BETA


2011/2014(INI) Budgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead CONT GEIER Jens (icon: S&D S&D) HOHLMEIER Monika (icon: PPE PPE), STAES Bart (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), CZARNECKI Ryszard (icon: ECR ECR), ANDREASEN Marta (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion AFET JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion DEVE GOERENS Charles (icon: ALDE ALDE) Cristian Dan PREDA (icon: PPE PPE), Bart STAES (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2012/04/24
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/12/15
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/12/15
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on b udgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan.

Parliament recalls firstly, that already in 2010, Parliament’s resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan had identified several points of concern in regard to the budgetary control exercised with regard to EU aid to Afghanistan. According to Integrity Watch, in 2009, bribes of over $1 billion were paid in this country. They also recall that, since 2002, the Commission had allocated more than EUR 2 billion in development and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and that it had disbursed EUR 1.8 billion.

In this context, Members highlight the benefits and drawbacks of the different funding channels for providing aid to Afghanistan . In their view the Commission should envisage different funding channels to diversify aid in order to address individual needs. They call on the Commission to consider introducing direct budget support in Afghanistan under rigorous and well-defined conditions as soon as the necessary macroeconomic stability and sufficiently reliable financial management have been shown to exist, as it is the best instrument for building capacity in the Afghan administration.

Sectoral budget support : Parliament calls on the Commission, at the same time, to make potential future budget support dependent on rigorous and well-defined conditions which are clear and measurable. It believes that budget support could start with limited amounts applied under rigorous and well-defined conditions, noting the example of other donor countries in introducing sectoral budget support for those Afghan ministries for which the benchmarks on accountability and transparency are met. Members ask the Commission to consider introducing budget support not only at central level but also at provincial and local level, as this would increase capacity building at all governmental levels and would also strengthen the Commission's position vis-à-vis those entities and make the Commission more independent of its relations with a single entity.

At the same time, Parliament reiterates its oversight role in this context and calls on the Commission to publish clear and standardised reports which assess - in an objective and transparent way - progress and eventual obstacles encountered in regard to these projects.

Accountability and oversight of EU funds in Afghanistan : Members deplore the weaknesses in project management in Afghanistan identified by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Among the weaknesses most frequently encountered were:

· a high risk of corruption and fraud in the country (between 5% and 9% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was subject to fraud);

· the high level of illiteracy and poorly trained staff;

· lack of reliability of the Afghan national police;

· a high risk of waste of funds (between 10 and 20% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was wasted);

· short-term projects being funded with limited chances of being sustainable in the long run;

· lack of full independent of the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan from the Afghan Government.

To address these weaknesses, Members call for the introduction of several measures to ensure: i) the strengthening of financial and operational long-term sustainability; ii) encouragement of Afghan ownership of the project to the highest possible extent; iii) fraud and corruption risk factor to be eliminated to the highest possible extent. They underline the crucial importance for democracy of having a Supreme Audit Institution which is financially and operationally fully independent of the executive branch for the Commission to successfully carry out control and monitoring tasks with the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan.

Parliament also stresses the need to improve the accountability of aid channelled via UN Agencies in Afghanistan. It recalls that Parliament has repeatedly asked the Commission to improve the transparency and accountability of UN-managed projects, especially multi-donor trust funds, e.g. by introducing a Statement of Assurance . Members believe that further progress is needed in order to improve reporting on the use of EU funds. They call for enhanced transparency and accountability combined with effectiveness and efficiency. They welcome the work undertaken by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which should serve as an inspiration to UN organizations in their methods of granting aid.

Once again, Members recall that Parliament has long been asking for a European multi-donor trust fund, as a way of ensuring accountability to the highest possible extent for as long as not all UN agencies managing multi-donor trust funds comply with EU standards on transparency and accountability. Parliament draws attention to the Commission's proposal that the revised Financial Regulation should provide for a legal basis on which to set up its own multi-donor trust funds.

