53 EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | European Court of Auditors' (ECA) Special Report: EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia
|
| Legal base | Article 287(4) TFEU; —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Document number | (36615), —
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
53.1 The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) is the
means by which the EU supports reforms in the "enlargement
countries" with financial and technical help.[ 384]
For the period 2007-13, the IPA budget was €11.5 billion;
its successor, IPA II, will seek to build on the results already
achieved, with a budget of €11.7 billion for the period 2014-20.
The EU enlargement strategy and the revised IPA regulation are
paying increasing attention to financial and economic governance
in the accession countries.
53.2 Since 2007, the EU's IPA financial support to
Serbia has amounted to approximately €170 million per year.
Governance, identified by the Commission as the most challenging
area, received a quarter of the IPA funding. Accession negotiations
with Serbia were formally opened on 1 January 2014.
53.3 On 13 January 2015, the European Court of Auditors
(ECA) published this Special Report on the effectiveness of EU
pre-accession support to Serbia. The report covers the period
2007-13. It looks in particular at the key area of governance.
It concluded that, overall, the Commission was managing pre-accession
support to Serbia, including the IPA projects, effectively; but
projects suffered from weaknesses regarding their design, implementation
and sustainability.
53.4 The previous Committee noted the implications
not only for assistance to Serbia at this critical juncture but
also for the wider enlargement process. It therefore asked the
then (and current) Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) to
provide it with a copy of the Council Conclusions and to illustrate
how the wider lessons of this Special Report had been noted and
endorsed in them (see paragraphs 52.08-52.15 below for details).
53.5 We agree with the Minister that the Council
Conclusions (which we reproduce at the Annex to this chapter of
our Report) fit the bill. We note in particular that the Council:
— emphasises
the crucial nature of the phase of the integration process that
the EU and Serbia has now entered;
— welcomes the fact that the Commission
is putting increasing emphasis on governance issues in planning
its further financial and non-financial assistance to Serbia;
and
— underlines the relevance of the findings
of this audit for the wider Enlargement process.
53.6 We look forward to seeing evidence of these
messages being taken on board by the Commission/EEAS, both with
regard to Serbia and other countries involved in the enlargement
process, when the 2016 "enlargement package" is submitted
for scrutiny this autumn, and in reports on IPA II implementation.
53.7 In the meantime, we now clear this European
Court of Auditors' Special Report from scrutiny.
Full
details of the documents:
European Court of Auditors' (ECA) Special Report No. 19/2014
— EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia: (36615),
—.
Background
53.8 The European Court of Auditors (ECA) carries
out audits, through which it assesses the collection and spending
of EU funds. It examines whether financial operations have been
properly recorded and disclosed, legally and regularly executed.
It also, via its Special Reports, carries out audits designed
to assess how well EU funds have been managed so as to ensure
economy, efficiency and effectiveness.[ 385]
53.9 The Special Report sets out six concrete recommendations
to enable the Commission to address these weaknesses (which the
Commission has taken steps to take forward in the latest IPA programmes),
and four actions in relation to the Commission's structured dialogue
with Serbia on governance issues.[ 386]
53.10 The then (and current) Minister for Europe
(Mr David Lidington) welcomed the Report and its recommendations,
and the level of independent scrutiny it provided of EU pre-accession
support to Serbia. As "a strong supporter of EU Assistance
programmes such as IPA", the then Minister also welcomed
efforts to draw lessons from past experiences in order to inform
and improve future implementation, and ensure the effective use
of EU funding. He further welcomed the increased focus in the
new IPA-II framework on priorities identified in the EU's Enlargement
Strategy; for Serbia, he expected to see this focus on "democracy
and the rule of law, including the key area of governance, and
on competitiveness and growth". Reforms in these areas would
"be vital for Serbia as it looks to progress in its accession
negotiations". He also regarded the emphasis on a sector-based
approach being adopted in IPA II as a positive step, which should
help with coordination between development agencies; increase
ownership in beneficiary countries; encourage greater efficiencies
among Member States, as their efforts would be guided by a common
policy framework; and thus provide for enhanced complementarity
and a more effective results-orientated impact on the pre-accession
process.[ 387]
The previous Committee's assessment
53.11 The previous Committee agreed with the Minister's
suggestion that this ECA Special Report has much wider implications
