Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-46)
MR PATRICK
CHILD AND
MR KOOS
RICHELLE
6 DECEMBER 2005
Q40 Ann McKechin: Just
with regard to the new Member States, many of whom have had very
little experience in ODA, how is the role of your department in
encouraging them to pursue their own bilateral aid or how far
are you trying to encourage them to initially focus their budgets
through the EU funds?
Mr Child: Your starting point
is exactly right. Until extremely recently, many of the new Member
States have been on the other side of this equation and only now
are coming to these issues. I led the discussion earlier in the
year in the run-up to the UN meeting and we have encouraged all
Member States to sign up to pretty ambitious targets for their
own assistance, of course with a degree of realism and discrimination
between those who are already in and new Member States. We have
not set any prescriptions in terms of whether that should be money
that they spend through a national programme or their contributions
to the EU budget except that, of course, the contribution keys
to the EU budget are fixed and known, so each Member State contributes
X% according to the formula that works for that. To the extent
that the implied targets for one or other Member State go beyond
that, they have a choice whether to do that through a bilateral
programme or other multilateral donors or whatever. What is most
important is that the EU collectively has made a world leading
commitment to step up assistance, development assistance in particular,
to the poorest countries and all Member States are signed up to
playing their part in that, taking account of the different starting
points from which they come.
Q41 Ann McKechin: I take
it the EU will be considering it, will be assisting these new
countries in terms of trying to develop that capacity of those
who look as though they are starting from scratch. It would seem
obvious if you have got the experience to try and share that knowledge.
Mr Richelle: We try what we can,
but by law we are forbidden to spend money in the European Union.
We had the strange situation where the Canadians had to come in
as a donor to support new Member States. We could not do that,
and a lot of Member States cannot do that because by law they
cannot give money to institutions in the European Union. We had
a roadshow some time ago to convince them that they should not
bring to life their own institutions, they should find a donor
of their choice in the European Union—it does not need to
be the Commission—through whom they can work. They did not
like that. They said, "Come on, friends, you used Development
Co-operation for 40 years to promote your own enterprises in tied
aid but now you have seen the light suddenly, okay you untie among
yourself and work together but we want to build our own constituency.
We are using the same argument that you used 50 years ago to get
Development Co-operation going". They are all starting their
own agencies; we have the Czech agency, the Hungarian agency and
so on. The smaller ones had hopes that we would have this European
external service because they were attracted by the idea that
they could have one attaché or something like that with
a million attached to a number of delegations of the Commission
or embassies of the Member States but that has been put on hold
for some time. They are all developing themselves but, unfortunately
for them, we have just reached agreement in Europe that we will
totally untie Community aid as from 1 January 2006. That was accepted
by the Council 10 days ago.
Q42 Mr Davies: Can I just
say, first of all, coming back to the points put to you by my
colleague, Hugh, I do not think you need to apologise for spending
money under different external assistance programmes either for
the near-abroad or for candidates for the EU. These are just different
policies. I do not think that is at all inconsistent with having
a poverty reduction orientated agenda in your development spending,
the EDF and so forth, and I welcome that. The paper of 22 November[15]
is very clear on that matter. We have other policies as well in
the European Union, as we do in our own states. It is not as if
the only thing in the world is development and poverty reduction.
We have environmental policies, we have European transport network
policies and we have policies of helping to build stability among
our near-neighbours. In my view, we would be absolutely crazy
to spend our money and to put the lives of our troops at risk
by having EU forces in Kosovo and Bosnia and not to recognise
the need to spend some money by way of aid in those areas as well,
not necessarily purely on poverty reduction but helping people
to build a police force or set up a central bank, or whatever
it takes to create stability. Those are areas which the Member
States cannot do these things at all. We could not do it because
DFID is statutorily barred from spending money on that sort of
thing and, anyway, we have got no structure in those countries
to monitor the programmes, so we would be barmy to try and get
into that business on a national basis. What I would say is thank
God you are doing it and I think you are quite right. I think
it is a quite separate policy area. Part of the confusion may
arise from your organisational structure and that is what I want
to raise with you. Koos was saying that you had achieved institutional
stability, or perhaps Mr Child was saying that, and that is what
I want to challenge. It would be impertinent of me to say I think
you have got the structure wrong but it is right for us to probe
it as it is our job as parliamentarians. At first sight, as the
French would say, it is not obvious. Koos, you have an operation
which, as far as I can see, is extremely successful and doing
very well, is greatly improved and is improving all the time.
