APPENDIX 5
List of Recommendations
1. Tacis should always fully demonstrate
the public and clearly-agreed linkages between individual national
environmental policies and Tacis policy and environmental programmes.
NGOs can play a key role as a spur to action. (194)
2. Understanding differences of culture
is an essential part of effective delivery of development assistance,
as it is of international relations generally. Organisations seeking
to engage with the New Independent States, particularly those
in Europe, must beware of superficial similarities which can,
in fact, be deceptive. (196)
3. We consider that Tacis should urgently
seek much closer cooperation and coordination of policy
and activity with other appropriate technical assistance programmes,
including the activities and lending policies of International
Financial Institutions. It should in particular build on the mechanisms
provided in the Environmental Action Programme Task Force and
the Project Preparation Committee. This would be consistent with
the Declaration of European Environment Ministers meeting in Århus,
Denmark, in June 1998. (198)
4. We feel that the Commission should demonstrate
much greater transparency and easier accessibility in Tacis programmes
and processes in order to encourage a wider range of would-be
applicants and tenderers. More needs to be done to make Tacis
responsive to the needs of civil, rather than government, stakeholders
at the local and national level. At the level of the European
Union, there should be processes of consultation that allow full
participation by national and international NGOs. The Commission
and all States Parties to the Århus Convention of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe must bear in mind that
the principles of public access to environmental information and
rights of participation apply just as much to the Tacis Programme
as they do in other areas of environmental policy. (200)
5. Tacis should reinforce its existing "People
to People" policy, with renewed attempts to work and develop
trust with and between individuals (rather than just organisations)
in the NIS countries' context, in addition to the contacts that
necessarily occur at intergovernmental level. (202)
6. Fostering the growth of a strong, independent
environmental NGO movement in the NIS, with the resources and
facilities for effective networking, should be a priority for
Tacis. Tacis should look towards the expansion of its smaller-scale
programmes (eg Bistro, City-Twinning, Lien), in order to
provide NGOs and other appropriate interests with more scope for
capacity-building, grass-roots participation and greater sense
of ownership. The EU delegations to NIS countries should have
greater discretion to approve small projects without reference
to Brussels. (204)
7. The European Union and its Member States
must recognise that when they deal with the NIS they are dealing
with educated and sophisticated partners, who have just as much
to give as to receive. We therefore recommend that as a matter
of urgency, the Commission should promote considerably greater
Tacis programme participation by host-country national experts,
and should consider ways in which procedures might be modified
to provide better opportunities for NIS partners to develop appropriate
management skills. The Commission should also consider making
more use of experts from the CEECs, with their longer experience
of the process of transition. (206)
8. Tacis should review its policies concerning
the levels of fees allowed in its programmes for EU-based and
host-country based experts, in order that, taking into account
the differences in cost of living, fee differentials between the
two sets of experts are reduced as far as practicable. Whilst
it is evident that some EU Member States tend to focus on the
immediate benefits in terms of fee income earned by their nationals,
there are longer-term benefits, in terms of doing business with
the NIS, to be had from Tacis programmes which have a catalytic
effect and are capable of being replicated on a wide scale. (208)
9. When a programme comes up for possible
renewal or continuation, Tacis should ensure that the design of
the programme fully meets the changing needs of the host-country
or countries concerned and that the experts and consultants to
be involved have been subject to close evaluation of performance.
The aim should be to have dynamic flexibility without over-rigid
rules. Arrangements should not be so "comfortable" that
reappointment can be taken for granted; on the other hand, the
rules should not preclude the reappointment of consultants whose
performance has been exceptional. (210)
10. Tacis should invest more in familiarisation
programmes and documentation for its experts and would-be tenderers,
who will find themselves working in a culture which is often very
different from their own. Periods of attachment to relevant Western
organisations for NIS partners offer notable value for money and
should be encouraged through Tacis. (212)
11. Tacis should adopt the practice of more delegation
of responsibility from Brussels being given to the incountry
Tacis teams, and Tacis in-country experts should be fully involved
at all stages of the planning of new programmes and projects.
The new Common Service Directorate should explore the possibilities
as one of its early tasks. (214)
12. Staff resources and competence in DG 1A should
be reviewed and strengthened, allowing for possible longer tours
of duty (both in Brussels and in the field), better continuity
of advice and project supervision, and for delays to be drastically
reduced. A "help desk" service for Tacis staff and partners
in the field should be revived or developed further. (216)
13. Subject to suitable appraisal and safeguards
to ensure that funds for project implementation and evaluation
are not put at risk, we feel that the present permitted Tacis
allocation for equipment funding (20 per cent or less
of total programme funding) should be made more flexible. (218)
14. Tacis should set up a central database of
previously completed Tacis programmes and projects, together with
evaluation data. To be of real value, the database should include
details of projects funded by other donors and international financial
institutions in similar areas of activity. There should be open
public access to such a facility. (220)
15. Considerably more information about the monitoring
procedures for Tacis programmes should be made public to all concerned.
A greater degree of coherence is needed between the incountry
Monitoring Units, the EU Delegations and DG 1A in Brussels
(including the separate Tacis evaluation service). Evaluation
is an essential part of the process of ongoing project management,
and should be reflected in the Commission's procedures and backed
by adequate resources and training. In the long-term interests
of the EU's relations with the NIS, the Commission and Member
States must be prepared to strike a balance between monitoring
requirements and the risks of project failure, and should not
impose disproportionately onerous systems on Tacis staff and their
partners. The new Common Service Directorate should, as a matter
of priority, devise a coherent and seamless relationship between
monitoring and evaluation. The European Environment Agency has
a potentially important role in this area too. (222)
16. It is essential that the Commission should
work closely with OECD, the EBRD and other international financial
institutions to ensure that no Tacis project is approved without
a clear strategy for follow-on activity. This would include a
business plan which makes provision for enhancement and further
development of the project and for its long-term funding. (224)
17. We would hope that the various comments and
recommendations which we have made in this Part of the Report
will strike a sympathetic note with the Commission and the Council
as they deliberate on the new Regulation. As we have said, it
is essential to maintain and strengthen the position of environment
as a priority area for Tacis. In saying that, we would wish to
emphasise one point. The critical nature of nuclear safety issues
in the NIS makes it essential that nuclear matters and other aspects
of the environment should remain separate indicative areas in
the new Regulation. In future, however, they should be placed
under entirely separate headings for budgetary and presentational
purposes. (226)
| 
