41 Addressing the needs of the most vulnerable
in Sudan
| (31581)
9329/10
COM(10) 195
| Draft Council Decision concerning the allocation of funds de-committed from projects under the 9th and previous European Development Funds (EDF) for the purpose of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable population in Sudan
|
| Legal base | Articles 1(4) and 6 of the Internal Agreement between Member States on the Financing of Community Aid in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 3 May 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 25 May 2010
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 26 May 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 12 July 2010
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
41.1 In 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an
arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, over
two counts of alleged war crimes and five counts of crimes against
humanity. In the same year, the Government of Sudan decided not
to ratify the first revision of the Cotonou Agreement (the basis
for the EDF) because it contains new articles that relate to the
ICC. As a consequence, Sudan cannot access €297 million of
funds that would otherwise have been made available to it under
the 10th EDF.
The Council Decision
41.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 26 May 2010, the Secretary
of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell) says
that this is a crucial period for Sudan. He notes that: in January
2011, the semi-autonomous South of Sudan will hold a referendum
on secession from the rest of Sudan; irrespective of the outcome,
they will continue to face huge humanitarian and development challenges
requiring strong engagement from donors; and that other marginalised
areas in Sudan — principally Darfur, The Three Areas and
the East — also continue to face huge humanitarian and development
challenges. He then explains that, given the political and humanitarian
situation, Member States have encouraged the Commission) to find
ways to channel funds to the Sudanese population, and that it
has now proposed using €150 million of "de-committed"
funds — funds not used as originally intended — from
the 9th and previous EDFs; discussions in the Council's Africa
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Working Group suggest that the requisite
unanimity among Member States will be forthcoming; once this obtains,
the Commission Delegation in Sudan will then consult Member States
on how the funds will be utilised. They will, the Secretary of
State underlines, not be channelled through the Government of
Sudan. The focus is expected to be on rural development and basic
services to be used in the marginalised areas of the South, Darfur,
the East and the Transitional Areas. EU Member States will subsequently
be required to give formal approval to the Commission's spending
proposals through the EDF Management Committee.
41.3 In addition, the Secretary of State notes that
the Commission:
— is
also currently considering the possibilities of providing additional
funding for Sudan through its Instrument for Stability, and plans
to bring forward a proposal in May;
— has
indicated that it may, at a later date, bring forward a proposal
for using 10th EDF funding, whilst avoiding any benefits going
to the Government of Sudan, to address any remaining funding shortfall.
But (the Secretary of State says) practical and legal difficulties
would first need to be resolved with such a proposal.
The Government's view
41.4 The Secretary of State notes that the UK is
strongly engaged in Sudan, both bilaterally (c.£250 million
annually, of which £140 million is humanitarian and development
funding, with around half spent in the South of the country) and
through international organisations such as the EU and UN. He
says that the there are no additional financial implications arising
from this proposal, the de-committed funds identified from the
9th and prior EDFs having already been made available by Member
States to the Commission, who are holding them in a reserve awaiting
Member States' consideration of possible re-programming. He describes
the UK as having been at the forefront of efforts to get additional
Commission funding approved for Sudan despite its non-ratification
of the 2005 revision of the Cotonou Agreement, and says that it
has taken over a year for the Commission to make this proposal.
In order to avoid the risk that the proposal is perceived to undermine
the Cotonou agreement, with funds continuing to flow to Sudan
despite non-ratification, he says that key conditions for Member
States are that "programming will focus on the marginalised
and under-developed areas of Sudan, and that no funds will be
routed through the Government of Sudan"; that the Commission
has indicated that it can find implementing partners in the marginalised
areas that avoid routing funds in this way; and that the funds
will be managed according to the implementation arrangements for
EDF 10.
41.5 Finally, he says that he expects the proposal
to be submitted to the Council for decision in May, with the programming
proposal to be submitted subsequently for Member States' formal
approval in the EDF Committee later in May or in June.
41.6 Subsequently, it became clear that the proposal
had been held up because of difficulties in agreeing a joint European
Commission-Council statement to accompany the proposal to clarify
when funds could be channelled through the Government of Sudan.
The Minister's letter of 5 July 2010
41.7 In his letter of 5 July 2010, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development
(Stephen O'Brien) says that although the proposal itself was uncontroversial
and accepted by all Member States, agreement on this joint European
Commission-Council statement proved more problematic. He continues
as follows:
"The original language of the statement read:
'The Council and the Commission agree that, in the implementation
of this Decision, no funds shall be channelled through the central
Government of Sudan.'
"Subsequently, the Commission broke silence
procedure on this proposed language. The Commission argued that,
given that the funds might be used over an extended period of
time and circumstances might change, the proposed language could
undermine the Commission's ability to deliver on the commitment
to provide funds to the most vulnerable areas of Sudan.
"The Commission subsequently proposed revised
language indicating that it would consider channelling funds through
the Government of Sudan in certain circumstances, and that it
did not intend to refer back to Member States before doing so.
The UK then broke silence on this proposed statement, as we were
concerned that it did not offer sufficient safeguards to Member
States against these funds going through the Government of Sudan.
"Subsequent negotiations between the UK and
the Commission led to the following compromise language:
"The Council and the Commission agree that,
in the implementation of this Decision, funds should not be channelled
through the central Government of Sudan. In exceptional circumstances, when
such channelling is necessary for the EU's support to peace and
development in Sudan and/or in order to ensure that the Sudanese
population receive the full benefits of these funds, the
Commission will, in the context of EU donor coordination in Sudan,
consult with Member States in advance to verify the need
for such channelling."
41.8 The Minister says that this language represents
a good outcome for the UK:
"It provides guarantees that the Commission
will consult Member States before putting money through the Government
of Sudan channels, but without requiring new bespoke procedures
to be established in Brussels (a key Commission concern). The
people in the marginalised areas of Sudan are amongst the poorest
in the world, and this funding will represent a significant contribution
towards improving services for them."
41.9 The Minister concludes by noting that, this
having been agreed, the combined proposal and statement was expected
to be adopted by the Council on 12 July 2010.
Conclusion
41.10 The proposal would appear to have been well
thought through, and appropriate procedures agreed concerning
Government of Sudan channels. Although no questions arise, we
felt that a short Report would be appropriate because of the strong
UK involvement in an area of sustained political interest.
41.11 We now clear the document. In so doing,
the Committee recognises that that the Dissolution and delay in
establishing the Committee militated against the Minister withholding
agreement until this Decision had been scrutinised, and does not
object, on this occasion and in these circumstances.
| 