You report to one Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. Then the
policy work is done by Bernard Petit, who impressed us all very
favourably as well, and he reports to another Commissioner, Louis
Michel. Is it sensible to have policy and delivery under separate
Commissioners? I would have thought that was pretty problematic.
What you then have under Mrs Ferrero-Waldner are these other areas,
which are different areas of external assistance, albeit they
are external assistance of a kind. That does not seem to me to
make much sense. Surely it would be much more sensible to have
the External Affairs Commissioner with perhaps two Directorates-General,
one on the development, the actual poverty reduction business,
and the other on other aspects of external affairs, including
disbursing money to foreign governments or in foreign countries
for other political or general reasons. That would be an alternative
structure. I just want to probe a bit the rationale of the structure
you have presently got and whether it really makes optimum sense.
Mr Child: I said
that we had achieved a degree of stability and that was a welcome
change from the sometimes rather agitated discussions on these
matters in the past. I think that it would be dishonest of me
to suggest if I was asked to sit down with a blank sheet of paper
and design the ideal administrative set-up for the European Commission,
given its various challenges and in the institutional set-up that
we find ourselves, that I would end up with the system that we
have at the moment. We have a certain number of Commissioners
and we have a certain number of Commissioners' portfolios, therefore,
to share out. I think the description that you gave of the respective
roles of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and Mr Michel in relation to the
work of EuropeAid is perhaps a little bit simplified. In fact,
when it comes to the implementation of the programmes that are
under the responsibility of DG Development at the conceptual level,
Mr Michel, you can be sure, takes a very close interest in the
work of EuropeAid in their execution, and rightly so, because
he has taken the political responsibility for launching a certain
number of programmes and it is right that he should also have
the necessary levers and contacts with the departments that are
implementing those decisions. The relationship between Mrs Ferrero-Waldner
and Mr Michel on overseeing that work is extremely harmonious
and successful. We have had no difficulties from that point of
view. The situation that we find ourselves in in relation to the
Constitutional Treaty perhaps also explains a bit why we are where
we are today in the sense that when President Barroso arrived
in the Commission he took a decision to preserve the structure
of the various departments in the external relations field more
or less unchanged in relation to what was under the previous system
because there was then an expectation that in a relatively short
time there would be some further changes of quite a significant
nature with the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty,
the creation of a new External Action Service and the arrival
in the Commission of the double-hatted Foreign Minister/High Representative/Commissioner
for External Relations, and this would be quite a big upheaval
and an opportunity for a really significant institutional change.
Of course, we are no longer working on that timetable so we have
to make the best of the system that we have. I think it is working
in a harmonious and reasonably functional way. The decision that
the previous Commission took at the moment of the creation of
EuropeAid with the reforms of the year 2000 when there was a separation
between, on the one hand, the policy departments that were doing
the programming and the planning and the interface with the political
level and, on the other hand, the responsibilities of EuropeAid
for the full implementation cycle projects, although difficult
when it was bedding down is now working pretty well. It is working
particularly well, I should say, in relation between DG Relex
and EuropeAid. There may be some issues in relation to DG Development
given its geographical separation because until recently they
were working in a building a long way away and it was more difficult
for the sort of day-to-day contacts which were necessary to make
a success of that. In general, I think the system works in a fairly
settled and stable way even though I accept the starting point
of your question that other models are certainly conceivable.
Chairman: Just for clarification, I was
not suggesting that the EU's foreign policy interests and, indeed,
development interests in the near-abroad are not relevant, I think
it is a question of the extent to which foreign policy and development
work together or sometimes compromise. That was the point I was
exploring.
