WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delays of years in delivering the EU's emergency and development aid.
Date: 2000-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: development aid, development plan, emergency aid, food aid, transparency in decision-making

C 163 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Based on the work of a high level group on asylum and migration established in 1999, the General Affairs
Council of July 2000 adopted a comprehensive action plan for Albania and the neighbouring region
(similar action plans have been adopted for Iraq and Sri Lanka) focusing on the fight against and the
prevention of illegal migration. Equally, in the context of the stability pact for South-Eastern Europe and of
the Adriatic initiative, based on the Ancona Declaration of 19/20 May 2000, a number of actions have
been identified in the sector of justice and home affairs with regard to protection against smuggling and
trafficking of human beings.

2.
Organised crime has developed in Albania as a result of both the state crisis in 1997 and, more
recently, the Kosovo conflict in 1999. The fight against organised crime must be seen in the overall
context of the need to improve public order, law enforcement and to enhance the fight against corruption
(also within its own administration). As a first step, the putting in place of the appropriate legislative
framework is important. A new customs code, drafted in cooperation with CAM-A and adopted in 1999,
provides for a sound legal basis for trading that will have to be fully enforced by the Albanian authorities.
As regards the trafficking of human beings, an activity that has particularly increased since 1999, the
existing legislation is clearly inadequate to deter trafficking networks. This problem has been repeatedly
addressed in bilateral relations. A new set of laws are expected to be adopted during autumn 2000.

3.
The aid granted by the Community to Albania mainly focuses on institution building (including
customs, police, judiciary, and public administration reform) and infrastructure development (roads, water,
sanitation). Budgetary assistance is being provided in line with specific sector related conditions or, in
1999, in order to cover costs related to the Kosovo crisis, during which Albania (cid:129) the poorest country in
Europe (cid:129) hosted temporarily 500 000 Kosovars (more than 8 % of their population). The Commission
takes the view that freezing aid to Albania because of its unsatisfactory record in controlling illegal
migration would only have a destabilizaing effect.

During summer time, there is a traditional increase of illegal immigration and trafficking of human
4.
beings which also provoke incidents like that mentioned by the Honourable Member. Apart from the
human tragedy, this case also shows that a distinction must be made between illegal migration of
Albanians and trafficking of refugees or migrants from third countries. Albania (cid:129) even by making its
utmost efforts (cid:129) will certainly be unable to face this problem alone. A wider approach, involving all
countries along the trafficking routes and the countries of origin of the people concerned, must be taken.
This is why the Union is actively engaged in negotiations within the United Nations (UN) on a protocol on
trafficking in human beings as an additional
to the UN Convention on fight against
transnational organised crime.

instrument

(2001/C 163 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Delays of years in delivering the EU(cid:146)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 (cid:145)mismanagement(cid:146) and the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of
the Commission. Does the Commission agree with this conclusion and, if not, what, in its opinion, are the
causes?

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/11

Does the Commission agree that these delays must cease, and is it prepared to make an extra effort
4.
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(cid:146)s opinion, is the target that should be sought for European
development and emergency aid policy?

5.
Has the criticism in the report (cid:129) 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 (cid:129) 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 (cid:145)Famine in
Ethiopia(cid:146) 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.

The Honourable Member cites two examples of alleged delays in aid: aid to the area hit by Hurricane

2.
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(cid:146)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.

C 163 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

There is no doubt that external spending managed by the Commission has grown three-fold over the
3.
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
leading to a suspension or reduction of co-
events and crises in an increasing number of countries,
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(cid:146)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 (cid:145)rolling programming(cid:146)
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 (cid:129) some of them quite radical (cid:129) 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(cid:146) 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; provid-
ing 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.

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/13

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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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 organisa-
tions, the Red Cross or United Nations agencies. Furthermore, the use of taxpayers(cid:146) 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.