Bdash having regard to Rule 93 and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,
Bdash having regard to the Council recommendations of 14 March 2001 concerning the discharge to be
given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Devel-
opment Funds for the 1999 financial year (6536/2001 Bdash C5-0122/2001, 6537/2001 Bdash C5-0123/2001, 6538/2001 Bdash C5-0124/2001),
Bdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee
on Development and Cooperation (A5-0109/2001),
Bdash having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0337/2001),
1. Notes that the financial situation of the sixth, seventh and eighth EDF as at 31 December 1999 was
as follows:
(€ million)
Financial situation of the EDF as at 31 December 1999 6th EDF 7th EDF 8th EDF
Composition of balance remaining
Total resources 7883,01160 9,013171,0
of which: resources to be collected Bdash −3540,0 −11400,0
Net resources collected 7883,0 8069,0 1771,0
Payments −7044,0 −8021,0 −1012,0
Balance remaining 839,0 48,0 759,0
Analysis of balance remaining
Readily convertible assets 621,02,0Bdash
Liquid assets 1023,0 Bdash Bdash
Liaison accounts with 7th and 8th EDFs −805,0 46,0 759,0
Total 839,0 48,0 759,0
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice,
the Court of Auditors, the European Investment Bank and the other Community institutions, and to have itpublished in the Official Journal (L series).
3.
European Parliament resolution containing the comments which form part of the decision giving
discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the sixth, seventh and eighthEuropean Development Funds for the 1999 financial year (COM(2000)357 /dash C5-0257/2000 /dash
2000/2164(DEC))
The European Parliament,
Bdash having regard to the balance sheets and accounts of the sixth, seventh and eighth European Devel-
opment Funds for the 1999 financial year (COM(2000)357 Bdash C5-0257/2000),
Bdash having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the activities of the European Devel-
opment Funds for 1999 together with the replies of the institutions (C5-0618/2000)(
1),
Bdash having regard to the Statement of Assurance on the European Development Funds of the Court of
Auditors (C5-0618/2000)(2),
Bdash having regard to the Council’s recommendations of 14 March 2001 concerning the discharge to be
given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Devel-opment Funds for the 1999 financial year (6536/2001 Bdash C5-0122/2001, 6537/2001 Bdash C5-0123/2001, 6538/2001 Bdash C5-0124/2001),
(1) OJ C 342, 1.12.2000, p. 205.
(2) OJ C 342, 1.12.2000, p. 212.C112E/188 EN 9.5.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 24 October 2001
Bdash having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report No 5/2001 on the counterpart funds
used in the framework of structural adjustment aid and budgetary support(1),
Bdash having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2001 postponing the discharge for the 1999 financial
year(2),
Bdash having regard to Article33 of the Internal Agreement between the representatives of the Governments
of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of the Com-
munity aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention(3),
Bdash having regard to Article74 of the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development
finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention(4),
Bdash having regard to Rule 93 and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,Bdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee
on Development and Cooperation (A5-0109/2001),
Bdash having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0337/2001),
A. whereas, pursuant to Article74 of the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998, the Commission is
required to take all appropriate steps to act on the observations appearing in the discharge decisions,
B. whereas EC development cooperation has poverty reduction as its central objective,C. whereas the EC aid programme, taking into account the objective of complementarity with other
donors, still needs to strengthen its support to social development, particularly basic health and basiceducation, as well as the productive capacities of the poor, i.e. access to land, technology, education,credits, etc.:
D. whereas the Commission is a member of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) which
aims to reduce by one half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015,
E. whereas the Commission in its statement with the Council on the European Community’s devel-
opment Policy (DE 105, December 2000), recognised the value of the internationally agreed OECD
DAC targets,
F. whereas the Commission set out in its Action Plan presented in 2000 in response to Parliament’s
concerns over the discharge for the 1998 budget a commitment to make a conscious effort to increaseactual disbursement levels and stated that ‘the reporting on EC development cooperation must evolvetowards DAC OECD standards and shift gradually from input to results’,
G. whereas the Commission has taken tangible steps within the framework of an action plan (creation of
EuropeAid, strengthening of Commission delegations) to satisfy the demands made in the EuropeanParliament resolution of 6 July 2000 containing its comments accompanying the European Parliamentdecision giving discharge to the Commission in respect of the sixth, seventh and eighth EuropeanDevelopment Funds for the 1998 financial year(
5),
H. whereas it is still too early to assess the effectiveness of these measures, which were to improve the
performance of Commission services and delegations,
(1) OJ C 257, 14.9.2001.
