7 Development Assistance and Governance
| (a)
(27791)
12572/06
COM(06) 421
+ ADDs 1-3
(b)
(26227)
16041/04
COM(04) 804
(c)
(29544)
7499/08
COM(08) 138
(d)
(30446)
6543/09
COM(09) 76
|
Commission Communication: Governance in the European Consensus on Development — Towards a harmonised approach within the European Union
Commission Staff Working Documents
Draft Council Decision concluding consultations with Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement
Draft Council Decision amending Decision 2005/321/EC concluding the consultation procedure with the Republic of Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement
Commission Communication on the opening of consultations with Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b)-(c) Articles 8, 9 and 96 Cotonou Agreement; QMV
(d) —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 6 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 16-v (2007-08), chapter 9 (5 December 2007), HC 34-xxxvii (2005-06), chapter 39 (11 October 2006)
(b) HC 34-xiv (2005-06), chapter 18 (11 January 2006)
(a) — (d) HC 19-x (2008-09), chapters 4, 7 and 8 (11 March 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council | (a) 16 October 2006 General Affairs and External Relations Council
(b) and (c) 31 January 2005 and 14 April 2008 General Affairs and External Relations Councils
(d) 16 March 2009 General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (reported to the House on 11 January 2006, 11 October 2006 and 11 March 2009); further information requested and provided
|
Background
7.1 As the Commission noted in its introduction to this Communication,
poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)[17]
will not be achieved without decisive progress in the areas of
economic, social, environmental and political governance; with
the European Consensus on Development setting out the EU's approach
and contribution, "identifying good governance, democracy
and respect for human rights as integral to the process of sustainable
development and as major objectives of EU development policy".
7.2 Accordingly, the Communication proposed that the Community
and Member States agree principles and actions for EU dialogue
and cooperation with developing countries on governance, with
the objective of gradually developing "a coherent common
approach to promoting all aspects of democratic governance".
7.3 The document is summarised fully in our previous Reports.[18]
In brief, the first section describes what the Commission means
by governance, why governance is important for the achievement
of the MDGs and how the Commission believes EU development cooperation
can be used to improve governance in developing countries.
7.4 The second section proposed a "Governance Initiative"
for the 78 ACP countries which would be used to allocate €3
billion of funds from the 10th EDF. €2.7 billion of this
amount, called the "Governance Incentive Tranche", or
GIT, was to be linked to the EC's Country Strategy Papers for
EDF 10 (which sets the framework for EC development assistance
to the ACP countries). The remaining €300 million would target
regional support, with a particular focus on the African Union
(AU) and the APRM.[19]
7.5 The Conclusions consisted of four proposed principles
to guide EU work on governance — that improving governance
is a means to achieving the MDGs and that a broad approach to
governance is needed based on dialogue and country ownership —
and complementary actions based on regular dialogue between the
EU and the partner country about governance issues and financial
support for governance-related activities via the Governance Initiative.
A "Governance Profile" mechanism would help the Commission
assess the quality of governance in each ACP country and provide
the basis for dialogue with the government to identify benchmarks
and targets for improvements in governance, and thus help determine
the allocation of the €2.7 billion under the GIT.
7.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 5 October 2006, the then
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International
Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) commented fully on the Communication.[20]
He said that the UK was committed to supporting good governance
as stated in a recent White Paper "Making Governance Work
for the Poor". He welcomed the policy shift away from unilateral
EC analysis and programming and towards a common European understanding
of governance trends and reform priorities, which recognised that
it was neither realistic nor desirable to impose standardised
approaches. He supported the emphasis on poverty reduction as
the over-riding objective of EU development policy, with good
governance as a key complementary objective, and also welcomed
the use of the EDF 10 programming process to encourage improved
governance in ACP countries.
7.7 The Committee likewise agreed that governance, broadly
defined, was central to development; and that the approach proposed
in the Commission appeared to be soundly-based. We cleared the
Communication, but asked the Minister to write in Spring 2007,
when the Governance Profile exercise to which he referred had
been completed and presented to the Council, with his observations
thereon. For reasons that were not entirely clear, the Minister
did not write to us until 12 September 2007, and then his letter
was not received by us until two months later, on 27 November
2007.
7.8 He reported that the Conclusions agreed in October 2006[21]
fully reflected his aspirations, including highlighting the importance
of ensuring the programming of the GIT took account of differing
country circumstances and a requirement for the Commission to
undertake a joint review with Member States of the process and
to provide the Council with a report in 2008.
