Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-94)
MR MACIEJ
POPOWSKI AND
MS CLARE
DENVIR
7 MAY 2008
Q80 John Battle: In addition to individual
members of the European Union we are also a community, to use
old language. I know that with the code on arms trade, for example,
some Member States were very proactive in campaigning for it;
others were holding back. On this code which Member States are
championing the code and which are really resisting it? Can you
give me any names?
Mr Popowski: Name and shame! I
do not think there is opposition to the code of conduct. The devil
is in the detail, that is, how to implement it in the best possible
way. The concept was welcomed by Member States. We have to see
how we can do things on the ground, which is the more difficult
part, but Members States are not opposed to it per se. So far
the feedback has been very positive. Everybody is waiting for
results. I believe that Member States also share our ambition
to go to Accra with something to share with others. Our intention
is to propose certain solutions and ideas to other donors and
partner countries in Accra. I do not know whether we will agree
on a global code of conduct, but there is a proposal now being
discussed for a code of best practice on the division of labour.
Q81 John Battle: It is not just that
every country is doing everything but, as has always happened
since the early days with Claude Chaisson's very idealistic programme,
individual Member States protect their own country programmes
and will not let them go. That is part of the problem, is it not?
Mr Popowski: Yes, but we should
push for more cross-country divisions of labour. There is also
the linked question of untying aid. The more aid we untie the
less Member States will be attached to countries in national programmes.
Whilst there are some corporate interests at stake and agencies
working on the ground, we do not want to push them out of the
country; we just want to create positive synergies and build on
our respective comparative advantages.
Q82 Chairman: On the practicalities
on the ground, I think we were told that in Tanzania there was
an EU building that had brought together a number of both national
and Commission programmes or teams under one roof. Do you think
there is more scope for that? We were looking at co-operation
between the British and Dutch in Ghana and indeed we had as many
meetings in the Dutch embassy as we had in the British High Commission
or DFID offices. One thinks of the very practicalities of EU members
operating in-country in the same building with the European Commission,
even if it is simply people having coffee together or whatever
it may be. Is that something about which you are proactive? I
understand that some of that has occurred in Tanzania, but is
it happening anywhere else?
Mr Popowski: Yes, it is progressing.
In some countries not all Member States are present. The EU family
is pretty small and the people can get together easily. There
are other examples such as Mozambique where we are leading the
co-ordination process which I am sure will continue in future.
There must be some impetus at the political level in the sense
that if we have a good message from the EU development ministers
who will discuss these ideas at their meeting at the end of May
and there is an ambitious outcome at Accra in due time it could
translate into tangible results on the ground. There will also
be institutional changes that may alter the landscape a bit. I
refer to the new treaty arrangements. The new Lisbon treaty still
has not been ratified, but it provides for single EU representation
worldwide; in other words, the European Commission's delegations
would become EU delegations serving all Community policy as defined
in the treaties and the newly-appointed high representative for
foreign and security policy. The treaty also creates synergies,
which we hope will improve our record on policy coherence.
Q83 Ann McKechin: You spoke earlier
about improvements in joint co-financing between the EU and EU
Member States, but in the most recent DFID effectiveness summary
of the Commission's work it is stated that, "Co-financing
initiatives remain minimal and are further inhibited by Commission
rules and timetables, which do not lend themselves readily to
joint programming." Can you comment on whether or not there
has been any review of or any consideration given to changing
those rules to better facilitate joint working?
Mr Popowski: Yes, it has. I mentioned
the latest state of play, so the financial regulation of the EU
now provides for the possibility of co-financing. The point made
in DFID's report relates to the previous obstacles, which have
since been overcome. Now the limitations have been removed, we
can do that. We saw it as an inhibition but we managed to overcome
it. We are now in the process of assessing the Member States'
agencies just to see that they are on the same wavelength and
we shall be ready to co-finance projects with them.
