WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Delays of years in delivering the EU's emergency and development aid

1. Is the Commission aware of the report by the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development which states that on average it takes four years and two months before a Commission development project is started or emergency aid reaches its destination?

2. The report cites a number of instances of delays in development aid and emergency aid projects. For example, two years after the Mitch disaster in Central America not one penny of aid has been received in the region. Similarly, the deadline appears to have expired for a landmine project in Bosnia. Are these facts true, and can the Commission provide a complete list of projects where there have been delays?

3. The report identifies as the causes of the delay mismanagement and the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the Commission. Does the Commission agree with this conclusion and, if not, what, in its opinion, are the causes?

4. Does the Commission agree that these delays must cease, and is it prepared to make an extra effort to put an end to them? In addition to existing efforts, what action does it intend taking to achieve a more streamlined policy? What, in the Commission's opinion, is the target that should be sought for European development and emergency aid policy?

5. Has the criticism in the report that European money goes mainly to countries neighbouring the Member States of the European Union with too little going to countries where there is grinding poverty elsewhere in the world promoted the Commission to realign its policy in this respect?

6. Does the Commission share my view that the consequences of delay in emergency aid are all the more harrowing? What lessons have been drawn in this connection from providing food aid to alleviate the food shortages in Northeast Africa where, as a result of the drought, hundreds of thousands of people face starvation? The Commission expressed its concern at this in April of this year (in the report Famine in Ethiopia of 5 April 2000). Can it indicate the nature of emergency aid for that region (quantities, destinations, distribution etc.) and whether the targets it set have been achieved? If not, what are the causes and the consequences, and what conclusions does it draw in respect of the way in which European emergency aid is organised?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member, and welcomes the interest of the Parliament, and the opportunity to set the record straight as regards the facts. The Commission would also point out that there is sometimes some confusion between emergency aid, where there is no backlog, and development aid.

2. The Honourable Member cites two examples of alleged delays in aid: aid to the area hit by Hurricane Mitch and to a project relating to landmines in Bosnia.

The Commission was able to start providing assistance in the weeks immediately following Hurricane Mitch (October 1998) through its humanitarian aid instruments. 9,8 million was spent before the end of 1998 and 35,3 million before the end of 1999. This money was used to build 9 500 latrines, 300 water distribution systems, 1 700 wells, and 7 100 houses, and help 2 000 000 people in the region directly or indirectly.

Eleven food aid projects designed to boost food production were completed between June 1999 and July 2000 at a cost of 13 million, followed by a new programme worth 5 million. We have assisted 45 000 families with sowing and financed 8 000 vegetable gardens, 200 irrigation systems, 5 700 poultry and pig breeding modules and 1 800 head of cattle.

Apart from emergency aid and food aid, the Commission contributes to the region's reconstruction through a programme worth 250 million for which the commitments should be spread over four years and the implementation over seven years. The start-up of the programme was held up, inexcusably, for a year because of failure to assign the posts needed to manage the operation, given the shift in policy on technical assistance offices. The delegation in Nicaragua has since been strengthened and experts are being recruited. Teams in situ are currently managing calls for tender, selection procedures and the preparation of contracts for a first wave of projects worth 82 million.

As for the question of landmine project in Bosnia, 1 million had indeed been pledged to the Slovenia International Trust Fund to carry out de-mining activities both in Croatia and BiH. This pledge was not executed. The major cause is the lack of a regional legal basis for the budgetary line on which these projects had to be financed. The budget line for the mine actions (B7-661), which was created by the Parliament in 1996, had not provided a legal base with a world-wide scope. This has been suggested in the draft regulation(1), of 14 March 2000, currently on the table of the Parliament and of the Council.

3. There is no doubt that external spending managed by the Commission has grown three-fold over the last ten years, with no commensurate increase in staff, and that the speed of delivery of projects has suffered badly. Nevertheless, all the four services concerned, Directorates general Development, External relations, Humanitarian aid office and Common service for external relations (SCR) are working together to coordinate their efforts and improve this situation.

The Commission sees the causes as manifold. As regards delays in implementation of development aid, in the past few years, the Commission has recognised that the rhythm of commitments and payments for the implementation of its external aid has been unsatisfactory. This has not only been due to unforeseeable events and crises in an increasing number of countries, leading to a suspension or reduction of co-operation with these countries, but also due to cumbersome internal procedures, less than optimal organisation of Commission services and chronic understaffing. The Commission made a first attempt at combating these problems when in 1988 it created the Joint service for the implementation of Community aid to non-member countries (SCR), but it caused disruption in the short term and left responsibilities unclear and divided.

4. The Commission is committed to eliminating these delays, and is already taking steps in this direction. The reorganisation proposed in the reform of the management of external aid decided last May, coupled with the Commission's communication on Community development cooperation policy issued in April, aims to tackle these inefficiencies by focussing resources on key areas and more efficient organisation. This will include the creation of a single body responsible for the whole project cycle of external aid (from the identification phase to implementation) and a special effort towards effective deconcentration from headquarters to delegations.