Coordination of aid efforts by the donor community : noting that aid effectiveness and coordination of donor actions in Afghanistan are structurally hampered by the fact that many donors have a tendency to aim for short-term results without sufficient alignment with the needs of the people of Afghanistan, Members anticipate that the creation of the EEAS (European External Action Service) will result in better coordination and interaction, as well as greater transparency in the implementation of EU projects and the more sustainable and efficient use of EU funding. They call on the Commission to pursue further efforts to coordinate the aid not only with the Member States but also with other international donors.

Improvements to reporting : Parliament reminds the Commission that Parliament has called on the Commission to submit to it an annual report on Afghanistan containing a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of aid, and it reiterates this call to implement the recommendation. It sees the need to increase the transparency and accountability of the use of EU funds and to help EU Member States and other donors to avoid common pitfalls.

Challenges for the future : noting the recent announcement of the United States of America that it is going to withdraw about one third of American troops by the summer of 2012, Members underline the fact that a withdrawal of troops could have a negative effect on the economy of Afghanistan . Several challenges must be met to ensure Afghanistan’s future: i) the need to improve the capacity and independent of the Afghan judiciary; ii) measures to combat corruption that is undermining the country’s socio-economic development; iii) combating waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, and overbilling and corruption; iv) strengthening the country’s security; v) gender equality and women’s rights.

Foreign policy : Members consider that the general purpose of EU development aid should be to assist in the long-term sustainable development of the country, including improvement of socio-economic standards, facilitating job creation and proliferation of SMEs, strengthening the educational sector and ensuring gender equality. The aid should further facilitate capacity-building in the public administration, strengthen the rule of law and reduce corruption. They recommend that part of the financial assistance to Afghanistan be allocated to the five-year plan to phase out opium cultivation and replace it with alternative crops.

Noting that a significant proportion of aid does not reach the intended beneficiaries (the people of Afghanistan), Members point out that the EU and, in particular, the Commission/EEAS should have a leading role in improving donor coordination, in close cooperation with other key donors such as the US and Japan. They take the view that the European Union, as one of the major donors of official development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan (more than EUR 2 billion between 2002 and the end of 2010), has a particular responsibility to evaluate whether those funds reach the intended recipients and improve their living conditions. They also call on the EU to set up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and the impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan, and for the introduction of sectoral budget support, with measurable impact indicators.

Development policy : Members stress that directing aid towards conflict-affected countries implies the acceptance of a substantial level of inherent risk in terms of results. Nevertheless, greater efforts need to be made to reverse this trend. They emphasise that the effectiveness of aid to Afghanistan can only be improved if there is a radical change of approach to the problem of corruption . In this context, they call on the EEAS and the Commission to define a clear strategy for delivering aid in such a fragile, high-risk context. They stress the need for urgent reforms and capacity building to strengthen public financial management (PFM) systems, reduce corruption and improve budget execution. The Afghan authorities are called upon to mobilize themselves so as to ensure that Afghans can actually benefit from the aid they are granted and to ensure that there is a greater role for civil society. The Afghan authorities are also asked to focus on the development of capacity building in the public sector.

As far as future aid is concerned, Members call on the EU to honour its commitments and to continue to make available appropriate resources beyond 2014 , when responsibility for security will be fully in the hands of the Afghan authorities. They call on the EU to seek new foreign civil-society partners and donors.

Lastly, Members call on the Commission, the Member States and the international community to coordinate their aid efforts better, and combat the current fragmentation of assistance.

Documents
2011/12/15
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/12/14
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/11/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the own-initiative report by Jens GEIER S&D, DE) on budgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan.

Members recall firstly, that already in 2010, Parliament’s resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan had identified several points of concern in regard to the budgetary control exercised with regard to EU aid to Afghanistan. According to Integrity Watch, in 2009, bribes of over $1 billion were paid in this country. They also recall that, since 2002, the Commission had allocated more than EUR 2 billion in development and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and that it had disbursed EUR 1.8 billion.

In this context, Members highlight the benefits and drawbacks of the different funding channels for providing aid to Afghanistan . In their view the Commission should envisage different funding channels to diversify aid in order to address individual needs. They call on the Commission to consider introducing direct budget support in Afghanistan under rigorous and well-defined conditions as it is the best instrument for building capacity in the Afghan administration. At the same time, the Commission is invited to make potential future budget support dependent on rigorous and well-defined conditions which are clear and measurable.