Q84 Ann McKechin: Another comment
raised in the OECD survey was that just 23% of your technical
assistance is co-ordinated, against a target of 50%. Can you explain
why the Commission has been performing so badly and whether there
are any ongoing proposals to rectify that problem?
Mr Popowski: Technical assistance
is difficult. I can give you a little of my personal experience
coming as I do from a new Member State. A lot of technical assistance
was offered to the countries in central and eastern Europe, especially
in the beginning, the early to mid-1990s, that led to rather disappointing
results. But one has to get over that phase and proceed normally.
On the programming side the plan was to proceed from technical
assistance to more focused actions on capacity building, investment
etc, but we acknowledge that there are problems and shortcomings.
In July 2007 we launched a programme to develop a strategy to
meet the EU aid effectiveness targets on technical assistance.
We were also guided by recommendations on how to improve it by
the European Court of Auditors. We aim to finalise the strategy
in June 2008. Some elements of it could and would be guidelines
on technical assistance, that is, how to make best use of it and
support co-ordination between Member States and other donors.
We will try to improve the methodology, so I hope that our record
will be better next time we discuss it.
Q85 Ann McKechin: You spoke about
increasing capacity which would suggest that you would want technical
assistance to move from short-term to long-term objectives. To
what extent have you consulted recipient nations about their requirements
and what they see as the priorities in improving the assistance
that is given?
Mr Popowski: First, it is a matter
of methodology and what we need is more dialogue with partner
countries and governments. I refer again to the ownership principle
which is very close to our hearts, but it is also quite important
with a view to the ongoing discussions on Accra and Doha. We need
to support country and sector dialogue with the partner-country
governments so that we are attentive to the needs that they articulate.
I think that is the main assumption and precondition.
Q86 Ann McKechin: Can I take it that
by the time you reach Accra the EU will have some guidelines about
how it believes technical assistance should be used in future?
Mr Popowski: Yes. The plan is
to have the strategy ready in June 2008.
Q87 Jim Sheridan: I want to ask about
the uncoordinated donor activity particularly in the health sector.
In a recent evidence session the Committee heard from Linda Doull
who is Merlin's director for health and policy. She said that,
while many donors were interested in funding delivery in health,
health systems were often relatively neglected. That view is consistent
with this Committee's own report on maternal health.[13]
As a consequence, we find that there is a tremendous burden on
developing countries to try to manage relationships between donors.
What is the EU doing to try to alleviate some of these problems?
Mr Popowski: The health sector
is certainly on our radar screen, as it is quite instrumental
in achieving several of the Millennium Development Goals. The
needs are huge. That is why donor congestion has to be weighed
against the need to scale up assistance. What we will do is apply
the letter and spirit of the code of conduct also to the health
sector to see how we can improve our collective record and whether
we can delegate parts of co-operation in some countries where
the concentration of donors is quite high. One obvious example
is Mozambique. We are also taking the lead in co-ordinating donors'
action on the ground in the health sector. We do that in Zambia.
I would like to refer to a point I made before. The preferred
instrument of the European Commission is budget support. The fact
that we are present in the health sector in providing budget support
to line ministries in-country does not really add to donor congestion
because we are not operating the projects; we are simply providing
budget support that can be used by the partner countries' government
according to their own priorities.
Q88 Richard Burden: Commissioner
Michel has direct responsibility for the Commission's relations
in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and some overseas
territories. However, he does not manage relations with those
in Asia, Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East. Do you
see a problem there? If you had a situation whereby the director
general for external relations was responsible for relations across
the piece and Commissioner Michel was responsible for development
policy across the piece, or equally if relations were managed
by Commissioner Michel across the piece, there would be coherence,
but is there not a problem that, in some parts of the world, development
also means management of relations of all the staff and support
mechanisms that go with that and in other parts of the world it
does not? How does the third relevant directorate general, trade,
fit into coherence?
