35 Evaluation of the MEDA Programme
| (27713)
11804/06
—
| European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 5/2006 concerning the MEDA programme
|
| Legal base | Art 248(4) EC |
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 July 2006
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 15 August 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
35.1 The MEDA programme is the EC's main financial instrument
for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership,
whose legal basis was Council Regulation (EC) 1488/96 of 23 July
1996. The Regulation describes measures to support reform of economic
and social structures in 12 Mediterranean countries and to mitigate
associated negative impacts. The 12 MEDA partners are Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority,
Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus and Malta. Following an evaluation
in 1999, the MEDA programme was extended and a new Regulation
passed. The two programmes are referred to as MEDA-I and MEDA-II
when it is necessary to distinguish them. More than €8 billion
(£5,474 billion) has been allocated under the MEDA programme
for the period 1995-2006. At the end of 2005 about €7 billion
(£4.790 billion) had been committed and some €4 billion
(£2.737 billion) had been spent.
The Court of Auditors' Report
35.2 This is a special report from the European Court of Auditors,
providing a summary of the audit results of the MEDA programme.
The report also contains the Commission's replies. It is helpfully
summarised in his 15 August Explanatory Memorandum by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International Development
(Mr Gareth Thomas) as follows:
"The audit work was carried out in Autumn 2005 and consisted
of: visits to a selection of programmes and projects in Egypt
and Morocco including discussions with delegation staff, local
authorities, project managers, technical assistants and other
donors; a desk review of projects and programmes in Jordan; and
examinations of relevant evaluation reports including the mid-term
evaluation of the MEDA-II programme, completed in 2005.
"The audit focused on:
— The
programme's relevance in contributing to economic reform and social
development in the partner countries, as measured by its focus,
capacity building, ownership and results;
— The Commission's management of the programme
in terms of: speed and efficiency of programming; preparation
and implementation; monitoring and evaluation; and donor co-ordination.
"The Court of Auditors concluded that the programme
has been relevant to the needs of the countries and has focused
on a limited number of sectors. It has encouraged ownership by
an increasing use of budget support and has also systematically
included institutional capacity-building measures. The Court found
it harder to assess the impact of the EC support for a number
of reasons: 10 out of the 11 MEDA-I projects examined were still
being implemented; total EC support usually represents less than
1% of the government's budget; EC support often attempts to address
reform issues of a qualitative and innovative nature, which are
difficult to quantify; and the often general nature of the strategic
objectives in the relevant EC Country Strategy Papers.
"The Commission's management of the MEDA programme
was deemed satisfactory and as having improved since MEDA-I thanks
to the introduction of new programming rules under the MEDA-II
Regulation. Improvements include a more even allocation of resources
from year to year since 2000, shorter preparation periods, and
significantly higher disbursements since 2002. Monitoring and
evaluation at the level of the individual projects/programmes
has become more systematic and there is more intense dialogue
and co-ordination with local partners and donors. The report believes
that devolution of project preparation and implementation to EC
Delegations has contributed to the overall improvement. The Court
expressed some concerns that some MEDA-II projects might not be
completed due to time constraints on signing contracts set out
in the Financial Regulation.
"With the MEDA Regulation coming to an end in
2006 and the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(ENPI) due to enter into force in 2007, the Court recommends that
the Commission:
— ensures
a smooth transition to the new country programmes, including by
a clearer definition of strategic objectives and appropriate indicators
to allow for better impact monitoring and evaluation;
— continues to focus on a limited number
of intervention areas to keep programmes manageable and coherent;
— continues to strive for best practice
management of projects to avoid delays, for example by making
further improvements to procurement management and by allowing
more decentralised management of projects by national authorities.
"The Commission agrees with most of recommendations.
Its response to the auditors' comments notes that:
— the
mid-term evaluation of MEDA-II was positive about the political
relevance, policy orientation, financial performance during the
last five years, the increasing preference for sector operations
(as opposed to stand-alone projects), the success of the devolution
process and the revision of the MEDA Regulation. In the general
framework of the transition to the new ENPI, the EC needs to consider
further the assignment of tasks in the programming cycle, the
appropriate profile of staff and lessons learned;
— initial delays have been considerably
reduced under MEDA-II;
— while EC financial support to the Mediterranean
countries is limited in relation to the countries' overall budget,
it is significant in relation to the budget for social policy
reforms to address basic needs;
— the implementation delays observed are
often attributable to the need to comply with procedural procurement
rules and principles of equality and non-discrimination. The EC
recently undertook a simplification exercise which resulted in
a practical guide to contract procedures in the field of external
aid;
— the definition of priorities under the
ENPI will be based on the objectives of the European Neighbourhood
Policy and the priorities of the ENP Action Plans. Under the ENPI
programming exercise, the strategic objectives of the Country
Strategy Papers will be in line with the Action Plans. Specific
results indicators are defined at the identification phase and
form the basis for Monitoring and Evaluation;
— programme coherence will be ensured by
limiting the number of programmes and by focusing on the reform
of policies, legislation and regulation in selected areas of political,
economic and social spheres in the partner countries;
— best practice in managing projects will
be strengthened by involving partner countries in the selection
of the most appropriate instruments and activities."
The Government's View
35.3 The Minister says that he is content with the
audit report and its recommendations, which are in line with the
UK views on the MEDA-II mid-term evaluation presented at the last
MEDA Committee on 14 July.
35.4 He highlights the Court of Auditors' recommendation
that the EC define more clearly strategic objectives and appropriate
indicators and allow for better monitoring and evaluation of the
impact, "bearing in mind the large number of priorities defined
in the Action Plans".
35.5 He also agrees with the need for the Commission
to continue to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
MEDA programme:
"In this regard we will continue to press the
Commission to implement the 2005 Development Policy Statement
(DPS) and the commitments made at the 2005 Paris High Level Forum
on Aid Effectiveness. The DPS emphasises the need to select a
strictly limited number of areas for action when Community aid
is being programmed. This should avoid a repeat of the situation
in Morocco under MEDA-I, where support was spread over a large
number of sectors."
35.6 The Minister notes the time constraint concerns
expressed in the report and says he will take these into account
when entering into negotiations on the Financial Regulation for
the next Financial Perspectives (2007-13): "There is a fine
balance to be struck between encouraging prompt implementation
of commitments and ensuring flexibility in exceptional circumstances."
35.7 He is generally content with the EC's response:
"We have already pressed for an impact evaluation
rather than a programme/project evaluation. The EC, supported
by the MEDA Committee, promised a final impact evaluation in 2007
that would feed into subsequent ENPI programmes in a flexible
way. We will reiterate the need for an impact evaluation and ask
the EC to elaborate on the impact of the new practical guide for
procurement procedures in the MEDA — soon to be renamed
ENPI — Management Committee."
35.8 Looking ahead, the Minister says that the relevant
Working Group will consider the Report in the autumn, and that
it is also likely to be discussed at the next MEDA committee meeting.
Conclusion
35.9 Given recent developments in the region,
the importance of the Mediterranean component of the ENPI is all
the more evident. The positive assessment of MEDA is thus welcome.
35.10 It is plain that the challenge now under
the ENPI is to consolidate and deepen all the positive elements
in the ways underlined by the Minister, particularly with regard
to more clearly strategic objectives, limited areas of action
in line with those objectives and appropriate indicators and evaluation
mechanisms that focus on impact. We should accordingly be grateful
if, in a year's time, the Minister would let us know what progress
has been made with regard to the final MEDA impact assessment
to which he refers, and more generally in these areas under the
ENPI.
35.11 In the meantime, we now clear the document.
| 
