President. – The next item is the report (A5-0464/2001) by Mr van den Berg on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on Linking relief, rehabilitation and development – an assessment. (COM(2001) 153 – C5-0395/2001 – 2001/2153(COS)).

  Van den Berg (PSE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioners, the European Union is the world’s largest donor in terms of relief. Thanks to European funding, people who are hit by war or natural disasters in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Balkans are helped to get back on their feet. However, things too often go wrong when direct relief is discontinued and a switch is made to aid for the reconstruction and development of the affected area. This problem is referred to in specialist literature as the grey zone.

Allow me to illustrate this with a textbook example. After Hurricane Mitch left a trail of destruction in Central America in 1998, the Union responded quickly with relief. As from 1999, the Commission subsequently worked on an action programme for reconstruction in Central America, and ECHO was set to leave the area from March 2001 onwards. The action programme contained some sound elements, such as local participation, coordination with the Member States and other donors, and decentralisation of powers to the delegation in Managua. In practice, however, the programme moved far too slowly. Two years after the disaster, only a few projects had been rubberstamped.

This example unfortunately illustrates the rule and not the exception, and this is of course unacceptable, both from a political and humanitarian perspective. Who would like to explain soon to the people in Afghanistan that we are unable to keep our pledge of aid due to our own inability to respond promptly and with due flexibility following the relief phase? The question arises as to what measures the Commission is taking to prevent the problem of the grey zone from occurring during the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

During the preparation of this report, the Commission and the organisations involved in the field were consulted extensively. The Commission recognises the problem of the grey zone but, at the same time, its evaluation, which we are discussing today, remains too vague and too theoretical. That is why a number of specific proposals are being submitted to the Commission in my report, partly on the basis of the conference with the NGOs involved and intensive talks with your official services.

The Commission recognises that inflexible and bureaucratic procedures form one of the key problems. By way of solution, the Commission would like to draw up appendices to the Country Strategy Papers as a result of which a rapid and flexible reaction in a crisis situation must become possible. I support this proposal, but only if those appendices are approved within a two-month period. Can the Commission give an indication as to whether it has already drafted new, simplified, rapid and flexible procedures for the approval and adjustment of the appendices? For otherwise, the proposal for these crisis papers will simply remain a hollow exercise.

In addition, in my capacity as rapporteur, I would refer to the enormous importance of coordination and cooperation, not only between the Commission services but also with the Member States, international donors, local partners and NGOs. From my talks with the Commission, it transpired that there is a clear need for a flexible instrument for construction and rehabilitation, so that this grey zone can be dealt with. The existing rehabilitation regulation is too restricted. Projects in the field of security and good governance, for example, fall outside the scope of the Regulation, and resources are limited. It is evident that the total amount of, for example, some EUR 50 million for Asia lags far behind the level of need in Afghanistan. That is why I suggest reviewing the existing rehabilitation regulation, so that, in the post-crisis stage, the real needs of the people in an affected area can be accommodated in a flexible manner. In order to guarantee sufficient funding, it is important that, as soon as a crisis breaks out, resources are freed up quickly via a trigger mechanism from the existing non-used budget and reserves.

In what way does the Commission want to act upon my plan in terms of concrete proposals? The problem of the grey zone between relief and rehabilitation is well-known. It is no longer acceptable for people who are directly faced with the effects of war or natural disasters on a daily basis to be left out in the cold due to our inability to react to the local situation in a rapid, flexible and coordinated manner. Since Europe, being the world’s largest relief donor, plays a fantastic role, we must, as Europe, close this gap by means of sustainable development in crisis areas. That would truly constitute an enormous contribution to security and stability in conflict regions in Asia, Latin America and Africa. This might well be a wiser investment than committing substantial sums for defence materiel, such as F16s, at this stage, although I know that the Commission is not concerned with these matters. As your rapporteur, I will therefore closely follow how the Commission and the Member States tackle this problem in the near future. I expect a great deal from the pledge made thus far, but I am anxious to know what the Commission’s actual response will be.

  Bartolozzi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Mr Mantovani, who is prevented from being with us today by air traffic problems, I would like to make a few observations on the Commission communication with regard to the difficult concept of the linkage between relief, rehabilitation and development. I would like to thank Mr van den Berg for his excellent work, on which a broad consensus was achieved at the vote in committee.