(2) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 8.
(3) OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.
(4) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.
(5) OJ L 234, 16.9.2000, p. 37.9.5.2002 EN C112E/189 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 24 October 2001
I. whereas, with the conclusion of the Cotonou Agreement on 23 June 2000(1), the partnership between
the ACP States and the EU has been put on a new footing, which should also entail reform of financialcooperation,
1. Believes that its opinion that financial cooperation hitherto under the sixth, seventh and eighth EDFs
has long since reached its limits and that development cooperation is in urgent need of reform is vindi-cated;
2. Recalls that at the end of 1999 the Court of Auditors identified an amount of almost €10billion in
resources available but not committed, most of which the Commission claims had been promised to
certain countries or regions without specific deadlines having been set and without the resources havingbeen taken up; notes that in the year 2000, according to the Commission, commitments of approximately€4 billion were made;
3. Notes with concern that in the 1999 financial year the gap between commitments (€2,69 billion)
and payments actually made (€1,27 billion) widened further and that this trend could still not be reversedin 2000;
4. Notes with concern that the level of payments in 1999 (€1,27 billion) was far below the level
achieved back in 1992 (€1,94 billion) and which has never been attained again since;
5. Notes that in December 2000 an amount of €1,6 billion was available for payments and was, for the
most part, held temporarily in bank accounts or in securities;
6. Notes that there are also disbursement problems with the 1999 debt relief initiative for heavily
indebted poor countries (HIPCs) and that in spring 2001 the Community had transferred no more than agood third of the €1 billion pledged;
7. Regards these figures as a reflection of the current crisis in development policy; notes that there are
frequent and justifiable complaints about the lack of political will to make generous aid funds available but
those funds actually available are not spent in full and often with considerable delay;
8. Doubts that the greater flexibility in the disbursement and management of funds provided for in the
Cotonou Agreement will alone suffice to reverse this trend; calls therefore on the Commission to submitfurther proposals;
9. Considers that the Commission should improve the presentation of the balance sheets to ensure
more consistency in the data compiled and of the financial statements in order to give a clear picture ofthe actual use of the appropriations, the implementation of macroeconomic aid and the type of aid byfinancial instrument;
10. Regrets that the Commission has failed to forward to either the Court of Auditors or the European
Parliament the analysis of financial management for the financial year 1999 provided for in Article67(2)of the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998;
11. Notes that the statistics presented in the Commission communication of 15 June 2000(
2) and in the
report of 9 June 2000(3) by the ACP-EC Development Finance Cooperation Committee require clarifi-
cation and raise various issues that should have been discussed in an analysis of financial management;
12. Cites as an illustration in this connection merely the question why Côte d’Ivoire, a comparatively
small country, has for many years received by far the highest payments from the Development Fund;
(1) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.
(2) Balance sheets and accounts of the sixth, seventh and eighth European Development Funds for the financial year
1999, COM(2000)357 final.
