Twinning Projects - The Web site cannot be found

Transkript

Twinningové projekty
– Analýza zkušeností „starých“ států EU a zhodnocení přínosu
Twinningu out pro Českou republiku
Twinning Projects:
Analysing the Experience of „Old“ EU Member States and
Evaluating Benefits of Twinning Out for the Czech Republic
Zpráva z grantového výzkumného projektu MZV ČR
Identifikační kód RM 01/04/04
Nositel projektu:
Ústav mezinárodních vztahů
Nerudova 3
118 50 Praha 1
tel.: 51 108 111
fax: 51 108 222
www.iir.cz
IČO: 48546054
Odpovědná řešitelka: Mgr. Lucie Königová
Spoluřešitelky: Elsa Tulmets, MA, PhD; Mgr. Eliška Tomalová
Výzkumné asistentky: Mgr. Karolína Harries a Mgr. Petra Häfner
Praha, listopad 2006
Table of Contents:
Glossary of Acronyms .........................................................................................................................3
1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................5
2
Background ..................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Enlargement Instruments and Commission Strategy .................................................................8
2.2 Twinning – Description of an Instrument ..................................................................................9
2.3 New Developments, Plans and Priorities of the Commission .................................................12
2.3.1 Further accession negotiations and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) ............13
2.3.2 Complementarity of TWO and TAIEX ............................................................................14
2.4 Aims of Twinning and Theoretical Underpinnings .................................................................15
2.4.1 Learning and Socialisation................................................................................................15
2.4.2 Institutional Change ..........................................................................................................17
2.4.3 Mutual Learning and Adaptation ......................................................................................18
3
Report Methodology ..................................................................................................................19
4
Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................................22
4.1 NCP models .............................................................................................................................23
4.2 Preparation ...............................................................................................................................37
4.3 Contracting...............................................................................................................................43
4.4 Domestic Resources.................................................................................................................43
4.5 Implementation ........................................................................................................................45
4.6 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................48
5
Benefits, Costs, Risks and Opportunities of Twinning..............................................................51
5.1 General Benefits and Drawbacks of Twinning ........................................................................51
5.2 Benefits and Drawbacks of Twinning Out for Provider Countries..........................................53
5.3 Risks and Constraints of Twinning Out...................................................................................54
6
Recommendations......................................................................................................................56
6.1 General Recommendations for New Member States...............................................................56
6.2 Recommendations Specific to the Czech Republic .................................................................58
6.2.1 Czech Republic: Priorities, Prerequisites and Scope Conditions......................................59
6.2.2 National Contact Point Location.......................................................................................62
6.2.3 Suggestions for Improved Performance in Twinning Out Coordination..........................66
6.2.4 Models for Czech Involvement in Twinning Out .............................................................67
6.2.5 International Twinning Out Seminar ................................................................................70
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................71
References..........................................................................................................................................72
Appendix 1 – Questionnaires
Appendix 2 – Data Collection Overview
Appendix 3 – List of Respondents
Appendix 4 – NCP Location and Organigrams
Appendix 5a – European Commission – Twinning: Key Facts and Figures
Appendix 5b – European Commission – Twinning Implementation – MEDA and TACIS
Appendix 6 – Summary Report from the Annual Meeting of Institution-Building Instruments (Twinning/TAIEX)
Appendix 7a – Návrh věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí
Appendix 7b – Stávající a návrh nového institucionálního uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky
Appendix 7c – Předkládácí zpráva k návrhu věcného záměru zákona o ZRS
2
Glossary of Acronyms
AO
AEI
AP
AWP
BC
BMWi
CAP
CARDS
CBC
CC
CEECs
CFA
CFCU
CR
DG
DIS
EC
EDIS
ENP
ENPI
ERFA
ESC
ESDP
ESF
EU
EUR
EVD
FIIAPP
GIP ADETEF
GIP FCI
GTZ
IB
IBs
IE
IPA
IPA
JHA
KfW
LFA
LFM
MEDA
MFA
MoU
MR
MS
MTE
NAC
NAO
NCP
NMS
NPAA
Administrative Office
Agentur für Europäische Integration und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung (Austria)
Accession Partnership
Annual Work Plan
Beneficiary Country (beneficiary of PHARE/Transition Facility, CARDS, TACIS or
MEDA assistance)
German Federal Ministry of Economics
Common Agricultural Policy
Community Assistance For Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation for Western
Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, including
Kosovo, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Cross Border Cooperation
Candidate Country
Central and Eastern European Countries
Centre for Foreign Assistance
Central Financing and Contracting Unit
Czech Republic
Directorate General (within the European Commission)
Decentralised Implementation System
European Commission
Extended Decentralised Implementation System
European Neighbourhood Policy
(Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine)
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instruments
Danish expert network
Economic and Social Cohesion
European Security and Defence Policy
European Social Fund
European Union
Euro(s)
Dutch Agency for International Business and Cooperation
Fundación Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas
(Spain)
Groupement d’Intérêt Général Assistance au Développement des Technologies
Economiques et Financières
Groupement d’Intérêt Général France Coopération Internationale
Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (Germany)
Institution Building
Intermediary Bodies (Structural Funds bodies)
Interim Evaluation
Instrument for Pre-Accession
Institute of Public Administration (Ireland)
Justice and Home Affairs
Kreditanstalt of Wiederaufbau (Germany)
Logical Framework Analysis
Logical Framework Matrix
the principal financial instrument of the European Union for the implementation of the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria,
Tunisia, West Bank and Gaza Strip)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Memorandum of Understanding
Monitoring Report
(EU) Member States
Mid-term Expert
National Aid Co-ordinator
National Authorising Officer
National Contact Point
New Member States
National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis
3
OMS
PAA
PAO
PCM
PF
PHARE
PIU
PL
PRAG
PSI
REC / DEC
RTA
SFs
SGAE
SGCI
SIDA
SIGMA
SPO
SPP
STE
TA
TACIS
TAIEX
TC
TF
ToR
TW / TWL
TWI
TWO
Old Member States
Pre-Accession Advisor
Programme Authorising Officer
Project Cycle Management
Project Fiche
Pologne-Hongrie, Aide à la Restructuration Economique - Community programme
providing pre-accession assistance to countries from Central and Eastern Europe
(originally: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,
Slovenia, as of 1 May 2004: Bulgaria and Romania with specific financing arrangements
for Turkey; as of 1 January 2005 also Croatia)
Project Implementation Unit
Project Leader
Practical Guide to Contract Procedures (issued by the EC’s EuropeAid)
Private Sector Input
Representation / Delegation of the European Commission
Resident Twinning Adviser
Structural Funds
Secrétariat Général des Affaires Européennes
Secrétariat Général du Comité Interministériel pour les questions de coopération
économique européenne
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Support for Improvement in Governance and Management in Central and Eastern
European Countries
Senior Programme Officer
Special Preparatory Programme
Short-term Expert
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance to 12 countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia – the
Commonwealth of Independent States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and
Uzbekistan)
Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office
Twinning Covenant / Twinning Contract
Transition Facility
(Cyprus, Malta, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia
and Slovakia)
Terms of Reference
Twinning / Twinning Light
Twinning In
Twinning Out
4
1
Introduction
Twinning has become the cornerstone of the European Union’s assistance to Acceding, Candidate
or Potential Candidate Countries. Recently, Twinning has also started benefiting countries included
in the programme of enhanced co-operation1 (European Neighbourhood Policy countries). The
original aim of Twinning was and largely remains to be the building of capacity of these countries
to adopt, implement and enforce the full acquis communautaire before joining the European Union
(EU).
Being the instrument of choice for the European Commission (EC) in assisting Beneficiary
Countries with their accession-related duties, Twinning helps the EU applicants and potential
joiners to:
“reform, adapt, and strengthen their public institutions in order to apply well the EU rules and
procedures (…) and benefit fully from membership of the Union” (European Commission 2006: 4).
Twinning was first launched in May 1998 and has become one of the key tools of institution
building assistance within the larger context of enlargement initiatives. Twinning is a close and
specific cooperation between a Beneficiary Country (BC) and a Member State (MS) to help BCs to
develop modern and efficient administrations capable of applying the acquis.
Twinning works on the basis of specific, clearly defined projects with concrete operational
results. A Twinning project is conceived as a joint venture of a Member State and a Beneficiary
Country, a two-way street with credible commitments and responsibilities taken on by both
Twinning partners.
Irrespective of the above-suggested prominence of Twinning, relatively few studies so far
have dealt with the analysis and evaluation of this mechanism (e.g. Grabbe 2001; Tulmets 2003c,
2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006; Königová 2003, 2004; Papadimitrou and Phinnemore 2003a, 2003b,
Bailey and de Propris 2004). Moreover, these studies and other independent evaluations (Birker et
al. 2000; MZV ČR 2001; Cooper, Johansen 2003; WM Enterprise 2006; BMWi/GTZ 2006) have
1
Acceding, Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries as well as countries benefiting from the European
Neighbourhood Policy are all referred to as Beneficiary Countries. Acceding Countries are Bulgaria and Romania;
Candidate Countries include Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey; and Potential
Candidate Countries are currently listed by the European Commission as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro and Serbia, including Kosovo. Neighbourhood countries are Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, and
Ukraine. Furthermore, Twinning assistance will continue to be provided to New Member States (funded from the
Transition Facility budget). From 2007 on, the Acceding, Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries will benefit
from the Instrument of Pre-Accession (IPA) and the neighbourhood countries plus Russia from the European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instruments (ENPI) – see Chapter 2.3.1.
5
focused mostly on the impact Twinning has had on Beneficiary Countries. In spite of several overall
evaluation
reports
commissioned
or
undertaken
by
the
European
Commission
(DG
Enlargement/OMAS 2001; DG Enlargement/EMS 2004, EG Enlargement 2006), the EU as the
initiator and sponsor of this assistance tool has no comprehensive analysis of the benefits and
drawbacks of Twinning for the providers, i.e. for the “Old” Member States, even though some EU
countries have been seeking to make these analyses domestically.
When the European Commission introduced the instrument in 1997/1998, it had to convince
the representatives of Member States to start providing Twinning Out (TWO).2 These
representatives, in turn, had some convincing to do in terms of getting experts from their national
administrations and institutions involved in institutional Twinning3. This report actually rehearses
some of these arguments but has the incomparable benefit of drawing upon almost nine years of
experience with Twinning Out to find out about the positives and negatives, about the benefits and
costs, and about the risks and opportunities for Twinning Out assistance providers.
The primary aims of our project have been threefold:
•
Collecting information on the actual mechanisms of Twinning projects as provided by institutions and
experts from Old Member States of the EU;
•
Identifying the benefits and highlight possible risks related to Twinning Out for the Czech Republic on
the basis of the experience of Old Member States; and
•
Drafting, on the basis of the findings and conclusions made, recommendations for the Czech Republic’s
effective, efficient and economical involvement in Twinning Out projects.
In order to do so, we analysed and evaluated the data collected through questionnaires and
interviews, drew upon several Twinning and Phare evaluation studies, and reviewed a number of
quarterly, final and monitoring reports (for a detailed description of the methods used, see Chapter
3). This analysis is preceded by a short outline of the evolution of Twinning and the
contextualisation of this instrument in the process of enlargement. We describe both the past and
future uses of Twinning in the European Union’s external relations policy, focussed specifically on
the organisation and coordination of TWO. This includes the set-up and operation of National
Contact Points (NCPs); the preparation activities; domestic resources used to motivate and support
public administration institutions as TWO expertise providers; the contracting and implementation
processes and procedures, as well as TWO evaluation. It was on the basis of this data evaluation
that our research team sought to identify the major opportunities and threats related to Twinning
2
Twinning In (TWI) is a term used for Twinning projects from the perspective of Beneficiary Countries. Twinning Out
(TWO), on the contrary, refers to Twinning assistance from the point of view of providers, i.e. the Member States.
3
There are also Twinnings on a regional basis - between towns and cities. This study does not deal with this type of
Twinning and focuses on institutional Twinning only.
6
Out projects in general and with a particular focus on the Czech Republic. This data interpretation
and evaluation formed the basis for thee major recommendations to Czech decision-makers.
First, considering the administrative and resource situation in the Czech Republic, we
present five models of Czech participation in Twinning Out:
1) The Czech Republic as a single applicant and provider of Twinning Out projects;
2) The Czech Republic as a Lead Partner in a Twinning Out consortium;
3) The Czech Republic as a Junior Partner in Twinning Out consortia;
4) The Czech Republic as a Strategic Junior Partner of certain Old Member States; and
5) The Czech Republic as a provider of individual experts for Twinning Out consortia.
Besides outlining the positives and negatives of each model and indicating the prerequisites for
successfully putting them into practice, we also assign each model with a probability rate. Given
Czech Republic’s structural situation and on the basis of initial research among Czech TWO actors,
models number three and five are given high probability rating. In other words, the Czech Republic
is expected to provide Junior Partner services and the expertise of individual experts on a most
regular basis. These two models also suit best the current capacities of and the level of commitment
by Czech TWO actors and shall be what the Czech Republic should particularly focus on in shortto mid-term perspective.
Second, the report comes with six possible scenarios for the coordination and organisation
of TWO in the Czech Republic:
1) NCP as a special unit based at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA);
2) NCP based at the MFA but delegating the operational and administrative tasks to a special
agency outside the MFA;
3) NCP based at a special agency;
4) NCP as a special unit based at the Ministry of Finance (MF);
5) NCP based at the MF but delegating the operational and administrative tasks to a special
agency outside the MF; and
6) NCP at the Government Office.
Considering the recent policy and legislative developments in the country, especially the draft
legislation for setting up a special Development Assistance Agency, we suggest that Czech
policy-makers explore the third, agency-based scenario as the potentially most beneficial,
effective and economical one, with the second scenario being the second best option.
And finally, we recommend organising an international Twinning Out seminar in Prague
where the finding of this report could be explored further and which would allow for sharing
of experience and transfer of know-how from some Old Member States to the New Member
States in general and the Czech Republic in particular.
7
2
Background
Twinning is a temporary secondment of public administration experts from EU Member States to
the countries identified under relevant EU assistance programmes as beneficiaries (see Footnote 1).
The objective is to assist Beneficiary Countries in building and strengthening their domestic
institutions in order for them to have the capacity to implement the acquis communautaire in an
effective and efficient manner. Some actors even go as far as referring to Twinning as to the most
effective transfer of the “European” know-how abroad. In theory, Twinning could be a textbook
example of socialisation which, in reflection of European integration, can contribute substantially to
the adaptation of domestic institutions to the implementation of the acquis.
This chapter seeks to outline the key characteristics of Twinning, setting it within the larger
context of enlargement and sketching out some new developments of the instrument, including the
extended coverage and broader purpose of the instrument. The chapter closes by framing Twinning
within the framework of institutional change and European integration studies, showing the
strengths and innovative aspects of Twinning as a tool serving the EU and Beneficiary Countries.
2.1 Enlargement Instruments and Commission Strategy
The Copenhagen summit (1993) introduced three criteria for those seeking the membership in the
European Union:
1) stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and
protection of minorities (political criteria);
2) the existence of a market economy capable of coping with competitive pressures and market
forces inside the Union (economic criteria);
3) the capacity to assume the obligations of accession, and notably to subscribe to the
objectives of political, economic, and monetary union (legal criteria or the ability to adopt
the acquis communautaire).4
A fourth criterion (the enlargement happening only if and when the EU has the capacity to absorb
new members without threatening the momentum of European integration) does not concern the
Candidate or Accession Countries but the Old Member States and the institutions, mechanisms and
operation of the European Union.
4
For the Conclusions of the Copenhagen Summit see
http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/73842.pdf.
8
The 1995 Madrid Summit added another element to the above criteria: institutional capacity.
This meant that Candidate Countries had to have administrative and judicial institutions which
would be able to implement the acquis. This requirement underlined the conditionality of EU aid
that was provided to Candidate and Accession Countries and marked a new phase in the EU
enlargement process in the last decade of the 20th century.
The principal instrument of technical assistance through which the EU has supported
Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern European during pre-accession has been PHARE.5
Some pilot projects on administrative capacity were introduced in Poland and Hungary between
1995 and 1997, but most of them failed due to the fact that consultancy was provided by private
companies. In 1997, the European Commission (EC) issued its “Agenda 2000” (EC, 1997) and
proposed to dedicate 30% of assistance to institution-building6 and 70% to investment. The
European Commission started searching for an effective external cooperation tool which would
encourage and promote the build-up and strengthening of the administrative and judicial capacities
of Beneficiary Countries. In 1998, PHARE procedures were reformed and the Commission came up
with a new instrument called Twinning.
2.2 Twinning – Description of an Instrument7
The goal of institutional Twinning is a direct provision of expertise and transfer of experience with
the functioning of public administrations implementing the acquis in different member states to
public servants in Beneficiary Countries. This move by the Commission came in recognition of the
varied institutional histories, patterns and trajectories in Europe.8
Traditionally, though involved in and organising many debates on public administration
reform, the EU, as Olsen (2002: 5) reminds us, has not been particularly attentive to and focused on
administrative issues. It was much rather policy making and substantive results than administrative
arrangements that ranked top in Brussels, no less for the limited legitimacy of the Commission and
its modest administrative capacities for this task. In spite of the Commission keeping an
intentionally low profile, the EU has paid great attention to the institutional capacities of applicant
5
Coucil Regulation 3906/89. Originally aimed at helping Poland and Hungary only, the PHARE programme has been
later on extended to cover other CEECs as well (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Romania).
6
TAIEX is the first Phare institution-building instrument and was introduced by the European Commission in 1995. For
the differences and linkages between Twinning and TAIEX see Chapter 2.3.2.
7
This section draws on Königová 2003 and 2004.
8
“[Twinning] brings the candidate countries into wider contact with the diversity of practice inside the EU.” (Twinning
in Action:5). See also Grabbe 2001: 1023. Diverse diffusion of norms and standards as well as varied adaptation and
only limited convergence in member states was also reported by Olsen and Peters (1996)
9
states and has exerted a strong pressure on the candidates to modernise their administrations
(Grabbe 2001; Lippert, Umbach, Wessels 2001).
There is no well-developed encompassing public administration within the EU, no
“institutional blueprint” for domestic administrations to adapt to, no shared understanding(s) of a
distinct “best practice” in terms of structure and procedures (Sverdrup 2000:18), though the White
Paper on European Governance (European Commission 2001b) seeks to set performance
standards. The lack of a clear overarching public administration model and the relatively weak
European powers for the imposition of specific changes in domestic administrations might be also
considered as a factor for facilitating European integration (Sverdrup 2000:44).
Since 1998, the Twinning procedure has continuously been modified to reflect the practical
experience and there have been numerous editions the Twinning Manual. The Twinning rules in
force now (Twinning Manual, April 2005) can be briefly summed up in the following way: The
competent authorities of Beneficiary Countries prepare Twinning project fiches on the basis of their
bilateral agreements with the EU (Accession Partnership, Association and Stabilisation Agreement
or Action Plan). These detailed fiches contain all of EU directives and regulations to be applied;
identify the reforms already carried out and future needs, pre-defining to some extent the
benchmarks that will have to be met. After getting approved by the EC Delegation, the project
fiches are sent to the Commission’s relevant DG (DG Enlargement and/or AidCo) and then
circulated among Member States’ National Contact Points (NCP). The NCPs distribute the “calls
for participation”, i.e. the project fiches, to the competent authorities and relevant managers, who
later send propositions via the NCP to the relevant Commission units. The EC Delegation is then
charged with organising presentation meetings for these proposals in the Beneficiary Countries: the
PLs and the PAAs/RTAs present their bids to their future colleagues from the BC, usually in
English. The bids are then assessed by the BC. During the presentation, four to five members of the
jury, generally officials of the ministry planning the Twinning, have to fill in a standard evaluation
form containing specific criteria in order to judge the oral presentations and the written proposal of
each Member State. They look at command of the project working language, the technical
competences, and the expert’s past experience, his/her open-mindedness, and his/her will to find
solutions adapted to the situation. Finally, jury members score the presentations on the basis of the
evaluation form and of these general appreciations. The representatives of the BC send their
decision to the EC Delegation.
A project can bring together a consortium of experts from two to three Member States, one
of them taking up the role of a Project Leader / Lead Partner. Once the “model” is chosen, the
future cooperation is planned in a Twinning contract between the partners. The “targets” of the
project—called “mandatory results”—are defined in the contract. The PAAs/RTAs have to report
on their activities, sending detailed quarterly project progress reports. They have to constantly refer
10
to the mandatory results defined under the Twinning contract and on the way they have been
achieved so far. The Beneficiary Countries also evaluate their performance in project reports against
benchmarks agreed in the Twinning contract.
The objective of Twinning is to make the BC’s organisations fully functioning, effective,
financially self-sufficient, sustainable and dynamic after the series of Twinning projects end. This is
a distinct shift in the conception and implementation of EU assistance. Twinning is conceived as no
direct and immediate “delivery without the demand” but a as “tailor-made project” with allowing
for slight changes in cut and design right on the client,9 though the change mechanism is rather
clumsy and protracted, as we will show in Chapters 4 and 5. Clearly, the Commission has not opted
here for a “single best way of organising administration” while recognising that the definitions of
“good administration” always hinge upon specific, time- and place-bound ends, purposes and values
(Olsen 2002). What is new here is the idea of permanent co-operation of the partner administration.
The aim is to build long-term relationships between MS and BCs, their public administrations,
agencies and bodies on national, regional and local levels and in a cross-section of sectors,
foregrounding a favourable environment for future interactions within the enlarged EU framework
for smooth governance.
While Twinning may be able to deliver all of the above, facilitating mainly the transfer of
technical assistance from Member States’ administrators to Beneficiary Countries’ officials, there
have been several obstacles and limitations, as pointed out by several evaluations and studies (see
e.g. Cooper, Johansen 2003; Königová 2003, 2004; Bailey, de Propris 2004; Tulmets 2005a, 2005b,
2005c, 2006; WM Enterprise 2006).
First of all, the Beneficiary Countries have often lacked sufficient capacity to absorb the
assistance provided. This relates both to human capital and financial constraints (or lack of
commitment). Moreover, where EU Member State partners failed to deliver agreed assistance, e.g.
due to the shortage of expert staff to provide the desired input, the beneficiaries (and the European
Union Delegations/Representations) had only few tools and little power to influence their
performance (Papadimitrou, Phinnemore 2003a, WM Enterprise 2006, Bailey, de Propris 2004
etc.).
Second, the sustainability of intervention after Twinning has been another source of concern
(Papadimitrou, Phinnemore 2003a; Cooper, Johansen 2003; Bailey, de Propris 2004 DG
Enlargement/EMS Consortium 2004). This is related both to the remaining politicisation of
Beneficiary Countries’ public (especially central government) administrations and the huge
turnover of staff in civil service in these countries. Even though follow-up Twinning or TwinningLight projects seek to prevent that, it remains a major challenge to the effectiveness of Twinning.
9
Projects may be adjusted to the course of events and unforeseen changes during the implementation phase.
11
Third, Twinning was initially perceived as something that was imposed on the Candidate
Countries (Königová 2004, Cooper, Johansen 2003; DG Enlargement/EMS Consortium 2004).
Some Pre-Accession Advisers from the first generation of Twinning had to struggle with the image
of “spies” appointed by the European Commission. This only documents how critical it is to explain
the philosophy of any aid programme to the beneficiaries in a comprehensive and clear way, being
fully aware of cultural sensitivities and seeking the acceptance and commitment from the recipient
country and its institutions first.