7.9 We looked forward to hearing more from the Minister when
the review had been completed, with his further observations thereon.[22]
The Minister's letter of 27 February 2009
7.10 In his letter, the Parliamentary Secretary at Department
for International Development (Mr Ivan Lewis) explained that in
March 2008 the Communication had commissioned an independent review
of the GIT supported by a Joint Commission/Member States reference
group, including the UK, which was received in November 2008 and
whose findings and conclusions were set out in the Commission
Staff Working Paper "Supporting Democratic Governance through
the Governance Initiative: A Review and the Way Forward"
sent to the Council of Ministers in January 2009 (and attached
to the Minister's letter).[23]
7.11 The Minister was "pleased to report" a "comprehensive
and insightful" review, whose "findings and conclusions
form an excellent basis for our dialogue and cooperation with
the Commission on how the Governance Incentive can be further
improved to support democratic governance" The review "clearly
emphasises the UK view that ultimately improvements in governance
are driven by partner countries' own commitment to reform",
which point was, the Minister said, "again reiterated by
the Commission and Member States at the EU Development Ministers'
Informal Meeting in Prague on 29-30 January 2009 which my colleague
Gareth Thomas attended."
7.12 The Minister fully supported the findings, conclusions
and recommendations (which are summarised in our previous Report)
and said that he would "work with the Commission to ensure
that the Governance Initiative process further develops its contribution
to a comprehensive approach to aid effectiveness, donor coordination
and harmonisation of Member States' policies, strategies and programmes
to support democratic governance." He agreed that "the
tools available, particularly the Governance Profile, offer an
opportunity to move beyond "information sharing" and
engage in joint analysis and response in areas of governance,
within donor-wide coordinating mechanisms where these exist."
He went on to say that, as noted by the Commission, "there
are already some constructive working relationships across the
EU at expert level."; the UK "regularly shares its expert
knowledge and experience with the EC on political and governance
analyses at both central and country level", and would continue
to:
— work
jointly with the EC to fine-tune existing tools such as the GP,
prepare guidelines on methodology and process of preparing GPs
at the country levels for EC Delegations and discuss ways of integrating
governance within the 10th EDF methodology for the MTR;
— discuss
with the EC the option of expanding joint work to regions other
than the ACP countries; and
— work
closely with the Commission on the impact assessment of the Governance
Initiative and the lessons learnt from the implementation of the
existing European Neighbourhood Partnership Governance Facility.[24]
Our assessment
7.13 We noted that the importance of the link
between development and governance was illustrated by the Commission's
experience under the Cotonou Agreement (of which the EDF is the
financing vehicle), which we considered in the context of Guinea
in the same Report. There, despite the Minister's Explanatory
Memorandum of 4 March 2009 and letter of 9 March 2009, we found
it difficult to see that an intensive exercise in linking development
and governance — particularly in the enhanced political
dialogue process embodied in Article 96 of the Agreement —
had yet to bear significant fruit. We noted that the Cotonou Agreement
is clear: respect for human rights, democratic principles and
the rule of law are essential elements of the partnership, with
the Commission characterising the revision of the political components
in 2005 as "strengthening the political dimension by placing
greater emphasis on effective dialogue and results"; against
the yardstick set out in those last four words, we found difficult
to find much persuasive evidence that the Article 96 process had,
to use the Minister's words, led to the Cotonou provisions being
taken seriously — after over 5 years of Article 96 engagement,
Guinea seemed to be no nearer than it was then to a functioning
democratic and law-based society; instead, all that it appeared
to have done thus far was indeed to demonstrate, as the Minister
for Europe put it, "that ultimately improvements in governance
are driven by partner countries' own commitment to reform".
7.14 We also noted there our disappointment that
the Minister for Europe seemed uninterested in whether or not
the 2010 review of the Cotonou Agreement would address the effectiveness
of this much-trumpeted and resource-intensive component of the
2005 revision, and accordingly asked her to write to us either
now, or when it was available, about the proposed process and
timetable for the 2010 revision, and to explain why she had not
pressed for a proper assessment of the effectiveness of Article
96 process, and how it might be modified, if it was not part of
that process and timetable.
