9 EU pre-accession funding
| (30435) 6380/09 —
| Special Report No. 12/2008 on the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-accession (ISPA) in 2000-2006, together with the Commission's replies
|
| Legal base | Article 248(4) EC; —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 16 February 2009
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 27 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (30162) 15620/08 and (30303) 17210/07: HC 19-vii (2008-09), chapter 1 (11 February 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared; relevant to the debate to be held in European Committee B on 23 March 2009 on the Commission Communication on the IPA Multi-annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-12 and the associated Commission Report on the IPA.
|
Background
9.1 Article 248(4) EC empowers the Court of Auditors to submit
observations, particularly in the form of special reports, on
specific questions.
9.2 ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for
Pre-Accession) finances major infrastructure projects in the transport
and environment sectors. It is part of a trio of pre-accession
support programmes, the other principal ones being:
— PHARE
(Poland/Hungary Assistance for Reconstruction of Economy; originally
created in 1989 to assist Poland and Hungary, but expanded to
incorporate all the former EU candidate countries), which provided
assistance in adopting the acquis communautaire (the entire
body of European laws, including treaties, regulations and directives)
through improving administrative capacity and supporting related
investment; and
— SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development), which finances agricultural
and rural development.
9.3 Both ISPA and SAPARD are designed to lay the
groundwork for the countries concerned to be able properly to
implement structural and cohesion funds upon accession.
9.4 From 2007, the Instrument for Pre-Accession replaced
these and the other similar existing instruments (Turkey's pre-accession
instrument and CARDS).[37]
The IPA will provide a total amount of €11.468 billion over
the 2007-13 Financial Perspective.
9.5 Decentralisation is the process for devolving
management of EU funds to candidate countries. ISPA (and PHARE)
is implemented by the Decentralised Implementation System (DIS)
under which EC Delegations must endorse procurement documents
before tenders are launched or contracts signed.[38]
9.6 Having been awarded Candidate Country status
in June 2004, Croatia has benefited from ISPA as of 1 January
2005. Croatia thus followed the previous ISPA beneficiary countries
which received ISPA assistance from when the instrument was launched
in 2000.[39]
The Court of Auditors Report
9.7 The Court of Auditors' Report recalls that the
total allocation for ISPA in the period 2000-2006 was €7,280
million (£6,536 million), with a total of 336 projects being
approved, of which 201 were in the environment sector, 78 in the
transport sector and 87 concerned technical assistance.
9.8 The report focuses on three questions:
— whether
there was a coherent strategy and adequate preparation to support
ISPA actions;
— whether projects were implemented according
to planning; and
— whether projects contributed to beneficiary
countries' compliance with the EU environmental directives and
to the improvement of the Trans-European Network for Transport
(TEN-T).
9.9 The report concludes that:
— there
was a coherent strategy, but projects were not always adequately
prepared;
— projects were not implemented according
to planning because of significant delays and changes in the financing
plans; and
— the specific projects audited by the
Court did demonstrate an increase in compliance with EU standards
or an improvement in links to the TEN-T.
9.10 In its response, the Commission notes that most
of the Court's sample was selected from among the older ISPA projects
approved in the first or early years of use of the instrument,
with some having been prepared even earlier. The Commission says
that "the poor preparation of some projects was due to a
large extent to a lack of capacity and the short timeframe in
which projects had to be developed." Guidance was given through
the detailed application forms and existing explanations of procurement
procedures. Delays and changes in planning which occurred in many
of the early projects were hard to avoid given the lack of experience
in managing major infrastructure projects and the need for ex
ante control of tendering procedures. The Commission agrees
with the Court's recommendation and will continue to monitor ex-ISPA
projects, some of which will be evaluated in the 2000-2006 ex
post evaluation exercise, paying particular attention to cost
overruns and delays. Its experience with ISPA has already led
to steps to offer greater assistance with project preparation,
and the Commission will "continue and intensify such technical
assistance under the new pre-accession instrument IPA."
The Government's view
9.11 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 27 February
2009, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Department for International
Development (Mr Michael Foster) highlights the recommendation
that the Commission should learn the lessons from ISPA, and seek
to avoid delays in future when implementing a similar instrument
— in particular, that the Commission should make guidance
documents available before Candidate countries start preparing
their projects, and should devote greater attention to reducing
the time needed to complete procedures. He continues as follows:
"The UK is working closely with the Commission,
in the region and in Brussels, to ensure that the Instrument for
Pre Accession (the successor to ISPA) avoids the same pitfalls,
and builds on ISPA's successes. DFID offices are supporting national
governments in their efforts to co-ordinate donors and to improve
aid. Unfortunately there have been some delays to IPA funding
for some countries, but these have mostly been caused by specific
political or structural questions in beneficiary countries, and
they have now been resolved."
Conclusion
9.12 It remains to be seen whether or not the
lessons learned will produce a more effective new IPA.
9.13 In the meantime, at our meeting on 11 February
2009 we recommended that the Commission Communication on the IPA
Multi-annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2101-12 and the
associated Commission Report on the IPA be debated in European
Committee B.[40]
Here, as there, the Minister highlighted the role of DFID offices
in the region in ensuring improved effectiveness in implementing
the IPA during this financial perspective. But neither here nor
there does he make it clear if those offices will be there for
the duration.
9.14 This is one of the questions that might usefully
be explored during that debate, which is now to take place on
23 March 2009. We consider that this document, which we now clear,
is relevant to that debate.
37 The Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development
and Stabilisation (CARDS) programme supported Western Balkans
countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia,
and the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) to make progress
on post-conflict stabilisation and accession to EU membership,
as part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. €5.13
billion (£3.50 billion) has been provided under CARDS between
2000 and 2006. Back
38
SAPARD is implemented in a fully decentralised manner under the
Extended Decentralised Implementation System (EDIS) which involves
administrations in candidate countries fully managing EU pre-accession
funds. Back
39 On 1 January 2007, Bulgaria and Romania became members
of the European Union and ceased being beneficiaries of pre accession
funding, including ISPA. Back
40
See headnote: (30162) 15620/08 and (30303) 17210/07: HC 19-vii
(2008-09), chapter 1 (11 February 2009). Back
| 
