39 EU support for democratic governance
| (35048)
10939/13 COM(13) 403
| Commission Communication: EU Support for Democratic Governance, with a focus on the Governance Initiative
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 11 June 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 17 June 2013
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 1 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
39.1 The Council Conclusions of 18 May 2009 Support to Democratic
Governance — towards an enhanced EU framework requested
the European Commission to provide "a comprehensive report
on the implementation of the October 2006 Council Conclusions,
focusing on the EU support to democratic governance, managed by
the Commission in all regions, including the Governance Initiative
and the Governance Facility". In those Conclusions, the Council
underlines that democratic governance is critical for poverty
reduction in the context of sustainable development and for reaching
the Millennium Development Goals.[137]
The Commission Communication
39.2 This Report notes some key policy documents relevant to governance,
and takes stock of the Governance Initiative (GI) for the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the Governance Facility
for countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy.
39.3 It then draws lessons from the implementation of the geographical
and thematic instruments through which the EU supports democratic
governance.[138]
39.4 The key documents are:
—
two Joint Communications issued in 2011 in response to the changing
environment in the EU Neighbourhood. The new approach is based
on mutual accountability and a shared commitment to respecting
universal values, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
In essence, the "more for more" principle provides for
differentiation based on reform performance: as such, it represents
a substantial change in the EU's relationship with those countries
that commit to measurable reforms;
— the
Commission Communication, Increasing the impact of EU Development
Policy: an Agenda for Change,[139]
endorsed by the Council on 14 May 2012, recognises that good governance,
along with human rights, democracy and gender equality, is one
of the two main priority areas of EU development policy. EU support
for governance should, it states, henceforth figure more prominently
in all of the EU's partnerships.[140]
The Agenda for Change underlines the need to provide incentives
for results-oriented governance reforms and to support interventions
that strengthen actors and processes at local, sectoral and national
level; and
— The
Communication, The Future Approach to EU Budget Support to
Third Countries, in which the Commission underlined that it
will ensure that EU budget support would be consistent with the
overarching principles and objectives of EU external action (Article
21 TEU) and development policy (Article 208 TFEU).[141]
In addition, budget support as an instrument of EU development
policy will be based on performance assessment and mutual accountability.
39.5 In 2006, the European Commission proposed the
Governance Initiative (GI) for ACP countries. The main component
was an incentive mechanism offering ACP partners additional funding
— €2.7 billion from the 10th European Development Fund
(EDF) —depending on their commitment to democratic governance.
39.6 The other component of the GI was continued
political and financial support for the African Peer Review Mechanism
(APRM), a self-monitoring mechanism created by the African Union
member states to promote high standards of governance.
39.7 The Report finds that overall the GI in particular
was helpful in supporting ACP countries to make commitments to
improve governance. The GI is judged to have raised the importance
of governance reforms in the context of development cooperation,
and the levels of financing available. By providing support to
the Africa Peer Review Mechanism, the GI is deemed to have supported
an increase in the APRM's coverage and national-level implementation.
Improvements were also seen in the utilisation of governance
analysis by the EU at country level to inform policy and programming
decisions. The Report does not provide information on country-level
results of either instrument.
39.8 The Governance Facility focused its funds on
a certain number of Neighbourhood partners in the areas of human
rights, rule of law and democracy, linked to European Neighbourhood
Policy action plans at national level. It was operational from
2007-2009 with an allocation of €300 million (£256 million).
39.9 The report concludes by noting that support
for democratic governance remains a top priority in EU development
cooperation, and underlining the importance of the new approach
to budget support: as it aims to strengthen the contractual partnership
between the EU and partner countries in order to build and consolidate
democracies, pursue sustainable economic growth and eradicate
poverty, based on mutual accountability and shared commitment
to fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule
of law. This, the Commission says, calls for close coordination
between Commission services, the EEAS and Member States: enhanced
and coherent policy and political dialogue should be closely linked
to any incentive scheme or funding of governance reform in partner
countries.
39.10 Fostering country ownership — involving
all relevant domestic actors in defining the development path
and governance arrangements — is seen as key. The political
will of the authorities in partner countries at all levels and
their genuine commitment to reform remain a prerequisite for successful
reform, particularly in sensitive areas such as democratic governance.