Members reiterate the oversight role of Parliament in this context and call on the Commission to publish clear and standardised reports which assess - in an objective and transparent way - progress and eventual obstacles encountered in regard to these projects.

Accountability and oversight of EU funds in Afghanistan : Members deplore the weaknesses in project management in Afghanistan identified by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Among the weaknesses most frequently encountered were:

a high risk of corruption and fraud in the country (between 5% and 9% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was subject to fraud); the high level of illiteracy and poorly trained staff; lack of reliability of the Afghan national police; a high risk of waste of funds (between 10 and 20% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was wasted); lack of full independent of the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan from the Afghan Government.

To address these weaknesses, Members call for the introduction of several measures to ensure: i) the strengthening of financial and operational long-term sustainability; ii) encouragement of Afghan ownership of the project to the highest possible extent; iii) fraud and corruption risk factor to be eliminated to the highest possible extent . They underline the crucial importance for democracy of having a Supreme Audit Institution which is financially and operationally fully independent of the executive branch for the Commission to successfully carry out control and monitoring tasks with the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan.

Members also stress the need to improve the accountability of aid channeled via UN Agencies in Afghanistan . They recall that Parliament has repeatedly asked the Commission to improve the transparency and accountability of UN-managed projects, especially multi-donor trust funds, e.g. by introducing a Statement of Assurance . Members believe that further progress is needed in order to improve reporting on the use of EU funds. They call for enhanced transparency and accountability combined with effectiveness and efficiency. They welcome the work undertaken by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which should serve as an inspiration to UN organizations in their methods of granting aid.

Once again, Members recall that Parliament has long been asking for a European multi-donor trust fund , as a way of ensuring accountability to the highest possible extent for as long as not all UN agencies managing multi-donor trust funds comply with EU standards on transparency and accountability.

Coordination of aid efforts by the donor community : noting that aid effectiveness and coordination of donor actions in Afghanistan are structurally hampered by the fact that many donors have a tendency to aim for short-term results without sufficient alignment with the needs of the people of Afghanistan, Members anticipate that the creation of the EEAS (European External Action Service) will result in better coordination and interaction, as well as greater transparency in the implementation of EU projects and the more sustainable and efficient use of EU funding. They call on the Commission to pursue further efforts to coordinate the aid not only with the Member States but also with other international donors.

Challenges for the future : noting the recent announcement of the United States of America that it is going to withdraw about one third of American troops by the summer of 2012, Members underline the fact that a withdrawal of troops could have a negative effect on the economy of Afghanistan . Several other challenges are highlighted such as: i) the need to improve the capacity and independent of the Afghan judiciary; ii) measures to combat corruption that is undermining the country’s socio-economic development; iii) combating waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, and overbilling; iv) strengthening the country’s security; v) gender equality and women’s rights.

Foreign policy : Members consider that the general purpose of EU development aid should be to assist in the long-term sustainable development of the country , including improvement of socio-economic standards, facilitating job creation and proliferation of SMEs, strengthening the educational sector and ensuring gender equality. The aid should further facilitate capacity-building in the public administration, strengthen the rule of law and reduce corruption. They recommend that part of the financial assistance to Afghanistan be allocated to the five-year plan to phase out opium cultivation and replace it with alternative crops.

Noting that a significant proportion of aid does not reach the intended beneficiaries( the people of Afghanistan), Members point out that the EU and, in particular, the Commission/EEAS should have a leading role in improving donor coordination, in close cooperation with other key donors such as the US and Japan. They take the view that the European Union, as one of the major donors of official development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan (more than EUR 2 billion between 2002 and the end of 2010), has a particular responsibility to evaluate whether those funds reach the intended recipients and improve their living conditions. They also call on the EU to set up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and the impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan, and for the introduction of sectoral budget support , with measurable impact indicators.