7.15 We also hoped that her DFID counterpart
would take a more proactive stance with regard to the related
Mid-Term Review of the 10th EDF, and the Governance
Incentive. As he had indicated, this exercise was still very much
a work-in-progress. Nonetheless, as he had also indicated, the
Review pointed up the potential of the GIT process to inform EU
political dialogue on key governance issues, including the assessment
of government commitments and the incorporation of the results
of this exercise into political dialogue — which dialogue
was, as we noted, central to the Cotonou Agreement. We looked
to him to ensure that these issues were covered, and subsequent
further developments reported on, when he or any colleague or
successor submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the 10th
EDF Mid-Term Review.[25]
The Minister's letter of 23 March 2009
7.16 The Minister of State at the Department
for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) wrote on 23 March
2009 to inform the Committee of Member States' adoption of the
negotiating directives for the Commission to use with the ACP
states on the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement and the
letter from the Commission to the ACP outlining Europe's priorities
for the negotiations at the GAERC on 23rd February. He said that,
from the EU's perspective, the overall aims of the revision would
be to ensure that it was fully up to date with the main advances
in development policy and to further improve the implementation
of the Agreement. Areas to be discussed include regional integration;
further harmonisation of European Development Fund (EDF) procedures
with those applying to the EC's other development instruments;
and the timing of future revisions of the Partnership.
7.17 In its response, the Committee recalled
this earlier correspondence with his Ministerial colleagues, and
noted that his letter made no mention of any of this either. Now
that the revision process was under way, we asked him let it the
Committee know if a review of the effectiveness of the Article
96 process was to be included in it; and if not, why not.
The Minister of Europe's letter of 6 May 2009
7.18 In her letter of 6 May 2009, the Minister
for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Caroline Flint)
says that she is replying on behalf of her colleague at the Department
for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) and as Minister
for Europe. She says that, as explained in her March letter, "we
share your concern about making the Article 96 processes as effective
as possible in facilitating sustained democratic development.
We have been working to that end.". She continues as follows:
"As part of the scheduled 2010 revision process
there will be a review of Annex VII, which was added in 2005 and
provides further rules and procedures for political dialogue under
Article 96. We did not press for a wider review, as we believe
that the 2005 revisions to Article 96 are positive and provide
the opportunity for a more effective political dialogue. As there
have been only two cases of Article 96 consultations being completed
since the 2005 revisions (in Mauritania (2005) and Fiji (2007))
we judge it too early to comprehensively assess the impact of
the revision, and to be seeking further changes. We feel that
the potential of the revisions has not yet been fully realised,
and the key is working to improve the effectiveness of the implementation
of Article 96 (and Article 8).
"The review negotiations will commence at the
African Caribbean Pacific-European Council Joint Council of Ministers
on 28-29 May, and are expected to continue until February 2010.
The Commission will lead the negotiations on behalf of EU. I can
reassure you that we will be paying close attention to the negotiations
and will look for opportunities that these present to improve
the effectiveness of implementation of Article 96. As Gareth Thomas
stated in his letter of 23 March 2009, he will submit for scrutiny
the Council Decision, at the conclusion of negotiations. We will
continue to seek improvements in the effectiveness of implementation,
through our engagement with on-going, individual cases of Article
96."
Conclusion
7.19 Though it might be argued that developments
in Fiji might not be seen as advertisements for the effectiveness
of the Article 96 process, we are content to draw these exchanges
to a close for the time being, and look to the Ministers' further
contributions on individual cases and, at the conclusion of negotiations,
when submitting the Council Decision for scrutiny.
7.20 In the meantime we are reporting this
latest information to the House, given the widespread interest
in development and governance issues, and also forwarding this
chapter of our Report to the International Development Committee,
so that they may be aware of these exchanges.
17 UN millennium development goals 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.
Back
18
See headnote. Back
19
Under the auspices of the African Union, prominent Africans are
nominated by member countries and appointed by their respective
Heads of State to the APRM (African Peer Review Mechanism) review
panel, to promote policies, standards and practices in favour
of political stability, economic growth, sustainable development,
human rights and regional integration. Back
20
See headnote: HC 34-xxxvii (2005-06), chapter 39 (11 October 2006). Back
21
Set out on pages 10-14 of the full General Affairs and External
Relations Council Conclusions of 16-17 October 2006; see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/91351.pdf Back
22
See headnote: HC16-v (2007-08), chapter 9 (5 December 2007). Back
23
Also available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st05/st05504.en09.pdf
Back
24
See http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/faq_en.htm for details of the
European Neighbourhood Policy, including the European Neighbourhood
Partnership Governance Facility, which will provide additional
EC support, on top of the EC funding amounts already allocated,
for those countries who have made most progress in implementing
the agreed reform agenda set out in their ENP Action Plan. Back
25
See headnote: (27791) 12572/06; (26227) 16041/04 and (29544) 7499/08;
and (30446) 6543/09 : HC 19-x (2008-09), chapters 4, 7 and 8 (11
March 2009). Back
| 
