# CE2004088EN.01015501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/155

---

(2004/C 88 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3695/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   MTR of CSPs in Asia and Latin America

Subject:

The Country and Regional Strategy Papers aim to give a coherent framework for Community cooperation activities towards Asia and Latin American countries. The Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) assesses the validity of the priorities set up in the strategy documents. The guidelines for the programming exercise specify consultation with stakeholders as part of the process. It is self-evident that the programming exercise loses credibility and legitimacy when there has not been any consultation of stakeholders. However, it appears, as some NGOs argue, that most, if not all, CSPs in Asia and Latin American countries have been written from behind the desks of officials in Brussels. This seriously undermines the value and validity of the CSPs.

At present a new issue is arising in relation to the process of reviewing the CSPs in the MTR. It is clear that the validity of the MTR is in it following clear objectives, guidelines and indicators for measuring performance, and a well-defined process. Whereas these guidelines have been developed for ACP countries, for unknown reasons these guidelines are not seen as applying for other developing countries. More importantly MTRs in other developing countries are being carried out without any guidelines, information or transparent process. The Commission has also indicated that it will not seek or value consultation with stakeholders, including civil society, in this process. This is an extraordinary position.

| 1. | Is the Commission intending to apply the guidelines developed for the MTR in ACP countries to MTRs in other development countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission intending to apply the guidelines developed for the MTR in ACP countries to MTRs in other development countries?

| 2. | If not, what guidelines have been developed for the MTRs in other developing countries, and what is the reason that these are different from ACP countries — given that the objectives of the MTRs are the same for all developing countries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, what guidelines have been developed for the MTRs in other developing countries, and what is the reason that these are different from ACP countries — given that the objectives of the MTRs are the same for all developing countries?

| 3. | What is the information policy of the Commission on the MTR process? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the information policy of the Commission on the MTR process?

| 4. | What is the planning of the Commission on CSPs and MTRs in Asia and Latin American countries for 2003-2005? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What is the planning of the Commission on CSPs and MTRs in Asia and Latin American countries for 2003-2005?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

(14 January 2004)

It is important to stress that Commission Delegations in Asia and Latin America (ALA) were instructed to consult government and civil society when drafting the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs). Although there may be differences between the relative participation of Headquarters and Delegations, it is not the case that for any region CSPs would have been written ‘from behind the desks of officials in Brussels’.

As regards the guidelines for the Mid Term Review (MTR) exercise, the Commission is required to involve civil society/non-state actors in the programming and implementation processes and so consult with stakeholders. Such consultations are a key requirement for the review.

In order to maintain coherence and consistently high quality in the CSP process, it is accepted that certain basic principles should apply to the MTR of Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) in all regions.

On 7 October 2003, the Directors General of Directorate General Development and External Relations approved a document prepared by the inter-service Quality Support Group ‘Framework for Assessing, revised Strategy and Programming Documents’ which builds on the orientations laid down in the Council Conclusions as regards the Mid Term Review (MTR) of CSPs (1), and sets down the basic principles that apply to an MTR.

1

Both the Asia and Latin America regions have been engaged in a Mid Term Review of country strategies and programmes. In the light of this review, a number of revised strategies and programmes are being prepared. It is very important to note that, given the programming horizon, the mid-term reviews for Asia and Latin America have had to begin much earlier than those for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Moreover, the review has to be carried out in full accordance with the ALA Regulation which governs Community cooperation with these regions.

The MTR assessment will focus on four key requirements:

| — | Main political, economic and social developments in the country — ensuring that the strategy is up-to-date. |
| --- | --- |

—

Main political, economic and social developments in the country — ensuring that the strategy is up-to-date.

| — | New Community/Union policy objectives and commitments — ensuring that these are taken into account and put into operation. |
| --- | --- |

—

New Community/Union policy objectives and commitments — ensuring that these are taken into account and put into operation.

| — | Results, performance and lessons learned to the extent that these can already be assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Results, performance and lessons learned to the extent that these can already be assessed.

| — | Quality improvements where these are needed — ensuring a constant improvement of the quality of strategy documents, in particular correcting some weaknesses in the first generation of CSPs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Quality improvements where these are needed — ensuring a constant improvement of the quality of strategy documents, in particular correcting some weaknesses in the first generation of CSPs.

The revised documents will be submitted to the inter-service Quality Support Group (iQSG) and the relevant management committees according to the existing procedures and guidelines. For the ALA region these submissions will take place in the next few months.

---

(1)  18 March 2003: Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers — Council Conclusions, item adopted without debate, Doc. 6377/03.

1

---