* Content * Last Page * Next Page * 5 MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING COHERENCE It is unclear to what extent Article 130V and its implementation enjoy wide support in the European Union, the Commission and the member states. The article has been repeatedly cited by European NGOs and development aid ministries in connection with the identification of incoherent policy. However, there appears at present not to be much enthusiasm outside these circles for implementing Article 130V. Particularly the Commission has been reluctant in coming with proposals and documents. Various suggestions though have been made in the past to promote the coherence of development co-operation in Europe. In a recommendation on the Maastricht Treaty, the Netherlands' National Advisory Council for Development Co-operation concluded in 1994 that it would be possible to increase the coherence of policy only in those fields in which the organs of the EU have primary responsibility for common policy [NAR, 1993]. In view of the examples of incoherence given here, these fields would be above all the relevant development policy of the Union itself, the commercial policy, the common agricultural and fisheries policy and the environmental policy. The Netherlands National Advisory Council considered that the Commission should make proposals for increasing coherence. It also recommended that the Commission should report annually to the EC Council and the European Parliament on the progress made in this field, at the same time identifying and describing the problems encountered in increasing the coherence of development policy and other parts of European policy. In a second report published recently the Netherlands' National Advisory Council concluded that the Commission's November 1994 document on coherence was rather defensive and did little more than describe the problem, without providing instruments that could actually be used to promote coherence. The case-by-case approach advocated by the Commission means that the supervisory role accorded to the Commission in the Maastricht Treaty is in practice being neglected. The Advisory Council once again stated that it was up to the European commissioner, Pinheiro, to make new proposals for procedures. Consequently, it is starting to look very much as though delay is tantamount to cancellation. In a study of the coherence of development policy and European agricultural policy commissioned by the French development ministry, the French research institute Solagral proposed a series of measures to promote coherence.(40) First of all, it recommended that a working group of civil servants of different DGs be set up to assess the impact of measures to achieve the development objectives of Article 130U. In addition, it suggested that a group of experts be established to carry out impact and other studies. Proposals were also made by a church conference held in January 1994. First, it recommended that there should be regular consultations between European and ACP ministers in various relevant policy fields in which it was felt that relations should be clarified and strengthened. The second proposal was that a system should be established for the assessment and evaluation of policies analogous to the environmental clause (Article 130R) [Lutterbeck, 1994]. On the subject of the latter mechanism for achieving coherence, it should be noted that the Commission announced in June 1993 that it would take account of the impact of all its activities on the environment and would have an environmental impact study prepared where the impact was expected to be significant.(41) Each Directorate General would be required to assess the environmental impact of measures or programmes. If necessary, impact studies would have to be carried out. Proposals that could have a major impact on the environment would have to obtain a green asterisk and include a section dealing with the environmental impact.(42) In addition to these proposals, consideration could also be given to the idea of instituting a complaints procedure comparable to that of the Inspection Panel of the World Bank, as the Netherlands' National Advisory Council suggested.(43) Such a panel could consist of a small number (three or five) of independent members nominated by the member states and the Commission and appointed by the EC Development Co-operation Council. Governments and organisations from developing countries and member states of the European Union could file complaints with such a panel concerning incoherences in European policy. The relevant panel would require the powers and capacity to investigate and report on complaints systematically. It could then make recommendations to the EC Council for ending or reducing incoherence. In a reaction to this advice the Minister for Development Co-operation of the Netherlands concluded that he would indeed like to give the initiative in this field to the Commission. Regarding the possibilities for a complaint procedure for NGOs and others, Pronk wanted better access and better information on the existing complaints procedures with the Commission and with the European Parliament. He wanted to foster the debate on coherence by discussions on specific themes (food security, fisheries, migration, conflict prevention).(44) The Danish government also pleaded to give more attention to the issue of coherence by means of discussions on concrete themes, such as food security and the CAP. It expressed its disappointment about the absence of concrete proposals in Commission documents. In an earlier phase it proposed a study on indicators for incoherence, but found no followers in the Council [Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida, 1996:155-7]. The Development Council resolution of June 1997 called on the Commission to introduce coherent impact assessments, present regularly reports, investigate the possibilities of joint monitoring procedures with developing countries and organise joint Council meetings. In recent years most proposals came from the coalition of European NGOs, Eurostep. This was also the organisation that co-ordinated most lobby-actions around European policies. Suggestions to the Commission and the European Parliament to address coherence-issues finally, in February 2000, were: to make impact assessments in developing all Commission policies, to install an inter-service group to monitor draft policy proposals, and to establish a special Coherence Office which should identify areas of incoherence, investigate complaints, monitor also Member States’ policies and prepare an annual report.(45) In reaction the European Parliament adopted a resolution in February 2000 with regard to coherence, which contained several of the mentioned mechanisms. In the document finally adopted by the Commission a Focal Point for coherence was instituted. This focal point though can only deal with unintended cases of incoherence. This as well in policy as in implementation. It has only reduced power and means. It is said that in particular the Commissioners for Agriculture, Transport and Consumers’ Protection were afraid for interferences into their policy fields and thus opposed to more far reaching approaches. The various instruments referred to above would have certain advantages and disadvantages. For example, annual reporting and a complaints procedure would be conducive to greater transparency and openness in matters relating to the coherence of policy. On the other hand, an annual report might become nothing more than a ritual with no real value. Another advantage of a complaints procedure would be that the initiatives would not be determined solely by the Commission and could therefore be wider-ranging. However, if no investigative capacity is available or investigations are stonewalled by a lack of openness, such a procedure would have to be terminated because the integrity of the Panel members might otherwise be compromised. The introduction of a screening test could have various advantages since each decision would have to be weighed. But a disadvantage might be the amount of red tape involved, particularly if it is found in due course that the interests are not even capable of being assessed. The environmental screening test is not yet operating sufficiently smoothly and in all relevant areas, and to date it has not been evaluated. (40) See, for example, Rolland [1995]. And the final report: Jadot and Rolland [1996]. (41) Integrating the environment into other policy areas within the Commission, Press Communiqué, IP(93) 427, 2 June 1993. (42) Commission document (Sec(93)785/final), 3 June 1993 and Manual of Procedures of the European Commission, paragraph 9.5.4. (43) For a description of the establishment and procedures of the Inspection Panel, see Shihata [1994]. (44) Letter from the Minister for Development Co-operation to the Chairman of the National Advisory Council, 30 December 1996. (45) Eurostep, Coherence and Consitency of EU Policies: Proposed Mechanisms for Implementation. Brussels, 7 February 2000. * Content * Last Page * Next Page *