15 EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR RECONSTRUCTION
(27183)
5275/06
COM(05) 710
| Commission Report: The future of the European Agency for Reconstruction
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 23 December 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
17 January 2006 |
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 1 February 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None; but see 15518/05, para 14 of this Report
|
| Discussed in Council | 27 February 2006 General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 The European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) was set up in
February 2000 in response to the urgent need for reconstruction
in Kosovo following the 1999 conflict and was initially responsible
for managing the EU's aid programmes there.
The Commission Report
15.2 Following extensions to its mandate in 2001, 2002 and 2004,
the EAR became responsible for implementing the regional Community
Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation programme
(CARDS) in Serbia and Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, as well as in Kosovo. CARD
aims to foster institution-building and good governance, to promote
the development of a market economy and essential infrastructure
and to consolidate civil society. The Agency's head office is
in Thessaloniki and it has operational centres in Belgrade, Podgorica,
Pristina and Skopje.[26]
15.3 This report outlines the Commission's proposals
on the future of the EAR after its current mandate runs out on
31 December 2006. It is based on the fact that from 2007 to 2013,
assistance to all countries in the region will come under the
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), the regulatory
framework for which is currently being developed.[27]
Under this instrument, the shift from reconstruction to capacity-building
in the Western Balkans will be completed, with a continuing emphasis
on preparing countries for candidate status and eventual accession.
The Commission says that the latest enlargement demonstrated that
devolution of the existing pre-accession instruments — PHARE,
ISPA and SAPARD[28]
— towards Commission delegations and national administrations
of the beneficiary countries worked efficiently, progressively
integrating the beneficiary countries into EU policies by teaching
them to manage EU financial aid autonomously as an integral part
of preparations for their future participation in the structural
and rural development funds after accession.
15.4 The EAR, which is considered to be a form of
"indirect centralised management", is not able to provide
the gradual decentralisation necessary, as it may not delegate
further the powers given to it by the Commission. Further, the
current system creates a differentiation between assistance to
some Balkan aspirants being managed via EC Delegations and to
others by EAR. Instead, EC Delegations should become the single
Commission interlocutor for all these countries, providing the
daily proximity, continuity and support which the Commission says
is necessary for learning Community methods. This should help
to ensure coherence between assistance programmes and other elements
of the EU's relationship with the region. The Commission explains
that it has drawn on experience of operating the PHARE regulation
and recommendations of the Court of Auditors in devising the provisions
of the proposed IPA Regulation. The process towards full decentralisation
of EU aid to beneficiary countries is one of its main objectives
(as for PHARE), which will be "a learning process of many
years for beneficiary countries", over the 2007-13 lifetime
of the IPA, though experience with previous candidate countries
and Croatia suggests 1-2 years as a reasonable target for achieving
the first stage — partial decentralisation, with ex ante
control by the Delegations on tendering and contracting.
15.5 But the EAR's work needs to be completed, and
administrative, budgetary and personnel issues properly dealt
with. So the Commission proposes (via a draft Regulation which
it will present to the Council before 31 March 2006) an extension
for the EAR until 31 December 2008 with its current status, in
order to enable it to complete its activities under the CARDS
programme. From 2009, all EC assistance to the region would then
be programmed and implemented by the Commission's Delegations
in the region, under the proposed IPA Regulation.
The Government's view
15.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 1 February
2006, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department
for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) says the proposal
"represents a broadly sensible way forward for implementing
EU assistance to the Western Balkans, and it is particularly welcome
that a single coherent Commission point of contact would be established
that can address aid alongside other issues for the EU and the
region". He says that the EAR brought substantial advantages
during the early stages of reconstruction, notably of infrastructure,
and is satisfied that it delivers programmes efficiently and effectively.
"On the other hand, there seems little evidence that it is
more effective than Delegations at delivering the kind of capacity
building support to which the IPA programme shifts. However, the
two year extension proposed would be effective in allowing the
EAR to finish implementation of the CARDS programmes that it designed
and launched". Looking ahead, he notes that it will be important
to ensure that the Commission has sufficient capacity to implement
the IPA programme: "the proposed timing of the transfer of
functions, with Delegations responsible for IPA but the EAR continuing
to implement CARDS administration for two years, should help this".
Conclusion
15.7 We agree with the Minister that this is
a well-made case, and look forward to scrutinising the proposed
extension regulation in due course.
15.8 On resources, since the Commission says that
the switch from EAR to "deconcentrated" delivery via
EC Delegations will be resource-neutral, it should itself have
no impact on IPA resources. We would, however, expect him to cover
the more general point about capacity to implement the IPA Instrument
when he submits the final IPA regulation for scrutiny.
15.9 In the meantime, we now clear the document.
26 For historical reasons, the CARDS programmes for
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia are implemented in
what is known as a "directly centralised but deconcentrated
way", by the Commission Delegations. Back
27
One of four new Instruments for EU External Assistance - an Instrument
for Pre-Accession Assistance; an European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument; a Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation
Instrument; and an Instrument for Stability - which along with
two existing instruments will replace a plethora of instruments
and budget lines; which we considered on several occasions and
which were debated in the European Standing Committee on 10 November
2005. Back
28
PHARE focusses on implementing the acquis communautaire, economic
restructuring and political capacity-building; ISPA on environmental
and transport projects; and SAPARD on agriculture and rural development. Back
|