Q43 Mr Singh: Those were
exactly some of the issues that I wanted to explore. During the
previous discussion I got some idea of the thinking behind the
EU near-neighbourhood policy and I have got a number of questions
on that. A cynic might look at the European Neighbourhood Policy
Action Plan and look at Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Authority,
Lebanon, Egypt and wonder whether that is quite an extension of
the concept of "neighbourhood" and, in fact, the imperative
behind the European Neighbourhood Policy is much more political
in terms of enhancing the role of the EU on the world stage rather
than anything to do with the eradication of poverty or aid in
that direct sense. There is that issue. One could look at the
European neighbourhood instrument, for example, as siphoning off
development monies from the poorest countries, but I am also puzzled
because we have the neighbourhood instrument which could be doing
that and then there is a proposal for the Development Co-operation
and Economic Co-operation instrument which looks like another
channel to be taking development aid from the poorest countries.
What is the difference between that instrument and the neighbourhood
instrument? Is there any truth in what some cynics would say,
that what the ENP[16]
is doing is creating buffer zones outside the EU fortress maybe
to absorb migratory labour from poorer countries and that is the
real justification for the ENP rather than having it wrapped up
in concern for poorer countries?
Mr Child: Thank
you for that question and the opportunity to agree with what Quentin
Davies said about having different policy objectives. The straight
answer to your question is that the neighbourhood policy is primarily
about the European Union responding to the geopolitical challenges
in its immediate neighbourhood and doing that in a way which combines
financial assistance, including a commitment within that to promoting
government objectives, but financial assistance, with a range
of other policies which are covered by our Action Plans, to bring
those countries closer to the European Union without talking at
this moment about any membership perspective but using a bit for
the techniques of membership in terms of setting benchmarks and
helping the countries with a transition towards market economy
principles and democratic principles on which the EU is based,
precisely to promote stability and security in our neighbourhood.
If you look at the way the world is going and the transatlantic
relationship, more and more the European Union is expecting, and
is expected, to assume in particular a fuller contribution to
the stability and security in our continent. It is through the
neighbourhood policy and the enlargement process in those countries
that are concerned by that, that we do that. I think it would
be wrong to say that the neighbourhood instrument is first and
foremost about development. That is not to say that in the Development
Co-operation and Economic Co-operation instrument you mentioned
under the new legal architecture that we have proposed that is
the primary vehicle for us to promote development policy in the
countries that are covered by that instrument. As you know, we
initially proposed that should include the European Development
Fund. Some Member States had hesitations about bringing the European
Development Fund within the Community budget, and I personally
regret that. We will see where we go on those discussions. The
Commission stands by its proposal in that respect. That helps
to situate a bit what we are trying to achieve with the neighbourhood
policy.
Q44 Mr Singh: I have problems
with the ethics of it in that we can shout to the world that the
EU disburses so many billions in overseas aid but the ethical
question is it would not be right for a group of nations, or a
nation, not to look at its neighbours and see what is happening
and if it can help, but is it ethically right to use aid budgets
rather than have a specific foreign relations budget to achieve
those objectives?
Mr Child: It is a bit with the
interest of making that distinction slightly clearer and more
honest that we have proposed what we have in the Financial Perspectives.
We have made a clearer distinction between, on the one hand, the
European neighbourhood and the stability instrument, that is the
other instrument that we have proposed with a view to responding
to some of the more political challenges that are out there, and
put that in a separate category from the Development Co-operation
and Economic Co-operation instrument which is a more clearly focused
development instrument. At the same time you would not want me
to say that we should not be using the neighbourhood instrument
to respond to development needs in the countries covered by that
instrument where those exist, and indeed we will continue to do
that. I do not feel comfortable with the concept of siphoning
money away from pure and noble and ethical development aims. We
have different policies, we have different aims and we have different
budgets for them. I hope that the greater clarity and the simpler
legal environment that we will have in the new Financial Perspectives
will make that clearer still.
Chairman: We have only got five minutes,
I think, for a couple of quick, specific questions from two colleagues.
Q45 John Barrett: I would
like to go slightly further afield to the EU's role in Darfur
in Sudan. The EU has been a major supporter of the African Union
(AU) mission in Sudan. What is the state of play on the replenishment
of the African Peace Facility? What is the longer term future
in relation to that? A number of Members of the Committee were
out in Darfur and we saw the good work the AU was doing and while
hopes are resting on that, obviously funding is key.