for the enlargement process than just Serbia's progress. As it
had noted when considering the Commission's 2015 "enlargement
package",[ 388]
2014 was seen as a year of fitful progress. In Albania
and Macedonia, the opposition was boycotting parliament
and thus blocking reforms. In Kosovo, a government had
yet to be formed after the June elections. In Bosnia and Herzegovina
(BiH), the Commission's reference to a lack of collective will
suggested that it did not expect long-standing political inertia
to be resolved by October's elections. Problems with "rule
of law/good governance" issues predominated in Montenegro
— so much so that the Commission indicated that it might
slow down the accession process. In the case of Turkey,
there was a litany of concerns about the erosion of fundamental
freedoms and the separation of powers. Serbia was the country
about which the Commission appeared to be most hopeful —
even though it was the least supportive of what was regarded as
a benefit of the accession process, viz., alignment with the EU's
foreign policy priorities, with the new Government preferring
to sustain active relations with Russia, including welcoming President
Putin in Belgrade as recently as 16 October 2014.[ 389]
53.12 The Minister for Europe had welcomed the Commission's
"fair and balanced assessment of progress and challenges
in EU enlargement countries and of the enlargement process itself",
which he said was "closely aligned with the Government's
priorities on enlargement, highlighting the importance of addressing
the fundamentals first and the need for firm but fair conditionality",
and which "focuses correctly on the central challenges of
the rule of law, judicial reform and the fight against organised
crime and corruption; economic governance and competitiveness;
the importance of strengthening democratic institutions and public
administration reform, and protecting fundamental rights; and
the need for good neighbourly relations and dispute resolution".[ 390]
53.13 With regard to this Special Report, the Minister
said that the Council expected to respond in the form of Council
Conclusions in March 2015, which he expected would welcome the
report as "a useful tool for improving the effectiveness
of EU pre-accession assistance to Serbia under IPA II". The
then Committee expressed the hope that those Council Conclusions
would also underline this Special Report's wider implications,
given the emphasis that was now purportedly being placed in the
accession process on "up front" conditionality, centring
not on commitments by candidate countries, but on a track record
of successful implementation of programmes that addressed those
"central challenges" that the then Minister had rightly
highlighted.
53.14 The previous Committee therefore asked the
Minister to provide a copy of those Council Conclusions in due
course, and to illustrate how the wider lessons of this Special
Report had been noted and endorsed in them.
53.15 In the meantime, the Special Report was retained
under scrutiny.[ 391]
The then Minister's letter of 7 April 2015
53.16 The then (and current) Minister confirms that
the 15 March 2015 Council Conclusions did indeed welcome the Special
Report as a useful tool for improving the effectiveness of EU
pre-accession assistance to Serbia under IPA II, and endorse the
recommendations made in the report. He also professes himself
satisfied that the wider implications of the Report's findings
are reflected in the conclusions "which specifically cite
relevance to the wider EU Enlargement process in the first paragraph"
and "also invite the Commission to inform the IPA Management
Committee, which my department attends, regularly on the issues
raised by the Special Report and to ensure they are addressed
systematically". This, the then Minister says, "will
provide an ongoing mechanism to ensure that wider lessons are
followed up on".
Previous Committee Reports
Thirty-fourth Report HC 219-xxxiii (2014-15), chapter
5 (25 February 2015); also see (36392), 14152/14 + ADD 1 et
al: Twenty-eighth Report HC 219-xxvii (2014-15), chapter
13 (7 January 2015) and Sixteenth Report HC 219-xvi (2014-15),
chapter 4 (29 October 2014).
Annex: Council conclusions on
Special Report No. 19/2014 by the Court of Auditors: "EU
Pre-Accession Assistance to Serbia"
1. "The Council thanks
the Court of Auditors for its Special Report No 19/2014 and takes
good note of the conclusions and recommendations therein. The
Council notes that the objective of the audit was to assess whether
the Commission is managing pre-accession assistance (IPA) to Serbia
effectively and, in greater depth, its support for the key area
of governance. While it was not the aim of the audit to address
the performance of the Serbian authorities in dealing with the
areas covered by IPA, the Special Report comes at a timely moment,
in a crucial phase of the integration process of Serbia after
the opening of accession negotiations in January 2014. The audit
covered projects from the 2007-13 programming period, with a particular
focus on the results and on whether governance and the fight against
corruption were cross-cutting issues for projects where good governance
was not a primary objective. The Council underlines the relevance
of the findings of this audit to the management of pre-accession
assistance for the beneficiaries, and the wider Enlargement process.