Fourth, both the first and the second generations of Twinning and Twinning Light are
marked by an extensive administrative load and substantial delays in the preparation (especially
approval) and implementation of projects.10
“This reflected the generally slow process of learning for all actors (EC, EU Member States, Candidate
Countries) and the difficulties sometimes experienced in terms of the development of a partnership
between the two sides at all stages of preparation and implementation.” (WM Enterprise, 2006).
However, with years, Twinning as an instrument has developed and the early start-up problems
have been overcome in many respects, though not completely. This has motivated the European
Commission to extend the scope and geographical coverage of this assistance tool and to explore
further complementarities of Twinning and TAIEX.
2.3 New Developments, Plans and Priorities of the Commission
Since Twinning was launched in 1997, the European Commission gradually adapted this instrument
to further assistance programmes. In 2001, a Twinning Manual was elaborated for the CARDS
programme delivering assistance to the countries of the Western Balkans11. From 2001 to 2003,
Twinning also enabled similar projects in the form of the Institution-Building Partnership
Programme in the TACIS programme, but “without any real success” (Interviews, DG AidCo, April
2006)12. In 2003-04, Twinning was introduced in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). In
order to harmonise Twinning rules and procedures, the Commission worked on the elaboration of a
common Twinning manual which was issued in June 200513 and applies to the Instrument for Pre10
The “first generation” of Twinnings refers to projects started in 1998. These projects were affected by early teething
problems and the issues mentioned as obstacles were very prominent. The “second generation” of Twinnings
(Twinnings since 1999) managed to overcome some of these problems event though the administrative load and the
delays still continue to hamper performance and reduce effectiveness and efficiency (cf. DG Enlargement/EMS 2004).
11
CARDS (Council regulation 22666/2000): Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
Stabilisation.
12
In the years 2002-03, the EU has launched calls for proposal for a total of 68 IBPP projects in the context of the
TACIS programme (Russia 40, Ukraine 16, Armenia 5, Georgia 3, Kazakhstan 4).
13
Manual accessible online at:
12
Accession (IPA) (replacing PHARE14, CARDS and the assistance to Turkey) and the European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instruments (ENPI) (replacing TACIS and MEDA15).
2.3.1 Further accession negotiations and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
Twinning has become one of the main instruments used by the Commission in order to explain how
European norms, values and acquis can be taken over, adapted to the national context, and
implemented. As mentioned earlier, Twinning was originally designed for Candidate Countries that
had to meet specific accession criteria in order to be accepted as EU Member States. Today,
however, Twinning concerns also Potential Candidate Countries and those neighbouring countries
that are interested in enhancing their cooperation with the EU and the Member States in several
policy fields. The European Commission also decided to continue providing Twinning assistance to
the New Member States from the 2006 budget (Transition Facility). Twinning projects with New
Member States as beneficiaries have been geared more towards shorter-term aid (Twining Light)
rather than longer-term “fully fledged” Twinning.16
Various analysts and institutions, among which the European Commission, believe that
EU’s new member states (NMS) have a specific role to play in the framework of further accession
negotiations and the ENP. NMS can rely on a recent experience of democratisation, transformation
and, finally, accession which can be very useful for Candidate Countries and for countries
undergoing democratisation and transition.
The number of Twinning projects implemented in Candidate Countries has been increasing
especially since Twinning was evaluated as a positive and useful instrument during the enlargement
of 2004 (European Court of Auditors, 2003). According to the figures presented at the annual NCP
meeting of June 2006 and more recent statistics (cf. report in Appendices 5a,b), the database
elaborated at the Commission since 1998 on Twinning in PHARE, CARDS and the Transition
Facilities registers 1245 projects for the period of 1998-2006. PHARE and the Transition Facilities
alone represent 1163 projects (1998-2006). A large part of the projects took place in the field of
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) (260 projects). For CARDS, 82 projects were launched for the
period of 2000-2006. 34 projects concern JHA, 16 public finance and Internal market and 11
agriculture and fisheries.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/financial_assistance/institution_building/Twinning_en.htm.
PHARE (Council regulation nb 3906/89): Pologne-Hongrie, Aide à la Restructuration Economique.
15
TACIS (Council regulation nb 1279/96): Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States. MEDA
(Council regulation nb 1488/96) and MEDA II (Council regulation nb 2698/2000).
16
Twinning Light (TWL) refers to projects with the involvement of STEs and/or MTEs which last up to 6 months only
(or 8 months, in exceptional cases). The total budget of TWL can be no higher than EUR 250,000. More responsibility
is shifted on the Beneficiary Country. „Classical“ Twinning projects last between 12 to 18 months or, in some cases,
even longer and they rely on the person of a Resident Twinning Adviser (RTA) residing in the Beneficiary Country.
STEs and MTEs are also involved in classical Twinnig and the budget exceeds EUR 250,000.
14
13
In 2003, the European Union launched the “Wider Europe Strategy”, renamed European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in 200417. The Commission proposed to include Twinning in the
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), a new framework for assistance that
is to replace TACIS and MEDA after 2007. Since 2003, Twinning NCPs have been operating in
Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan. The approach in
mainly “demand driven”, which means that the partner should progressively develop a sense of
ownership of the instrument according to their own experience. It should favour Twinning projects
along the priorities defined in each Action Plan, which generally cover the following sectoral
priorities: Internal market, Justice and Home Affairs, energy, transport, communication,
environment, research and innovation as well as social policies.
Approximately 80 Twinning projects are currently planned or under way. In the ENP,
however, the temporal and political constraints linked to accession are absent and the EU’s
attractiveness is weakened. Since 2005, the Commission organised two main workshops to inform
the ENP countries about Twinning as well as to present the experience of New Member States: one
in Cairo (Egypt) and one in Kiev (Ukraine). In May 2006, a number of Twinning projects were
agreed with these two countries, which reflects the importance of such awareness-raising activities.
Other countries are also interested in Twinning (e.g. Moldova and Azerbaijan). There is no
association agreement yet with Syria and the EU has difficulties to define its relationship with
Libya. Due to the political character of some projects and the perspective of accession absent in the
ENP, the introduction of Twinning projects mainly depends on the political will of the governments
to accept them. As mentioned earlier, experts were often perceived as “spies of Brussels” even
during pre-accession and the risk that they are seen as such in the ENP is higher without the
“carrot” of accession (Interviews, DG Enlargement, 2004; DG AidCo, 2006).
2.3.2 Complementarity of TWO and TAIEX
In 1995, the Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) was created to assist the
Candidate Countries in taking over and implementing the acquis in the field of Internal market.
TAIEX provides information from a database on the acquis and supports the sending of
independent experts for short-time missions to Candidate Countries. Advice is provided for
example on standardisation, certification, services, movement of capital , company law, competition
law, environmental law, market supervision, protection of intellectual and industrial property rights,
anti-piracy counterfeiting fight, customs, state aid control or public procurement. The experts
17
The countries included in the ENP are: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan,
Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine.
14
mainly work for consulting companies and their experience and per diems differ greatly from the
ones of Twinning RTAs.
As the ENP offers “a stake in EU’s internal market”, since June 2006, TAIEX has also been
used to implement the ENPI. As the experience of transition towards democracy and market
economy particularly varies among countries of EU’s neighbourhood, complementarity between
Twinning and TAIEX, i.e. between expertise from the public and the private sectors, has recently
been thought through. Short-term missions of TAIEX experts should help to identify the
deficiencies of public administrations and back-up local civil servants during the preparation of
project fiches for Twinning light or Twinning.
In general, TAIEX and Twinning should encourage learning and socialisation processes in
terms of EU norms and procedures, and thus to encourage enhanced cooperation between the EU
and third states in various sectors.
2.4 Aims of Twinning and Theoretical Underpinnings
Although Twinning has existed for almost a decade, the academic production on Twinning is still
rather scarce (Grabbe, 2001; Phinnemore, Papadimitriou, 2003a, 2003b; Tulmets, 2003a, 2003b,
2005a, 2005b, 2005c; 2006; Königová, 2003, 2004; Drulák, Königová 2005). Originally, Twinning
was designed to facilitate learning about and socialisation into the transposition and implementation
procedures as part of the accession process, focussing mainly on the acquis in Candidate Countries.
The chief purpose of Twinning is to promote best practices at the level of administrative and
judicial capacities where there is no acquis to provide for guidance. As pointed out earlier, the
instrument has recently been extended to cover European Union neighbourhood countries. The
expected result is a transfer of experience and of institutional knowledge from Member States to
third countries to drive reforms towards institutional changes. Twinning is part of a policy
supporting positive conditionality (reforms are rewarded) rather than negative conditionality
(lagging behind in reforms is punished). As pressure is exerted through a process of “naming and
shaming” with the elaboration of evaluation reports, learning and socialisation play a central role in
driving institutional changes (Schimmelfenning, Sedelmeier 2004). Therefore, the theoretical
literature employed so far is rather a sociological one, whose concepts have been adapted to the
field of international relations (Tulmets, 2003a, 2005c; Königová, 2003, 2004).
2.4.1 Learning and Socialisation
15
A large body of literature already exists on learning and socialisation at the national level, but
emerged only recently on organisational learning and socialisation at the regional or international
level. As learning at the national level identifies several types of learning (individual,
organisational, inter-organisational) (DiMaggio, Powell, 1991), learning at the international level
refers to individual learning as well as to collective learning, but a general emphasis is put on
collective or organisational learning (Checkel, 1999, 2001). Other strands of literature focus more
specifically on policy learning, which “occurs when policy-makers adjust their cognitive
understanding of policy development and modify policy in the light of knowledge gained from past
policy experience” (Stone, 2004: 549; also Rose, 1993). One may say that Twinning fosters
individual, collective and organisational learning in specific policy fields (Drulák, Königová 2005).
A way to gain knowledge on policy development is through socialisation. Socialisation was
already present in the neo-functionalist work of Ernst Haas, the author of “The Uniting of Europe”
(1968). Inspired by the functionalist David Mitrany, who believed that economic integration could
lead to a spill-over effect on the political, Ernst Haas advocated that socialisation among elites
could create integration within specific fields of activity. With the absence of spill-over effect in the
European Political Cooperation (EPC), neo-functionalist approaches kept on being criticised by
intergovernmentalists. At the end of the 1980s / beginning of 1990s, European integration gained
momentum again with the creation of the internal market, the launching of a Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP), with the communautarisation of part of the third pillar in 1997 as well as
with the launching in 1999 of the Euro and of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).
For some authors, these steps forward were possible due to socialisation among European elites and
actors on common values in specific policy fields (Smith, 2004, see also Haas, 1990). The open
method of coordination adopted in the fields of employment policy in 1997 and of social policies in
2000 also aims at socialising actors with different institutional and national backgrounds in order to
elaborate common values.
Socialisation also plays a growing role in the countries targeted by EU’s external relations,
although it may be seen more like a one-way process. Similar to international activism promoting
democracy at the international level (Finnemore, Sikkink, 1998; Risse, Ropp, Sikkink, 1999), EU’s
policy of political conditionality mainly aims at socialising Candidate Countries and third states into
the EU’s conception of Human Rights (Checkel, 2001) and political and normative culture. The
policy of enlargement to Eastern Europe contributed to export EU norms through conditionality,
socialisation and persuasion (Schimmelfennig, 2001; Schimmelfennig, Sedelmeier, 2004).
Twinning projects participate in this process of exporting norms and values in extending EU’s
internal policies abroad and socialising actors from third countries into EU’s sectoral norms
(Tulmets, 2003a, 2005c; Königová, 2004). Twinning can be seen as an attempt to supplement
conditionality by a policy-dialogue approach (Checkel 2000:5), which helps to build political
16
support and consensus for reforms through consulting a spectrum of stakeholders even outside the
institution in sectors and policies where conditions and the very nature of the issues allow so. The
importance of “low politics” in EU’s external relations has recently been acknowledged in other
fields of EU’s external relations, mainly in the European Neighbourhood Policy:
“We already have an impressive range of policy instruments, including development aid,
diplomacy, trade policy, civilian and military crisis management, and humanitarian assistance.
We also need to do more to recognize and utilise the external dimension of the EU’s internal
policies. Thanks to globalization, most internal policies now have an international element.”
(Ferrero-Waldner, 2006a)
2.4.2 Institutional Change
Analyses studying the impact of EU norms abroad often rely on neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio,
Powell, 1991) as well as on the literature on policy transfer (Dolowitz, Marsh, 1996; Rose, 1993) to
examine institutional changes in third countries. According to DiMaggio and Powell, institutional
changes can take place in three various contexts and forms: through coercion, mimetism and
normative adaptation (DiMaggio, Powell, 1991: 65). Thus, change can result (a) from formal and
informal pressure exerted in a coercive way by institutions on other institutions (e.g. conditionality);
and it can also take place (b) in a situation of uncertainty, where copying (intentionally or
unintentionally) other institutions can represent a solution to a problem. Finally, change can happen
(c) in a situation of professionalisation. Professions are subject to similar coercive and mimetic
pressures than organisations, either through education (legitimisation of a specific knowledge) or
through the creation of professional networks. These networks link together institutions of a same
profession and thus contribute to disseminate relevant knowledge for the profession.
The third case particularly applies to Twinning, which aims at building networks among
civil servants and in specific policy sectors between the EU and third countries. Networking is a key
word used at each annual NCP meeting to foster transfer of knowledge and support institutional
change. The transfer of knowledge on policies (policy transfer) is generally defined as:
“the process by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and
ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in the development of policies,
administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system” (Dolowitz,
Marsh, 1996).
In Twinning, policy transfer never took place in a void and very often enabled institutional
adaptation through a mix of past and new practices, which one may call adaptation or hybridisation.
17
Richard Rose defines policy adaptation as the process of “adjusting for contextual differences a
program already in effect in another jurisdiction” and making a hybrid as the process of “combining
elements of programs from two different places” (Rose, 1993: 30). Without institutional mix,
reforms would stay very costly and the new policy would often lose legitimacy. Policy adaptation
and hybridisation are therefore a way for third states to optimise resources and to ensure
sustainability.
2.4.3 Mutual Learning and Adaptation
As pointed out earlier, Twinning is not a one-way process directed from the EU to Candidate
Countries or partner states. Besides, it also aims, as far as possible, at mutual learning and
adaptation (European Court ot Auditors, 2003; BMWi/GTZ, 2006; also Tulmets, 2005b, 2005c;
Königová, 2003, 2004). Various Twinning reports and documents from enlargement indicate that
not only did beneficiaries learn substantially from EU experts, but that the EU experts also learned a
lot from and in Candidate Countries. Experts interviewed explained that Twinning contributed to
enlarge their knowledge of the Beneficiary Countries and sectors they have been working in, but
also, thanks to Twinning consortia, the acquis implementation solutions used other Member States.
Occasionally, the solutions found in Candidate Countries to implement the acquis constituted
positive lessons for MS experts. Some of these lessons were taken back to the EU as good practices
from future Member States.
18
3
Report Methodology
Aiming to provide an evaluation of the experience so far of the Old Member States with TWO, this
report relies mainly on primary data collected through questionnaires and personal interviews with
OMS National Contact Points, Project Leaders (PLs), Resident Twinning Advisers (RTAs), Shortand Mid-Term Experts (STEs/MTEs).
The first version of questionnaires was piloted on a few experts and the NCPs in France and
the United Kingdom. The NCP questionnaire as well as the questionnaires for experts involved in
TWO and TWI (see Appendix 1) were then abbreviated and used for mailing out and personal
interviews. The questionnaire included both multiple choice and open questions and we encouraged
the respondents to add any information or comments they felt were necessary. In interviews,
additional questions were also asked to get more specific answers or make deeper explorations.
In spite of the initial decision to focus primarily on the most active and successful providers
of TWO assistance (see Appendices 5a,b for statistics), i.e. Germany, France and the United
Kingdom, the research team had to extend the scope and refocus the geographical coverage on the
basis of the first experience with the (un)responsiveness and accessibility of experts from these
three Member States.18 Also, after the initial phase of desk research and early fact-finding and
background interviews, we decided to zoom in specifically on countries with some structural
similarities to the Czech Republic, i.e. countries with similar populations, sizes and comparable
public administration capacities (though not necessary structures and traditions). That is also why
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden rank among the major data providers for our
research (cf. Appendix 2).
To get some cross-check of the data we would get from Old Member States (OMS) and the
European Commission, we decided to mail out another set of questionnaires to the New Member
States (NMS) and Turkey in order to verify some information and validate the responses by
providing the recipient perspective.19 In several cases, we were able to get answers (in personal
18
To compensate for the very low reaction rate (not to be mistaken with the response rate – see Appendix 2), the French
NCP gave to us a valuable document that the French NCP prepares every year and sends to the EC before the NCP
meeting in Brussels. The document (“Questions posées par les autorités françaises“”) sums up all the comments of
French PLs and experts. Similarly, we could offset the UK’s low response rate by drawing upon background interviews
and findings from previous research (Königová 2003, 2004).
19
In general, answers from three types of experts were collected in NMS: 1) persons who have been involved in
Twinning as beneficiary, generally until 2004-06 (TWI); 2) persons who have been involved as beneficiary and
provider (TWO/TWI); and 3) persons who have been involved only as provider, since 2004 (TWO). Despite the small
rate of answers (see Chapter 4 and Appendix 2), they are quite representative of the different types of experience with
Twinning as they come from Twinning NCP, project leaders / managers and experts, as our background interviews and
Twinning evaluation reports confirmed.
19
interviews or via questionnaires) from experts from both the MS and the Beneficiary Countries who
have been working on the same project.
In order to secure the highest possible return rate which would be both manageable in terms
of data interpretation and evaluation and representative of the experience of OMS, we used three
ways of sending out questionnaires and asking for interviews: (a) the first version of the European
Commission database of all Twinning projects and contacts since 199820 (EuropeAid / DG
Enlargement 2005), (b) contacts given to us by OMS NCPs, and (c) personal contacts from previous
research done by two members of our research team (Drulák, Königová 2005; Königová 2003,
2004; Tulmets 2003b, 2003c, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006). Importantly, interviews with the Czech
National Contact Point and the administrators from the CFCU as well as interviews with Senior
Programme Officers (SPOs), TWI and TWO contact persons and heads of EU departments in
Czech ministries were conducted to study the situation in the Czech Republic and establish the
grounds for our recommendations (see Chapter 6).
Out of the 15 NCP questionnaires sent to Old Member States National Contact Points, 13
came back (the Spanish and Portugese NCPs did not react to any of our repeated requests for cooperation) and 7 have been discussed in more details during in-depth interviews with the NCPs in
Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United-Kingdom.21
During the data collection phase, our team had to deal with several methodological
challenges. First, due to the high turnover of staff in some administrations, contacts in the
Commission’s database were not up-to-date in quite a few cases, so asking NCPs to send the
questionnaires out to their updated mailing list was a way to compensate for the shortcomings in the
first way of circulation. Second, requesting help from NCPs meant another challenge in that some
of them did not react to our request for PL, RTA and STE contacts while some other NCPs did not
forward the questionnaire to a large enough number of persons (that explains the small rate of
answers for some countries, e.g. Estonia, Hungary).22 That is why we used some personal contacts
from previous Twinning-related research projects to offset this shortcoming. (For the return success
rate and the absolute figures see Appendix 2). Third, some respondents skipped some questions in
our questionnaire due to the lack of knowledge of the specific issue and/or the lack of time. These
answers were rated as “don’t know” / “other” or “no difference” (see Chapter 4).
In our original research plan, we intended to mail-out and classify the questionnaires
according to the most prominent TWO sectors and sectors identified as priority fields by the Czech
NCP (cf MFČR and MZV ČR 2006). Following initial interviews piloting a longer version of the
20
This database is currently updated and a second version will be released shortly.
Due to the quite limited involvement of Belgium, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg in TWO (see statistics in
Appendices 5a,b), we did not seek any additional information on and from these Member States.
22
Several NCPs contacted by our team promised to send us a list of experts who might be contacted by us for the
purpose of this research. Up until the cut-off date for this project (20 October), however, no lists came from some of
them.
21
20
questionnaire, however, we decided to drop this variable since it was not bringing any relevant data
in terms of sector-specificity. More importantly, though, our research project was aimed at project
management and organisation issues which would be of value to all sectors and could be a basis for
a successful TWO strategy for the Czech Republic, rather than providing sector-specific advice.
Given all the above, it is possible to consider the sample of over 160 respondents (see
Appendix 3) as quite representative of the “Twinning community”. Also, considering the limited
period of time for data collection, interpretation and evaluation, the small size of our research team
and the related financial limitations, it would have been quite difficult to reach more persons and
work with a larger sample.
Our research team also drew upon several Twinning evaluation reports and on a number of
quarterly and final reports. However, we did not carry out any systematic analysis of project reports
since (a) this was the method used in the evaluations we drew upon so we could rely to a large
extent on these findings; and (b) we wanted to capture and evaluate the immediate experience of
TWO actors, i.e. PLs, RTAs/PAAs, STEs/MTEs and NCPs and learn more and in a more targeted
way than we could from Twinning project reports. Last but not least, we made use of Twinningrelated policy documents, legislation and methodological guidance provided by both the European
Commission and individual Member States.
Following the data collection phase, we proceeded with data interpretation and qualitative
and quantitative analysis of both the primary and secondary data gathered (see Chapter 4). Our team
has studied and categorised various TWO organisation models, focussing particularly on National
Contact Points and their operation and involvement in various phases of the TWO cycle (Chapter
4.1). Following the study of the TWO project phases (preparation, bidding, contracting,
implementation and evaluation), the hands-on experience of Old Member States was analysed
(Chapters 4.2 to 4.6). The evaluation of this experience, along with the advice given by the
respondents to New Member States, formed the basis for our formulation of the basic TWO success
criteria from the perspective of TWO assistance provider. The benefits and drawbacks, as well as
risks, constraints and opportunities were then identified (Chapters 5.1 to 5.3). Considering the
structural conditions and the political situation in the Czech Republic, a series of recommendations
was then made, along with some more general ones, for a successful TWO strategy in the Czech
Republic. Czech specificities, capabilities, areas of expertise, strengths and weaknesses and, above
all, resources (both human and financial) were taken into account (Chapter 6.2). The
recommendations and the cost-benefit analysis then served as a basis for the formulation of five
models of Czech TWO involvement (Chapter 6.2.4).
21
4
Presentation of Findings
The following results rely on two sets of questionnaires and personal interviews: first, we sent a
special NCP questionnaire (see Appendix 1) to all National Contact Points (NCP) of the Old
Member States and were able to organise in-depth interviews with 7 NCPs (Austria, Denmark,
France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom), which provided us with a lot
of additional data and insight. Second, this chapter relies on data from questionnaires sent to
PAAs/RTAs from some Member States (cf Chapter 3 – Methodology).
As for the NCP models, section 4.1 of our report presents information about the location,
organisational and communication arrangements, operation and support activities of NCPs in those
countries we could get enough information about. This section of our report is, by design, quite
descriptive. This is because our interviews with NCPs in both Old and New Member States revealed
that NCPs have, by and large, rather limited knowledge and understanding of other countries’ TWO
organisation. Therefore, in order to meet the need for more information about other MS NCPs,
indicated also by the Czech NCP staff, while responding to the requirements of the Czech Foreign
Ministry’s terms of reference for this project, we seek to give a brief outline of the history,
structure, staffing, tasks, activities, communication and financial arrangements of these OMS NCPs.