Development policy : Members stress that directing aid towards conflict-affected countries implies the acceptance of a substantial level of inherent risk in terms of results. Nevertheless, greater efforts need to be made to reverse this trend. They emphasise that the effectiveness of aid to Afghanistan can only be improved if there is a radical change of approach to the problem of corruption . In this context, they call on the EEAS and the Commission to define a clear strategy for delivering aid in such a fragile, high-risk context. They stress the need for urgent reforms and capacity building to strengthen public financial management (PFM) systems, reduce corruption and improve budget execution. The Afghan authorities are called upon to mobilize themselves so as to ensure that Afghans can actually benefit from the aid they are granted and to ensure that there is a greater role for civil society.

As far as future aid is concerned, Members call on the EU to honour its commitments and to continue to make available appropriate resources beyond 2014 , when responsibility for security will be fully in the hands of the Afghan authorities. They call on the EU to seek new foreign civil-society partners and donors.

Lastly, Members call on the Commission, the Member States and the international community to coordinate their aid efforts better.

Documents
2011/11/10
   EP - Vote in committee
2011/10/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/10/12
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/10/10
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/09/13
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2011/05/24
   EP - JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2011/01/20
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2010/10/05
   EP - GOERENS Charles (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2010/04/27
   EP - GEIER Jens (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
81 2011/2014(INI)
2011/09/29 AFET 40 amendments...
source: PE-473.702
2011/10/10 CONT 41 amendments...
source: PE-473.864