First of all, I feel that it is vital to improve complementarity, coherence and the cost-benefit ratio, for these are necessary to bridge the gap between the various stages of international assistance, the famous grey zone, and, more generally, for the effectiveness of the Union’s development and cooperation policy overall.

Indeed, the multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the various UN agencies and the Paris Club need to be more involved in this process. Moreover, it would seem appropriate to distinguish between internal and external coordination action in order to establish who does what at both European and international level and also at the level of the individual Member States; this would make it easier to plan and therefore make us more effective in implementing rehabilitation and development initiatives.

The contribution of our group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, focuses precisely on the need for greater complementarity, particularly as per Amendments Nos 15 and 16 tabled by Mr Mantovani, and for better coordination of the different actions, in order to obtain greater effectiveness and improved results in the action linking and coordinating relief, rehabilitation and development; in particular, there is a call for appropriate coordination and ex post evaluation methods, budgetary control and less bureaucratic interference, to provide a greater guarantee of Union development aid reaching the countries in crisis, and therefore precisely the people who genuinely need it, effectively and without time wasting or needless duplication or overlapping of effort or financial resources invested.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID W. MARTIN
Vice-President

  Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, like Max van den Berg in his report, we are in favour of the Commission’s communication on the links between the European Union’s actions in emergency situations in the countries of the South and the Community’s development cooperation policy.

In committee, there was some agreement with the communication we are assessing here, but there are also shortcomings which the proposals contained in the resolution we will vote on later are aimed at resolving. This resolution includes a series of concerns and recommendations aimed at improving, in practice, the European Union’s action in the field under discussion, which we hope will be accepted.

The whole of this debate demonstrates that there is a dialectical relationship between humanitarian aid, which the European Union mobilises in order to deal with emergency situations resulting from all types of disaster, and the aid which is regularly granted with a view to promoting the development of a particular region or country. That is to say that programmes aimed at rehabilitation or development must include within them elements aimed to preventing conflicts and preventing, where possible, so-called ‘natural’ disasters and their worst consequences. Furthermore, actions in cases of emergency must contribute, where possible, to the eventual rehabilitation and development of the region in question.

Today we are recognising that there are considerable dysfunctions within the European Union’s actions in terms of the transition from one area to another. The majority are due to the distribution between administrative bodies and the distribution of competences as well as deficient coordination between the services which are involved in programming and the implementation of those actions. Another obstacle is the bureaucratic complexity of many mechanisms employed for this purpose.

What seems more serious to us is that there are countries with which the European Union still has no cooperation agreement, such as Cuba, which prevent us from acting in situations of emergency or prevent humanitarian aid from having the desired continuity in the field of development cooperation.

  Van den Bos (ELDR). – (NL) The Commission is good at carrying out analyses but often lacks the clout to actually implement policy conclusions. The internal organisation is still too hierarchical, bureaucratic and centralised, and the Member States give the Commission too few resources and too little policy leeway for it to be able to take decisive action. These structural shortcomings therefore stand in the way of solving the problem of the grey zone. The transition from relief to reconstruction and development requires flexibility in the decision-making process. Sluggishness and too much interference can affect the intended results even more adversely than the technical risks, which can be accompanied by speedy procedures. Needless to say, what we need first of all is the best possible prevention policy with regard to natural disasters and violent conflicts. Everything possible must be done before a crisis breaks out.

The state of readiness must be at its best, plans must be ready, cooperatives must be arranged and the implementation partners must be identified as far as possible. Detailed and flexible disaster plans must form part of the Country Strategy Papers. ECHO must focus on relief, but it seems very desirable that it also employ staff with expertise in the field of reconstruction in order to make the transition smoother. The monitoring procedure regarding implementation must shift from ex ante to ex post. Internal coordination can only be effective if a multidisciplinary team is deployed at an early stage.

When can we expect specific Commission proposals for simplified policy procedures? The report by Mr Van den Berg makes excellent suggestions. The entire donor community is responsible for improvement. The grey zone problem is an additional reason for speeding up the Commission’s internal reorganisation. It is high time splendid analyses were translated into still more splendid policy action.

  Corrie (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent report on linking relief, rehabilitation and development. It is an enormously important subject, fraught with problems. There is no doubt at all that there is an increase in disasters worldwide, both man-made, as in Afghanistan, and natural, such as in Goma, DRC.