And it is largely on the basis of these NCP models that we make conclusions and recommendations
on the location, functioning and services provided by the Czech NCP (Chapter 6.2).
However, no matter how much a well-functioning NCP can be a major asset and a key
player in a country’s successful Twinning Out strategy, it is mainly the approach of and procedures
used by “twinners”, i.e. PLs, RTAs, STEs and MTEs that play a vital role in Twinning and, along
with the commitment, capacities and capabilities of Beneficiary Institutions, largely determine the
success or otherwise of TWO projects. Sections 4.2 to 4.6 therefore present the findings from our
exploration of the OMS experience with the preparation, contracting, use of resources,
implementation and evaluation of TWO projects. This information is also complemented by
insights from NMS as receivers of TWO assistance and, once again, provides the basis for our
recommendations, both general and those made specifically for Czech authorities (Chapter 6). This
part of the report closes with general advice to New Member States.
22
4.1 NCP models
With the introduction of new management rules for EU programmes in March 1998 (Council
regulation nb 622/98 of 16 March 1998) and, most importantly, the launch of Twinning in the same
year, each Member State created a National Contact Point (NCP) responsible for the coordination of
European assistance programmes and communication with the Commission in the framework of
enlargement. NCPs channel information to Member States’ ministries and other relevant
administrative bodies and advise them on the process and development of TWO administrative
issues while providing general support throughout the preparation, bidding, contracting and
implementation phases of the TWO cycle.
NCPs are located at different levels of the Member States central government. As one
interviewee at the German NCP pointed out:
“the location of the NCP particularly reflects the importance assigned to European policies at
the national level: if located at the Prime Minister’s Office, it shows that these questions are
seen as political in all sectors; if located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they are seen as
belonging to the domain of international relations; if created at the Ministry of Finance, it
indicates that European financial issues are of particular importance, if at the Ministry of
Economy, that greater priority is given to trade and economic issues”.
The way NCPs have been created in Old Member States thus mainly depends on already existing
institutional legacies. Yet, the NCP location may and does change over time in some countries,
depending on national political constellations and new priorities for the allocation of “European”
competences.
The following section of the report describes the location, organisational set-up, operation,
communication as well as the tasks carried out and support services provided by the NCPs in
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.23 In order to avoid the classic classification of centralised
versus federal states and not to focus only on the ministries where NCPs are seated, the variety of
institutional experience has been classified among two groups: 1) NCPs with an agency adding
strong infrastructure and operational support, and 2) NCPs without agencies (cf. Table 1).
23
As suggested in Chapter 3 – Methodology, we have not received any information on the Portuguese and Spanish
models in spite of several written and telephonic requests for data. Also, in spite of receiving a completed NCP
questionnaire filled in by the Greek NCP, we could not really make a comprehensive picture of the Greek NCP function
since the data provided was very sketchy and we could not really retrieve any additional information about this NCP
from any other sources we had access to.
23
Table 1: Location of NCPs in Old Member States:
Prime Minister’s Ministry of Foreign
Ministry of
Agency / Support
Office
Affairs
Economy / Finance
Structure
X
AEI
Austria
X
Belgium
X
Denmark
X
Finland
X
France
X
GTZ
Germany
X
Greece
X - IPA
Ireland
X
Italy
X
Luxembourg
X
EDV
Netherlands
X
Portugal
X
FIIAPP
Spain
X - SIDA
Sweden
X
UK
Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of
(http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/current_ncpms_en.pdf)
I.
NCPs
National Contact Points assisted by a special agency
These NCPs are located within a Ministry (of Foreign Affairs, of Economy, of Finance). The
agencies have generally a private status (association, company with non-for-profit activities), are
financed from the state budget and may be either independent or located directly at the Ministry
where the NCP is based. In two cases, that is in Ireland and Sweden (see Table 1), the entire NCP
functions have been delegated to agencies.
AUSTRIA
In Austria, the NCP was first established in 1997-98 at the Office of the Prime Minister
(Bundeskanzleramt) before being moved to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where it is still located.
It is composed of one person in charge of the NCP, generally a diplomat. This civil servant is
assisted by an intern / short-termer. The person in charge of the NCP deals with Twinning, TAIEX,
CARDS and IPA.
Organisation and coordination
The Austrian NCP works in close cooperation with all ministries and their mandated bodies (see
Appendix 4) to which it distributes all project fiches and from which it collects bids. A special
platform, the Agency for European Integration and Economic Development (AEI, Agentur für
Europäische Integration und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung), was created in 2003 at the Ministry of
Finance to assist mandated bodies in preparing their Twinning projects. The Agency is officially an
24
association (eingetragener Verein, e.V.) working for the government: mandated bodies have to
become AEI members and pay a symbolic fee in order to benefit from the AEI’s assistance. Since
2006, almost all ministries and their mandated bodies have been AEI members. The AEI outsources
some of its activities (accounting, project management) to a private company, the FAA holding.
Austria being a federal country, project fiches are also circulated to the regions (Länder) when their
expertise is needed (e.g. projects on structural funds). Some regional experts are registered in the
database of the AEI, but the involvement of Austrian Länder in Twinning stays rather low.
Support services
The NCP is assisting all actors interested in Twinning. It also circulates project fiches in a targeted
way. It directly contacts mandated bodies if the expertise they can provide corresponds with the
profile of a specific project. The AEI has a database of about 350 experts (not all from Austria).
Sometimes, a specific expert is directly contacted and informed about the project. Personal or phone
contacts are generally preferred and considered more efficient. The NCP occasionally organises inhouse seminars to discuss Twinning experience with PLs, RTAs and a Commission representative.
The Agency for European Integration (AEI) is supporting the NCP by circulating the project fiches
to all of its members and helping mandated bodies with bid preparation activities.
GERMANY
The German National Contact Point (NCP) was created in 1998 when Twinning was launched. It
was first located at the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technologies (BMWi), responsible for
the coordination of European Affairs, and its mandated body Kreditanstalt of Wiederaufbau (KfW),
already in charge of the financial coordination of the German programme of assistance to Eastern
Europe (Transform). When Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) came to power in September 1998,
the competences for European Affairs were moved to the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), led
by Oskar Lafontaine. The German Twinning NCP moved to the ministry of Finance, with a
delegation office of the Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), the biggest German
development agency. After Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) came to power in September 2005,
the European competences moved back to the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technologies
(BMWi) and so did the NCP and the GTZ office a few months later. It is now situated at the
Department for Europe in the Ministry of Economics which also deals with the Transform
programme (see organigram in Appendix 4). The German NCP is composed of one director, one
desk officer and two contracted persons. The GTZ office has two staff and some interns. Only 3%
of the NCP tasks deal with TAIEX, which is managed by the GTZ TAIEX office in Brussels. The
25
NCP has its own intranet Twinning website, accessible only to the German “Twinning
community”.24
The German NCP is in charge of circulating all project fiches and collecting all Twinning bids. It is
assisted in this task by the GTZ office in Berlin. Due to the federal structure of the German state,
project fiches are circulated to Twinning coordinators at federal ministries, which forward the fiches
to mandated bodies, and to institutions in charge of European affairs at the regional level of the
Länder (State Chancellery, the Ministries of European Affairs, and Ministries of Economy), which
forward the fiches to the relevant regional ministerial functions. As Länder have competencies in
issues like economy, environment or police and justice, most of the German expertise on the acquis
in these fields is located at the regional level. Thus, German Länder are strongly involved in
Twinning: almost 40% of the projects with German participation are implemented by Länder
administrations. The Twinning website is used to inform about new project fiches which are listed
(but not available with all details from) the website.
Support services
The GTZ office in Berlin is the main body assisting the NCP in its communication and coordination
tasks. The Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit relies on a long project management record
in development and assistance policy. The GTZ office plays a central role in updating the database
of experts (similar to the TAIEX database), in circulating the project fiches and posting them on the
web, giving advice on the way to present project proposals and preparing Twinning contracts. The
GTZ office relies on its database to find experts and contact ministries and mandated bodies. It
supports fact-finding visits and assists in the preparation of project presentations. The GTZ office
also organises at least twice a year a preparatory seminar, usually with a guest from the
Commission, for RTAs where the rules of the Twinning manuals are presented and experienced
RTAs invited to share their past experience in Twinning.
NETHERLANDS
The Dutch National Contact Point (NCP) was created in 2000. It was first located at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs within the Directorate General for European Cooperation. In 2004, the location was
changed to the Southeast and Eastern Europe and Matra Programme Department of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, to promote synergies with the bilateral Matra cooperation. The Matra Programme,
a central point of the Dutch international cooperation strategy, was launched in 1994 as an
24
More information on the German NCP and GTZ Twinning Office at http://www.bmwi.de (BMWi) and
http://www.gtz.de/en/unternehmen/2555.htm (GTZ Office).
26
instrument that has since been used by the Dutch government to promote public administration
reforms encourage the dialogue between civil society organizations and state institutions in Eastern
and Central Europe. During the first programme period (1994-1998), cooperation focused mainly
on civil society and local government. In 1998, a pre-accession facility was added. In 2004, the
Matra programme changed, partly because of the enlargement of the EU and the European
Neigbourhood Policy. Twinning is now a component of Matra for European Cooperation (Matra
and the National Support Center for EU Twinning).
The Dutch Twinning coordination has always relied on a close cooperation between the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (where the NCP, a civil servant, is responsible for policy and strategy and
diplomatic contacts, chairs the interdepartemental meetings, seminars, etc.) and the EVD (Agency
for International Business and Cooperation). EVD is also represented within the Twinning Unit by
the “deputy” NCP (a programme manager in EVD) and project officers and administrators at EVD
(working part time for Twinning) (see organigram in Appendix 4). Mandated bodies and ministries
find their own experts and partners and the NCP has not established any database of experts.
Nevertheless, the NCP keeps in contact with acting RTAs during their assignment by inviting them
to a special RTA day in The Hague once a year.
Support services
EVD is a state Agency, a part of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, and its mission is to
promote and encourage international business and international cooperation. EVD works for various
governmental authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs together with the Ministry of Economic
Affairs being the EDV major clients. In Twinning projects, EVD acts as a coordinator within the
domestic network.25
SPAIN
The Spanish NCP was created at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is now situated at the Secretariat
General for the Coordination of General Affairs of the EU. It is assisted by a mandated body
specialised in the field of international cooperation and development, the FIIAPP (Fundación
Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas).26 The agency was
originally created to assist countries of South America and, over time, diversified its activities to
25
Information of the Dutch MFA can be found at www.minbuza.nl; Twinning information is available from
http://www.minbuza.nl/en/europeancooperation/subsidies,the_Twinning_programme. The EVD has a special website at
www.evd.nl. Information about the Matra programme can be found at www.minbuza.nl/en/themes,europeancooperation/the_matra_programme_file/index.html.
26
www.fiiapp.org.
27
cover and, since the 1990s, also CEECs and other world regions. In the 1990s, Spain launched a
national assistance programme to the PHARE, CARDS and TACIS countries called “Programa de
Hermanamientos” (Programme of Brotherhoods/Assistance): more that 150 projects have been
implemented and more that 7,000 experts mobilised in this framework. The FIIAPP is building on
this experience in its participation in Twinning projects and assistance to the Spanish NCP with
coordination and management tasks.
SWEDEN
The Swedish NCP was established in 1998 and located at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA). Financial resources, however, were not sufficient and that is also why in January 2001, the
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) took over the Swedish NCP
function for PHARE Twinning.
This move reflected the change in the emphasis: originally, the political aspect was
emphasised and that is why the MFA role was key to TWO organisation in Sweden. When the
TWO tasks became more project-oriented, the MFA was not able to provide adequate services, as
having neither the appropriate capacity nor the experience with this type of activities. One of the
MFA staff was transferred to SIDA, working along the new NCP and ensuring the transfer of the
“Twinning know-how” (Dixelius, Haglund 2003). The NCP was placed at the Baltic States and
Central Europe division both because of the geographical focus of Twinning prior to the 2004
enlargement and the idea that TWO projects in these countries might work well with the parallel
bilateral activities (ibid). The MFA continues to provide political leadership and advice on priority
countries while SIDA provides for operational management and expert knowledge. However, due to
the “minimalistic” government and agency/authority-based approach, the MFA has limited powers
over agencies in terms of whether Twinning projects are given priority, as proclaimed by the
Swedish government.27
Since 2002, the NCP function has been partly downsized to the equivalent of first 1.55 and now
0.95 of a full-time job (the NCP: 0.75 and her assistant: 0.20). The Swedish NCP deals both with
TWO and TAIEX in PHARE, MEDA and TACIS countries. However, the assistant is helped by
other staff from other departments, depending on the nature of the task and the geographical focus.
As for the contribution of area managers, they never spend more than 10% of their working time on
Twinning tasks.
27
Sweden has relatively small ministries, compared to other European countries. These ministries are policy-oriented
and the regular administrative tasks are carried out by authorities (agencies).
28
The NCP at SIDA has been responsible for the co-ordination of Twinning activities, mainly
involving Swedish authorities / agencies. The NCP role is to promote the Twinning instrument,
distribute new fiches, assist in the preparation of proposals and help authorities with contracting.
The Swedish NCP has several promotion materials and seeks to gain support from the management
of state agencies. Due to the relatively weak direct authority of the ministries over the operation of
agencies, the Swedish NCP mentioned the difficulty with prioritising Twinning by the management
of some agencies in the daily operation of agencies (especially since Swedish public administration
has recently been downsized).
Support services
Besides forwarding relevant project fiches to the respective authorities and keeping in touch with
them with regard to ongoing project bid preparations, the NCP at SIDA places all circulated TW
and TWL fiches at a special Twinning-dedicated website.28 The website also contains information
about EU and Swedish Twinning rules and procedures, Twinning newsletters,29 technical and
practical information (including current rates of per diems, project templates, project proposal
examples, contact lists, glossaries of key terms, model CVs etc.). Whenever the site is updated,
especially when new circulations or recirculations of project fiches are made, the NCP e-mails this
information to the relevant officers at relevant authorities, highlighting the ones that might or
should be of special interest to the addressees. The NCP also administers the Twinning intranet site
and plans to start a forum for PLs, RTAs, STEs and MTEs where country-, sector, or issue-specific
information and experience could be exchanged and shared without the need for NCP mediation,
which would allow for further flexibility and relevance in information provision and allow experts
to enter into direct contact, find also unofficial solutions, and create a living network with the NCP
as a hub. The NCP holds annual RTA and PL meetings. The Swedish NCP has a database of
experts but does not really use it. However, redesigning and use of this database is planned for near
future. Experts from a comprehensive mailing list are frequently contacted via e-mail and the
website is regularly updated.
The financial resources allocated to the NCP (namely to support the work of Swedish
officials from agencies) have so far been taken from a special allocation for Twinning within SIDA
East’s regular budget. SIDA is thus able to pay not only for training, seminars and workshops held
for future experts but also for the time when bids and contracts are prepared (to supplement the
recently introduced preparation costs coverage from Brussels). Together with the Swedish National
Financial Management Authority, the NCP has been preparing an interactive course for experts.
28
www.sida.se/euTwinning.
These are regular newsletters sent by the Twinning and SIGMA Co-ordination Team (Institution Building Unit,
Directorate-General Enlargement).
29
29
SIDA had a major evaluation of its performance done in 2003. This evaluation (Dixelius,
Haglund 2003) formed the basis for some organisational and operational changes and improvements
translating into improved performance, the creation of the website and rearrangement of some tasks.
IRELAND
The Irish NCP was created in 1999. It was first located at the Ministry of Finance but later on was
transferred to the Institute of Public Administration (IPA). The IPA serves as NCP for Twinning,
TAIEX and other EU programmes like the MEDA public administration network. Two persons
work at the NCP as permanent employees of the IPA. The Internal Market Section at the
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is the NCP for TAIEX for Ireland. Two civil
servants in the Section work on TAIEX issues on a part-time basis. In addition, there are
Departmental Contact Points for TAIEX in all other Departments (except the Department of the
Taoiseach [Prime Minister]).
The Institute of Public Administration (IPA) communicates regularly with its counterparts in line
ministries (departments) and public agencies as well as with colleagues from the Department of
Foreign Affairs. General information on Twinning and TAIEX is also provided on a website.
Initially, the IPA encountered some difficulties in mobilising Irish experts and building a contact
database. The main reason behind the small number of Irish Twinnings lies in the small number of
civil servants and the fact that the organisation of the Irish public administration does not really
allow for secondments or time spent abroad on Twinning assignments. Ireland has recently
undergone a significant reform of its public administration, which led significant streamlining of its
HR, emphasis being put on cost-effectiveness and budgetary performance of its operations. Hence,
the Irish public sector is, by comparison with larger countries, a very lean organisation with very
few staff overlaps.
As far as TAIEX is concerned, the number of experts from the Irish administration
participating in TAIEX activities continues to grow. However, pressure of work is and will always
be a factor. A certain amount of information is circulated on the website of the Department of
Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Support services
The IPA organises regular presentations on the role, extent and purpose of Twinning arrangements
so to increase the response rate of Irish civil servants and mandated bodies employees. It also
provides ad hoc information to interested units while promoting Twinning within the Irish Public
30
sector networks coordinated by the IPA. The NCP for TAIEX forwards each request to Department
contact persons.
II.
National Contact Points Without Agency Support
The NCPs in the second group of OMS are located either at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or at the
Prime Minister’s Office. They are in direct contact with line ministries, which have a more
important management and communication role than in the case of NCPs supported by agencies.
BELGIUM
The Belgian NCP was created in 1998 and was located at the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and the current Belgian Federal Public Service of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Development
(Directorate General for European Affairs and Coordination). Situated at the federal level, the NCP
also acts as a coordinator and contact point for regions and communities. There is only one person
working at the Belgian NCP, responsible for both Twinning and TAIEX.
Due to the Belgian state structure, the decision was taken to establish a coordination system
(coordination between federal level and regions and communities). The responsibility for this
coordination structure is one of the main tasks of the Directorate General for European Affairs and
Coordination. The NCP established a database of experts grouped according to their competencies.
It has also organized information and mobilisation meetings for experts, informing them about the
procedures and benefits of both Twinning and TAIEX. The Belgian NCP has no special Twinning
website.30
DENMARK
The Danish NCP was set up in 1997. Ever since then, it has been located at the Danish MFA. It has
now become part of the European Neighbourhood Programme Department (Development Aid
Section) because it has been using funds for foreign development projects (this section also
administers bilateral aid programmes for the Balkans, Ukraine, Croatia and other Candidate
Countries as well as Russia) (see organigram in Appendix 4). The Danish NCP uses TAIEX and
Twinning as complementary instruments. The Danes tend to use TAIEX for smaller projects (and
30
General information can be found at www.diplomatie.be.
31
spin-offs of Twinning projects) and see the opportunity for some Twinning projects to evolve from
certain TAIEX activities.
There are two officers at the Danish NCP (the National Contact Point and the NCP Assistant). Both
of them are doing partially also bilateral work. Until recently, the Danish NCP, Carl Balle Petersen,
was the most experienced NCP in the EU.
Denmark being a small country, the Danish NCP has to be very active in motivating national
TWO actors. This is done through meetings of the NCP with top management of Danish
government departments/ministries, by encouraging the participation in awareness-raising activities
such as expert network meetings, seminars etc. The NCP provides background information, if
possible, on concrete projects, distributes project fiches and forwards proposals, and Twinning
newsletters (national edition). It provides guidance and recommendations and ensures regular
updates of the website.
Support Services
The NCP provides national TWO actors strong advisory service, especially in the pre-bidding
(preparatory), bidding and contracting phases. It provides further guidance and recommendations to
60-70% of all proposals, modifying the drafts to comply with Twinning rules before the final bid is
submitted. It also offers national financing of preparatory costs not covered by the EU funds (using
the MFA bilateral assistance funds). As bid presentations are extremely important, the Danish NCP
rehearses the presentations for new RTAs/institutions and offer their advice in terms of
restructuring of presentations etc.
The Danish NCP has no database of experts since it would be difficult to maintain it and
keep it updated. The scarce availability of experts and special requirements make it necessary to
announce for RTA candidates and often head-hunting is needed. The Danish NCP operates a special
Twinning website31 providing general information on Twinning, including a Twinning brochure,
the latest Danish Twinning status, Danish and EC Twinning rules, links to relevant websites, a
questions and answers section, information on expert network (ERFA) meetings and other general
meetings, listing of TWO projects submitted to the MS with deadlines for submission of proposals
to the MFA, an overview of programmed projects as well as Danish “Twinning News”,
Commission “News” and various updates and clarifications concerning Twinning rules and
regulations. The NCP organises bimonthly ERFA meetings where mainly PLs discuss issues and
hosts annual RTA and PL meetings.
31
www.euTwinning.um.dk.
32
The Danish NCP has not made any overall evaluation of Danish TWO projects, but has had
an external independent evaluation of the national procedures for Danish participation in EU
Twinning commissioned by the MFA and focussing namely on financial mechanisms.
FINLAND
In Finland, the National Contact Point (NCP) was established in 1998. It was firstly located at the
Ministry of Finance. The Twinning unit was one of the three units of the Department for Public
Management Development. The Ministry of Finance consists of 7 Departments and the Public
Management Department is responsible for organisational and management development of central
state administration. Now, the NCP is located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As in other EU
states, the Twinning activities have been extended to cover the EU ENP countries.
The Twinning Unit within the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a small operation coordinating
Twinning and TAIEX projects (4 members altogether – three permanent civil servants and one
intern).32 The NCP itself is responsible for marketing Twinning opportunities within the Finnish
public administration. Information on individual projects is sent directly to the bodies concerned.
Additionally, all projects open for tendering are made available on Internet – Twinning website
which includes also guidance for preparing the proposal. The NCP has not established any database
of experts. Two to three times a year, all contact persons as well as civil servants working in the
Twinning projects are invited to Twinning information meetings/workshops. The NCP also gives
presentations on Twinning in various ministries and other institutions.
Support Services
The Finnish NCP does not have any support organisation for Twinning projects. The MFA
Twinning team assists authorities with bid preparation, selection meetings and advises them on the
application of the Twinning Manual during the whole life cycle of Twinning projects.
FRANCE
The French National Contact Point (NCP) was created in 1998 when Twinning was launched. It
was based at the SGCI, (Secrétariat Général du Comité Interministériel pour les questions de
coopération économique européenne), an institution set up in the 1950s to co-ordinate ministerial
activities related to European affairs. This institution has ever since been responsible for
32
Information about the Finnish NCP and Twinning can be found at:
http://formin.finland.fi/public/?contentid=50320&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI.
33
communication between the French Permanent Representation in Brussels, on the one side, and the
French ministries and their related agencies, on the other. After the negative referendum on the
European Constitutional Treaty in France of May 2005, the government decided to make European
affairs more prominent and understandable at the national level and thus to change on the 1st
October 2005 the name of the SGCI into SGAE (Secrétariat Général des Affaires Européennes).
The NCP is still situated there (see organigram in Appendix 4).33 The French NCP consists of a
civil servant in charge of the NCP and a long-term assistant. There is no special Twinning website.