Mr Popowski: You are taking the
words out of my mouth. It is definitely sub-optimal. I admit that
the split is a bit artificial, but that is the reality we have
to face. There are many reasons for that. In one way the split
is a bit administrative because we have a number of Commissioners
in charge of different portfolios within the whole family of external
relations, as we call it. That is in the treaty and it will not
change until 2014. Every Member State has the right to nominate
one Commissioner and all of them need portfolios. That is a very
simplistic explanation but it is true and it will not change because,
provided the new treaty enters into force, things will continue
unchanged until 2014 and only then will the Commission be reduced
on the basis of equal rotation. The principle of equal rotation
still has to be defined. You touch on a very valid point of policy
coherence which is quite important. We hope that it may change
with the new institutional set up and the double-hatted representative
for external relations and foreign and security policy. Nevertheless,
there is one important difference between the geographical coverage
of DG[14]
Development and the other external relations DGs: our contractual
obligation vis-a"-vis African, Caribbean and Pacific countries
because of the Cotonou Agreement. That is not a bureaucratic matter
but a functional and legal division of labour within the Commission.
We are managing relations with these countries and our obligations
stem from the Cotonou Agreement and that will not change in the
foreseeable future. DG Trade has a different agenda; trade matters
are an exclusive competence of the Community, and again that is
an important difference compared with development policy where
we have shared or parallel competencies as between the European
Community and Member States. Another aspect worth mentioning is
the status of the European Development Fund which the Europe Aid
Office also manages. As you know, it stays outside the general
EU budget, so it is a separate entity. In 2009 we shall probably
tackle again the question of whether or not the European Development
Fund should be made part of the EU budget. The Commission is very
much in favour of it. It would make our lives easier: we would
have a single set of rules about how to manage money, which is
now not the case. Procedures are different; there is no parallel
control over the European Development Fund because it is not part
of the EU budget. Therefore, we would like to streamline that
but that is for the Member States to decide. The next opportunity
for that is the mid-term review of the seven-year budget of the
European Commission. But what we try to do in order to overcome
the split, which is a fact of life—different Commissioners
are in charge of different parts of the developing world—is
to implement the concept of policy coherence for development just
to make sure that anything we do in any policy area does not undermine
development policy and our goals as defined in the treaties. In
order to do that we use different instruments like impact assessments
or intensive use of inter-service consultations just to make sure
we are proceeding on the same lines.
Q89 Sir Robert Smith: You have already
touched on this question in terms of the impact of the Lisbon
treaty, if it is ratified and implemented. You talked about single
representation. How else do you see the treaty helping or hindering
the Commission's development strategy?
Mr Popowski: I think it will improve
the situation on a number of points. First, the EU will be given
a single legal personality which is not the case now. The European
Communities have a legal personality whereas the EU is just a
political organisation though it is recognised in treaties. Under
the Treaty of Lisbon we also give a solid legal base to policy
coherence for development. There are some changes. Compared with
the present treaties, the main objectives of development, sustainable
development and the eradication of poverty, are recognised as
the objectives of the EU in the area of external relations in
general. In a way, they have been lifted in the hierarchy of norms.
Even the wording has changed. Until now, the treaty had referred
to "combating poverty", but this formula has been updated
in the light of the MDGs;[15]
now we speak about "eradication of poverty". The famous,
or infamous, pillar structure of the EU will not disappear totally
but will become less relevant through the merger at the helm of
the EU's external relations. There will be a single representative
supported by a newly-created European External Action Service.
That should also contribute to more coherence in the area of development.
The details are being discussed. We are not even supposed to discuss
them publicly, although everybody is thinking about it because
we are in the ratification period, but changes are bound to occur
provided the treaty is ratified as of next year.
Q90 Sir Robert Smith: To have a single
representative seems to be beneficial, but will the development
agenda be high in the priority of that single voice?
