)Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 18 July 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | (26041-5) 13686-90/04: HC 38-i (2004-05) paras 9 and 13 (1 December 2004). See also (25367) 6232/04: HC 42-xv (2003-04), paras 1-37 (24 March 2004) and (25847) 11607/04: HC 42-xxxiv (2003-04), para 13 (27 October 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Yet to be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee B
|
Background
3.1 At present the EC's External Actions spending is funded from
a multitude of diverse instruments and budget lines. As part of
the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective, the Commission proposed,
last September, that all External Actions spending should be rationalized
and simplified under one heading (Heading 4) and implemented
under six Instruments. Three new instruments would support EU
external policies directly: a Pre-Accession Instrument (IPA)
for candidate and potential candidate countries covering institution-building,
cooperation, rural development and human resources development;
a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)
for all countries covered by the European Neighbourhood policy,
to enhance political security, economic and cultural cooperation
and to offer participation in EU activities; and a Development
Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument (DCECI)
to support developing countries in reaching the UN Millennium
Development Goals, which the Commission proposed should include
the successor to the 9th European Development Fund (i.e. that
the EDF should be "budgetised"). They would be complemented
by three thematic Instruments, principally to respond to
crisis situations until normal cooperation can resume: a new Instrument
for Stability and the existing, essentially unchanged Humanitarian
Aid and Macro-Financial Assistance Instruments.
3.2 Although broadly supportive of the Commission
proposals, the relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office and International
Development Ministers had a number of concerns, principally that
the IPA and ENPI were too broadly focussed and the DCECI was too
geographical and insufficiently developmental; about the EDF "budgetisation"
proposal; and that the Stability Instrument was much less well-defined
than the others, with a real risk of overlap with both the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and actions under the Justice
and Home Affairs pillar and an uncertain legal basis (Article
308 EC). The draft Regulations also had much to say about the
management process, which is what will ultimately determine the
cost-effectiveness of significant expenditure but about which
neither Minister had much to say.
3.3 The previous Committee decided that it would
recommend both the Communication and the draft Regulations for
debate, once the Government indicated that discussion in the Working
Groups and with the European Parliament had reached the stage
that would make it worthwhile, and asked the Ministers to keep
it informed of progress.[10]
The Minister's letter
3.4 The Minister of State for Europe in the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (Mr Douglas Alexander) wrote to us on
18 July 2005 as follows:
"You asked that the Committee be kept informed
of progress and advised when discussions on the draft regulations
would be likely to conclude, in order to schedule a debate.
"We do not know yet when discussions on
the draft regulations will conclude. However I thought it would
be useful to provide an update and outline our plans for taking
things forward as we begin the UK Presidency of the EU. This is
a joint letter with DfID and has been agreed with [HM Treasury].
"Discussions on EC external assistance in
the next Financial Perspective have so far focussed on the draft
regulations for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(ENPI), Pre-Accession Instrument (IPA), Development Co-operation
and Economic Co-operation Instrument (DCECI) and Stability Instrument.
"The Committee will recall that the UK initially
argued for the ENPI and IPA to be small and narrowly focussed,
with countries able to draw on funding for social and economic
development from a large, global, DCECI. The Commission's July
2004 communication and draft regulations proposed that the ENPI
and IPA should be comprehensive in scope, with the DCECI limited
to other countries. We argued that funding organised according
to objectives, rather than geography, would make for more effective
and transparent use of EC funds and increase the scope to focus
EC aid on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
But as discussions progressed, it became clear that we did not
have support from other Member States and that our position on
the architecture of the proposals was not going to hold sway.
We therefore decided to focus our efforts on ensuring our substantive
policy objectives were met within the Commission's proposed structure.
"In taking the negotiation forward as Presidency
we will need to establish consensus among Member States, and reach
agreement within the EP. On two of the instruments — IPA
and ENPI — I believe the latest texts provide a good basis
for reaching agreement in line with UK objectives. An IPA on the
current lines should provide effective support for enlargement.
And the ENPI should help promote both our reform and development
objectives in the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe.
"Negotiations on the Stability Instrument
and DCECI are less advanced. The legal base of the Stability Instrument
— a key concern of the Committee — has been changed.
Current proposals are that the Instrument will no longer be based
on Article 308 but on Articles 179 and 181a. The scope of the
Instrument has also been narrowed, reflecting advice from the
Council Legal Service, to minimise overlap with CFSP.
"The DCECI was redrafted by the Luxembourg
Presidency after the European Parliament Development Committee's
rejection of the original Commission draft. The EP were unhappy
for two reasons: they were against the proposal to combine assistance
to developing and developed countries in one instrument; and they
were unhappy with a perceived loss of power in the annual budget
setting process. Work is underway on revised text to address these
and other concerns raised by Member States, in particular to draw
a clearer distinction between funding for developing and other
countries. A key outstanding issue is whether the European Development
Fund (which provides support for Africa, the Caribbean & Pacific
countries) should be brought into the main EC budget and included
in the DCECI. Our position (and that of many other Member States)
remains that it should not.
"In addition to the main four instruments,
the Commission have proposed continuing the Humanitarian Aid instrument.
We look forward to further discussion on this. They have also
proposed retaining an instrument for Macro-Financial Assistance
(MFA). We have argued against retaining MFA as a separate policy
instrument.
"There are also a number of issues still
to be resolved which cut across the instruments. Chief among these
is the question of financial provision. The debate on these will
not begin until the European Council and European Parliament have
both agreed figures for the overall budget and for the external
actions heading as a whole.
"We also need to resolve how much control
Member States and the European Parliament should have over funding
priorities within each instrument. There are also related questions
about how to allocate resources. Under the Irish Presidency last
year, the [General Affairs and External Relations Council] concluded
that we needed to consider the adoption of objective criteria
based on need and performance to guide resource allocation decisions.
"Aid effectiveness is an important outstanding
issue. Finally, we will also need to discuss how much annual flexibility
to build into EC external spending plans over the next Financial
Perspective.
"Our intention as Presidency is to do all
we can to get the draft regulations for the new External Actions
instruments agreed by Council and the European Parliament this
year. We have therefore scheduled discussions in July and September
with the aim of resolving the outstanding issues remaining between
Member States and clarifying any overlap between the instruments.
We hope to make sufficient progress by this point to get an agreed
Council position before the end of the year. In parallel we will
continue to consult closely with the European Parliament."
Conclusion
3.5 Given the Minister's stated aim, we now feel
that the point has been reached when the Communication and draft
Regulations should be debated, ahead of any agreed Council position.
3.6 We accordingly recommend that they be debated
in European Standing Committee B.
10 See HC 38-i (2004-05), paras 9 and 13 (1 December
2004). Back
|