It needs the full cooperation of all parties to have most effect: the donors, the beneficiaries, implementing parties like governments and NGOs, and bilateral aid. In Afghanistan we have seen the bombing and destruction that has taken place. That will mean urgent and instant relief, the rehabilitation of millions of refugees and development aid. It was horrifying to see in today's paper that a poor family has sold its twelve-year-old daughter into marriage just to get enough food to feed the rest of the family. This is tragic. So getting aid to those most in need is absolutely vital and that requires local knowledge and the right kind of aid.

Two weeks ago ECHO informed the Committee on Development and Cooperation that the situation in Goma was totally under control and that everything that was required was there. That very night we heard NGOs stating on the television that 90,000 were starving and that babies were already dying. Is this opportunism, accurate evidence or over-reacting?

It is almost impossible to plan for natural disasters. It is better to have a centralised European depot that can react quickly in an appropriate way. Linkage is all about cooperation and one body being responsible for decisions.

  Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking you for giving me the floor on this important subject. If I may now change to the language which Mr van den Berg and I have in common, I should like to say the following.

  Bolkestein , Commission. – (NL) In the first instance, I should like to congratulate Mr Van den Berg on the exceptional quality of his report on what is, in fact, a relatively complex subject. Crisis situations are always complex, and we must reach consensus on the way in which the reaction of the Union as a whole can be improved on. The Commission communication, the Council’s conclusions and the parliamentary report contribute to establishing this consensus.

Mr President, as you know, the European Union is one of the key players in the world’s relief circuit. The European Community and its Member States together account for half of the international aid programmes funded by the developed countries. Via its Bureau for humanitarian aid, better known under the name of ECHO, the European Commission is actively involved in providing humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable and worst afflicted people in the world. The figures speak for themselves. Last year alone, ECHO made more than EUR 500 million available for humanitarian projects in some 80 countries which reached some 18 million people.

ECHO's task remains that of funding the coordinated provision of humanitarian aid and that of providing protection via humanitarian partner organisations with a view to saving and protecting lives, alleviating suffering and safeguarding the integrity and dignity of the peoples of third countries in humanitarian crises.

Although ECHO's key task is to grant humanitarian relief, the Bureau is also involved in short-term rehabilitation in the immediate post-crisis phase. I think we can all be agreed that improvements need to be made in the grey zone between relief and development. The speakers this evening also referred to this. We have all identified the same difficulties, such as the unduly slow decision-making processes, problems related to the scope of financing instruments and the need to find the right implementing partners. We make progress by tackling these issues more systematically, but we must realise that we are not able to solve all the problems connected with the complex nature of these situations, and we must remain realistic in our approach.

The Commission has set up a series of actions for implementing policy in directions that reflect the link between relief, rehabilitation and development. For example, ECHO is currently putting the finishing touches to guidelines for its exit strategies. This document will become the basis for consultation with other services of the Commission, describing the circumstances under which ECHO can withdraw from granting relief.

The services of the Commission are also working on an agreement to guarantee effective coordination and appropriate procedures in the framework of the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement with the countries in Africa, the Caribbean region and the Pacific. The principles stated in the communication and concerning the link between relief, rehabilitation and development should be applied. Europ I is actively working on an agenda to improve its working methods and so increase its capacity for rapid interventions.

From a budgetary point of view, the Commission realises that its operational resources and instruments must be reviewed. We are of the opinion that the number of budget lines must be reduced. On the other hand, it must be ensured that broader regulations are still able to cover all existing types of activities, that the speed of decision-making is stepped up, that there is flexibility in the choice of implementing partners and that, if necessary, decisions can be taken without the approval of the government in question. On the basis of experience, we believe that further integration of our interventions using the existing regional instruments is the right way forward and that this must lead to greater policy coherence and a higher level of complementarity between the different types of intervention within one and the same country.

In response to different questions raised this evening, I should once again like to emphasise that the complementarity of the different instruments in the reconstruction process in Afghanistan illustrates the approach pursued by the Commission.

Finally, I should like to stress one important aspect. We must be fully aware of the fact that intervening in the immediate post-crisis phase means that we have to accept higher political and technical risks. I should like to point this out with due emphasis. For that reason, the debate which we held with the Council last year, together with your report of today, are welcomed by the Commission as contributions towards a more effective response to crises and the achievement of greater coherence between relief and development.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will be taken tomorrow at noon.