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/shadows/3
name
SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE469.806
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-469806_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE473.864
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-473864_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE460.763&secondRef=04
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AD-460763_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.239&secondRef=03
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-472239_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2011-11-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0388_EN.html title: A7-0388/2011
summary
events/2
date
2011-11-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0388_EN.html title: A7-0388/2011
summary
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111214&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2011-12-14-TOC_EN.html
events/5
date
2011-12-15T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0578_EN.html title: T7-0578/2011
summary
events/5
date
2011-12-15T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0578_EN.html title: T7-0578/2011
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: GEIER Jens date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GEIER Jens group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2011-05-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
rapporteur
name: GOERENS Charles date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2010-10-05T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GOERENS Charles group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/4/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-388&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0388_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-578
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0578_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2011-01-20T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HOHLMEIER Monika group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: GEIER Jens body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
  • date: 2011-11-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HOHLMEIER Monika group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: GEIER Jens body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
  • date: 2011-11-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-388&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0388/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-12-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111214&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20889&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-578 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0578/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GEIER Jens group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AFET
date
2011-05-24T00:00:00
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2011-05-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
CONT
date
2010-04-27T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
group: S&D name: GEIER Jens
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2010-10-05T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GOERENS Charles group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
DEVE
date
2010-10-05T00:00:00
committee_full
Development
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
docs
  • date: 2011-09-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE469.806 title: PE469.806 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE473.864 title: PE473.864 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE460.763&secondRef=04 title: PE460.763 committee: DEVE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE472.239&secondRef=03 title: PE472.239 committee: AFET type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2012-04-24T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=20889&j=0&l=en title: SP(2012)162 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2011-01-20T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-11-10T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-11-22T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-388&language=EN title: A7-0388/2011 summary: The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the own-initiative report by Jens GEIER S&D, DE) on budgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan. Members recall firstly, that already in 2010, Parliament’s resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan had identified several points of concern in regard to the budgetary control exercised with regard to EU aid to Afghanistan. According to Integrity Watch, in 2009, bribes of over $1 billion were paid in this country. They also recall that, since 2002, the Commission had allocated more than EUR 2 billion in development and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and that it had disbursed EUR 1.8 billion. In this context, Members highlight the benefits and drawbacks of the different funding channels for providing aid to Afghanistan . In their view the Commission should envisage different funding channels to diversify aid in order to address individual needs. They call on the Commission to consider introducing direct budget support in Afghanistan under rigorous and well-defined conditions as it is the best instrument for building capacity in the Afghan administration. At the same time, the Commission is invited to make potential future budget support dependent on rigorous and well-defined conditions which are clear and measurable. Members reiterate the oversight role of Parliament in this context and call on the Commission to publish clear and standardised reports which assess - in an objective and transparent way - progress and eventual obstacles encountered in regard to these projects. Accountability and oversight of EU funds in Afghanistan : Members deplore the weaknesses in project management in Afghanistan identified by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Among the weaknesses most frequently encountered were: a high risk of corruption and fraud in the country (between 5% and 9% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was subject to fraud); the high level of illiteracy and poorly trained staff; lack of reliability of the Afghan national police; a high risk of waste of funds (between 10 and 20% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was wasted); lack of full independent of the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan from the Afghan Government. To address these weaknesses, Members call for the introduction of several measures to ensure: i) the strengthening of financial and operational long-term sustainability; ii) encouragement of Afghan ownership of the project to the highest possible extent; iii) fraud and corruption risk factor to be eliminated to the highest possible extent . They underline the crucial importance for democracy of having a Supreme Audit Institution which is financially and operationally fully independent of the executive branch for the Commission to successfully carry out control and monitoring tasks with the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan. Members also stress the need to improve the accountability of aid channeled via UN Agencies in Afghanistan . They recall that Parliament has repeatedly asked the Commission to improve the transparency and accountability of UN-managed projects, especially multi-donor trust funds, e.g. by introducing a Statement of Assurance . Members believe that further progress is needed in order to improve reporting on the use of EU funds. They call for enhanced transparency and accountability combined with effectiveness and efficiency. They welcome the work undertaken by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which should serve as an inspiration to UN organizations in their methods of granting aid. Once again, Members recall that Parliament has long been asking for a European multi-donor trust fund , as a way of ensuring accountability to the highest possible extent for as long as not all UN agencies managing multi-donor trust