Working more strategically with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
in policy making and accountability are at the heart of the new
approach: EU Delegations and Member States are essential to enhancing
the role of civil society in democratic governance.
The Government's view
39.11 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 1 July 2013,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for
International Development (Lynne Featherstone) notes that both
instruments had a number of shortcomings that reduced their effectiveness:
these included short time-scales, limited local country ownership,
and inflexible operating procedures. Also, the Minister says,
a critical factor was that the financial incentives that each
instrument provided were disconnected from broader policy and
political dialogue between the EU and partner governments: this,
she says, reduced the value of the instruments in offering incentives
for sustained reform, and the possibility to reward stronger performing
countries with increased funding.
39.12 The Minister goes on to say that these conclusions
are consistent with findings drawn from wider governance work
supported by the EU, which emphasise the following factors as
necessary for effective support:
— tailoring
support to democratic governance to local context;
— the
value of supporting regional or continental initiatives on governance,
such as the Africa Peer Review Mechanism;
— working
with civil society partners;
— linking
financial incentives to broader policy dialogue, and using strong
performance monitoring; and
— better
harmonisation within the EU (across different instruments, and
between the Commission and Member States).
39.13 The Minister describes the findings as a helpful
contribution to on-going efforts by DFID and others to improve
the impact and quality of support to democratic governance, and
says that they "resonate with recent DFID and FCO policy
work in this area."
39.14 She says that the Commission has learnt lessons
from the approach taken by these instruments, and has taken steps
to improve subsequent instruments that address the shortcomings
noted in the report.
39.15 She continues her comments thus:
"The UK was influential in designing the new
budget support policy and modalities adopted by the European Union
in 2012. The new budget support instruments remedy the shortcomings
of instruments such as the Governance Initiative, particularly
in the state-building contracts for fragile states, which have
a clear system of indicators linked to improvements public financial
management and state-building. Disbursement of funds only takes
place when the agreed progress has been made and verified on the
ground. In addition, the European Union has increased its emphasis
on the importance of policy dialogue as the overall context for
instruments such as budget support."
39.16 Looking ahead, the Minister says that the 11th
European Development Framework (EDF) has also taken a different
approach:
"Instead of allocating separate incentive funds
for country programmes (as happened under the 10th EDF, which
funded the GI and the GF), the 11th EDF will have a larger reserve
of unallocated funds which can be used to increase country programme
allocations for good performers."
Conclusion
39.17 Although this report contains no new policy
proposals, nor reveals any serious shortcomings or major breakthroughs,
we are nonetheless drawing it to the attention of the House because
of its timing. In the "near neighbourhood" (e.g., Belarus,
Ukraine); in the countries of the "Arab Spring"; in
Zimbabwe; in other ACP partner countries (e.g. Fiji), in post-conflict
Syria — in these and many other partner countries, the central
assumptions will no doubt continue to be put to the test. Will
the EU have any more success than hitherto in making conditionality
a reality, and genuinely linking funding to "more for more"?
Will Civil Society Organisations be allowed the sort of political
space that is essential for their emergence and consolidation?
Is the political will of the authorities in partner countries
at all levels and their genuine commitment to reform — obviously
a prerequisite for successful reform, particularly in sensitive
areas such as democratic governance — likely to be any more
forthcoming than hitherto? Time alone will tell; in the short
term, the latest elections in Zimbabwe, and their authentication
by the AU and SADDC, are not encouraging.
39.18 We now clear the Commission Communication.
137 Available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st09/st09908.en09.pdf. Back
138
The report does not cover assistance to the countries in
the enlargement zone, where good governance is at the heart of
the political accession criteria. Back
139
(33244) 15660/11 + ADDs 1-2, 5th Report (HC 86-v) of Session 2012-13,
dated 20 June 2012, chapter 12. Back
140
Inclusive and sustainable growth is the other priority. Back
141
The Future Approach to EU Budget Support To Third Countries, (33245)
11561/11, 5th Report (HC 86-v) of Session 2012-13, dated 20 June
2012, chapter 13. Back
| 