Even before this reform takes place, certain measures have been taken in the last two years to improve the rate of annual commitments. In collaboration with Commission delegations, DG Development has established a system of regular and detailed monitoring and review of annual commitment objectives on a monthly, country-by-country basis.

Measures have also been taken to address the situation in the longer term. For example, in its decision of 27 July the ACP-EU Council agreed to the anticipated implementation of the new rolling programming system enshrined in the Cotonou Agreement. This will be put into effect by the Commission starting at the end of this year. These measures, coupled with the reform of external relations of May 2000, should ensure that annual commitments will reach 3 500 million from the entry into force of the ninth European development fund in 2002 and that annual payments will reach that level in 2004.

The Commission has also made several proposals some of them quite radical to improve current procedures and practices for the interaction between the Commission and the Member States to allow projects to be approved much faster (eg refocusing Member States' committee tasks towards the more strategic aspects of cooperation, and the simplification of the financial regulation). These proposals have been or will be discussed in the Council and Parliament. The Commission has stated in these discussions that it needs the support of the Member States, and that without a substantial overhaul of the institutional framework for the implementation of development aid, the impact of the progress towards internal Commission rules allowing for more efficiency in implementation will be greatly reduced.

The Commission has in addition taken a number of steps, including: eliminating by mid-1999 the widespread supplementary problem of late payment of valid invoices; simplifying and harmonising by end-1999 the procedures for awarding contracts; preparing standard, simplified contracts for grants, services, works and supplies by the end of this year; liquidating by mid-2000 about one-third of the outstanding inactive commitments from before 1995; streamlining its internal control procedures; providing for a much greater degree of devolved responsibility for our delegations, starting with a first group of around 20 delegations throughout the developing world; and making proposals for an increase next year in the staff resources devoted to planning and managing these programmes.

The Honourable Member should also be aware of the proposals currently being discussed with the Parliament and the Council in the context of the budget 2001 exercise, which also demonstrate the Commission's willingness to attack these problems head-on. Although the Commission will have to await the outcome of the second reading in plenary on the 2001 budget, the Commission has already requested immediate additional resources from the budgetary authority in the amending letter 1/2001 to the 2001 budget (following the recommendations of the Peer Group review of resources and priorities). The amending letter also contains provisions to create additional flexibility to use some of the money for financing technical assistance offices for the necessary in-house temporary staff.

5. As for the Community development policy, it is today one of the three principal components of the Union's external action, alongside trade policy and the political dimension. One of the priorities is the stability and development of neighbouring countries. But development policy still has an overriding objective: to combat poverty in developing countries, and to pursue sustainable development. Special attention will be given to the least advanced and low-income countries, in line with focus on poverty, set out in the policy statement of April 2000.

6. Finally, as regards aid to the Horn of Africa, the Commission has provided a speedy and efficient response to the plight of the many drought victims in the Horn of Africa by committing and sending substantial quantities of food aid to the region. For Ethiopia alone, a total of 432 000 tonnes of cereals have been scheduled for delivery this year, to be followed by another 110 000 tonnes early in 2001. Since the beginning of the year, 736 000 tonnes of food aid have arrived in Ethiopia. Despite huge logistical constraints due to the limited port and local transport capacities in the region, deliveries are so far on schedule. Despite a nearly continuous Community assistance in food aid and food security during the last 15 years (valued at 365 million over the last 5 years alone) Ethiopia has, unfortunately, not yet managed to overcome its structural food security problems. In total, more than 660 000 tonnes of Community food aid is scheduled to be delivered to the entire East Africa region in connection with the prevailing drought.

In addition to the provision of these substantial quantities of food aid to Ethiopia the Commission, through ECHO, has made available some 7 million in emergency aid for drought-affected populations. The relief programmes funded by ECHO concentrate on the Ogaden region and complement the general food distributions. ECHO supported activities range from complementary and supplementary feeding programmes, to therapeutic feeding, health care, the provision of potable water, logistical support and the distribution of seeds and tools. Additional contributions are currently being prepared.

The Commission would also like to point to numerous other examples of aid provided by ECHO. In the course of the past few months a whole series of disasters which have struck African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, in particular Africa, have required the Commission to react fast in order to save lives by providing emergency aid. Through ECHO, the Commission has been able to intervene quickly in events such as the floods in Mozambique, the hurricane in Madagascar, and the border war in Eritrea. Decisions to provide initial funding were taken immediately after the disaster struck. This was in particular the case for Mozambique where a first funding decision was taken within eight days.

As ECHO is not an implementing aid agency itself, funds can only be allocated after requests for the funding of emergency aid projects have been presented by partners such as non governmental organisations, the Red Cross or United Nations agencies. Furthermore, the use of taxpayers' money requires a minimum of control and accountability. ECHO can only commit funds when it has been reasonably assured that they will be spent in an efficient way.

External evaluations have confirmed that humanitarian aid delivered by ECHO is in general extremely quick and efficient. Nevertheless, since the Commission is continuously reviewing its own performance and striving for improvement, ECHO is currently examining how the decision making process can be shortened even further.

(1) COM(2000) 111.