Jaya Ramachandran, Terraviva Europe, 16 July 2007.  Good governance, transparency and accountability have acquired a key role in relations between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.
This is expected to be emphasized once again this week when the outgoing German EU presidency presents the results achieved in the field of development co-operation in the first half of the year, and the Portuguese presidency tables its programme for the second half
In fact good governance, transparency and accountability were high on the agenda of a gathering of Euro-Parliamentarians and their counterparts from the 78 ACP countries last month in Wiesbaden, Germany.
They will also occupy centre-stage at the next bi-annual meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) November 17 to 23 in Kigali, Rwanda
But the three buzzwords need to be translated into action so as to ensure an effective democratic scrutiny of the country strategy papers (CSPs) for use of EU assistance to ACP countries, European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) say. They are backed by some influential MEPs
They point out that the European Parliament (EP) is the only institution that can take on an effective democratic scrutiny.
On behalf of the European presidency the German Minister for Development Co-operation, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, announced in early 2007 that the CSPs would be sent to the EP at the same time as these were sent to the Member States Committee.
Inquiries revealed that this has not happened yet. It is hoped that the Portuguese presidency and subsequent presidencies would ensure this commitment is kept.
Euro-Parliamentarians Max van den Berg and Gay Mitchell confirmed that the EP had yet to receive the CSPs. Van den Berg said he would insist with the EU presidency that the EP is fully informed of the ACP CSPs and the democratic process of the EU is upheld.
Mitchell said in an E-Mail interview: "The ACP CSPs will be received by the ACP-EU JPA. There is not a definite date for the receipt of the CSPs, as they go into force from the start of 2008, we expect the JPA to receive them soon."
But he added: "I feel that there is a need for real democratic scrutiny in relation to development assistance strategies and programmes for ACP countries."
"The structure of parliamentary scrutiny is different with regard development assistance for ACP countries, which means that the structures that exist for real democratic scrutiny of parliament under DCI (development cooperation instrument) do not apply for the ACP countries," Mitchell said.
He added: "It is due to this that my position is to continually urge the institutions to put in place practices formal or otherwise to enable real democratic scrutiny by Parliament of the Strategy Papers and Annual Action Programmes concerning ACP Countries."
Euro-Parliamentarians and NGDOs agree that the JPA is an important instrument to promote relations between the MEPs and MPs from the ACP group of developing countries. But it is only an advisory body.
"The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly does not have a scrutiny over the DCI or other budget lines included in the ACP CSPs," says Simon Stocker, director of Eurostep.
European NGDOs agree that just as the EU aid programmes (2007-13) for Asia, Latin America and the neighbouring countries were scrutinised by the European Parliament, there should also be democratic control over EU aid programmes for Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific now being finalised.
The CONCORD Director Olivier Consolo says: "We are urging EU institutions to ensure a proper mechanism for EP democratic control over aid programs for ACP countries. There is a political reluctance from the European Commission and the Council to share their power with the EP regarding ACP CSPs."
He added: "The arguments to not do so, despite the official declaration of the German presidency few months ago, are mainly ‘institutional’ and ‘technical’ ones. But actually, for the two last years the EU member States and the EC have committed themselves repeatedly (at EU and international levels) to increase transparency, democratic control and accountability vis-à-vis European citizens and coordination and effectiveness among themselves."
Consolo said: "Those political commitments advocate for a quick 'institutional' solution on the role that the EP should play regarding the programming of aid with ACP countries. We believe that institutional rules and procedures should serve the political delivery. We don’t accept anymore that they are used as a pretext to protect peculiar interests."
According to Consolo, the CSP programming exercise is a crucial step which will frame the EU aid for the next six years with many field implications regarding poverty reduction policies and the Millennium Development Goals.
"It is not just a European institutional debate; it is a way to ensure that Europe is keeping on its international promises. EU Presidencies have a leading role to play. This is why we will continue to dialogue and insist with the Portuguese government and the others member States about the EP scrutiny of the ACP CSPs."
Uli Post, Head of the Department Information and Politics at Welthungerhilfe (German Agro Action) said the Alliance 2015 - of which Welthungerhilfe is a member - has just published a new report the '2015 Watch' that expresses particular concern in relation to the lack of democratic scrutiny over the ACP CSPs.
"The European Commission places strong emphasis on good governance in Africa. European institutions should lead by example and ensure European parliamentary scrutiny over these long-term multi-annual plans. It is not acceptable that such scrutiny is denied to Africa, where it has existed for Asia, Latin America and the neighbourhood region. Political ownership and accountability - both in Europe and in the ACP - must underpin this next generation of aid programmes," Post said.
Marie Stopes International's European Advocacy Manager Joyce Haarbrink said: "As long as the EDF (European Development Fund) is not part of the EU budget - as proposed in the rejected Constitution - the EP does not have a legal base to insist on the scrutiny of the ACP CSPs. This is in contrast with the Asian and Latin American CSPs which fall under the DCI and are therefore part of the EU budget."
But, she added; "I personally believe that it would be good if the EP could exert democratic control over the ACP CSPs as MEPs are also representatives of the Member States, the 'owners' of the EDF as they contribute individually to it."
"However, one could also argue that this should be the role of the national parliaments of the Member States. After all it is the tax-payers’ money, so there should be a certain form of democratic control to ensure that it is well spent," she said. (END)