Mr Popowski: This is not an official
position because I am not supposed to present one, but we have
to see external relations of the European Union as something that
is coherent and united. We should no longer refer to these slightly
artificial divisions between development as part of Community
policy and common foreign security policy as a second pillar because
it should be part and parcel of a single European approach to
external relations. We should be consistent in using the instruments
at our disposal, but when we talk about the nexus between security
and development it is particularly important to note that the
EU is an emerging military player deploying troops and policemen
all over the world but it is always action limited in time and
then we need follow-up action, for example in the case of Africa,
where there is a very great need to develop policies. Therefore,
if you want to be consistent and effective you should try to use
all the instruments at your disposal in a coherent manner, going
beyond the pillarisation of the European Union.
Q91 Sir Robert Smith: Obviously,
development is achieved through other instruments like trade and
agriculture. That policy plays a very important part in our development
relationship. Do you see any improvements in co-ordination in
that respect?
Mr Popowski: Yes. I referred to
the concept of policy coherence for development, which was developed
and agreed upon two years ago. That is beginning to bear fruit.
We are constantly assessing and screening all the legislative
initiatives from the Commission in order to see whether they are
compatible with our development objectives. For that we use the
instrument of impact assessment. I shall give you one example.
When the EU embarked upon a very difficult discussion on reforming
the sugar regime it was able to demonstrate the possible negative
effects on producing countries in the developing world, for example
in Africa, pointing to the fact that far-reaching reform of the
EU sugar regime as it was called could lead to potential losses
of revenue and have social consequences even leading to uncontrolled
migration. We have developed a certain methodology that we are
consequently applying across the board in the Commission. Last
year we presented our first report on policy coherence for development.
The next one is due in 2009.
Q92 Chairman: You said in response
to Ann McKechin that the EU would have a clear position for Accra.
When we were in Ghana, DFID told us that those in the host country
were somewhat concerned that the process was not going very far
and people were not following up their commitments. Are you in
a position to give any kind of positive indication that the EU
will be able to deliver real progress, and what would be the priorities
to make that a success rather than what I think some of the recipient
countries feel will be a wet blanket?
Mr Popowski: I mentioned at the
beginning that the European Commissioners had presented a package
of communications—a so-called communication in our jargon—accompanied
by some technical papers concerning aid effectiveness, Monterrey
commitments, policy coherence for development and aid for trade.
In a way that is our input for Accra and Doha. We want to be ambitious
and attentive to the needs and priorities of partner countries.
We definitely want to go beyond a mere stock-taking exercise which
just checks collectively where we are on the implementation of
different Paris Declaration principles. That is not good enough.
We would like to make progress especially on the division of labour
and the predictability of aid. I should mention our flagship project
in the area of predictability of aid. It is the concept of an
MDG contract which would be a new generation of budget support
offered to countries that fulfil certain conditions, especially
in the area of public finances. We are now in the process of finalising
our discussions on that with Member States. We aim to offer the
MDG contract to 10 African countries that would span over six
years with a mid-term review clause. The United Kingdom has been
very supportive of the idea of the MDG contract as a major tool
to promote the predictability of aid. One further point in connection
with Accra is the EU's ambition to give greater visibility to
civil society because so far in a way it has been missing in the
whole debate. We would like to give it a prominent role. We are
aligned very closely with different civil society organisations
in the run-up to Accra and we also want to help them and to be
more prominent and visible in playing a role. We are listening
to their concerns. We are conducting quite an intensive dialogue
on development with civil society organisations.
Q93 Chairman: That is welcome. Do
you know which Commissioners will be in Accra?
Mr Popowski: Commissioner Michel
will be present in Accra.
Q94 Chairman: Are there any others?
Mr Popowski: As far as I know,
it will be Louis Michel.
Chairman: I am sorry we have slightly
curtailed this session but you will appreciate that Members want
to be in the chamber for Prime Minister's Questions. Clearly,
the European Union and the European Commission are hugely significant
players and what you do in terms of co-ordination will be extremely
important. We are very grateful to you for giving evidence. We
hope that our report will be of some interest to you as well as
to our own audience.
13 International Development Committee, Fifth Report
of Session 2007-08, Maternal Health, HC 66 Back
14
Directorate General Back
15
Millennium Development Goals Back
| 