2. "The Council welcomes
in particular the conclusion of the Court that, overall, the Commission
is managing pre-accession support to Serbia effectively and that
the financial assistance, along with other forms of support, effectively
helps Serbia to implement social and economic reforms and to improve
governance in the country. The Council also welcomes that based
on the experience gained in other IPA beneficiaries the Commission
is putting increasing emphasis on governance issues in planning
its financial and non-financial assistance to Serbia. Furthermore,
the Council welcomes that IPA financial assistance is based on
a coherent strategic framework and the approach to select projects
relevant to prepare Serbia for accession is gradually improving.
At the same time, the Council notes the conclusion that the audited
projects produced their planned outputs, but also suffered from
weaknesses regarding their design, implementation and sustainability.
The Council notes positively the Court's observation that, when
drawing up the latest IPA annual programmes, the Commission took
steps to address the shortcomings identified by the Court in the
earlier projects, including the need for more systematic coordination
of IPA projects with those of other donors.
3. "In this regard, the
Council takes good note of the Court's specific recommendations
to the Commission to improve the programming, design, implementation
and sustainability of IPA projects in Serbia. The recommendations
on the management of non-financial assistance include support
to the Serbian authorities to further rationalise their national
strategies, to finalise a fully-fledged public finance management
roadmap, to improve the consultation mechanism of civil society
organisations in the IPA programming, to assess systematically
the need for specific anti-corruption or other good-governance
measures during project design, and to take steps to integrate
the Commission's audit work on the national pre-accession structures
into the countrywide assessment of public finance management.
4. "The Council thanks
the Commission for its reply attached to the Special Report No
19/2014 and takes positive note in particular of the statement
that some of the specific recommendations addressed in the sector
evaluations have already been reflected in the new IPA Regulation
(EU) No 231/2014, the common implementing Regulation (EU) No 236/2014
and draft framework agreements to be concluded with each individual
beneficiary. The Council also takes positive note that the decentralised
implementation system process has been built up for the management
of pre-accession funds, and that the Commission's commitment on
a public expenditure and financial accountability assessment is
going to be carried out. The Council invites the Commission to
inform the IPA Management Committee regularly on the issues raised
by the Court of Auditors' Special Report and to ensure that they
are addressed systematically, including through EU-Serbia Stabilisation
and Association Committee meetings, as appropriate.
5. "Finally, in line with
the Council conclusions of 11 December 2012, 17 December 2013
and 16 December 2014, the Council recalls that pre-accession assistance
should, inter alia, increase flexibility and simplify procedures,
while ensuring sustainability, visibility, accountability and
full transparency of actions undertaken, strengthen ownership,
have enhanced coherence between the financial assistance and the
overall progress made in the implementation of the pre-accession
strategy and improve results and impact. The role of civil society
should also be enhanced both in programmes implemented through
government bodies and as direct beneficiaries of EU assistance."[ 392]
384 The other candidate countries are Albania, Macedonia,
Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Potential candidate
countries (those without formal Candidate Status but with an agreed
EU perspective) are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.
See http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm
for full information. Back
385 See http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ecadefault.aspx for full
details of the ECA's work. Back
386 See http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/INSR14_19/INSR14_19_EN.pdf
for the ECA Report. Back
387 See Thirty-fourth Report HC 219-xxxiii (2014-15), chapter 5 (25
February 2015) for further details. Back
388 The Commission's Communication: Enlargement Strategy 2014-2015
and its associated country progress reports; see (36392), 14152/14
+ ADD 1 et al: Twenty-eighth Report HC 219-xxvii (2014-15),
chapter 13 (7 January 2015) and Sixteenth Report HC 219-xvi (2014-15),
chapter 4 (29 October 2014). Back
389 Thus, on 21 April 2015, European Council President Donald Tusk
noted in his statement following his with Prime Minister of Serbia
Aleksandar Vuèiæ: "We also discussed foreign
and security challenges. I underlined the importance of Serbia's
foreign policy approach being guided by its number one strategic
objective: to join the European Union. I expressed the EU's expectation
that Serbia progressively aligns with the European Union's positions
in the process up to accession": see press release. Back
390 See Thirty-fourth Report HC 219-xxxiii (2014-15), chapter 5 (25
February 2015). Back
391 Thirty-fourth Report HC 219-xxxiii (2014-15), chapter 5 (25 February
2015). Back
392 See http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/05/98/EU_59898/imfname_10538476.pdf.
Back
| 