Mr Child: I can be brief on that
because it is more the responsibility of Commissioner Michel.
Certainly we have been very committed to the success of the Peace
Facility, which we think has worked well. There is a discussion
going on with Member States about renewing the funding. It is
a bit tied up with the question of what is the architecture of
the Financial Perspectives. There is also the discussion about
how you classify funding of this type in relation to the DAC criteria.
We are determined to continue with the sort of instrument that
the Peace Facility has offered us and we are eager to rally the
support of Member States to that.
Q46 Joan Ruddock: I want
to take you to another country altogether and one that has actually
fallen off the political agenda to a degree, and that is Afghanistan.
In a certain way, security interests and development interests
coincide in that country and the EU has been spending a lot of
money. I wonder if you think that the EU has got value for money
and whether you think the Afghans have got value for money. There
are huge governance issues in Afghanistan, I believe. When you
spoke earlier about getting greater co-ordination between Member
States and the EU in spending each other's money in different
countries, is this something that is being pursued in respect
of Afghanistan? Is there going to be greater policy coherence
there and better co-ordination of projects between the EU and
Member States?
Mr Child: I think that Afghanistan
is an excellent case study of many of the challenges that we face
in EU external relations. It is a particularly timely moment as
we think about what happens after Bonn to be thinking about that.
At a positive level, I think the co-operation between the EU's
delegation in the spending that we have, which has been very considerable
and is a good example of where we have made a very significant
pledge and delivered on it, and the Council's Special Representative
has been exemplary. The two have worked in a very complementary
and co-operative fashion. It is an example which I wish was as
successful all over the place. That is a good thing. As is often
the case in post-crisis environments, however, there are many
different actors and a very complicated set-up. In particular,
there is a debate about the role of NATO and its relationship
with the EU institutions, and in particular the Community dimension
of that, which does not make our life any easier. I strongly agree
with the principle that it would be great if we were getting more
recognition as the European Union for all that we are doing as
the Union. Part of that is a question of sheer geopolitical weight
and military resources, and people who arrive in places on battleships
tend to get more photographs in the newspapers than people who
arrive afterwards with helicopters of humanitarian assistance,
and even less the people who arrive with very worthy and slightly
longer term drug rehabilitation programmes and other things. That
is the reality that I do not see changing in a radical sense in
the way the European Union engages with the rest of the world
any time soon. Certainly one of the frustrations—I come
back to where we started, which is good—on the concept paper
is how do we create the sort of coherent focus on what the EU
is trying to achieve collectively so that both our systems realise
more what we are doing, and the wider world. The wider world is
also crying out for the European Union not only to be playing
the role of which it is capable but also to be seen to be doing
that. I agree with your question and I hope that the moment we
have the renewal of the Bonn situation, as we discussed, this
will help us to make progress. One of the things that we need
to do is to convince Member States that when we are talking about
EU co-ordination it is a two-way process, it is not just a question
of the Member States coming together and asking the Commission
and others from the centre what we are doing with EU money, it
is also being able to come along and present as part of an overall
picture without distracting from the national contribution what
the EU is doing. We have had considerable difficulties, for example,
in our aid to the Palestinians in just getting the raw information
about what individual Member States are doing and keeping that
up to date and presenting it in a way which is comparable. That
is something that is an extra challenge which we face which, for
example, the Americans do not have. They know what their figures
are because they have them all managed in a single pot. Again,
this comes back to the question of coherence which, as I say,
is very important.
Chairman: I know that Richard Burden
would have liked to have come in on that but we are running up
against time constraints. Thank you very much. You have given
us some reassurance that there is that coherence between foreign
policy and development policy. I think the issue is transparency,
that if there are changes they are declared and debated rather
than just happen after the event. Thank you.
15 The European Consensus, Joint Statement by the
Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and
the Commission on European Union Development Policy, 14820/05,
Brussels, 22 November 2005 Back
16
European Neighbourhood Policy Back
|