funds comply with EU standards on transparency and accountability. Coordination of aid efforts by the donor community : noting that aid effectiveness and coordination of donor actions in Afghanistan are structurally hampered by the fact that many donors have a tendency to aim for short-term results without sufficient alignment with the needs of the people of Afghanistan, Members anticipate that the creation of the EEAS (European External Action Service) will result in better coordination and interaction, as well as greater transparency in the implementation of EU projects and the more sustainable and efficient use of EU funding. They call on the Commission to pursue further efforts to coordinate the aid not only with the Member States but also with other international donors. Challenges for the future : noting the recent announcement of the United States of America that it is going to withdraw about one third of American troops by the summer of 2012, Members underline the fact that a withdrawal of troops could have a negative effect on the economy of Afghanistan . Several other challenges are highlighted such as: i) the need to improve the capacity and independent of the Afghan judiciary; ii) measures to combat corruption that is undermining the country’s socio-economic development; iii) combating waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, and overbilling; iv) strengthening the country’s security; v) gender equality and women’s rights. Foreign policy : Members consider that the general purpose of EU development aid should be to assist in the long-term sustainable development of the country , including improvement of socio-economic standards, facilitating job creation and proliferation of SMEs, strengthening the educational sector and ensuring gender equality. The aid should further facilitate capacity-building in the public administration, strengthen the rule of law and reduce corruption. They recommend that part of the financial assistance to Afghanistan be allocated to the five-year plan to phase out opium cultivation and replace it with alternative crops. Noting that a significant proportion of aid does not reach the intended beneficiaries( the people of Afghanistan), Members point out that the EU and, in particular, the Commission/EEAS should have a leading role in improving donor coordination, in close cooperation with other key donors such as the US and Japan. They take the view that the European Union, as one of the major donors of official development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan (more than EUR 2 billion between 2002 and the end of 2010), has a particular responsibility to evaluate whether those funds reach the intended recipients and improve their living conditions. They also call on the EU to set up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and the impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan, and for the introduction of sectoral budget support , with measurable impact indicators. Development policy : Members stress that directing aid towards conflict-affected countries implies the acceptance of a substantial level of inherent risk in terms of results. Nevertheless, greater efforts need to be made to reverse this trend. They emphasise that the effectiveness of aid to Afghanistan can only be improved if there is a radical change of approach to the problem of corruption . In this context, they call on the EEAS and the Commission to define a clear strategy for delivering aid in such a fragile, high-risk context. They stress the need for urgent reforms and capacity building to strengthen public financial management (PFM) systems, reduce corruption and improve budget execution. The Afghan authorities are called upon to mobilize themselves so as to ensure that Afghans can actually benefit from the aid they are granted and to ensure that there is a greater role for civil society. As far as future aid is concerned, Members call on the EU to honour its commitments and to continue to make available appropriate resources beyond 2014 , when responsibility for security will be fully in the hands of the Afghan authorities. They call on the EU to seek new foreign civil-society partners and donors. Lastly, Members call on the Commission, the Member States and the international community to coordinate their aid efforts better.
  • date: 2011-12-14T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111214&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20889&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-578 title: T7-0578/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on b udgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan. Parliament recalls firstly, that already in 2010, Parliament’s resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan had identified several points of concern in regard to the budgetary control exercised with regard to EU aid to Afghanistan. According to Integrity Watch, in 2009, bribes of over $1 billion were paid in this country. They also recall that, since 2002, the Commission had allocated more than EUR 2 billion in development and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and that it had disbursed EUR 1.8 billion. In this context, Members highlight the benefits and drawbacks of the different funding channels for providing aid to Afghanistan . In their view the Commission should envisage different funding channels to diversify aid in order to address individual needs. They call on the Commission to consider introducing direct budget support in Afghanistan under rigorous and well-defined conditions as soon as the necessary macroeconomic stability and sufficiently reliable financial management have been shown to exist, as it is the best instrument for building capacity in the Afghan administration. Sectoral budget support : Parliament calls on the Commission, at the same time, to make potential future budget support dependent on rigorous and well-defined conditions which are clear and measurable. It believes that budget support could start with limited amounts applied under rigorous and well-defined conditions, noting the example of other donor countries in introducing sectoral budget support for those Afghan ministries for which the benchmarks on accountability and transparency are met. Members ask the Commission to consider introducing budget support not only at central level but also at provincial and local level, as this would increase capacity building at all governmental levels and would also strengthen the Commission's position vis-à-vis those entities and make the Commission more independent of its relations with a single entity. At the same time, Parliament reiterates its oversight role in this context and calls on the Commission to publish clear and standardised reports which assess - in an objective and transparent way - progress and eventual obstacles encountered in regard to these projects. Accountability and oversight of EU funds in Afghanistan : Members deplore the weaknesses in project management in Afghanistan identified by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Among the weaknesses most frequently encountered were: · a high risk of corruption and fraud in the country (between 5% and 9% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was subject to fraud); · the high level of illiteracy and poorly trained staff; · lack of reliability of the Afghan national police; · a high risk of waste of funds (between 10 and 20% of total US aid spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was wasted); · short-term projects being funded with limited chances of being sustainable in the long run; · lack of full independent of the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan from the Afghan Government. To address these weaknesses, Members call for the introduction of several measures to ensure: i) the strengthening of financial and operational long-term sustainability; ii) encouragement of Afghan ownership of the project to the highest possible extent; iii) fraud and corruption risk factor to be eliminated to the highest possible extent. They underline the crucial importance for democracy of having a Supreme Audit Institution which is financially and operationally