10TH EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND: IMPLEMENTATION
(14661/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Gareth Thomas
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International
Development
Sub-Committee C considered the above document
at its meeting on 7 December 2006 and agreed with the general
thrust of the proposals, which should improve the management of
the funds committed under the 10th European Development Fund over
the period 2008-13.
The European Development Fund is one of the
main instruments at the disposal of the EU to implement the Strategic
Partnership with Africa, on which the Committee recently published
a report (34th report of Session 2005-06, 7 July 2006). The report
covered many of the issues that the proposed Council Regulation
seeks to address, such as cooperation between the EU and the Member
States in the programming of development assistance. Therefore,
the report is the basis for the Committee's general position on
the European Development Fund.
Overall, the changes proposed in the draft Regulation
are welcome. However, the Sub-Committee's deliberations gave rise
to some reservations on aspects of the current text, several of
which echo those that you sent out in your Explanatory Memorandum
dated 15 November 2006.
Article 10.4 on the EDF Management Committee
In your Explanatory Memorandum you rightly raise
the issue of the decision-making process in the event of a disagreement
between the EDF Committee (representing the Member States) and
the Commission. We think, that Article 10.4 is ambiguous, and
allows for automatic implementation of the measures by the Commission
after the 30-day deadline, if the Council has not adopted a dissenting
position by that time.
We assume you agree that the procedure should
be streamlined in order to avoid the bypassing of the EDF Committee
by the Commission, and to avoid clogging up the agenda of the
Council. The Regulation could stipulate, for example, that the
Commission must take into account the views expressed by the EDF
Committee, and possibly that the Commission should present a new
version of the proposed measures if the EDF Committee feels that
this is necessary. Can you confirm that proposals would only be
sent to Council for a final decision if the EDF Committee had
rejected the revised proposals. Overall, the changes the Sub-Committee
recommend should serve to strengthen the oversight role of the
EDF Committee.
Article 10.6 on the management of the African
Peace Facility (APF)
It is questionable whether the idea of an action
programme is compatible with the flexible use of the APF funds
to respond to unpredictable crises on the African continent. You
have indicated that you intend to seek clarification on the scope
and management of the proposed action programme, a move which
we very much welcome and support. We hope that in doing so, you
will ensure that the APF can be used in a flexible and non-bureaucratic
manner, by amendment of the current text if necessary.
Article 7.4 on "technical" and other
adjustments
We support the need for a clarification of this
clause, as set out in your Explanatory Memorandum. A requirement
should, however, be inserted for the Commission to automatically
inform the EDF Committee of changes which are made under application
of this article.
Article 3.1(b) on dialogue with the partner country/region
In the spirit of ownership of the development
process by the countries/regions concerned, this paragraph could
refer specifically to the need for leadership by partner countries/regions,
as opposed to the current text which only refers to "sufficient
ownership". We believe that this would be very much in the
spirit of the European Consensus on Development.
Article 3.1(c) on stakeholder involvement
This article would benefit from a widening of
the scope of stakeholder involvement. In particular, this paragraph
could refer to national and regional actors, including the national
parliament and regional assemblies, as well as non-governmental
and civil society organisations, where appropriate, whether representative
or not. Other international organisations, such as the United
Nations and the International Financial Institutions, may also
warrant a mention. Article 4.6 could be amended along similar
lines in a manner consistent with Article 3.1(c).
The Sub-Committee has agreed to clear the document
from scrutiny, on the assumption that these comments will be taken
into account in the current negotiations by HMG. I would also
be grateful if you could keep the Committee informed of the outcome
of the negotiations.
A final point relates to the Explanatory Memorandum,
which was slightly unclear concerning the timetable for adoption.
Explanatory Memoranda need to contain a clear indication of the
timeline and process for the consideration of proposals, including
when they are expected to go to Council for adoption or to be
noted, where relevant. This will help the Sub-Committee plan its
work and make sure that you receive comments in a timely fashion.
12 December 2006
Letter from Gareth Thomas MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 December 2006
in response to my Explanatory Memorandum dated 15 November 2006.
You informed me that the Sub-Committee agreed with the thrust
of the proposals but had a number of comments which you wanted
to be taken into account in the negotiation of the document. I
am writing to update you on the negotiations, including on the
specific issues you raised.
When I wrote in November the timetable for adoption
was unclear. Finland was aiming to secure agreement during its
Presidency. Reasonable progress was made before Christmas, but
some issues remain unresolved. The German Presidency is aiming
for adoption during the first quarter of this year. This seems
realistic. The Commission issued a revised proposal on 7 December
which will be discussed later this month. There are likely to
be further alterations to this text before the negotiations are
concluded.
As regards the Sub-Committee's comments:
Article 10.4 on the EDF Management Committee
The Commission has agreed that the Article should
be amended so that the EDF Committee is not bypassed. The revised
version states that the Commission "shall defer" application
of the measures in case of a disagreement with the EDF Commission,
rather than "may defer". I agree that the Council should
only be consulted as a last resort. This procedure is only likely
to be used very rarely, if at all.
Article 10.6 on the management of the African
Peace Facility (APF)
Our priority remains the ability to use the
APF in a speedy, flexible and non-bureaucratic manner. The proposed
action programme should help provide more strategic direction
for the use of the funds, but I do not think that it will restrict
the Commission and Council's ability to manage the funds flexibly
and efficiently given the other provisions within the draft Regulation.
Article 7.4
In response to UK concerns, the Commission has
added a sentence to the revised version station that they will
inform Member States within one month of technical adjustments
which are made under this article.
Article 3.1 (b) on dialogue with the partner country/region
The Commission is understandably keen to keep
the document reasonably concise. So it may not be possible to
include an exhaustive list of stakeholders. Nevertheless I agree
with the sentiment of your comments and I can assure you that
during the Council discussions the UK has stressed the importance
of adequate stakeholder involvement when programming EDF funding.
This is reflected in Article 1 of the revised draft.
The Sub-Committee may also like to note that
the Commission has agreed to make changes to the text of Articles
6.3 and 6.4 in response to the queries set out in my Explanatory
Memorandum.
As requested in your letter I will keep the
Committee informed of the outcome of the negotiations.
31 January 2007
| 
