WRITTEN QUESTION E-2182/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Delegation staffing.
Date: 2001-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, Commission Delegation, personnel administration, statistics, the EU's international role, third country

C 172 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Community grants financial and technical cooperation to the Palestinian Authority broadly under
three budget lines:

(cid:25) B7-410: MEDA (measures to accompany the reforms to the economic and social structures in the
Mediterranean non-member countries). This is the main budget line for the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership.

(cid:25) B7-420: Community operations connected with the Israel/PLO Peace Agreement. This is a special
instrument set up following the 1993 statement of principle on support for the Middle East Peace
Process.

(cid:25) B7-421: Aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East

(UNRWA). The Community has been a contributor to UNRWA’s budget since 1971.

A table showing aid granted by the Community to the Palestinian Authority in 1999 and 2000, broken
down by budget line, will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

No commitment is planned (under the MEDA line) this year (2001): decisions on operations in Palestine
will be taken in the light of the political situation there. However, the Commission (EuropeAid) has
provided for a total of € 48 050 000 in commitment appropriations in 2001 under line B7-420 (Peace
Agreement) and commitments of € 42 250 000 under line B7-241 (UNRWA).

A list of the projects financed by the Community under the MEDA line in 1999 and 2000 is also being
sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

Commitments under line B7-421 take the form of contributions paid each year into UNRWA’s own
budget.

So far the main objectives, guidelines and priority sectors for Community operations in the Mediterranean
partner countries have been set out in three-year strategy papers known as indicative programmes. The
new MEDA regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000 amending
Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of
economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (1)) also provides
for longer-term strategy papers covering the period 2000-2006.

The 2000-2002 indicative programme for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which the Commission
approved in December 2000 reflects the priorities set in the Palestinian Development Plan, and comprises
two main cooperation sectors: support for economic transition and development (in two sections (cid:25)
support for the reform process and institutional capacity building, and private-sector development), and
socio-economic balance and environment. Community-financed projects have to fall within one of these
categories.

(1) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2182/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Delegation staffing

Does the Commission have any figures which confirm that there is a significant imbalance in the
allocation of staff to delegations in third countries?

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/5

Would the Commission provide detailed evidence of the situation in ACP States compared to, for instance,
south-east Asia or the Balkans?

Have there been any recent reductions in the staffing of ACP Delegations? If so, how can that be justified
when the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement is at such a critical stage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2001)

In its communication to the Council and the Parliament on the development of the External Service of
3 July 2001 (1), the Commission has tried to reconcile the need to be represented globally with the tight
financial situation applying to the management of the Service. Hard decisions have had to be taken to
close Offices and streamline Delegations in different regions of the world in order to be able to find the
resources, both financial and human,
the Service to a changing environment and to the
Commission’s role within it.

to adapt

The differences in the allocation of staff to Delegations is a result of the fact that external representations
of the Commission were not created at the same time and did not all fulfill the same functions or work in
a similar environment. Originally, the main tasks of most Delegations were to participate in international
trade negotiations in Geneva and in some industrialised countries or to implement assistance in the
African, Caribbean and Pacific area. A relatively comfortable budgetary position and the difficulty in
finding university-level local talent in the ACP countries resulted in the deployment of a larger number of
officials, as compared to university-level local staff, than is the case elsewhere. This is still a characteristic
of many ACP Delegations because, some of those difficulties still apply. However, efforts to correct this
situation have been undertaken since 1996. Re-balancing consists of re-deploying officials’ posts when this
is judged possible and necessary, by either nationals of the host country or Europeans employed locally on
a contract basis. In all cases, however, attention is paid to keeping enough officials in place to perform
tasks involving the exercise of public authority that cannot be performed by local staff. At the beginning of
1996, before redeployments were started, the Commission had in its Delegations in ACP countries 241 A
officials and 24 university-level local staff. As of today it has, respectively, 211 and 91.

Those Delegations which have been opened more recently, or older ones in developed countries where
local talent is more readily available, show a very different profile. De-concentration, through which
Delegations take on the aid management responsibilities previously held by headquarters, and de-
centralisation, passing on those responsibilities to beneficiaries’ governments, have become the main plank
of the reform of the management of external assistance, and a major determining factor in the ratio
between officials and locally hired staff. In the Balkans and Eastern Europe, excluding the enlargement
Delegations, at the beginning of 1996 the Commission had 25 A grade officials and 27 university-level
local staff. As of today it has, respectively, 40 and 111. The equivalent figures for Asia are 27 and 30 at
the beginning of 1996 and 34 and 48 as of today.

Due to the scarcity of resources on the administrative part of the budget and in order to implement those
policies, the financial rules have been changed in some areas. In PHARE and TACIS countries, for example,
including the Balkans, non-statutory technical and other staff are being paid under the operational part of
the budget. This adds flexibility and makes it easier to hire as programmes expand and to cut back as they
wind up. These staff make up a significant part of the non-officials in the referred regions.

The result is that in some cases Delegations in other areas seem at a disadvantage when compared with
those larger ones in the Balkans, for example. However, the Commission is at this very moment actively
pursuing de-concentration towards non-European Delegations. This policy will apply mostly in Africa and
Asia but also in Latin America and the Pacific. By 2004 all Delegations implementing a significant
assistance programme will have been strengthened in this way.

C 172 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

The communication of 3 July 2001 foresees further redeployments of staff from some ACP Delegations,
albeit in a limited way. The eleven posts freed are to be used in part to strengthen regional Delegations in
the same area and the remaining posts will be used to open new Delegations in areas where the
Commission is still underrepresented politically, taking into account both the importance of the trade
component and the implementation of external assistance,
including the European Development Fund
(EDF). As in the past, where necessary compensation will be provided for the posts to be re-deployed
through the allocation of posts for the recruitment of university-level local staff or locally hired technical
assistance staff.

Concerning the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement, in those countries where the Commission has
found it necessary to close or streamline its representations, additional human resources are being allocated
to some of the regional Delegations concerned in order to reinforce their capacity to cover programmes
and activities in the countries for which they are responsible. Furthermore, these Delegations will be
provided with additional resources under the de-concentration exercise, which will strengthen their
programme-implementing capacity.

(1) COM(2001) 381 final.

(2002/C 172 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2323/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Visas for non-EU citizens

Can the Commission comment on the ease with which non-EU citizens residing legally in an EU Member
State can obtain visas for travel within the EU? Can the Commission comment in particular on a case
when the non-EU resident is married to an EU citizen?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Under the Schengen Agreement
the Member States have developed extensive areas of cooperation
regarding the conditions under which non-EU nationals may travel within an area without internal
frontiers. This acquis was integrated into the Community/European Union by the Amsterdam Treaty (1).

Under Article 21 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement (CSA), nationals of third countries
residing legally on the territory of a Member State and in possession of a residence permit are not required
to possess a visa for the Member States that have implemented the Schengen acquis (with the exception of
the United Kingdom and Ireland) and for Norway and Iceland. They may move freely provided they have
their residence permit, satisfy the conditions of Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the CSA and are not on the list
of national alerts of the Member State concerned.

As regards third country nationals who are members of the family of a citizen of the Union and who
accompany them or join them in another Member State not forming part of the area without internal
frontiers, Community law allows the Member States to require such persons to be in possession of a visa
in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries
whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose
nationals are exempt from that requirement (2).

In that case, Member States must grant such visas without undue formalities. In particular, the only
documents that may be required in order to issue a visa are an identity document (identity card or
passport) and proof of relationship to the EU citizen. Visas must be issued free of charge.