fully independent of the executive branch for the Commission to successfully carry out control and monitoring tasks with the Control and Audit Office of Afghanistan. Parliament also stresses the need to improve the accountability of aid channelled via UN Agencies in Afghanistan. It recalls that Parliament has repeatedly asked the Commission to improve the transparency and accountability of UN-managed projects, especially multi-donor trust funds, e.g. by introducing a Statement of Assurance . Members believe that further progress is needed in order to improve reporting on the use of EU funds. They call for enhanced transparency and accountability combined with effectiveness and efficiency. They welcome the work undertaken by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which should serve as an inspiration to UN organizations in their methods of granting aid. Once again, Members recall that Parliament has long been asking for a European multi-donor trust fund, as a way of ensuring accountability to the highest possible extent for as long as not all UN agencies managing multi-donor trust funds comply with EU standards on transparency and accountability. Parliament draws attention to the Commission's proposal that the revised Financial Regulation should provide for a legal basis on which to set up its own multi-donor trust funds. Coordination of aid efforts by the donor community : noting that aid effectiveness and coordination of donor actions in Afghanistan are structurally hampered by the fact that many donors have a tendency to aim for short-term results without sufficient alignment with the needs of the people of Afghanistan, Members anticipate that the creation of the EEAS (European External Action Service) will result in better coordination and interaction, as well as greater transparency in the implementation of EU projects and the more sustainable and efficient use of EU funding. They call on the Commission to pursue further efforts to coordinate the aid not only with the Member States but also with other international donors. Improvements to reporting : Parliament reminds the Commission that Parliament has called on the Commission to submit to it an annual report on Afghanistan containing a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of aid, and it reiterates this call to implement the recommendation. It sees the need to increase the transparency and accountability of the use of EU funds and to help EU Member States and other donors to avoid common pitfalls. Challenges for the future : noting the recent announcement of the United States of America that it is going to withdraw about one third of American troops by the summer of 2012, Members underline the fact that a withdrawal of troops could have a negative effect on the economy of Afghanistan . Several challenges must be met to ensure Afghanistan’s future: i) the need to improve the capacity and independent of the Afghan judiciary; ii) measures to combat corruption that is undermining the country’s socio-economic development; iii) combating waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, and overbilling and corruption; iv) strengthening the country’s security; v) gender equality and women’s rights. Foreign policy : Members consider that the general purpose of EU development aid should be to assist in the long-term sustainable development of the country, including improvement of socio-economic standards, facilitating job creation and proliferation of SMEs, strengthening the educational sector and ensuring gender equality. The aid should further facilitate capacity-building in the public administration, strengthen the rule of law and reduce corruption. They recommend that part of the financial assistance to Afghanistan be allocated to the five-year plan to phase out opium cultivation and replace it with alternative crops. Noting that a significant proportion of aid does not reach the intended beneficiaries (the people of Afghanistan), Members point out that the EU and, in particular, the Commission/EEAS should have a leading role in improving donor coordination, in close cooperation with other key donors such as the US and Japan. They take the view that the European Union, as one of the major donors of official development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan (more than EUR 2 billion between 2002 and the end of 2010), has a particular responsibility to evaluate whether those funds reach the intended recipients and improve their living conditions. They also call on the EU to set up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and the impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan, and for the introduction of sectoral budget support, with measurable impact indicators. Development policy : Members stress that directing aid towards conflict-affected countries implies the acceptance of a substantial level of inherent risk in terms of results. Nevertheless, greater efforts need to be made to reverse this trend. They emphasise that the effectiveness of aid to Afghanistan can only be improved if there is a radical change of approach to the problem of corruption . In this context, they call on the EEAS and the Commission to define a clear strategy for delivering aid in such a fragile, high-risk context. They stress the need for urgent reforms and capacity building to strengthen public financial management (PFM) systems, reduce corruption and improve budget execution. The Afghan authorities are called upon to mobilize themselves so as to ensure that Afghans can actually benefit from the aid they are granted and to ensure that there is a greater role for civil society. The Afghan authorities are also asked to focus on the development of capacity building in the public sector. As far as future aid is concerned, Members call on the EU to honour its commitments and to continue to make available appropriate resources beyond 2014 , when responsibility for security will be fully in the hands of the Afghan authorities. They call on the EU to seek new foreign civil-society partners and donors. Lastly, Members call on the Commission, the Member States and the international community to coordinate their aid efforts better, and combat the current fragmentation of assistance.
  • date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CONT/7/05014
New
  • CONT/7/05014
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 6.30.02 Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
  • 6.40.04.06 Relations with Central Asian countries
  • 8.70.03 Budgetary control and discharge, implementation of the budget
New
6.30.02
Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
6.40.04.06
Relations with central Asian countries
8.70.03
Budgetary control and discharge, implementation of the budget
activities
  • date: 2011-01-20T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HOHLMEIER Monika group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: GEIER Jens body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
  • date: 2011-11-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HOHLMEIER Monika group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: GEIER Jens body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
  • date: 2011-11-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-388&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0388/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-12-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111214&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20889&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-578 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0578/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: JÄÄTTEENMÄKI Anneli
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HOHLMEIER Monika group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: GEIER Jens
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-10-05T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
links
other
  • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
CONT/7/05014
geographical_area
Afghanistan
reference
2011/2014(INI)
title
Budgetary control of EU financial assistance to Afghanistan
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject