19 Making EU Aid More Effective
| (a)
(27333)
7066/06
+ ADD 1
COM(06) 85
(b)
(27334)
7067/06
COM(06) 87
(c)
(27335)
7068/06
COM(06) 88
|
Commission Communication: Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness — The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006-2010
Commission Communication: EU Aid: delivering more, better and faster
Commission Communication: Increasing the impact of EU aid: A Common framework for drafting country strategy papers and joint multi-annual programming
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 2 March 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 March 2006
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 11 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxiii (2005-06), para 15 (29 March 2006). See also HC 34-i (2005-06), para 4 (4 July 2005); HC 34-v (2005-06), paras 3 and 4 (12 October 2005); and HC 34-vii (2005-06), para 13 (26 October 2005), HC 34-xii (2005-06), para 10 (30 November 2005) and HC 34-xv (2005-06), para 12 (18 January 2006).
|
| To be discussed in Council | 10-11 April General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported 29 March), but further information requested
|
Background
19.1 The 2000 United Nations General Assembly agreed to eight
UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015
— the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achievement
of universal primary education, promotion of gender equality and
female empowerment, reduction of child mortality, improvement
of maternal health, combat of HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases,
environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development
— each with associated targets and benchmarks to measure
progress. A Millennium Review Summit was held at the 2005 UN General
Assembly, when heads of state and government reviewed, and decided
on measures to accelerate, progress.
19.2 On 4 July and 12 October 2005[59]
we considered three Commission Communications:
- an overview of the EU's contribution
to achieving the MDGs and identifying the measures that need to
be taken by the EU to reach these goals, particularly in Africa;
- an overview of the state of implementation of
the eight "Barcelona Commitments" which the EU made
at the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development in March
2002, assessing which of these commitments need to be reviewed
and presenting proposals for new commitments on financing and
aid effectiveness; and
- a review of eleven priority non-aid policies
where the EU could assist developing countries to attain the MDGs:
trade, environment, security, agriculture, fisheries, social dimension
of globalisation, employment and decent work, migration, research
and innovation, information society, transport and energy.
Together, they formed the Commission's April 2005
"Millennium Development Goals" package, which
subsequently formed part of the preparation for the UN High-Level
Meeting on Financing for Development (held on 27-28 June 2005,
to review progress since the Monterrey Conference and prepare
the meeting on Financing for Development at the Millennium Review
Summit itself) and the G8 Summit in Gleneagles (6-8 July 2005).
They were debated in the European Standing Committee on 3 November
2005.
19.3 On 12 October we also considered the Commission's
draft Declaration on Development Policy,[60]
which was debated in the European Standing Committee on 17 November
2005 and adopted — as the "European Consensus on
Development" — by the December 2005 European Council.
19.4 That Council also adopted the EU Strategy
on Africa, which we considered on 26 October, 30 November
2005 and 18 January 2006.
19.5 Together, they form the backdrop to these three
further Communications which, collectively, comprise the Commission's
"Aid Effectiveness Package". All three relate to the
central consideration of how to improve the effectiveness of the
even larger volumes of aid that have now been committed by what
was already, collectively, the biggest global aid donor, and which
has also incorporated ten (and soon to be twelve) new Member States,
with little experience of development work; and which have the
MDGs and, above all, poverty alleviation, and Africa as the focal
points.
19.6 When we considered the final version of the
EU Africa Strategy, we commented that the key question now was
the extent to which its vital but ambitious aims were likely to
be achieved, and that effective implementation would demand an
unprecedented level and effectiveness of co-operation between
Member States and the Commission, and between them and the UN,
the AU, the IFIs and other bilateral donors; an unprecedented
level of commitment and delivery on the part of African partners;
and, above all, the EU to "put its money where its mouth
is".
19.7 It was clear from the first Communication that
the Commission was concerned that the last of these is by no means
assured, and had properly drawn attention to where Member States,
and others, need to live up to their commitments. And, as the
Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn)
acknowledged in his accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, there
was also much good sense and good intention in what the Commission
says in all three Communications — which move downwards
from the overview to an Action Plan and then to the principles,
components and procedures for drafting Country Strategy Papers
and joint multi-annual programming — about the need for,
and how to work towards, the improved coordination and coherence
that will be required to achieve the extra bang for the Euro that,
should history be any guide, is likely to be needed to make up
for shortfalls.
19.8 But he also pointed out that there were also
several areas where the Commission, not for the first time, tries
to force the pace or allows its ambitions to run ahead of what
is required or is side-tracked into non-priority issues. It seemed,
however, that several other Member States were of the same mind,
that the Development Commissioner was aware of and responsive
to these concerns, and that the right balance — reflecting
the complementarity that Community policy shall have towards the
policies pursued by Member States, as embodied in Article 177
EC — would therefore be found in the Conclusions, then still
under active discussion, to be adopted at the 11 April "development"
General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC).
19.9 We therefore cleared the documents, but asked
the Secretary of State to write after the Council meeting to explain
how the points that he had highlighted had been resolved.[61]
He has now done so in his letter of 11 May 2006.
The Secretary of State's letter
19.10 In his letter, the Secretary of State says:
"Following an intense period of negotiation
we secured a satisfactory outcome at the GAERC. The Council Conclusions
address the concerns we had with the Communications as initially
presented by the Commission.
"On aid effectiveness generally, the Conclusions
emphasised applying the principles agreed in the new European
Consensus on Development, and taking forward the commitments agreed
at the November 2004 GAERC and the Paris Forum in March 2005.
It was agreed that the EU needs to continue its strong engagement
with the OECD/DAC and with ongoing EU processes for monitoring
performance.
"On specific issues, the roadmap process
was agreed as a useful mechanism where it adds value to ongoing
work or improves donor harmonisation at the country level. Work
on principles for joint financing arrangements and complementarity
will continue with a deadline of the end of 2006. We believe this
will allow for proper consultation between Member States to secure
an outcome owned across the EU. Co-financing in particular will
be an opportunity for the Commission to engage in joint arrangements
with, and on behalf of, other donors. The donor atlas was also
welcomed as a useful information tool for planning and co-ordination.
"We were pleased with the outcome on the
Common Format for Country Strategy Papers. The agreed format was
annexed to the Council Conclusions. Initially the format will
be used by the Commission for their immediate programming and
on a voluntary and gradual basis by Member States. This will allow
us, and other Member States, to consider how to engage in the
process country by country. We believe the format can be used
by Member States for their current programmes, and over time allow
movement towards a single format that will not compromise bilateral
programming.
"On the Financing for Development conclusions
there was strong reaffirmation of the commitments to meeting the
EU ODA volume targets. As I noted in the EM, while we recognise
the need for reform of the International Financial Institutions
we had concerns that the proposals were impracticable. We sought
and achieved appropriate qualification to the Conclusions in recognition
of this. On trade-related assistance we pressed for more emphasis
on responding to trade priorities in the context of partners'
development plans and budgets. Again, this was successfully reflected
in the Conclusions."
19.11 The Conclusions are set out in the 35 page
Council Document 8388/06 of 11 April 2006.
Conclusion
19.12 We are grateful to the Secretary of State
for this further information, which we are reporting the House
because of the widespread interest in EU development assistance,
and particularly in the issues of improving aid effectiveness
and coherence between the EC, EU Member States and the other members
of the donor community.
59 See headnote. Back
60
See headnote. Back
61
See headnote. Back
|