(3) ACP-EC 2112/2/00 rev. 2 Bdash ACP/81/010/00 rev. 2.C112E/190 EN 9.5.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 24 October 2001
13. Calls on the Commission to submit its own analysis of the financial management for the financial
year 2000;
14. Notes with concern that the ACP States’ share of contracts financed from the Development Fund is
not even 25% and that the lion’s share of the contracts is awarded to firms and organisations from the
Member States (and in particular France and Italy); calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals onhow the ACP States’ share can be increased to 40% within the next five years; urges the Member Statesalso to make appropriate efforts in this context;
15. Welcomes specifically the Court of Auditors’ call for the supreme audit institutions in the ACP
States to be involved in checking implementation of the EDF; shares the Court’s view that this couldmake a major contribution to sound management of public affairs;
16. Calls on the Commission therefore to propose, pursuant to Article95 of the Cotonou Agreement, a
revision of that Agreement as soon as possible so that the joint institutions of the Agreement can besupplemented with a committee of the supreme audit institutions;
17. Calls on the Commission also to propose a corresponding amendment to the Financial Regulation
of 16 June 1998;
18. Notes that the audits carried out or supervised by the Commission are not sufficiently followed-up;
calls therefore on the Commission to play a more active role both in organising and supervising the audits
and in following up their recommendations;
19. Reaffirms its view(
1) that reform of Community policy in the area of external aid should include the
following elements:
Bdash a new definition of development aid policies and priorities, taking into account the aims of eradicating
poverty established at international summit meetings,
Bdash improved coordination between the Commission and the Community’s external policies, resulting in a
clear outline of operational coordination and political coherence,
Bdash stricter application of Article177 of the EC Treaty regarding the complementarity of development aid
policies between the Member States on the one hand and the Commission on the other,
Bdash making the staff numbers and volume of financial resources available to the Commission adequate to
realise development policy objectives effectively,
Bdash reorganisation of the management of aid both on the ground and in Brussels headquarters, envisaging:
a simplification of procedures, the integration of the cooperation cycle, and a structure striking abalance between the Commission’s external relations departments, in which one person would havepolitical responsibility for development policy and its management would be more transparent;
Budget support within the framework of structural adjustment aid
20. Notes the Court of Auditors’ finding that rules on targeting the resources made available for budget
aid did not help to prevent mismanagement and abuses; endorses therefore the proposal that the grantingof further aid should be made conditional upon the submission and effective implementation of reformprogrammes to improve the quality of public financial management in the beneficiary countries;
(1) See recital G of the European Parliament resolution of 30.11.2000 on relations between the EU and developing
countries, OJ C 228, 13.8.2001, p. 213.9.5.2002 EN C112E/191 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 24 October 2001
21. Supports the seven recommendations made by the Court of Auditors(1) on new arrangements for
the monitoring and coordination of aid with other donors; calls on the Commission to implement theserecommendations in full; welcomes the steps already taken in this direction and highlights the importanceof the following aspects:
(a) ongoing assessment of implementation of the measures designed to reform the public administration,
(b) monitoring of the progress achieved in key sectors (health and education) with the aid of meaningful
indicators (e.g. increase in the number of teachers or doctors),
(c) annual audit of accounting and sound management of resources on the basis of samples,
(d) clearly defined sanctions (reduction or suspension of payments) in cases where the agreed reform
measures are not complied with;
22. Makes its approval of the proposed new arrangements conditional upon the relevant criteria and
procedures being transparent and understandable not only for the public in the European Union but alsoin the beneficiary countries and upon unrestricted access to the evaluation and audit reports subsequentlydrawn up as this is the only way of ensuring effective monitoring of results;
23. Calls on the Commission to strengthen its delegations in the beneficiary countries accordingly, to
improve perceptibly the monitoring and audit capacity available for EuropeAid and, where necessary, tosubmit to the budgetary authority appropriate proposals for the deployment of additional resources andstaff;
24. Points out that devolving greater responsibilities to the Commission delegations provides an oppor-
tunity to create a system for the management of development projects that is adapted to local conditions
and will permit the greatest possible involvement of the beneficiaries;
25. Asks the Commission not to make any further financial commitments to organisations which could
themselves or whose staff could escape prosecution by claiming diplomatic immunity in the event of anyoffences against the criminal or labour law of the host country;
26. In view of the problems that have arisen in this discharge procedure, draws attention to Rule 3 of
its Rules of Procedure, which entitles Members to inspect any files held by the European Parliament or acommittee, excluding only Members’ personal files and accounts, but not excluding confidential documentsforwarded by the Commission;
27. Draws attention to the procedure laid down in Annex VII of its Rules of Procedure which applies to
all confidential documents forwarded to the European Parliament and which entitles all committeemembers to examine these confidential documents;
28. Draws attention to Annex VI of its Rules of Procedure, under which the Committee on Budgetary
Control is responsible for examining confidential documents concerning areas within its remit, having fullregard for the provisions of Annex VII;
29. Instructs its President and the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control to ensure that in
future documents forwarded by the Commission within the framework of discharge procedures can beexamined by all Members in full compliance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure;
30. Reaffirms its view that the present situation, in which the European Parliament is called upon to
take an annual discharge decision in respect of the EDF without having corresponding budgetary andlegislative powers, is an anomaly; calls once again for EDF resources to be included in the developmentcooperation section of the general budget of the European Union.
(1) See paragraphs62 to 68 of the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 5/2001.C112E/192 EN 9.5.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 24 October 2001