The French NCP is in direct contact with all ministries and mandated bodies, all of them featured on
the NCP’s mailing list. As far as support and implementation structures are concerned, external
cooperation activities mainly concentrate around two ministries: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as
a co-ordination centre for all non-financial and non-military projects, and the Ministry of Economy
and Finance responsible for financial assistance activities. After the 1998 reform initiated by the
left-wing government of Lionel Jospin in the field of international cooperation34, these two
ministries institutionalised new pools for the coordination of sector-oriented expertise in 2001. Line
ministries working with the ministry of Foreign Affairs are now linked to the GIP FCI (Groupement
d’Intérêt Général France Coopération Internationale), those around the ministry of Economy and
Finance are linked to the GIP ADETEF (Groupement d’Intérêt Général Assistance au
Développement des Technologies Economiques et Financières) (see organigram in Appendix 4).
Both structures aim at representing the French interests at the European level and in international
organisations (the World Bank and United Nations). Official documents and persons interviewed in
2003 at these two organisations clearly indicate the major role played by Twinning in the
restructuring of the French cooperation policy. Other ministries also have their own GIP or
important mandated body. Project fiches are circulated by the NCP to the GIP, the relevant
coordinators situated at the ministries, and to mandated bodies.
Support services
The GIP FCI (Groupement d’Intérêt Général France Coopération Internationale), located at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the GIP ADETEF (Groupement d’Intérêt Général Assistance au
Développement des Technologies Economiques et Financières), situated at the ministry of Economy
and Finance, both assist their home ministries and other ministries cooperating with them in the
preparation of proposals and the selection of experts. Further smaller GIP and mandated bodies
fulfil a similar task at other ministries (e.g. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Affairs, etc.).
33
34
For more see e.g. Bouquet 2006.
For a contextualisation of this policy shift see Tomalová 2005.
34
Personal contacts with Twinning coordinators within the relevant ministries and mandated bodies
play an important role to get proposals and to find quickly a suitable expert. At least one annual
meeting is organised in the framework of the “club des jumelages” to get PLs and RTAs together to
share and discuss their Twinning experience, with a representative of the Commission present.
GREECE
The Greek NCP was founded in 1998 and has been located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.35
There are currently three persons working at the Greek NCP: one NCP and two assistants (civil
servants).
Organization and coordination
The NCP’s main functions are distributing information on both Twinning and TAIEX, coordinating
the network and organizing meetings. The NCP has established Contact points reponsible for the
mobilisation of sectoral experts at all ministries and mandated bodies. The NCP also organizes
quarterly meetings with institutional Contact Points and RTAs. There is no Greek database of
experts at the moment.
ITALY
The Italian NCP was created in 1998 and has been located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.36 The
NCP is composed of two civil servants in charge of Twinning and TAIEX.
The NCP posts all project fiches on its website and then contacts, directly by e-mail or phone, the
Italian administrations that might be interested in bidding. The NCP mentions that it is much easier
to mobilise STEs/MTEs than RTAs. Usually it is the authorities themselves that are able to find
suitable experts, but the Italian NCP office relies on its own database as well. The NCP also
elaborates statistics on Twinning. The Ministries of Economy and Finance, Agriculture,
Environment, Health and some Italian regions are among the most active Italian TWO actors and
those who are contacted most frequently.
Support services
The NCP runs a web site where overall information on Twinning/TAIEX is provided and project
fiches are circulated. It also organizes meetings with the Italian administrations, regions and
35
The Greek NCP provided us only with the bare minimum of information. No further relevant information could be
found at www.mfa.gr.
36
www.esteri.it.
35
mandated bodies, who refer to the NCP on the results and the problems they have faced during the
implementation of the projects. Usually there is one annual meeting with all administrations,
regions and mandated bodies and several meetings with RTA and experts that are preparing
proposals or have problems during the implementation of the projects.
UNITED KINGDOM
The UK NCP was established in 1998. Ever since it started operating, it has built its organisation
and activities around clearly defined Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) priorities. There are
no formal FCO or any other rules and procedures for Twinning, apart from the rules and
requirements set out by the Commission. The UK approach is also marked by effectiveness- and
efficiency-driven, strongly competitive practices. At the same time, the UK tends to rely on
informal procedures.
The UK “community of interest” approach is quite unique in the EU in the way that there is a
frequent and direct contact between the NCP and all levels of TWO project implementation. This is
due to the fact that hierarchies in the UK, as a rule, are rather flat and that local and regional actors
as well as all mandated bodies are treated just as central government departments are (see
organigram in Appendix 4). The UK NCP acts as a hub for all other national Twinning actors to
build partnerships and exchange experience. Also, the UK NCP make extensive use of British
embassies in Beneficiary Countries.
Support services
The UK NCP is preparing a Twinning website, due to launch in 2007, and is in frequent e-mail,
phone and personal contact with all UK public sector bodies and mandated bodies (the NCP e-mail
distribution lists are very comprehensive). They circulate a Twinning Newsletter every two to three
weeks with a list of all “live” fiches (fiches in circulation, bids submitted, projects won) and any
other items of news of interest, including letters from RTAs, to the UK Twinning Community in the
UK and Posts abroad. Besides providing the addressees with all important news and distributing
Commission materials, the UK NCP e-mails various practical documents such as audit templates
and model documents (soon to be carried on the web site). Regular steering committees where all
UK public sector bodies, local, regional and central government departments and mandated bodies
are invited to the FCO are among the communication, planning and best practice sharing tools used
by the UK NCP. At these Steering Committee Meetings, the FCO reports on progress on EU
enlargement and the political background to Twinning, and other departments make presentations
36
on topics of general interest such as TAIEX. At least once a year, the Steering Committee meeting
is followed by a “nuts and bolts” workshop session at which best practice in the practical aspects of
Twinning, such as preparation of budgets, is exchanged. Apart from this, the NCP gives
presentations and is a central actor at various informal interdepartmental and regional discussion
groups, meetings and conferences. It has a small fund from which it provides support to UK
authorities involved in Twinning in the bid preparation and contracting phases for items such as
travel expenses and translation.
The above description of different NCP models, far from being exhaustive, combined with the
organigrams attached in Appendix 4, not only provides a picture of different institutional solutions
of Twinning Out involvement but also shows how structural conditions, administrative legacies and
foreign policy focus and priorities are decisive in organising, coordinating and administering
Twinning Out activities. Still, no mater how critical NCPs are for the success or otherwise of
Twinning Out efforts, they are only one, though very large and important, piece in a much larger
TWO mosaic. The following section of the report seeks to complete the picture with our findings
about the activities and issues related to the preparation, contracting, resources, implementation and
evaluation of Twinning Out.
4.2 Preparation
Preparation is a decisive phase in every project and Twinning is no exception to this. The
questionnaires sent to and interviews held with experts in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece,
France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom indicate similar
perceptions and experiences. Furthermore, they also reveal some general positive and negative
tendencies. The below figures are taken from statistically significant samples of Denmark,
Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom (see Chapter 3 - Methodology
and Appendix 2) but are generally representative of the whole population considered for our
research.
Most PAAs/RTAs in our sample were or have been involved in Twinning for 2 to 4 years, often
also as STEs/MTEs or PLs. Some of them included the long time of preparation of the project (from
4 months to 2 years) into their experience of Twinning. In the best case, it took about 30% of civil
servants’ working time to prepare projects within 4-5 months. Very often, RTAs/PAAs had
experience with several TWO projects as well as with international bilateral co-operation and could
37
therefore compare the benefits and downsides of Twinning as compared to other co-operative
arrangements and assistance programmes.
More than a half (66%) of the RTAs rated the cooperation between the country’s
administration and the Commission in the pre-bidding phase as good (45%) or excellent (21%). A
relatively high number of answers (26%) indicate that, not having been involved in the pre-bidding
phase (generally taken care of by NCPs), RTAs had no contact or experience of co-operation with
the Commission, besides the RTA training provided by the EC (see below).
Figure 1
Cooperation between the country's administration and the Commission in
the pre-bidding phase
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
45%
26%
21%
6%
2%
excellent
good
not very good
poor
don't know
As Figure 2 shows, most PAAs/RTAs (52%) indicated that Twinning bids have been prepared by
prospective Project Leaders and RTAs, with some involvement of STEs/MTEs, especially in terms
of technical input and acquis expertise.
Figure 2
Preparation of the bids/proposals
60%
52%
50%
40%
30%
29%
24%
20%
15%
10%
2%
0%
by prospective
project leaders
by prospective
twinners
by prospective
project leaders and
twinners
38
by a person
responsible for
twinning
don't know
As Figure 3 clearly reveals, most PAAs/RTAs and PLs have beed involved in the preparation of the
proposals at the drafting stage (85%). Nevertheless, well over a half of the respondents gave us
multiple answers since most of them have also been involved in recommending experts and
sometimes also in feeding in some data on the sector and/or the beneficiary country. A number of
our respondents indicated that they helped elaborating work plans, time tables, contributed to the
strategic and design aspects of the bid, contributed to the financial arrangements, helped to identify
the acquis to be covered on top of the project fiche request and prepared workshops and
brainstorming sessions as a background for legislative analysis.
Figure 3
Role in the bid preparation
90%
85%
80%
70%
60%
52%
45%
50%
40%
30%
16%
20%
10%
0%
participating in the drafting
stage
feeding in some data
recommending experts
other/don't know
In general, PAAs/RTAs have been contacted by a person/unit responsible for Twinning at the
ministry/mandated body in their sector of specialisation (63%). Some of them indicated that the
person responsible for Twinning at the ministry/agency was often the future PL and that they were
selected for their specific expertise. Sometimes, the NCP contacted them directly. Interestingly,
competitive selection (18%) was mentioned by UK and German respondents only.37
Figure 4
37
Competitive selection was also mentioned by some New Member States respondents (e.g. in Estonia).
39
Way of selection of project leaders and contact persons
80%
68%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
18%
16%
5%
10%
0%
in a competitive selection
by the NCP
by a person responsible
for tw inning at the
ministry
don't know
Figure 5 shows that the most important criteria in the selection of Project Leaders and twinners
were project management skills (63%), experience in similar projects (53%) and communication
skills (45%). Several additional answers indicate that technical skills and expertise also played a
role in the selection process. Several interviewees also mentioned language skills and suggested that
this will be of growing importance in the next generation of Twinning and that NMS, especially
with Slavic languages, might have some advantage in the TACIS region.
Figure 5
Selection criteria for project leaders and twinners
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
63%
project management skills
previous experience in the
region
32%
58%
experience in similar project
45%
communication skills
other/don't know
70%
29%
Most PAAs/RTAs and project leaders noticed some differences between past, recent and current
projects, mainly at the level of the organisation of bid preparation (27%) and of the management of
implementation (24%). In terms of the organisation of the preparation, future participants are more
involved, experts are selected more strictly, and there is closer cooperation between the project
RTA, PL, the ministry and Twinning partners. Some institutions now have contract templates and
customise their CVs for individual bids (e.g. the Danish School of Public Administration or some
40
Dutch organisations), relying on an established network of partners and experts. As for
implementation management, changes were also noticed. There are new or modified management
tools, better selection of STEs/MTEs, flexible project implementation, new utilisation of financial
resources, more institutionalisation and involvement of professional providers of financial and/or
accounting services. Also, experts are now much better trained in the Logical Framework Approach
and in “EU administration”. These changes are also linked to the modified EC rules and
requirements for TWO preparation and execution. A large number of respondents (42%) however
did not see any difference or gave no answer to this question, especially since they only had
experience with fairly recent projects.
Figure 6 shows that most PAAs/RTAs and PLs combined one to three different sources of
information to prepare the Twinning project. Fact-finding missions have been organised in the
form of workshops and missions, allowing PAAs/RTAs and sometimes also PLs to contact their
future project partners (61%). Reports on previous (bilateral and EU projects) have also been used.
MS embassies in BCs have often been involved (47%) during fact-finding missions and, chiefly,
before the presentation of the proposals in the beneficiary country. Especially the Netherlands,
France and the UK make full use of their embassies in BCs and are generally happy with their
services.
Figure 6
What have you done during the preparation phase?
70%
61%
60%
60%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
8%
10%
0%
fact-finding missions
research of information
on the country/field
involve the country's
embassies in the CEECs
don't know
Following some earlier research on Twinning (Tulmets 2003a,b; 2004a,b,c; 2006; Königová 2003,
2004; Drulák, Königová 2005) and information gathered during previous data collection periods,
we asked our respondents whether they knew about any deal-making between Member States
(and/or with BCs) before, during or after bid presentation. Even though the majority answer was no,
almost every interviewee mentioned that he/she heard the rumours and a number of respondents had
direct experience with this phenomenon. Some interviewees indicated that deal-making did not
happen before or during but after presentations. Also, respondents in several countries mentioned
41
that some countries’ embassies and/or MS officials were far too keen to make sure that the BC
institution appreciated their bids.38 Also, experts from smaller states, like Finland, the Netherlands
and Denmark, share the opinion, that small countries “have limited resources and cannot compete
with big MSs”. Countries with a strong sense of fair-play and countries with a rather weak culture
of lobbying also find it difficult to lobby for their bids.
As far as international partnerships (i.e. the functioning and relationships in TWO
consortia) are concerned, answers varied quite largely. Where evaluated as “good and easy”, based
on “a trustful and demand-driven approach”, they often happened on the basis of previous bilateral
or multilateral contacts and experience or using an already existing network. Some countries seem
to be more open to international cooperation (e.g. the UK) and some tend to stick to preferred and
proven partners (e.g. Denmark or Sweden preferring Scandinavian MS, Germany, the Netherlands,
Ireland and the UK). Even though previous agreement on a joint bid is always the first choice, if
that is possible and necessary for good chances of the proposal, some “forced marriages”, as some
respondents called consortia put together upon the suggestion made by the Delegation and/or the
BC receiving institution, worked very well. That, however, was not the rule and even the
Commission and previous Twinning evaluation reports acknowledged the difficulties with the
management of international consortia, especially when having more than two members and when
involving different public administration styles and traditions (e.g. some projects involving
Scandinavian and South European MS). The most often cited cause of failing international
partnerships was the lack of consensus on the questions of leadership, accountability and budget
and the lack of commitment to a genuine partnership.
When asked about any previous knowledge of the beneficiary country, sector or previous
projects, respondents agreed that, on average, this was not required by Beneficiary Countries (even
though in Poland, for example, recent fiches often included a note that “command of the Polish
language” or “previous project experience in Poland” are welcome). Nevertheless, almost all
respondents agree that previous knowledge of the beneficiary country / sector / project outputs is
definitely a major advantage. Some respondents suggested that whenever this was highlighted in
experts’ CVs and pointed out during presentations, the feedback from recipient institutions was very
positive and it made a real difference. Some RTAs/PAAs/PLs even said that it was central in the
preparation phase.
38
Invitations for officials from the beneficiary institution who were selecting the bidding winner to visit some countries
that were pitching for the Twinning contract were mentioned, especially by some interviewees from New Member
States who renounced these practices and said that this “overlobbying” was paradoxically detrimental to the countries
seeking to support their bids in this way.
42
4.3 Contracting
In general, most PAAs/RTAs/PLs (55%) indicate that contract negotiation went well, although all
of the respondents did not fail to point out the sometimes unbearable delays in the contracting
phase, be these caused by the personalities of recipient country’s PLs, turnover of staff in BC
institutions, protracted and fragmentary EU commenting procedure where each function of DG
Enlargement send their comments separately and at various times. Several respondents mentioned
the first generation of Twinnings as a particularly painful experience in that respect.
Figure 7
Twinning contract negotiations
60%
55%
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
15%
6%
10%
0%
well, contract was easy to
negotiate
well, but contract was not
easy to negotiate
not so well, contract was
not easy to negotiate
don't know
4.4 Domestic Resources
The following section of the report sums up comments made by both NCPs and experts in respect
of human and financial resources of their countries. While there are some general tendencies, which
are outlined below, there is a clear difference between small and larger states (and public
administration structures) in terms of human resource availability, capacity to participate, expert
mobilisation strategies and mechanisms as well as financial support given to cover especially
preparation costs.
Project leaders and RTAs are typically civil servants or retired civil servants or persons from
mandated bodies. More rarely, civil servants from regional administrations act as RTAs. In some
cases, independent private advisors who used to work in public administration are invited to work
as RTAs or as STEs/MTEs. Sending institutions often rely on the experience from bilateral
43
assistance to find experts to send abroad39 and on complementarities between Twinning and
national means.
The language (mainly English) is not a problem for the North European countries, even
though a few of them mention having very little chance to win TWO contracts in the MEDA
countries without partnerships with the French. On the contrary, respondents from France and the
NMS mentioned the often-poor command of foreign languages by French experts who have often
very good technical and management skills but language clearly is a limitation for some of them.
For smaller administrations, such as the Austrian, Belgian, Danish, Dutch or Swedish ones,
which have only limited financial and human resources, it is often quite difficult to participate in
Twinning projects. As the respective country’s NCPs indicated, it is, in general, not easy for
administrations to send their best experts for a long time abroad. It is not a big problem to find a
Project Leader, but RTAs and MTEs are often very difficult to find. Therefore, experts from these
countries typically show more interest in the TAIEX instrument, thanks to the short term expertise
required and flexibility of the arrangement. This makes motivation activities by NCPs in smaller
countries even more important and guarantees of cost recovery (though not complete in many cases)
to the sending institutions40 even more decisive than in big member states with larger pools of
experts and greater resources. What seems to be of particular help are regular and frequent meetings
with top management of ministries and mandated bodies to convince them of the strategic and
operational importance and benefit of TWO projects.
Bigger countries with larger administrations, such as France, Germany or the UK, on the
contrary, can rely on quite extensive networks of administrative institutions and mandated bodies.
However, the danger in more centralised states, like France, is that no matter how big they are,
experts tend to be selected primarily from central government bodies. Larger states, however, cal
also benefit from the fact that technical assistance has traditionally played an important role in their
international cooperation arrangements. Last but not least, experts from large countries seem to be
quite willing to travel and stay abroad for longer periods of time. In some countries, the way RTAs
are contracted presents various disadvantages in a carreer and it finally turns out that civil servants
take a real risk in accepting to go abroad for a longer time. Interviews in France and with
Commission officers, for example, revealed that French civil servants have to be officially
employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the duration of the Twinning project. As a
consequence, they often encounter difficulties in reintegrating into their “home institution” and their
39
Germany, for example, was initially able to draw upon an established and well-developed network of organisations
involved in the national Transform programme assisting Eastern Europe to find and mobilise experts for Twinning. For
more on this see Tulmets (2002).
40
For example, Danish experts, due to their national salaries and labour cost prices in general in Denmark, are among
the most expensive RTAs and STEs in the EU and have a special arrangement regarding fees with the Commission.
Cost recovery for their home institutions where they have to be either replaced or they must work on both Twinning and
their home tasks is a key variable in deciding about their participation.
44
experience abroad is not really appreciated when they come back. The Commission believes that
Twinning should be estimated higher in these countries and considered as a valuable career
experience of civil servants. This approach with also help to professionalise twinners’ performance
(Interview, DG Enlargement, February 2006).
4.5 Implementation
The quality of project implementation varied according to persons, sectors and countries. In
general, the beneficiary ministries or institutions have been evaluated as coping rather well with
their Twinning contract commitments.
Figure 8
How did the receiving institutions cope with their twinning contract
commitments?
100%
6%
8%
80%
3%
8%
5%
2%
8%
2%
21%
25%
24%
37%
8%
11%
33%
60%
40%
68%
68%
67%
49%
48%
20%
0%
time allocation
commitment
well
expertise
not so well
poorly
communication language skills
don't know
As evident from Figure 8, time allocation was one of the main constraints, even though the reasons
for that were sometimes outside the powers of BC experts. BC expertise was evaluated as generally
good, but communication and language skills varied a lot according to persons and working
conditions. In general, BCs/receiving institutions could cope quite well with their commitments,
although in some cases the commitments were hardly met in reality. Also, the pressure of accession
being gone, several interviewees mentioned the disinterest and lacking commitment in NMS.
Our research also shows that while some MS administrations welcome the idea of sending
their own experts abroad, other do not. This was not a problem if the expert was already retired or
if the project was seen as strategic due to the geographical proximity of the BC (e.g. the German
Länder Saxony and Bavaria were keen on getting involved in Twinning projects in Poland and the
45
Czech Republic). Sending an expert for a longer period was seen as an opportunity for developing
long-term contacts between neighbour countries or regions. Yet, other administrations reacted
rather negatively, mainly since by sending an expert abroad, they were losing one at home.
Sometimes they even did not have any expert on the subject.41
From the PAAs/RTAs’ point of view, the receiving country’s officials quite welcomed
professional twinners. The subjective reasons for that were that “trustful relations developed
between the officials”, partners were “glad about having professional twinners, as [they] know what
it means to have unprofessional ones” or that the PAA’s expertise and experience was valued.
Cooperation went particularly well during contracting. Some experts had more negative experience,
mainly due to the fact that in some cases the BC experts learned about the RTA fees and, doing
most of the Twinning project work without any remuneration and sometimes outside their working
hours, as interviewes in Slovakia, for example, revealed.
As far as the preparation of twinners is concerned, future PAAs/RTAs took part in a 3-day
preparatory seminar on Twinning at the EC DG Enlargement. Sometimes they were also trained via
preparatory seminars organised by their NCPs. Some experts had time to collect information on the
country a few weeks in advance, others judged that they had no other preparation than reading the
Twinning manual. Many PAAs/RTAs indicated that the preparation was not sufficient. The Danish,
Dutch and UK respondents, however, agreed that their NCP and home institutions were very helpful
in providing them with assistance and methodological guidance throughout the whole project cycle.
The working conditions and environment in the Beneficiary Country were perceived in a
very different way, depending on the country, the period of project implementation (there was a
huge difference between the first and second generations of Twinning), and the personalities of
partners. Interestingly, in many cases we came across mixed assessments: either working conditions
(offices, equipment) were good and personal contacts (communication, working relationships) were
bad, or the other way round. In general, however, communication and working relationships got
better assessment, with almost no differences among BCs.42
41
Respondents pointed out that “they have ‘lost’ a specialist”, there was “a gap in the staff”, the situation was
unfavourable because of administration cuts, administrations were not supporting projects and STEs had to “take
holidays” for their missions abroad, “because the [administrations] have mostly no experts available and ask them later
from the administrations they compete with” etc.
42 As for working and living conditions, general comments indicate that BC were sometimes not prepared to provide
adequate office space, equipment and working conditions for RTA, PL and experts, that offices were too small or loud,
or that the Twinning team had to bring their own equipment. Furthermore, PAAs/RTAs were losing time by looking for
a place to live. In some cases, this took more than four weeks “even with the help of the EC Delegation” (a German
interviewee). As for personal contacts, relations with the PLs were generally better that with persons below them. In
some countries, there was almost “no communication and relationship”, sometimes also due to communication
difficulties on both sides. The command of languages played a major role in facilitating or inhibiting personal contacts.
46
Figure 9
Working conditions and environment in the receiving country
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
8%
9%
17%
19%
36%
8%
8%
14%
8%
29%
39%
41%
33%
35%
34%
20%
14%
5%
offices
25%
27%
14%
13%
2%
9%
2%
12%
2%
equipment
very bad
bad
working
conditions
normal
good
communication
excellent
8%
9%
2%
working
relationships
don't know
Differences were noticed in the degree of commitment between Candidate Countries, which are
now NMS, current Candidate Countries (mainly Croatia, Turkey), and Neighbourhood Countries.
Although some PAAs/RTAs made very good experience in the past with former CCs / current
NMS, they were more sceptical about some current Candidate Countries. Language skills were also
described as making a key difference in the quality of the partnership between BCs and MS.
PAAs/RTAs often had to work with documents in English and in the BC’ languages, which is
impossible without the help of a good assistant and of interpreters/translators: “no PAA is able to
master at the same time practical experience and legislative details in a foreign language”.
As far as the implementation of Twinning is concerned, PAAs/RTAs gave a more or less
positive evaluation of the transfer of knowledge, of rules, norms and standards as well as of
technology. The sustainability of the transfers, the “continuity” and the “long-term effects”,
however, are a moot point. In terms of the transfer of knowledge, Twinning was considered as an
important instrument to deliver the necessary knowledge on the acquis and was generally judged as
very successful, in particular when the partners were interested in the project (“openness to get new
ideas and incentives”). The transfer was in particular noticed when knowledge from one Twinning
project was positively used or discussed in the framework of a follow-up project. In some cases,
however, the knowledge could be used only for a short period due to staff turnover and other
constraints. The transfer of rules, norms and standards was rather limited. Finally, the transfer of
technology was largely seen as a spin-off and an add-on, moreover not applicable to some projects.
47
4.6 Evaluation
In some Member States, like Sweden and Germany, general evaluations of Twinning have been
done. Sweden has evaluated its participation in Twinning in concentrating on the efficiency of its
own National Contact Point (Dixelius, Haglund, 2003). The German NCP and the GTZ office
evaluated the implementation of some Twinning projects in CCs (BMWi/GTZ, 2006). In general,
EU Member States do not take time or invest resources to evaluate their Twinning activities abroad.
When asked if the quarterly reports have been relevant enough and provided a true picture
of the project implementation, the majority of PAAs/RTAs gave positive answers. Some
PAAs/RTAs even reported weekly on the project to show the gradual evolution of implementation.
Sometimes, reports had to be carefully discussed between the contracting parties as there were
arguments over some issues. Some respondents answered that the reports were only a formal
exercise and that many practical difficulties that actually mattered a lot and hampered the projects’
implementation and/or success were left out or formulated very carefully. Also, reports were often
written under time pressure and BC Project Leaders indicated that some elements described in the
reports perhaps reflect the state of the art in terms of institutional changes and legislative reforms,
but do not provide information on the shortcomings of implementation. What also plays a role, as
suggested in one interview in Denmark, is that some RTAs wrote the reports knowing that they
would be read back home and their further career growth might be stalled if failures were admitted.
When asked if the targets, benchmarks and mandatory results of projects were easy to
measure, PAAs/RTAs and PLs answered that this was indeed the case in many projects. The more
experienced respondents said that it was due to the fact that attention was paid to this in the
preparation phase and that clear definition of benchmarks and targets was crucial. A well-designed
project fiche submitted by the BC is often decisive. In some cases, however, targets were not easy
to define and quite often not easy to evaluate, especially in project components with no or little
acquis involved or in relation of training or “general improvement of competencies”.
Project evaluation has been largely used to prepare further Twinning projects. Sometimes,
but not as a rule, lessons learned and feedback loops were taken into consideration by the
management of sending institutions. Some projects have also been evaluated by the Commission
and this had some impact on further Twinning projects implemented by the given MS provider. The
use of project evaluation tools for feedback by MS, however, was not systematic and it was often
difficult to say if the BC partners had really made use of these evaluations for new project fiches.
The question is whether feedback loops should be taken care of by NCPs which may use them in
trainings, workshops and seminars. In quite a few cases, feedback from the Beneficiary Country
48
was provided, appreciated and considered helpful. Some RTAs in Germany even pointed out that
they were receiving feedback on the project continuously ever since the project finished.
Our research reveals that only a few national, sectoral or interdepartmental evaluations
were conducted in Member States on Twinning projects. Only the German, Swedish and Danish
NCPs indicated that they made assessments of some of their Twinning projects. This is confirmed
by the fact that most PAAs/RTAs have not been interviewed or contacted for evaluations done by
the Commission or other institutions. A relatively small group of persons indicate that they have
been interviewed by the contracting authority evaluation team, by someone from the EMS
consortium for the interim evaluation of PHARE and Transition facilities of the Commission or that
they have answered the questions of ECOTEC monitoring the Twinning project.
Although the aim of Twinning is to share best practices among Member States as well, it is
surprising to notice that this mainly takes place within the scope of a consortium (“more or less, this
happens only in partnerships between a Junior and Senior partners”, as noted by one German
interviewee). Study visits in the preparatory phase or during implementation are also mentioned as
opportunities to exchange good practices among MS. Brussels is generally not considered as a place
where this exchange of experience or best practices can take place, except during annual NCP
meetings (but this involves only NCPs and there is little time for this kind of exchange). Neither is
there any communication between PAAs/RTAs and members of sectoral committees in Brussels.
Most PAAs/RTAs considered that management, coordination, communication, technical and
language skills as important skills to participate to a Twinning projects. For some persons,
PAAs/RTAs have to be efficient managers with good communication skills and trust the more
technical expertise of STEs. Although language skills are always a plus, some consider this
qualification less important as they work with bilingual assistants43 and interpreters/translators.
Other respondents, however, insisted that poor command of the project language (typically English)
was a major obstacle in establishing good day-to-day communication with the BC administration.
While management, coordination and communication were considered as more relevant for project
leaders and PAAs/RTAs, the last three or two ones seem to be more important for experts / STEs.
43
RTA assistants were generally considered very important, often described as the “doorway to the receiving
institution” and sometimes, as indicated by interviewees from the UK and Sweden, taking on various other roles besides
providing administrative services and translating/interpreting.
49
Figure 10
Most important skills, qualifications and competencies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
management
coordination
communication
expertise
language
The findings presented above provide us with large enough body of data to be able to identify the
main benefits and drawbacks as well as the opportunities and risks of Twinning Out, both in general
and for Member States and their institutions providing TWO assistance, as presented in the
following Chapter. Also, the information and insights gained during the data collection phase and
analysed together with previous Twinning evaluations and other secondary sources of Twinning
information, allow us to formulate some key recommendations to the Czech administration and
offer several models of Czech TWO involvement (Chapter 6).
50
5
Benefits, Costs, Risks and Opportunities of Twinning
What makes Twinning an instrument the European Commission is so keen on extending to more
countries and both Beneficiary Countries and Member States are willing to continue using? This
chapter seeks to answer this question on the basis of data collected during our research project and
evaluated with the view of providing argumentation for Czech but also other New Member States
authorities to underpin their effort to mobilise domestic resources. Given the recommendations
presented in Chapter 6, we decided to present the arguments in favour and against Twinning as an
instrument as well as the risks and constraints linked to this tool mainly in the form of “argument
sheets” presented below.
5.1 General Benefits and Drawbacks of Twinning
The below lists present some of the key positives and negatives of Twinning in the context of EU
external relations programmes. Far from being exhaustive, the argument sheets reiterate what our
research revealed as the most important and relevant benefits and drawbacks of Twinning in
general.
Box 1
General Benefits of Twinning
•
A two-way street – a learning and communication process for both sides.
•
A vehicle for the transfer of knowledge and hands-on experience.
•
An excellent PR tool for the EU – “sells Europe” to neighbouring countries.
•
A win-win situation for all parties involved: Beneficiary Countries get what they need (if
they know what they want and learn how to put it in a project fiche) and Member States
establish contacts with their colleague in the recipient states.
•
An important tool to make experts in Beneficiary Countries familiar not only with the EU
legislation but also with the methods of implementation.
•
A potentially sustainable instrument: the work is done by the beneficiaries themselves,
providers of assistance do not come to teach and preach – they come to assist them in what
BCs would be doing anyway, only helping them to avoid dead ends and speeding the process
up a bit.
•
A good vehicle for sharing professional knowledge.
•
A tool helping to change structures and processes where projects are linked specifically to
the acquis and where projects benefit a specific unit of the recipient institution and a concrete
group of people, instead of the system / institution in general.
•
A good basis for spin-offs (follow-up Twinning / Technical Assistance / other bilateral
51
projects).
•
A possibility to establish / extend sectoral professional networks.
•
Focus on hands-on experience and practical solutions.
•
An instrument for real change in policies and understanding perceivable in mid– to longterm perspective, as BC organisations grow and change, rather than after the project is
wound up.
•
Different from the “project industry” (commercial enterprise): what is delivered must be good
since MS work with their peers and future colleagues.
•
A multicultural experience broadening horizons of both sides and fostering diversity in
the EU.
•
A platform for targeted, practical training.
•
A vehicle for study visits which are often the breaking point for convincing the recipient
institutions of a value of changes in attitudes / practices proposed. Study visits are cited as
a great inspiration and “eye-opener”; they also facilitate team building in and communication
between BC institutions responsible for the implementation of a specific acquis.
•
Often facilitating cooperation between central and regional / local authorities and actors.
While the above benefits are recognised by both Twinning partners, acknowledged by the
Commission and repeated in many different ways by our respondents, the drawbacks are
acknowledged mainly by the sending and recipient institutions, even though DG Enlargement is
aware of many of these issues and its revisions of the Twinning Manual as well as some of the rules
under EDIS are a conscious reflection of the below criticism.
The following argument sheet lists the negative sides of Twinning mentioned most
frequently by our respondents, some of them having been also pointed out in previous Twinning
evaluation studies.
Box 2
General Drawbacks
•
A slow instrument and a very bureaucratic one.
•
The Twinning Manual and procedures are rather complicated and time consuming to
read, understand and use. Also in different delegations in different countries as well in
different CFCUs the interpretation of the same rules and guidelines varies.
•
Tight and inflexible rules, especially with regard to minor changes to and amendments of
Twinning contracts.
•
Too short if basic structures have to be changed in the recipient country (e.g. internal
management, establishment of cooperation with other ministries/institutions etc.), i.e. when
ambitions are high.
•
Limited absorption capacity of BC institutions: when the situation in the recipient country
is not as expected, the BC institution’s experts are not readily available to receive all the
requested assistance.
•
Often insufficient coordination between projects and national strategies.
•
The lack of flexibility allowing significant change to the project which would contribute to
52
the overall reform process.
•
Participants from receiving institutions cannot be paid for any extra efforts from
Twinning budget.
•
Uncertain sustainability due to high staff turnover and politicisation of public
administration in Beneficiary Countries.
5.2 Benefits and Drawbacks of Twinning Out for Provider Countries
While many of the previous benefits are highly relevant for countries and institutions providing
Twinning Out assistance to Beneficiary Countries, there are also benefits and drawbacks that are
specific to either providers or recipients of this type of aid. The following two tables, similarly to
the above section, sum up the most relevant benefits that might be mentioned by the Czech NCP
and other Twinning Out coordinators in their communication with the top management of
ministries, other public administration authorities as well as mandated bodies. Box 3 indicates that
Twinning brings mainly non-material (“soft”) benefits for MS providing TWO assistance. The list,
however, reveals that these soft benefits are important and pave the way for some material (“hard”)
benefits in terms of economic gains and political influence.
Box 3
Benefits of Twinning Out for Provider Countries
•
A tool for strengthening of the economic position of the provider country in the
Beneficiary Country / region.
•
An opportunity for establishing potential voting coalitions in the Council formations.
•
A chance to increase the “return of investment in the EU.”
•
A way of reinforcing or improving the country’s image and reputation.
•
A mechanism helping to ensure stability of the European neighbourhood regions: more
safety for Czech investors, more security for EU citizens.
•
A way of establishing good working relationships with colleagues in future EU Member
States on peer positions.
•
A springboard for further bilateral / multilateral cooperation.
•
An instrument for spreading of democracy and stability to a wider European area.
•
A tool for creating network of contacts (development of sectoral professional networks).
•
An exceptional career and personal growth opportunity for experts, expanding their
horizons and helping to put new perspectives on their work.
Box 4
53
Costs and Drawbacks for Twinning Out Provider Countries
•
Overhead costs of posted experts for sending institutions.
•
Uncertainty and financial losses related to late starts of projects.
•
Payment bureaucracy: Many RTAs are expected to self-fund parts of their secondment until
approval of funding; they must rely on “bridging funds” from their home administrations
which are sometimes extremely difficult to organise for legal reasons.
•
Sometimes problematic recovery of costs related to the preparation, bidding and other
activities.
•
Loss of an expert who is missed back home (especially in small countries / administrations).
•
Organisational /management difficulties related to a posting of an expert with crucial
expertise.
•
Tight and inflexible rules, which do sometimes not allow to respond adequate to a living
learning process (unlike in Technical Assistance projects)
•
Twinning project approvals may be unforeseeable, which makes planning and preparation
for the (home) government employer, experts and the family of the RTA very difficult
In order to design an effective strategy for Twinning Out, it is necessary to be aware of and deal
with both benefits and costs of TWO. To be a successful provider of Twining assistance, New
Member States must be able to “sell” the benefits to their home administrations and communicate
them clearly and strongly enough to the top levels at ministries and mandated bodies. At the same
time, however, it is necessary for them to take care of the costs and drawbacks as well as the risks
and constraints related to Twinning Out preparation and implementation.
5.3 Risks and Constraints of Twinning Out
The red line running through all of our interviews was that the best way to deal with risks and
constraints of Twinning Out was to be aware of them and try to deal with them as early in the
process cycle as possible, rather than shunning them or not revealing them to the institutions
providing assistance. The big advantage of NMS is that many of their Project Leaders and
RTAs/STEs have had some experience with Twinning at the receiving end (Twinning In), so they
are often aware of the risks. Still, in order to find solutions for either eliminating or at least
mitigating them, the following list highlights some key risks and constraints of Twinning Out that
have been and/or will be faced by Czech experts. This list has been drawn on the basis of input from
Old Member States as well as the information provided by Czech authorities that have already
started TWO preparation, bidding or implementation activities.
Box 5
54
Risks and Constraints of Twinning Out
•
Structural / institutional changes (changes in administration; management changes; changes
of RTAs / PLs; turnover of staff on both sides)
•
Disinterest in New Member States (will most probably apply also to Romania and Bulgaria
after their accession) when the pressure of pre-accession assessment is gone
•
Delays (in preparation, project launching, contracting, provision of offices to RTAs, reports)
•
Political externalities and slowness of policy-making
•
Staff problems on both sides (shortage of staff; insufficient training; lack of management
skills on BC side; unavailability of STEs; unsatisfactory qualifications of short-term experts)
•
Lack of interministerial cooperation and coordination on the BC side
•
Uncertain sustainability
•
Budget problems (suboptimal use of project funds; budgetary underestimations; lack of BC
co-financing)
•
Limited impact: recommendations not taken into account or not implemented
•
Inability to provide planned activities (for budgetary, organisational or other reasons)
•
Contract problems (poorly drafted contracts; need for several addenda)
•
Conflicting priorities between MS consortia members, MS and BC, BC institutions
(especially when more than one BC institution is the recipient of TWO)
•
Training problems (insufficient numbers of BC institutions staff; training participants being
chosen just to hit the numbers and not according to their area of specialisation)
•
Limited timeframe (need for project extension – not always approved)
•
Communication problems (between MS consortia members, between BC institutions,
between BC and MS; lack of English language skills of BC experts)
The above argument sheets summarise most though not all of the major benefits and drawbacks as
well as risks and constraints related to Twinning Out. At the same time, however, these lists can
serve as practical tools for the Czech NCP and the top levels of TWO assistance providers from the
Czech Republic to mobilise and motivate Czech experts and their managers to get involved in TWO
projects.
55
6
Recommendations
As we showed in the previous chapter, Twinning can be a very useful tool and a tremendous
opportunity for assistance providers, be it from the Old or New Member States.
Nevertheless, to be able to really benefit from this opportunity, some essential prerequisites
need to be ensured. Following our mapping exercise covering the organisation of Twinning in New
Member States44, we concluded that there is still room for improvement and that the majority of
NMS still need some substantial changes in the way they coordinate, administer, promote and
support TWO on a national basis.45
Chapter 6.1 therefore brings some recommendations regarding the organisation and
coordination of Twinning Out in New Member States. These are applicable to more or less all NMS
as they have been often mentioned by our respondents and some of them appeared in previous
Twinning evaluations. Recommendations in Chapter 6.2, however, are formulated specifically for
the Czech Republic. After describing and assessing the existing Twinning arrangements in the
country, we proceed with presenting six scenarios for the location and empowering of the National
Contact Point. Several recommendations are then given to improve the current TWO organisation
and support services. Five models of Czech involvement in TWO are sketched out in section 6.2.4
and the recommendations chapter closes with a suggestion for organising an international Twinning
Out seminar where the findings of this report would be presented and where interactive exchange of
experience, advice and know-how between Old Member States and New Member States could take
place.
6.1 General Recommendations for New Member States
Based on our analysis of the data collected and information from previous evaluations, our research
team has formulated the following recommendations, which have been split into several categories.
We start with the most important, strategic recommendations, which are then followed by
organisational and, finally, operational proposals and suggestions.
44
In this respect, we rely on data provided in questionnaires sent to us from NMS – see Appendix 2) and information
about and from the “NCP workshop to promote successful donor Twinning activity” for NCPs from New Member
States organised by the Hungarian NCP in Budapest, 24 – 25 November 2005.
45
Some NMS, however, have seen major developments in the institutionalisation and organisation of European affairs
in general and Twinning assistance in particular. For example, Poland has been inspired in its EU affairs coordination
by the French SGAE (see Bouquet 2006).
56
Box 6
Strategic Recommendations
•
Make Twinning Out one of the Government’s European priorities and advocate the
country’s interests in providing TWO services (have a list of arguments ready – we shall have
such a list of benefits in our report).
•
Use Twinning Out and TAIEX as complementary instruments.
•
Define and communicate the country’s competitive advantage and the unique area of
expertise; identify and “market” the value that the country can add to the Beneficiary
Country’s administrations and/or systems
•
Create more stable partnerships with some countries (building on previous experience of
cooperation in TWI projects, established partnerships and good track-record from other
bilateral and multilateral projects); yet, remain open to cooperation with any country. Good
reputation of a lead partner is key.
•
Identify the country’s competitive advantage as a Junior Partner and market the
country’s recent experience with the implementation of the acquis.
•
Make clear Twinning Out priorities (i.e. objectives, key regions, key areas of expertise,
partnership policy etc). These priorities, consistent with the country’s foreign policy focus,
should be preferably summarised in a fiche-like document. Most importantly, make these
priorities known to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
National public administration bodies;
Other MS NCPs and institutions;
Beneficiary Countries;
EU secretaries at NMS embassies in Beneficiary Countries.
•
Recognise Twinning Out as part of the country’s national experts career growth;
communicate this to the management of government authorities and mandated bodies.
•
Formulate your own national Twinning Out guidelines, along with the Commission rules
and provide relevant training for ministries, mandated bodies and other organisations
concerned and interested
•
Make use of the command of Slavic languages, where applicable, in project bids and project
implementation.
•
Consider involving regional and local authorities (STEs) where it might be beneficial
Organisational Recommendations
•
Set up a special Twinning Out agency / unit / organisation to coordinate and concentrate
TWO information. This TWO unit/agency shall be managed by and accountable to one public
administration body only: one ministry or the Government Office.
•
Use the expertise of the people who have administered TWI and TWO so far (including
the CFCU/AO staff).
•
Make sure that the NCP mandate and organisational status is strong enough to facilitate
contacts and effective cooperation with top level management of ministries and mandated
bodies.
•
Ensure enough resources to run the NCP daily business.
•
Establish a network of ministries and agencies and initiate and encourage active
networking
•
Build Twinning institutional memory in order to set off staff turnover in NMS public
57
administrations.
Operational Recommendations
•
Create a special website dedicated to Twinning – list all project fiches there and update it
frequently.
•
Have one person just for circulating fiches around ministries and mandated bodies, updating
the website and generally taking care of incoming and outgoing e-mail.
•
Communicate regularly with the management of ministries and mandated bodies to
convince them of the importance of TWO both for the country and for the institution. Remind
SPOs and contact persons constantly about TWO opportunities but avoid “information
overkill”. Provide timely, structured and clear information.
•
Make regular contact with, provide information to and make use of the information from
embassy officers in Beneficiary Countries.
•
Provide training (most importantly in TWO preparation, Logical Framework Approach
(LFA) and other relevant skills) and continuous support.
•
Publish a “smart version” of the Twinning Manual.
•
Allocate some funds for pre-bidding visits and preparatory work; establish bridging
funding.
•
Be present at presentations / preparatory visits / fact-findings if possible.
•
Make information about cultural and interpersonal sensitivities part of the training provided
to RTAs, PLs, STEs and MTEs.
•
Allow for flexibility and creative solutions.
The above recommendation sheets draw mainly upon the data collected throughout the time of our
research project implementation. Some of them, however, also appear in previous evaluations of
Twinning (Birker et al. 2000; MZV ČR 2001; Cooper, Johansen 2003; WM Enterprise 2006;
Bouquet 2006; BMWi/GTZ 2006), which lends our findings and the subsequent recommendations
some more credit and provides support to our proposals and advice.
Besides these, we suggest that the Czech Republic’ decision-makers consider also some
specific recommendations formulated in the following section of the report. Especially the last one,
i.e. to organise and international Twinning Out seminar, might extend the above argument sheets
and bring along some practical, effective and fast measures.
6.2 Recommendations Specific to the Czech Republic
Twinning Out is a new instrument that Czech authorities are learning to use. Given the information
gathered so far as well as the terms of reference for this research project, we feel that there is a need
58
for some key strategic and operational decisions to be taken to benefit as much as possible from the
positive aspects of TWO and its spin-off effects.
The following section therefore brings some specific TWO recommendations taking into
account the structural and political conditions in the Czech Republic. It starts with a brief outline of
the experience so far with TWO and the description of the public administration environment within
which TWO is set in the country. Based on the analysis of Czech Republic’s foreign policy and
assistance priorities as well as the structural conditions, particularly public administration capacities
and human and financial resources, suggestions regarding the location, organisation and operation
of the National Contact Point are made. Out of the five scenarios given, the research team
recommends to choose an agency-based approach, inspired by one of the NCP models used in
OMS. The chapter closes with a presentation of five models of Czech involvement in TWO projects
and the outline of benefits and drawbacks as well as probability of and requirements for the use of
each of them.
6.2.1 Czech Republic: Priorities, Prerequisites and Scope Conditions
The Czech Republic is a small country with limited human and financial resources. In that respect,
it is similar to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden. Also, the continuing public
administration cuts are making it rather difficult for the Czech Republic to become active
participants in the TWO mechanism. Still the previously mentioned benefits and the fact that the
European Neighbourhood Policy is a prominent priority in the EU policy and, last but far from
least, the European Commission is planning to allocate substantial amounts of money to ENP
assistance programmes should be enough of a reason for the Czech Republic to ensure that TWO
opportunities are maximised by effective, efficient and economical participation in the instrument.
Due to the fact that MS are already hitting their limits in terms of sending experts abroad
Chapter 4 has shown that good Twinning Out performance is largely dependent on effective
NCP and on the overall organisation and coordination of TWO activities as well as on the human
resource and practices of TWO experts. The following section will therefore focus on the structural,
financial and political conditions of the country. We will briefly describe the current system of
TWO coordination and organisation in the Czech Republic and highlight the issues Czech TWO
actors already have to deal with.
The Czech Republic’s foreign policy objectives include involvement in the EU’s external activities.
Twinning is one of the key instruments of this involvement. In order to implement this goal, the
Czech government adopted the Main Territorial Priorities in the Framework of the Common
59
Foreign and Security Policy (Government Resolution No. 388/2005).46 The main territorial
priorities for the Czech Republic’s participation in Twinning Out have been identified as South
European Countries supported within the framework of the EU Stabilisation and Association
Process, in particular Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina; Ukraine, Moldavia,
Georgia and Palestine (European Neighbourhood Policy countries) (MF ČR and MZV ČR 2006).47
The Czech Republic would like to provide assistance specifically but not only to these
countries in the field of Justice and Home Affairs; public administration reform; implementation of
Structural Funds; trade policy, competitiveness and consumer protection; employment and social
policy; harmonisation of technical standards; higher education systems; transport policy; statistics;
environment; agriculture, veterinary and phytosanitary area, and food safety.
Czech TWO, as well as TWI activities are administered and coordinated by the National
Contact Point located at the Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance.48 Some
administrative support is also provided by the Central Financing and Contracting Unit /
Administrative Office (CFCU/AO). The NCP communicates with sending institutions, i.e.
ministries and mandated bodies through Senior Programme Officers (SPOs) or other authorised
contact persons. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Trade Policy and Agriculture Department) has a
special role in terms of providing some political guidance and contacts with embassies in the
Beneficiary Countries and other MFA departments.
Czech authorities involved in Twinning Out (ministries and mandated bodies) are generally
in favour of taking part in this form of assistance, both as Junior Partners and Project Leaders/Lead
Partners and some of the ministries (particularly the Ministry of Environment) have been quite
active in this respect. Moreover, many Beneficiary Countries have been expressing their interest in
working specifically with the Czech Republic.49 The Czech Republic’s strength is an advanced level
of acquis implementation, cultural links to many of the Beneficiary Countries (in the TACIS and
CARDS regions as well as to Acceding and Candidate Countries) and similar administrative
histories and patterns to be overcome. However, the first months of Czech involvement in TWO50
already revealed that there are some administrative obstacles and structural limitations to Czech
participation in TWO.
46
The country’s territorial priorities are also identified in the Czech Republic’s Pro-Export Policy (Government
Resolution No. 188/2003) and the Czech Republic’s International Development Assistance Policy (Government
Resolution No. 91/2002).
47
The Czech Republic, however, does not exclude the possibility of providing TWO assistance to Bulgaria, Romania,
Croatia and Turkey as well as to Albania, Macedonia and Russia, or Belarus (if the political situation permits) and
Egypt or other Mediterranean countries (MF ČR and MZV ČR 2006).
48
http://www.mfcr.cz/cps/rde/xchg/mfcr/hs.xsl/eu_Twinning_programy.html
49
One of the interviewees mentioned that even though the bid and the presentation of one Czech authority was far from
well-done and impressive, one BC chose the Czechs because they badly wanted to have them there since the country’s
preferred way of implementing that particular component of the acquis was the Czech one.
50
The implementation of first projects with Czech experts started in autumn 2005. 11 TWO projects were implemented
as at the cut-off date of this report, with several other bids being prepared.
60
Firstly, and most importantly, the major problem is the (un)availability of experts and the
lack of support that TWO receives from the top levels of ministries and authorities. The issue of
RTA/STE availability boils down to the size of the country and public administration and the pool
of the Czech Republic’s human and financial resources. In that respect, the Czech Republic is in a
similar situation as Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, or Sweden. There are few key
experts who can be spared for a project abroad without being missed badly by their sending
institution as finding a similarly trained and experienced replacement is very difficult. Moreover,
due to the non-existence of the Civil Service Act, experts have no guarantee of returning to the
same position they left. Also, the high turnover of staff in Czech ministries is a problem for both
Twinning Out and Twinning In projects.
Secondly, our interviewees mentioned that the financial methodology, as presented by the
CFCU is not clear and is unadapted to the local situation. SPOs and Heads of EU Departments At
different ministries express their fear of financial control and evaluation. The financial methodology
was described as “just a translation of the EC document” (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). It
was suggested that Czech SPOs and other authorised officers would welcome a “Twinning Out
Cookbook,” i.e. a document well adapted to the Czech institutional environment. This document
would set out clear rules in order to avoid misunderstandings and control problems. Some of the
ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment) have already drafted their own TWO guidance.
Thirdly, some interviewees also highlighted difficulties related to financial flows which are,
however, not specific to the Czech situation since other countries face the same problem. It
generally takes a lot of time after the project starts to get an advance payment, if any is provided at
all. Ministries in many MS often cover the expenses and pre-finance the missions of the experts
without being reimbursed afterwards. To remedy this situation, the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs suggested setting up a special fund that could be administered by the Ministry of Finance (or
another body responsible for TWO) and that might serve as a reserve fund, helping ministries and
other institutions with pre-financing, especially with logistics-related expenses.51
Fourthly, where several sectors need to cooperate, complications arise due to unclear
delimitation of competences and statutes. Similarly to other (post-Communist) NMS, the strong
hierarchy in public administration in the Czech Republic is making inter- and intra-ministerial
coordination quite difficult. And the willingness and readiness to take up responsibilities and make
own decisions is quite underdeveloped (cf. Lippert, Umbach 2005). This is also why the Czech
government has been discussing a draft legislation providing for the establishment of the Czech
Agency for Development Cooperation (MZV ČR 2006a,b,c,d).
51
The existing system is difficult to synchronise with the budgetary calendars of Czech ministries.
61
This development agency is to remedy the ineffective, uncoordinated and fragmentary
situation development assistance provision by the Czech Republic, as it is at the moment. Interministerial barriers and rivalries prevent synergy and linkage in assistance provision and the
administrative costs are quite high. The Czech Agency for Development Cooperation would be
established by and work under the political guidance of the MFA. The agency is inspired by the
Scandinavian model. The management and control of development assistance would rest with the
MFA but all executive tasks would be delegated on this agency. The MFA would be advised by the
International Development Assistance Council and the National Coordination Committee for
Development Assistance (MZV ČR 2006b,d). Given the shifts of geographical and conceptual focus
of Twinning (see Chapter 2.3) it might be quite effective to link TWO to other development
assistance programmes and draw upon the benefits of a support infrastructure with relevant
administrative capacity in the area of development assistance.
Fifthly, the administrative burden linked to the preparation of bids and project monitoring
and financial arrangements proves to be quite heavy for Czech TWO assistance providers,
considering their workloads. As there is little chance of setting up special Twinning units at
ministries, some interviewees suggested the use of outsourcing (e.g. relying on support structures
such as the National Training Fund in case of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). That,
however, may not be an ideal solution since this would further reinforce the fragmentation and
exacerbate the uncoordinated system of assistance provision in the Czech Republic.
As evident from the above description, the systemic and structural conditions make TWO
provision quite challenging for Czech public administration bodies. The recommendations in
sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 are designed to show how this situation may be improved, both on systemic
and operational levels.
6.2.2 National Contact Point Location
Taking into consideration the above structural conditions of the Czech Republic (a small country
with limited human and financial resources) and the need to find an efficient, effective and
economic solution for the future TWO coordination and organisation, the following scenarios have
been formulated by our research team. The scenarios have been designed on the basis of TWO
arrangements and NCP models described in Chapter 4. Of course, the EU-related administrative
systems of Old Member States cannot be transposed as acquis has been. Indeed, that would be far
from desirable. But they can serve as a source of inspiration for and consideration by Czech
decision-makers. Each scenario gives an outline of the possible arrangements, linking them to
specific Old Member States’ models and highlighting the benefits and downsides of the respective
solutions. Having considered the current policy and legislative developments in the Czech Republic,
62
we suggest the second scenario as the solution of first choice if the Czech Agency for Development
Cooperation is endorsed by the Czech government and the relevant law is passed by the Parliament.
Scenario 1
NCP as a special unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The NCP located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, like in Belgium or Denmark, has the benefit of
linking the expertise in foreign policy matters (relations with third countries, overview of bilateral
cooperation with third countries and strategic planning) with the specific “world” of Twinning
projects. MFAs usually have enough information on recipient countries and make regular use the
services of embassies.
This solution would require the setting up of a special unit either within the European Union
Section or the Department of Development Cooperation, Territorial Section II., or at the Deputy
Minister level with enough funding for the operation of the NCP along the lines suggested in
section 6.1 and below (see section 6.2.3) and . If this option was chosen, we would strongly
recommend to use the expertise and knowledge of the current NCP, Jana Hendrichová and her team
as well as the administrative experience of the CFCU/AO some of whom should be offered
employment by the MFA in order to ensure a smooth transfer of know-how and experience from
both TWO and TWI and guarantee continuity and building of institutional memory.
The risk attached to this scenario is the potential lack of operational flexibility and the loss
of direct contact with the executor of financial flows, i.e. the Ministry of Finance which must still
be involved.
.
Scenario 2
NCP based at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but delegating services to an agency
This model of Twinning Out organisation and coordination can be seen in Spain (FIIAPP), the
Netherlands (EDV) and Austria (AEI). According to this scenario, the NCP would be located at the
Czech MFA which would still provide political guidance but operational tasks would be executed
solely by an agency. This agency can either be a special office set up specifically for this purpose
(as the Agency for European Integration and Economic Development in Austria) and either be
based at the Ministry of Finance, making use of the current NCP and CFCU/AO staff, or be an
independent, small executive office for Twinning Out administration only which would be in direct
contact with all Czech civil service authorities and mandated bodies. This option would have the
benefit of retaining greater involvement of the Ministry of Finance. However, there is still a risk of
63
some activities running in parallel and the coordination being rather cumbersome. Nevertheless, this
scenario is evaluated as the second best option by our research team.
Scenario 3
NCP based at a special agency
This scenario is inspired by the Irish and Swedish models where the NCP function has been
transfered from the Ministry of Finance and MFA, respectively to the Institute of Public
Administration (IPA) in Ireland and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(SIDA) in the Swedish case.
This option might potentially suit best the next generation of Twinning focussing more and
more on the European Neighbourhood countries. For this purpose, it would be more appropriate and
potentially also more effective and efficient to still use the political guidance of the MFA, but
delegating the administrative and operational tasks upon a Development Assistance Agency, like
the Swedish SIDA. The currently debated draft legislation proposing the creation of the Czech
Agency for Development Cooperation would allow for such a solution which would link other
development assistance and draw upon experience and information from other cooperation projects
in the region. At the same time, this option would allow for the use of the IT, human, technical and
other infrastructure of the agency. The small unit might be partly financed from Twinning projects’
management fees (a percentage would have to be agreed with sending institutions/bodies) and
would communicate directly with the MFA and all ministries, authorities, mandated bodies and
organisations interested and participating in Twinning. Once again, we would recommend to use the
expertise and knowledge of the current NCP staff who might become employees of the agency,
along with some CFCU/AO officers to ensure continuity and transfer of Twinning know-how.
The risk related to this option is that the legislation is not passed soon enough and that the
agency is either set up too late for the purposes of effective Czech involvement in TWO or that it is
not established at all because of the potentially different visions and policies of the next
government.52
52
Following the general elections in the Czech Republic in June 2006, the country still has no regular government. The
“caretaker” government will be replaced by a new one after the negotiations of parties are completed and the new
government is endorsed in a Parliament vote. Alternatively, early elections might be necessary. There is therefore no
guarantee of the continuity of decisions taken by the current central administration of the Czech Republic.
64
Scenario 4
NCP as a special unit of the Ministry of Finance
This scenario is drawing upon the arrangements Ireland used to have before the NCP was
transferred to the Institute of Public Administration (IPA).
This option would basically retain the current status quo but a change in the tasking and job
descriptions of the NCP staff would be required. Currently, the staff are employees of the Finance
Ministry with other duties as well and cannot concentrate on the full execution of NCP tasks as
required. If this scenario was chosen, we would strongly recommend this to be changed and make
such organisational changes to be made, which would allow the NCP to focus fully on its NCP
duties and on the extended, more comprehensive portfolio of support services as proposed in
sections 6.1 and 6.2.3.
The risk attached to this scenario is that nothing much would change and that the Ministry of
Finance might not have a strong enough mandate to coordinate TWO activities, as is often the case
now. This scenario might just preserve the status quo with only a few changes made, moreover the
pre-financing problem might still be left untackled.
Scenario 5
NCP based at the Ministry of Finance but delegating services to an agency
This option is best represented by the German model. The NCP would be located at the Centre for
Foreign Assistance at the Ministry of Finance. It would be assisted by an agency for development
cooperation (the GTZ office, in the German case, which has an extensive experience in the field of
development policy and project management). Since Twinning projects also deal with economic
relations and contracts, the experience of the Ministry of Finance (or the Ministry of Economy) is
useful to create synergies between programmes of technical assistance and make full use of
competencies in budgetary and economic issues (contacts with companies, etc.). Project
management and human resource-related issues (e.g. search for expertise or preparation of experts)
would be dealt with by the agency. The downside of this scenario would be the fact that the agency
might be moving from one ministry to the other if there is a change at the governmental level and,
in effect, in political priorities. Also, competition might take place between ministries to host the
NCP and the agency. Finally, using the services of the Czech Agency for Development Cooperation
would require a change in the legislation as it is currently drafted since the Agency would be
established and tasked by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs according to the wording of the last draft.
65
Scenario 6
NCP based at Government Office
Being incorporated into the Prime Minister’s Office, as in France, would allow the NCP to play a
real interministerial role. Moreover, if the NCP was situated at the Prime Minister’s / Government
Office, it might have more political leverage than the MFA or the Ministry of Finance in terms of
making Twinning a priority for the top management of the ministries, mandated bodies and other
TWO actors, which is crucial, especially given the fact that Czech ministries face staffing problems
and already have difficulties finding RTAs. As each ministry would take over the responsibility for
the definition of its priorities, project proposals, management of projects, etc, there would be less
managerial responsibility for the NCP. The disadvantage of this scenario, however, is that creating a
brand new office might be difficult and even counter-productive in terms of development assistance
concentration, coordination and streamlining. In this respect, it seems to be the least cost-effective
option out of the six scenarios suggested.
6.2.3 Suggestions for Improved Performance in Twinning Out Coordination
Irrespective of which, if any, of the above scenarios is selected, we point out which of the
recommendations listed in section 5 we believe are crucial and should be seriously considered by
Czech decision-makers:
Box 7
Suggestions for Improved Performance
Improved Internal and External Communication
•
•
•
•
•
•
Make Twinning more visible and attractive.
Make Czech territorial and technical priorities explicitly known to partners at home (Czech
institutions and organisations) and abroad (other NCPs): create an electronic presentation package
with information on the organisation of TWO in the Czech Republic, priorities, competitive
advantage, capacities and possibilities of partnership; circulate this information around both EU
Member States, BCs and Czech embassy officers in BC countries.
Use the website as a real communication platform for partners at home and abroad and post all
circulations there – get inspired by other NCPs whose experience with using the intranet and
internet website has been very positive and appreciated by their RTAs, PLs and other “clients.”
Keep your communication as open, transparent, simple and relevant as possible.
Send domestic institutions clear and short notices highlighting the main points in the fiches to
catch their attention – circulation is not enough, think about the “packaging” and time-effective
solutions making it easier for SPOs and their colleagues to react
Be in frequent personal contact with the management of Czech institutions and organisations
and find effective ways of “selling” TWO (point at success stories etc.) – ensure political and
management support.
66
•
•
•
Organise annual meetings of TWO experts (RTAs, PLs, STEs and MTEs).
Make full use of Czech embassy officers in ENP countries and let them inform you on any
potential project fiches in the pipeline
Print out a small, easy-to-carry version of the Twinning Manual and distribute it to SPOs, RTAs,
PLs and other relevant TWO actors
Financial Support
•
•
•
Try to identify and deploy sources of funding to cover preparation, pre-financing and other
bridging costs
Find a viable solution in terms of per diems.
Redraft the financial flows guidance to better reflect the Czech institutional situation – make
use of the experience of ministries so far and draft the guidance in consultation with them
Training
•
Provide practical and focused training sessions for RTAs and PLs several times a year, on
top of the general RTA training in Brussels,
•
Invite a current/former Czech RTA and/or PL to share their experience and answer
specific, practical questions of Czech civil servants considering to work as TWO experts.
Use the experience and formats of such training in other MS as an inspiration; explore
opportunities for cooperation with the MS providers of training.
•
Make information about cultural and interpersonal sensitivities part of the training.
•
Highlight the career growth opportunities and personal development side of TWO
involvement
Other Suggestions
•
•
•
•
Use Twinning Out and TAIEX as complementary instruments.
Promote partnership and cooperation of sectors where it would be beneficial and enhance the
chances of winning tenders.
Be involved in the contracting phase as well.
Use TAIEX experts for fact-finding purposes.
This set of recommendations does not claim to be all-embracing and several other recommendations
might be added. Also, more input in this respect would be added by the international Twinning Out
Seminar proposed in section 6.2.5. The above list of recommendations, however, is meant as an
inventory for Czech authorities in general and the Czech NCP in particular from which to chose and
to which to add if they want Czech TWO participation to be effective and successful. We believe
these recommendations to be relevant irrespective of the models of Czech involvement in TWO
activities presented in the final section of this report.
6.2.4 Models for Czech Involvement in Twinning Out
There are several ways in which small countries with limited human and financial resources can be
involved in Twinning Out. This section looks into the prerequisites, advantages and disadvantages
67
of the various options, seeking to identify the probability with which these models of involvement
will be used in the case of the Czech Republic.
Model 1:
Czech Republic as a Single Applicant and Provider of Twinning Out
Model Probability
Prerequisites
- strong administrative
and management skills
low
- good presentation skills
- clear vision and welldeveloped workplan
- strong language skills
- a competent RTA and
availability of STEs
- top-level support
Model 2:
Positives
- stronger image of the
CR and the sending
institution
Negatives
- substantial demands on
the time and availability
of Czech experts
- no difficulties arising
from consortium
management issues
- better control over
project outcomes
- higher management fees
for sending institution
Czech Republic as a Lead Partner in Twinning Out Consortia
Model Probability
Prerequisites
low to medium
- strong management and
administration skills
- preferably experience
from previous, similar
projects
- good coordination,
communication and
negotiation skills
Positives
Negatives
- stronger image of the
CR and the sending
institution
- consortium
management and
coordination difficulties
- more control over
project outputs and
outcomes
- substantial demands on
the time and availability
of Czech experts
- lesser capacity demands
- clear vision and welldeveloped workplan
- creation of partnership
for future bids / cooperations
- a competent RTA and
availability of STEs
- learning experience for
Czech experts
- top-level support
Model 3:
Czech Republic as a Junior Partner in Twinning Out Consortia
Model Probability
Prerequisites
- good partnership skills
high
- good technical expertise
- good “marketing” of the
country on the TW
market
Positives
- better chances of
success
- little or no demands for
management and
coordination skills
Negatives
- some administrative
demands on sending
institution
- lesser control over
project outcomes
- flexibility
- adaptability
Model 4:
Czech Republic as a Strategic Junior Partner of Some Member States
Model Probability
Prerequisites
medium to high
-commitment to strategic
partnership
Positives
- strengthened
cooperation with some
68
Negatives
- restricted options for
cooperation
- good “marketing” of the
country on the TWO
market
- provision of updated
CVs of Czech experts
- flexibility
MS with strong positions
in some countries
- some administrative
demands on the country
- little or no demands for
management and
coordination skills
- guaranteed chances in
certain
sectors/domains/countries
- adaptability
Model 5:
Czech Republic providing Individual Experts for Consortia
Model Probability
Prerequisites
Positives
Negatives
high
- very little administrative
and no management
demands on home
administration
- little control over
project results and impact
- provision of updated
CVs of Czech experts
- frequent and extensive
contact with other MS
- flexibility
- limited effect on the
reputation of the country
/ sending institution
- good option to use the
expertise of Czech STEs
- no management fees for
home administration
- greater complementarity
with TAIEX
Given the Czech Republic’s structural conditions and taking into consideration the findings from
initial research among Czech TWO actors, models number three and five are given high probability
rating. In other words, the Czech Republic might be expected to provide Junior Partner
services and the expertise of individual experts on a most regular basis. These two models also
suit best the current administrative / institutional capacities of and the level of commitment by
Czech TWO actors (i.e. do not require top-level support and long-term secondment abroad)
However, this is not to say that the other models should be dropped in the long-term perspective.
Our conclusions only highlights the most probable and least demanding options for the near future
which reflects the structural and other limitations presented earlier in the report. The models
proposed also echoes the demands by BCs who trust the Czech Republic’ experts (and experts from
other NMS) in their technical knowledge and value their accession experience but prefer OMS to
manage Twinning projects. Finally, these two models suit best the preferences and capacities of the
most active sectors in TWO, especially the Ministry of Environment.
This report, nevertheless, seeks to provide some guidance and basis for Czech authorities to
realise and fully exploit the benefits offered by Twinning. And in order to reinforce the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the report, we propose to organise an international seminar
where the options presented and recommendations made might be complemented and debated
further, ideally followed by some strategic and operational decisions by relevant Czech decisionmakers.
69
6.2.5 International Twinning Out Seminar
Apart from circulating this report to all respondents of this research project as well as to Czech
SPOs and NCPs in other Beneficiary Countries, we propose to organise a Twinning Out seminar
organised jointly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Czech National Contact Point and the
Institute of International Relations.
This seminar or workshop would present the findings and recommendations of this research
project. These would be discussed by all participants. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the National Contact Point (Ministry of Finance) might have their contributions reflecting their
opinions, comments and suggestions. In the second part of the seminar, Old Member States would
present their national solutions and models as well as strategic priorities and there would be a
round-table discussion of these issues. The emphasis would be on the exchange of experience with
operational and practical issues such as strategies to mobilise domestic experts, financial flows,
domestic regulations governing the secondment of experts, Twinning website administration,
complementary funding, Twinning consortia mechanisms, key success criteria, RTA and PL
training formats and content etc. In this respect, the seminar would be a follow-up on the Hungarian
NCP workshop for New Member States organised in November 2005. However, the scope would
be broader and more practical
Apart from inviting the NCPs from Old Member States, we suggest inviting NCPs from
New Member States, ambassadors and EU secretaries from the European Neighbourhood Policy
countries and Old Member States. The Czech participants would include the Czech NCP, MFA
officials as well as Senior Programme Officers and Contact Persons from all ministries and
mandated bodies. Representatives of DG Enlargement and the Representation of the European
Commission would also be invited.
This seminar would be a practical and interactive extension of the outputs of our research
project and might set the basic parameters for further development of Twinning Out cooperation in
the Czech Republic. The seminar may also help to find a consensus over issues highlighted in this
report and suggested for consideration by or even recommended to Czech authorities.
70
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of and thank in particular the
following persons:
- Alain Van Hamme, Stéphanie Palombi and Marcello Mori for providing us with updated
information, statistics and the database on Twinning and allowing us to take part to the annual NCP
meeting of June 2006.
- The Austrian NCP and AEI, in particular Désirée Schweitzer and Stefan Meingast, for answering
the questionnaire and taking time for interviews.
- The Czech NCP, in particular Jana Hendrichová, Ludmila Lefnerová and, above all Jana
Sklenářová, for their time, information, cooperation and assistance, as well as the Czech CFCU/AO
for their time, materials and cooperation.
- The Czech MFA, Department of Trade Policy and Agriculture, in particular Tomáš Kuchta and
Vladimír Hradský for consultations and assistance.
- The former Danish NCP Carl Balle Petersen and his assistant Lilian Jensen for their time,
information, organisation of interviews and the invitation to the annual EFRA meeting.
- the Dutch NCP Ida de Kat- van Meurs for information and help in arranging interviews.
- The Finnish NCP Eija-Leena Linkola for her co-operation.
-The French NCP George Canton-Bacara for her time, information and documents provided.
- The German NCP, in particular Inge Toschev, Michael Bartels and Jürgen Rieck, for answering
our questionnaire, taking time for interviews and forwarding our questionnaire to the German list of
Twinning experts.
- The Swedish NCP Ingrun Hattenbach for her time and assistance in organising interviews.
- The UK NCP, Candida Slater and her deputy Katrina Ulysses for their time, assistance and
information provided.
- The British Embassy in Prague, particularly Stuart Summers, for assistance with contacting British
RTAs and PLs.
71
References
Academic Literature
Bailey David, de Propris Lisa (2004) “A Bridge too Phare? EU Pre-accession Aid and Capacity-Building in the
Candidate Countries, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), pp. 619-639.
Bouquet Elodie (2006), National Coordination of EU Policy. Is Poland following the French Path?, Working Paper
FG1, 2006/06, SWP Berlin, May. Available on: http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?id=1669
Checkel Jeffrey T. (1999), “Sanctions, Social Learning and Institutions. Explaining State Compliance with the Norms
of the European Human Rights Regime”, CEU Working Papers IRES, (99/3), June.
Checkel, J.T. (2000). Bridging the Rational-Choice / Constructivist Gap? Theorizing Social Interaction in European
Institutions. Oslo: ARENA Working Paper no. 11.
Checkel Jeffrey (2001), “International Institutions and Socialization in the New Europe”, ARENA Working Papers, WP
01/11.
DiMaggio Paul J., Powell Walter W. (eds.) (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,
Chicago/London, Univ. of Chicago Press.
Dolowitz David, Marsh David (1996), “Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature”,
Political Studies, 44 (3), pp. 343-57.
Drulák Petr, Königová Lucie (2005) “From Socialist Past to Socialized Future” in Flockhart, Trine (ed): Socializing
Democratic Norms: The Role of International Organizations for the Construction of Europe. London: Palgrave, pp.
149-168.
Finnemore Martha, Sikkink Kathryn (1998), “International Norms Dynamics and Political Change”, International
Organization, 52 (4), Aut., pp. 887-917.
Grabbe Heather, (2001), “How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity”,
Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (6), Dec., pp. 1013-1031.
Haas Ernst B. (1968), The Uniting of Europe. Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-1957, (2d ed.), Stanford,
Stanford Univ. Press.
Haas Ernst B. (1990), When Knowledge is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations,
Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford, Univ. of California Press.
Königová, Lucie (2003) Genetically Modified Organisations? Twinning as a Case of Transnational Interaction. Paper
for the CEEISA/ISA Convention in Budapest, CEU, 26 – 29 June 2003.
Königová Lucie (2004), „Geneticky modifikované organizace? Twinning jako případ transnacionální interakce“,
Mezinárodní vztahy, 1/2004, pp. 7-26.
Lippert Barbara, Umbach Gaby and Wessels Wolfgang (2001). ‘Europeanisation of the CEE Executives: EU
Membership Negotiations as a Shaping Power’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No.6, pp. 980-1012.
Lippert Barbara, Umbach Gaby (2005) The Pressure of Europeanisation. Institut für Europäische Politik. Europäische
Schriften 82, Nomos.
Olsen Johan P. (2002). Towards a European Administrative Space? Oslo: ARENA Working Paper no 26/02.
Olsen Johan P. – B. Guy Peters (eds.) (1996). Lessons from Experience: Experiential Learning in Administrative
Reforms in Eight Democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Papadimitriou Dimitris, Phinnemore David (2003a), “Exporting Europeanisation to the Wider Europe : The Twinning
Exercise and Administrative Reform in the Candidate Countries and Beyond”, Journal of Southeast European and
Black Sea Studies, 3 (2), pp. 1-22.
72
Papadimitriou Dimitris, Phinnemore David (2003b), “Mettre en œuvre les jumelages institutionnels : les leçons du cas
roumain”, Revue d’Etude Comparative Est-Ouest, 34 (3), Sept. pp. 65-83.
Peters, B. Guy (1999). Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. London: Pinter.
Risse Thomas, Ropp Stephen, Sikkink Kathryn (eds.) (1999), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and
Domestic Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rose Richard, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy, Chatham (N.J.), Chatham House, 1993.
Schimmelfennig Frank (2001), “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement
of the European Union”, International Organization, 55 (1), pp. 47-80.
Schimmelfennig Frank, Sedelmeier Ulrich (2004), “Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate
countries of Central and Eastern Europe”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (4), August, pp. 661-679.
Smith Michael (2004), “Towards a theory of EU foreign policy making : multi-level governance, domestic politics, and
national adaptation to Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (4).
Stone Diane (2004), “Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy”, Journal of European
Public Policy, 11 (3), June, pp. 545-566.
Sverdrup, Ulf (2000). Ambiguity and Adaptation - Europeanization of Administrative Institutions as Loosely Coupled
Processes. ARENA report No. 8 2000, Oslo.
Tomalová Eliška (2005) “French Cultural Diplomacy”, In: Sborník Západoevropských studií, Karolinum, Praha.
Tulmets Elsa (2003a), “Les programmes d’aide de l’Union européenne à l’Est : analyser l’impact des réformes”, Revue
d’Etude Comparative Est-Ouest, 34 (3), pp. 5-36.
Tulmets Elsa (2003b), “L’impact de l’élargissement de l’Union européenne sur la coopération française et allemande à
l’Est : quelle gouvernance ?”, Revue d’Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest, 34 (3), pp. 111-156.
Tulmets Elsa (2003c), “La coopération allemande face à l’élargissement de l’Union européenne : de Transform à
PHARE/Twinning “, Allemagne d’Aujourd’hui, (166), Oct.-Dec., pp. 68-94.
Tulmets Elsa (2005a), “The Management of New Forms of Governance by Former Accession Countries : Institutional
Twinning in Estonia and Hungary”, European Law Journal, 11 (5), Sept., pp. 657-674.
Tulmets Elsa (2005b), “New Modes of Governance in EU’s External Relations: Explaining the Transfer of Ideas and
Cooperation Methods from the Enlargement to the Neighbourhood Policy”, in: Šarūnas Liekis et al (eds.),
European Union and its New Neighbourhood: Different Countries, Common Interests, Mykolas Romeris
University, Vilnius, pp. 26-52.
Tulmets Elsa (2005c), “La conditionnalité dans la politique d’élargissement de l’Union européenne à l’Est: un cadre
d’apprentissages et de socialisation mutuelle?”, thèse de doctorat en science politique, Institut d’Etudes Politiques
de Paris/Freie Universität Berlin. 28 Septembre.
Tulmets Elsa (2006), “L’adaptation de la méthode ouverte de coordination à la politique d’élargissement de l’UE :
l’expérience des jumelages institutionnels en Estonie et en Hongrie”, Politique européenne, (18), hiver, pp. 155189.
Documents
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi), Aufgaben des BMWi im Rahmen des Twinning,
http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/Twinning,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
Christensen Jens (2001) Projekt:Kompetenceudvikling af danske deltagelse i EU Twinning projekter på miljøområdet.
Ekonomistyrningsverket (2002) A Concise Guide to Twinning. A key Tool for Institution Building in the EU
Enlargement Process. December 2002.
73
European Commission (1995), Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration
into the Internal Market of the Union, COM (95) 163 final, 3 May.
European Commission (1997), “Agenda 2000, For a Stronger and Larger Union” (COM (97) 2000 final), 5/97.
European Commission (1998), Jumelage: un instrument d’‘institution building’, fascicule d’information, December.
European Commission (1999), An Evaluation of PHARE Public Administration Reform Programmes : Final Report.
Online on: http://europea.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/reports/PHARE/951465.pdf.
European
Commission
(2001a).
Twinning
in
Action,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/Twinning/pdf/Twinning_en.pdf.
European Commission (2001b) White Paper on European Governance, COM (2001) 428 final. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf.
European Commission (2002a), Preparing Candidate Countries for the Accession to the EU – Institution Building – A
Reference Manual on “Twinning” Projects, Manual downloaded from the website of DG Elargissement
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/Twinning/htm), February.
European Commission (2002b), « Communication de la Commission concernant les plans d’action dans le domaine des
capacités administratives et judiciaires et le suivi des engagements pris, dans le cadre des négociations d’adhésion,
par les pays participant à ces négociations », COM(2002) 256 final, Bruxelles, 5 June.
European Commission (2002c), Annual Report 2001 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on the EC Development Policy and the Implementation of the External Assistance (COM(2002) 490 final),
Bruxelles, 12 September. Online on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/index-en.htm.
European Commission (2002d), Vers l’Union élargie. Document de stratégie et Rapport sur les progrès réalisés par
chacun des pays candidats sur la voie de l’adhésion (COM (2002) 700 final ; SEC (2002) 1400-1412), Bruxelles, 9
Oct.
European Commission (2003a), Wider Europe-Neighbourhood : a New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and
Southern Neighbours, communication to the Council and the Parliament, 11/03/2003, COM (2003) 104 final.
European Commission (2003c), Convergence with EU environmental legislation in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and
Central Asia: a Guide, Luxemburg, Office for Official Publications of the EC.
European Commission (2004a), European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper, Communication from the
Commission COM (2004) 373 final, 12 May.
European Commission (2004b), Communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission Action Plans
under the European Neighbourhood Policy, COM (2004) 795 final, 9 Dec.
European Commission (2005a), Consolidation, conditionality, communication – the strategy of the enlargement policy,
IP/05/1392, 9 Nov.
European Commission (2005b), Institution-Building in the Framework of European Union Policie. A Reference Manual
on
Twinning
Projects,
Online
on:
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/manual_2005_en.pdf
European Commission (2006a), Twinning: Building Europe Together. Luxemburg, Office for Official Publications of
the EC.
European
Commission
(2006b),
“List
of
mandated
bodies “,
online
on:
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/mandated_bodies_191006_en.pdf
European Court of Auditors (1997), “Special Report n°3/97 concerning the decentralized system for the implementation
of the PHARE programme (period 1990–1995) together with the Commission’s replies”, 97/C 175/02, Official
Journal of the European Communities, pp. 4–47.
74
European Court of Auditors (2003), “Special Report No 6/2003 concerning Twinning as the main instrument to support
institution-building in Candidate Countries together with the Commission’s replies”, June.
European Parliament (2003), Report on 'Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our
Eastern and Southern Neighbours' (COM(2003) 104 - 2003/2018(INI)), Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human
Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, Rapporteur: Pasqualina Napoletano.
European Parliament (2005), Report on the European Neighbourhood Policy (2004/2166 (INI)), Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Rapporteur: Charles Tannock.
EuropeAid Co-operation Office / (in cooperation with) DG Enlargement, Institutional Twinning Projects Thesaurus, 1st
version, 2005.
Ferrero-Waldner Benita (2006a), “The EU in the World”, speech/05/59, European Policy Centre Breakfast Meeting,
Brussels, 2 February.
Ferrero-Waldner Benita (2006b), “The European Neighbourhood Policy – The EU’s Newest Foreign Policy
Instrument”, European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, pp. 139-142.
Hübner Danuta (2006), “The essential role of Community conditionality in the triumph of democracy and market
economy”, speech 06/27, Conference: European Strategies for Promoting Democracy in Postcommunist Countries,
Vienna, 21 January.
Landaburu Eneko (2006), “From Neighbourhood to Integration Policy: are there concrete alternatives to
enlargement ?”, conference CEPS “Revitalising Europe”, Brussels, 23 Jan.
Ministerstvo financí ČR a Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR (2006), Účast České republiky v projektech Twinningové
spolupráce v jiných zemích.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR (2006a) Finanční a personální vyhodnocení variant institucionálního uspořádání
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky. Výňatky z analýzy firmy Deloitte, která byla zpracována na
žádost MZV.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR / Odbor rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci (2006b) Návrh věcného záměru
zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí. 18.9.2006.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR / Odbor rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci (2006c) Předkládací zpráva k
návrhu věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR / Odbor rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci (2006d) Stávající a návrh
nového institucionálního uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky.
Patten
Chris,
Solana
Javier
(2002),
Joint
letter
on
Wider
Europe,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/_0130163334_001_en.pdf
Prodi Romano (2002), “A Wider Europe. A Proximity policy as the key to Stability”, speech/02/619, Brussels, Dec.
SIDA (2005) Twinning – hörnsten i EU:s utvidgning.
Solana Javier (2003), “European Security Strategy. A Secure Europe in a Better World”, Brussels, 12 Dec.
Underigsministret, Danmark (2006) Dansk Deltagelse i EU-Twinning. August 2006.
Verheugen Günter (2004), “The European Neighbourhood Policy” Prime Ministerial Conference of the Vilnius and
Visegrád Democracies: "Towards a Wider Europe: the new agenda" , Bratislava, Speech/04/141, 19 March.
Vláda České republiky (2002) Koncepce zahraniční rozvojové pomoci ČR (Usnesení vlády č. 91/2002)
Vláda České republiky (2003) Koncepce proexportní politiky ČR. Usnesení vlády č. 188/2003.
Vláda České Republiky (2005) Teritoriální priority v rámci Společné zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiky. Usnesení
vlády č. 388/2005.
75
Twinning Evaluations
Birker et al, (2000), Report on an Assessment of the Twinning Instrument under Phare, Brussels.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) / Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
(2006), Twinning e-VALuation: Effect and Value of Five Projects with German Participation, Berlin.
Cooper Chris, Mikael Johansen (2003), An Evaluation of Completed Twinning Projects. A report presented to the
meeting of National Contact Points in Brussels.
Dixelius Paul, Haglund Peter (2003), Promotion of the Swedish Participation in EU Phare-Twinning, Sida Evaluation
03/14, Department for Central and Eastern Europe.
DG Enlargement / OMAS Consortium (2001), Assessment of the European Union Phare Programmes, Multi-Country,
Ad Hoc Report on the Twinning Instrument, Report No. S/ZZ/EUR/01006.
DG Enlargement / EMS Consortium (2004), From Pre-Accession to Accession. Thematic Evaluation of Phare Suppport
allocated in 1999-2002 and implemented until November 2003. Second Generation Twinning Preliminary
Findings, Thematic Evalution Report.
DG Enlargement (2006), Overall Assessment of Completed Twinning Projects (3rd follow-up). Twinning Evaluation
Report.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR (2001), Twinning 1998, 1999 z pohledu přijímajících institucí české státní správy.
WM Enterprise (2006), Interim Evaluation of European Union Funded Projects (Pre-Accession Instrument Phare) –
Final Summary Report on the Phare Programme (2000-2003) in the Czech Republic.
76
Appendix 1 – Questionnaires
National Contact Points - TWO Questionnaire
Name:
Position:
I – Creation / location of the NCP
1. When was the NCP created in your country?
2. Where was it first located?
-
Ministry of Finance
Organisation linked to the Prime Minister (please specify exact name): ……..
Other (please specify): ………………………
(Can you provide with an institutional chart / organigram?)
3. Did your country encounter difficulties in establishing the NCP? If yes, why?
4. Did the location change over time? If yes, why?
5. What king of advice would you give to new member state regarding the creation / location of the NCP?
II – Staff / experts
6. How many people work at the NCP in general?
7. How many people work at the NCP on:
-
Twinning
TAIEX
Other EU programmes/instruments: (please, specify)………………
8. What kind of status do these persons have?
Please be precise: function (coordination of Twinning, etc…), status (civil servant, contractual, internships…)
9. Was it / is it easy to mobilise experts from national administration?
10. If not, what role did the NCP play in mobilising these experts? What kind of solutions did you find?
(Please, detail)………………………………
11. Have you established a database of experts? If so, do you have some lessons learned to address?
12. What kind of advice could you give to member states with limited financial / human resources?
III – Proposals
13. How did / do you manage to get as many proposals as possible?
14. Has the ratio between the number of proposals and proposals accepted been satisfying?
-
for Twinning:…………….
for Twinning light:……….
15. Do you regularly elaborate statistics on this and other issues related to Twinning or TAIEX?
If so: - on Twinning
on TAIEX
IV – Communication
16. What are your communication tasks?
17. Which persons / institutions do you communicate with most? Why?
(Please, specify)…………………….
18. Did you create a web site? If yes, what are its functions?
-
overall information on Twinning / TAIEX
circulation of the project fiches
communication with sectoral actors
other (please specify):……………..
V – Evaluation
19. Did / do you conduct evaluations on specific projects? (If yes, could you make them available?)
20. Did / do you conduct overall evaluations on Twinning implemented by your national experts? (If yes, could
you make them available?)
21. Did / do you organise annual meetings with PAAs / RTAs, projects leaders or other relevant persons (please,
specify)?
22. If yes, when did you start organising them and how often?
23. Do you have any suggestions to improve evaluations and lessons learned?
V – Summary
24. What kind of advise would you give to new member states with regard to:
•
The location of the NCP
•
The coordination tasks of the NCP
•
The selection of experts
•
The selection of partner countries
TWO – Questionnaire - Twinners (Project Leaders, PAAs/RTAs, experts)
Name
Position
Please mark all answers to multiple choice questions in bold.
I.
Introduction and Perception of Twinning
1. For how long have you been/were you involved in twinning?
II.
Calls for Proposals
2. How do/did you find the cooperation between your country’s administration and the Commission in the prebidding phase?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
excellent
good
not very good
poor
none of the above – please describe in your own words
(Please feel free to comment on any of these options)
3. How have the bids/proposals been prepared?
a)
b)
c)
d)
by prospective project leaders
by prospective twinners
in prospective project leaders and twinners
by a person responsible for twinning.
4. What was/has been your role in the bid preparation?
a)
b)
c)
d)
participating in the drafting stage
recommending experts
other – please describe
5. How have project leaders and contact persons at individual ministries/institutions been selected?
a) in a competitive selection
b) by the NCP
c) by a person responsible for twinning at the ministry
6. Which criteria have been considered in the selection of project leaders and twinners and which have been the
most important ones?
a)
b) previous experience in the region
c) experience in similar project
d) communication skills
7. Is there any difference between the past, recent and current projects? If so, please specify whether in:
a) organisation of the preparation
b) implementation management
c) selection of project leaders and/or twinners
Please be specific about the differences if any.
8. Have you
a) done any fact-finding missions,
b) researched information on the country/field
c) involve your country’s embassies in the CEECs?
9. Do/did you know about any deal-making before the presentations/during the selection process (between
Member States’ administrations)?
10. How have international partnerships happened?
11. Has any previous knowledge of the target country/sector/previous project outputs and results been required
or factored in? If so, by whom?
III.
Project Implementation
12. How do/did the twinning contract negotiations go?
a)
b)
c)
d)
well and the contract was quite easy to negotiate
well but the contract wasn’t easy to negotiate
not so well and the contract was not easy to negotiate
Are/were the guaranteed results and other targets easy to define? Which criteria or previous experience
are/were the targets based on?
13. How do/did the receiving ministries/institutions cope with their twinning contract commitments in terms of:
a) time allocations: - well
- not so well
- poorly
b) commitment:
- well
- not so well
- poorly
c)
- well
- not so well
expertise:
- poorly
d) communication: - well
- not so well
- poorly
e)
language skills: - well
- not so well
- poorly
14. How have your administration’s officials look at the phenomenon of “professional twinners”?
a) have welcome(d) them (if so, please indicate why)
b) have not been very happy about them (if so, please indicate why)
15. How have the receiving country’s officials look at the phenomenon of “professional twinners”?
a) have welcome(d) them (if so, please indicate why)
b) have not been very happy about them (if so, please indicate why)
16. Have there been any requirements for twinners’ preparation and did twinning phases differ in that respect?
17. How have you find the conditions and environment of their work in the receiving country:
- offices
- equipment,
- working conditions,
- communication,
- working relationships
- other aspects?
Please, rate each category on a scale between 5 (excellent) and 1 (very bad). If you rate any of the above 3,2 or
1, please add your comment on the specific problems you have encountered.
18. Have there been any regular contacts between PAAs/RTAs and/or their assistants, twinning partners, NCPs,
staff of the EC delegations? If so, please give your evaluation.
19. Please, describe the partnership mechanisms in projects you have been involved in. Have there been any
substantial differences between partnerships with certain countries/in certain sectors?
20. Can you provide a general assessment of the implementation of twinning projects in the following
categories? (one sentence for each, please)
IV.
-
transfer of knowledge
-
transfer of rules/norms/standards
-
transfer of technology
Project Evaluation
21. Have the quarterly reports been relevant enough and have they provided a true picture of the actual
implementation?
22. Have targets (benchmarks and guaranteed results) been easy to measure?
23. Have there been any project evaluation feedback loops? Have there been any lessons learned communicated
to subsequent project bidders/project providers in the next rounds of twinning?
24. What has been the feedback from you like in terms of:
- form,
- regularity
- content?
25. Have you had any feedback from the receiving country’s institutions?
26. Has there been any sharing of good practice with other countries at the EU level? If so, in what form?
27. Which skills, qualifications and competencies did you find/have you found most important for your work?
-
management
coordination
communication
specific expertise / technical knowledge
language
( Be specific, please.)
28. Have there been any national / sectoral / interdepartmental analyses or surveys of twinning as such and
individual twinning projects? If so, would they be available to us for analysis?
29. Have you participated in any way in the evaluation of twinning by the Commission and/or other twinning
assessments or reviews? If so, in what way?
30. Please identify:
a)
b)
c)
d)
significant negatives of twinning:
significant positives of twinning:
what worked best in twinning:
the major failures of twinning:
31. What advice would you give to CEECs as junior partners in twinning projects with regard to:
•
-
selection of projects
importance of identification the competitive advantage
specific experience of enlargement
•
-
selection of experts
selection criteria (manager vs. technical expert)
•
-
selection of partner countries
which criteria to use
how to use the experience from one candidate/third country for another?
is this type of experience transferable?
(One or two sentences per each of the three fields, please.)
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
TWI Questionnaire - Twinners (Project Leaders, PAAs/RTAs, experts)
Name:
Position:
Twinning Project(s):
Please mark all answers to multiple choice questions in bold.
I.
Introduction and Perception of Twinning
1. For how long have you been/were you involved in twinning?
II.
Calls for Proposals
2. How have you found the cooperation between your country’s administration and the Commission in the prebidding phase?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
excellent
good
not very good
poor
none of the above – please describe in your own words
3. Who has initiated twinning projects at your ministry/institution?
a)
b)
c)
d)
a person responsible for twinning in (please, indicate if there is one)
a prospective project leader
EU department
various actors (heads of department, section chiefs, foreign affairs department etc.) – please be specific
about which one(s)
4. How have the project fiches been prepared?
a)
b)
c)
d)
by prospective project leaders
by prospective twinners
by prospective project leaders and twinners
by a person responsible for twinning.
5. What was/has been your role in the project fiche preparation?
a)
b)
c)
d)
participating in the drafting stage
recommending participants
other – please describe
6. How have project leaders and contact persons at your ministry/institution been selected?
a) in a competitive selection
b) by the NCP
c) by a person responsible for twinning at the ministry
7. Which criteria have been considered in the selection of project leaders and twinning participants and which
have been the most important ones?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
previous experience with foreign aid/international cooperation projects
communication and/or language skills (please specify which one of these two)
prospective involvement in the implementation of what is the subject matter of the twinning
no particular skills – random choice and general availability
8. Is there any difference between past, recent and current projects? If so, please specify whether in:
a) organisation of the preparation
b) implementation management
c) selection of project leaders and/or twinners
Please be specific about the differences if any.
9. Has your ministry’s/institution’s representative been present at the selection meeting at the Commission
delegation/representation
a)
b)
c)
d)
always (if so, what was his/her role?)
sometimes (if so, what was his/her role?)
rarely
never
10. Do/did you know about any deal-making before the presentations/during the selection process (between
Member States’ administrations)?
11. How have international partnerships happened?
12. Has any previous knowledge of the target country/sector/previous project outputs and results been required
or factored in? If so, by whom?
III.
Project Implementation
13. How do/did the twinning contract negotiations go?
a) well and the contract was quite easy to negotiate
b) well but the contract wasn’t easy to negotiate
c) not so well and the contract was not easy to negotiate
14. How has your ministry/institution coped with its twinning contract commitments in terms of:
a) time allocations: - well
- not so well
- poorly
b) commitment:
- well
- not so well
- poorly
c)
expertise:
- well
- not so well
- poorly
d) communication: - well
- not so well
- poorly
e)
language skills: - well
- not so well
- poorly
15. How have your administration’s officials look at the phenomenon of “professional twinners”?
c) have welcome(d) them (if so, please indicate why)
d) have not been very happy about them (if so, please indicate why)
16. Have there been any requirements for twinners’ preparation from your side and have twinning phases
differed in that respect?
17. How have the twinners, to your knowledge, found the conditions and environment of their work in your
country in terms of:
- offices
- equipment,
- working conditions,
- communication,
- working relationships
- other aspects?
Please, rate each category on a scale between 5 (excellent) and 1 (very bad). If you rate any of the above 3,2 or
1, please add your comment on the specific problems you have encountered.
18. Please, describe the partnership mechanisms in projects you have been involved in. Have there been any
substantial differences between partnerships with certain countries/in certain sectors?
19. Can you provide a general assessment of the implementation of twinning projects in the following
categories? (one sentence for each, please)
IV.
-
transfer of knowledge
-
transfer of rules/norms/standards
-
transfer of technology
Project Evaluation
20. Have the quarterly reports been relevant enough and have they provided a true picture of the actual
implementation?
21. Have targets (benchmarks and guaranteed results) been easy to measure?
(If not, please specify why)
22. Have there been any project evaluation feedback loops? Have there been any lessons learned communicated
to subsequent project bidders/project providers in the next rounds of twinning?
23. What has been the feedback from you to your institution/ministry like in terms of:
- form,
- regularity
- content?
(e.g. written or oral reports, meetings, etc.)
24. Has there been any sharing of good practice with other countries at the EU level? If so, in what form?
25. Which skills, qualifications and competencies did you find/have you found most important for your work as
a project leader/participant?
-
management
coordination
communication
specific expertise / technical knowledge
language
(Be specific, please.)
26. Have there been any national / sectoral / interdepartmental analyses or surveys of twinning as such and
individual twinning projects? If so, would they be available to us for analysis?
27. Have you participated in any way in the evaluation of twinning by the Commission and/or other twinning
assessments or reviews? If so, in what way?
28. Please identify:
a)
b)
c)
d)
significant negatives of twinning:
significant positives of twinning:
what worked best in twinning:
the major failures of twinning:
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
Appendix 2 – Data Collection Overview
I.
Interviews and Questionnaires – NCPs
Country
Old Member
States
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
France
Germany
Italy
Ireland
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
New Member
States
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Turkey
Questionnaires and/or Interview
questionnaire & interview
questionnaire
questionnaire
questionnaire
Questionnaire & interview
questionnaire
questionnaire
-*
-*
interview
interview
questionnaire
questionnaire
interview
-
TOTAL
* Several e-mail requests sent and phone contact made without any results.
II.
Interviews and Questionnaires – RTAs/PAAs, PLs, STEs, MTEs
Country
Old Member
States
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Greece
France
Germany
Italy
Ireland
The Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
New Member
States
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Turkey
TOTAL
Respondents
Contacted
-***
21
34
11
27
61****
6
5
9
55
27
11
19
23
54
46
13
8
Respondents
Reached
Interviews and
Completed
Questionnaires
Reaction
Rate*
Success
Rate**
-***
21
29
10
3
61
6
5
9
42
13
11
1
3
23
0
5
4
6
62%
32%
9%
11%
38%
0%
100%
45%
11%
62%
38%
10%
100%
38%
0%
100%
45%
14%
15
11
15
8
37
46
12
3
4
11
4
3
8
19
10
0
15%
100%
21%
13%
15%
41%
77%
0%
27%
100%
27%
38%
22%
41%
83%
0%
125
Note: The Respondents Reached figures include interviewees but exclude NCPs and CFCU/AO staff.
*
Calculated as a percentage of questionnaires returned and interviews made out of the total number of
respondents contacted in the country.
**
Calculated as a percentage of questionnaires returned and interviews made out of the total number of
respondents reached in the country.
***
Due to personal changes at the Austrian NCP, we were unable to contact the persons responsible of the
NCP before the end of July and only met them in mid-September. We considered that September was
thus too late to send the questionnaire around to Austrian RTAs
****
In the German case (but that may also apply to other countries), it is impossible to evaluate exactly how
many respondents have been contacted as some NCPs also accepted to forward the questionnaire to
their national experts and did not inform us of the number of persons contacted.
Appendix 3 – List of Respondents
The below list includes the information on the sources of primary data for our research project (i.e.
interviewees and questionnaire completers).1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Van Hamme, Alain, Institution-Building Unit, responsible for Twinning, DG Enlargement, European
Commission, 22 February 2006 (Brussels), 8-9 June 2006 (Brussels) and 28 August 2006 (Copenhagen).
Mori, Marcello, Task Manager, Neighbourhood Directorate Twinning Operations (MEDA & TACIS),
EuropeAid Co-operation Office, European Commission, Brussels, 4 April 2006.
Palombi, Stéphanie, Neighbourhood Directorate Twinning Operations (MEDA & TACIS), EuropeAid Cooperation Office, European Commission, Brussels, 4 April 2006.
“OLD” MEMBER STATES
Austria
•
Meingast, Stefan, Project Manager, Agency for European Integration and Economic Development (former NCP),
interview Vienna, 19 September 2006.
Schweitzer, Désirée, NCP, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of EU-Enlargement, interview Vienna, 19
September 2006.
Belgium
•
Demesmaeker, Katty, Desk Officer, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Denmark
•
Jensen, Lillian, Assistant to the Danish NCP, Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview Copenhagen,
24 August 2006.
Petersen, Carl Balle, Danish NCP (replaced as of 1 September 2006 by Thomas Djurhuus, Royal Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview Copenhagen, 24 August 2006.
•
Experts
Andersen, Niels Chresten, Head of Secretariat Growth and Regional Development Unit, Europe Direct
Bornholm in Denmark, interview Copenhagen, 27 August 2006.
Berg, Torsten, Manager International Projects Section, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, Danish
Ministry of Family and Consumer Affairs, interview Søborg, 25 August 2006.
Brønnum, Lisa, Chief Consultant, Danish School of Public Administration, interview Copenhagen, 29 August
2006.
1
The interviews were conducted by Elsa Tulmets, Eliška Tomalová, Lucie Königová and Petra Häfner.
Christensen, Jens, Project Manager, professional consultant, Danish Institute for Environmental Management,
interview Copenhagen, 28 August 2006.
Gewalli, Lars Erik, Head of Division, International Consulting Statistics Denmark (DST), interview
Copenhagen, 25 August 2006.
Johansen, Frank, Danish Immigration Service, interview Copenhagen, 29 August 2006.
Jørgensen, Henry, RTA in Romania, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, interview Copenhagen, 28 August
2006.
Linnemann, Lars, Programme Coordinator, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Unit,
Øllgaard, Else, Danish Immigration Service, interview Copenhagen, 29 August 2006.
Pedersen, Klaus Balslev, International Consulting, Statistics Denmark (DST), interview Copenhagen, 25 August
2006.
Percy-Smith, Alex, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, International Unit, Research Centre Flakkebjerg,
Simonsen, Bo, RTA in Croatia, International Consulting, Statistics Denmark (DST), interview Copenhagen, 25
August 2006.
Sjørup, Karen, The Danish Research Centre on Gender Equality, Roskilde University, interview Copenhagen, 30
August 2006.
Turner, Lone, Project Leader, International Project Coordinator, Danish Patent and Trademark Office, interview
Copenhagen, 28 August 2006.
vom Braucke, Thomas, Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, interview Copenhagen, 29
August 2006.
Warming, Peter, International Consultant, Local Government Denmark, interview Copenhagen, 24 August 2006.
Finland
•
Linkola, Eija-Leena, Counsellor NCP, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
•
Experts
Asikainen, Esa, former RTA in Latvia, Border Security Expert, Finnish Border Guard HQ.
Grouev, Anne-Marie, PL in Bulgaria, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health
(STAKES) in Finland, International Development Cooperation.
Heiskanen, Markus, PL, The Border Guard.
Janhunen, Olli, PL, Statistics Finland.
Kiesiläinen, Kari, Head of Department of Judicial Administration, Ministry of Justice.
Kojonsaari, Tapani, RTA in Poland, Ministry of Labour.
Liila, Eljas, Project Planner, Ministry of Labour.
Loman, Timo, RTA in Romania, Improving Fight Against Corruption.
Mylly, Markku, Director general, Finnish Maritime Administration.
Sihvola, Ari, Head of HAUS International, HAUS Finnish Institute of Public Management.
Tikkanen, Jussi, Senior Adviser, International Affairs, Finnish Ministry of Justice.
Vihavainen, Hilkka, Twinning projects Coordinator, PL and RTA, Statistics Finland, Director of International
Affairs.
France
•
Canton-Bacara, George-Elisabeth, NCP, General Secretariat of European Affairs (Secrétariat Général des
Affaires européennes), Office of the Prime Minister.
•
Experts
Andre, Daniel, expert, Adjoint au chef du service des nouvelles des marchés (SNM) Chef du bureau de la
conjoncture et de l'observation économique des marchés (BCOEM), interview Paris, 24 May 2006.
Maitrepierre, Eric, Sous directeur des relations internationales, École Nationale de la Magistrature, interview
Paris, 22 May 2006.
Zigmant, Anne-Marie, PL, International team, DATAR-DIACT (Délégation Interministérielle à l'aménagement
et à la compétitivité des Territoires), interview Paris, 23 May 2006.
Germany
•
Bartels, Michael, German Twinning NCP, Ministry of Economy, interview Berlin, 4 September 2006.
Toschev, Inge, Head of Unit, Federal Ministry of Economy and Technology.
•
Experts
Bambauer, Robert, RTA in Poland.
Bormuth, Claus, PL in Hungary, German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection
(BMELV).
Ferchland, Reinhard, former PAA in Hungary and RTA in Estonia, Niedersächsische Landesforsten.
Fiedler, Johannes, former RTA in Bulgaria.
Friedrichs, Stefan, RTA in Hungary.
Gentzsch, Dieter, PL in Malta and Cyprus.
Gossger, Klaus, PL in Hungary.
Grosch, Ulrich A., RTA and STE in Poland and Slovenia.
Herrmann, Anna-Henriette, STE, PAA, RTA in Latvia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Ministerialrätin at the
Ministry for Economics of the Land Brandenburg.
Jendrike, Harald, PAA in the Czech Republic, State Ministry of Environment and Agriculture of Saxony
(SMUL).
Kaschell, Gerd, RTA.
Korts, Gerhard, RTA in Romania.
Link, Dieter, former PAA and Team Leader in Hungary and Poland, retired.
Messerschmidt, Bernd, RTA in Serbia.
Rutz, Hans Walter, PAA, RTA, Coordinator in Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania.
Sander, Andrea, Ministry of Rural Development, Environment and Consumer Protection of the Land
Brandenburg (MLUV).
Schmidt-Bens, Walter, RTA in Bulgaria.
Schrader, Hans-Jörg, Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium.
Spicka, Peter, RTA in the Czech Republic.
Springer, Paul, RTA, German-Czech Twinning project on reforms in the field of Justice, Czech Ministry of
Justice. Discussion on the phone, Prague, 5 September 2006.
Steinhoff, Joachim, RTA.
von Keitz, Stephan, Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz.
Zehle, Eckhard, former PAA and STE in Latvia, Estonia and Slovakia, retired (previously Ministry of Rural
Development), Environment and Consumer Protection of the Land Brandenburg (MLUV).
Greece
•
Bakatsianos, Georgios, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Expert in European Affairs, DG European Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Ireland
•
Clarke, Michael, Assistant Principal Officer, Internal Market Section/NCP for TAIEX, Market Access Unit,
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Marcoux, Nicolas, Head of International Unit, Institute of Public Administration.
Newberry, Ashling, Programme Manager, Institute of Public Administration.
Italy
•
Aliberti, Pier Giorgio, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Netherlands
•
de Kat-van Meurs, Ida, NCP, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Southeast and Eastern Europe and Matra Programme
Department, interview The Hague, 14 September 2006.
Roymans, Anja, EVD, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, e-mail: [email protected], interview The Hague, 14
September 2006.
•
Experts
Hoogeweg, Jan, PL, Team International, Dutch Belastingdienst, interview Utrecht, 15 September 2006.
Korver, Adriaan, former PAA and RTA in the Czech Republic, Netherlands School of Public and Occupational
Health.
de Kruif, Koen M., PL, Dutch Environmental Protection Service (DCMR), interview Schiedam, 14 September
2006.
van Meggelen, Jos, PL, Senior Advisor International Co-operation, Dutch Plant Protection Service.
Snaaterse, Jaap, PL, Team International, Dutch Belastingdienst, interview Utrecht, 15 September 2006.
van den Weg, Sip, former PAA and RTA, Dutch Tax and Customs Service, DCMR, interview Schiedam, 14
September 2006.
Sweden
•
Hattenbach, Ingrun, NCP, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), e-mail:
[email protected], interview Stockholm, 10 August 2006.
•
Experts
Ejdemark, Anders, Performance Management and Internal Control, Swedish National Financial Management
Authority, interview Stockholm, 9 August 2006.
Kjerf, Tomas, Analyst, Swedish National Financial Management Authority, interview Stockholm, 9 August
2006.
Ormalm, Chris, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, interview Stockholm, 9 August 2006.
Wiklund, Bengt, Swedish Customs.
Wilholm, Gösta, Office for International Projects (OIP), Swedish Tax Agency Head Office.
United Kingdom
•
Slater, Candida, UK National Contact Point, EU External, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, interview
London, 7 March 2006.
Ulysses, Katerina, NCP, EU External, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, interview London, 7 March 2006.
•
Experts
Barry, Kevin, International Development Manager, National Probation Service for England and Wales, Home
Office, interview London, 7 March 2006.
Bedingfield, John, RTA in Romania, Department of Trade and Industry DTI.
Gilchrist, Rod, former RTA in Slovakia, GO-East.
McLoughlin, Derek, RTA in the Czech Republic, Ni-co – project management company, interview Prague, 19
September 2006.
Parker, Robin, RTA in the Czech Republic, National Probation Directorate, interview Prague, 18 September
2006.
Smith, Mark, RTA in the Czech Republic, Hull Humberside Police.
Thomas, Len, PAA, RTA in Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Kosovo, Croatia, retired.
“NEW” MEMBER STATES:
Bulgaria
Girginov, Plamen, Head of Unit Programming and Evaluation in Bulgaria.
Manchev, Htisto, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Bulgaria, Head of the Supreme Cassation
Prosecutor’s Office, Leader of the PHARE-projects of the PPO.
Nikolova, Pavlina, Prosecutor, Head of “Information, Analysis and Euro Integration” Department to SCPO in
Bulgaria, Manager of the PHARE-projects of the PPO.
Pencheva, Boriana, Director Management of EU Funds Directorate in Bulgaria, Bulgarian NCP.
Sachariev, Nedko, Chief Expert of the International Relation Department to the SCPO in Bulgaria, Coordinator
of the PHARE-projects of the PPO.
Sharenkov, Ivan, Head of Legal and International Cooperation Department in Bulgaria.
Czech Republic
•
Hendrichová, Jana, NCP for Twinning, Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance.
Lefnerová, Ludmila, Head of Department, Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance, interview Prague,
30 June 2006.
Sklenářová, Jana, Programme Officer, Twinning Out, Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance,
interview Prague, 30 June 2006.
•
Experts
Bala, Liana, CFCU, Ministry of Finance, interview Prague, 21 August 2006.
Brož, Luděk, Twinning contact person, EU Department, Czech Ministry of Agriculture, interview Prague, 27
September 2006.
Dolníčková, Petra, Twinning out Contact Person, Czech Ministry of Justice, interview Prague, 3 October 2006.
Heřtová, Dominika, Monitoring and Evaluation Department, Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance,
interview Prague, 15 August 2006.
Hradský, Vladimír, Twinning Out Contact Person, Trade Policy and Agriculture Section, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, interview Prague 26 October 2006.
Havrlíková, Martina, Contact person for Twinning, VÚZE (Czech Research Institute for Agricultural Economy),
Contact point for FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network), questionnaire forwarded by Renata Špillerová,
Ministry of Agriculture
Hercegová, Kristýna, Twinning Light Project Coordinator, Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
Hunt-Šafránková, Veronika, Twinning out Contact Person, Vice Director EU Department, Czech Ministry of
Environment, interview Prague, 13 October 2006.
Kiliánová, Blanka, Monitoring and Evaluation Department, Centre for Foreign Assistance, Ministry of Finance,
interview Prague, 15 August 2006.
Kuchta, Tomáš, Deputy Director, Trade Policy and Agriculture Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview
Prague 26 October 2006.
Mravčík, Viktor, Head of the Czech National Focal Point for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Government Office,
interview Prague, 27 September 2006.
Pelechová, Marta, SPO, Czech Ministry of Justice, interview Prague, 3 October 2006.
Petrtýl, Martin, SPO, STE, Czech Ministry of Environment, interview Prague, 13 October 2006.
Rázgová, Jana, Twinning Contact Person, International Relations and European Integration Department, Czech
Ministry of Interior, interview Prague, 4 October 2006.
Rozsívalová, Olga, Head of the EU Department, Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, interview Prague,
18 October 2006.
Špillerová, Renata, Twinning contact person, EU Department, Czech Ministry of Agriculture, interview Prague,
27 September 2006.
Zukalová, Jitka, Twinning contact person, EU Department, Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,
interview Prague, 18 October 2006.
Estonia
•
Experts
Gallagher, Michael, Director, Estonian Law Centre.
Gornischeff, Peter, Foreign Assistance Advisor (Monitoring), Estonian Ministry of Justice.
Kõrts, Marju, Head of the Foreign Aid Bureau, Estonian Ministry of Interior.
Läänerand, Viola, Advisor, Ministry of Justice.
Hungary
•
Experts
Debri-Révész, Tímea, Project Manager, questionnaire sent by Andrea Megyeri.
Unknown, (summary of 2-3 persons), MoH, questionnaire sent by Andrea Megyeri.
Weszelovszky, Eva, Twinning Coordinator, assisting the NCP, Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office.
Poland
•
Experts
Bukowska, Bogusława, Deputy Director, National Bureau for Drug Prevention in Poland.
Ciolkowska, Lucyna Dygas, PL, Regional Environmental Inspectorate in Zielona Góra.
Dowgiałło, Jerzy, Main specialist in MARD, Polish Department of Food Safety and Veterinary Matters.
Jablonski, Piotr, Director of National Bureau for Drug Prevention in Poland.
Kominek, Andrzej, Chief Expert, Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Korowajczyk, Marek, Head of Unit, Polish Ministry of Justice.
Norwa, Maksymilian, Specialist, Main Geodetic and Cartographic Office.
Szelągowska, Aleksandra, Director, Department of Finance, Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, questionnaire forwarded by Agnieszka Dziurdzia.
Romania
•
Experts
Barbatei, Gabriel, Head Projects Implementation Unit (PIU), Authority for Aliens, Romanian Ministry of
Administration and Interior.
Bejinaru, Florica, Senior Project Officer, Directorate for European integration, Superior Council of Magistracy
of Romania.
Chirila, Liliana, Head of PHARE Unit, Director Structural Funds Directorate, General Directorate for Structural
Instruments Management, Romanian Ministry of Environment and Water Management.
Cistelecan, Cristin, Head of Investment Office, Regional Development Agency West in Romania.
Cristea, Dan, PIU, General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police.
Dumitru, Elena, PL, Romanian Ministry of Environment and Water Management.
Jurma, Anca, Chief prosecutor, Service for International Cooperation, Public Information and Relations,
National Anticorruption Directorate, Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice
in Romania.
Leaota, Elena, PL, Romanian Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development (MAPDR).
Lupaşcu, Eliza, Project Manager, RTA, PAA, Counsellor, General Directorate for Regional Development,
Romanian Ministry of European Integration.
Marcu, Marinela Melania, Head of PIU, National Anti-Drug Agency in Romania.
Mihailov, Luminita, PL, Director South-East Regional Development Agency in Romania.
Musat, Liviu, PL, Director South Muntenia Regional Development Agency in Romania.
Negulescu, Gabriel, former Project Manager, General Directorate for Intelligence and Internal Protection,
Romanian Ministry of Administration and Interior.
Ontanu, Gheorghe, Chief of Department, Romanian Institute of Diagnostic and Animal Health.
Predescu, Octavian, Head of PIU, National Refugee Office, Romanian Ministry of Administration and Interior.
Stefan, Bogdan, Counsellor of European Integration, Romanian Ministry of European Integration, seconded in
the Romanian Ministry of Administration and Interior, General Directorate for European Integration and
International Relations, Project Coordination Unit.
Tailup, Ciprian, IT Specialist, Romanian Ministry of Administration and Interior.
Vasilescu, Lelia-Elena, Head of PIU, Anti-corruption General Directorate in Romania.
Voicu, Andrei, Head of the European Integration and Programme Service.
Slovakia
•
Minarovičová, Jana, Slovak National Contact Point, Government Office, interview Bratislava, 2 August 2006.
•
Experts
Alexyová, Katarína, Project Manager, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, interview Bratislava, 18
August 2006.
Gavora, Juraj, Head of Programming Department, Slovak Environmental Agency, Centre of the Environmental
Projects Programming, interview Bratislava, 2 August 2006.
Králik, Július, Senior Programme Officer, Ministry of Justice, interview Bratislava, 17 August 2006.
Krbaťová, Iveta, Project Unit of Foreign Aid, Ministry of Health, interview Bratislava, 17 August 2006.
Pätoprstá, Naděžda, Senior Programme Officer, Director of Foreign Aid Department, Ministry of Interior,
interview Bratislava, 2 August 2006.
Škublová, Zuzana, Senior Programme Officer, Project Unit of Foreign Aid, Ministry of Health, interview
Bratislava, 17 August 2006.
Tužinská, Miroslava, Senior Programme Officer, Programme Manager, Slovak Environmental Agency, Centre
of the Environmental Projects Programming, interview Bratislava, 2 August 2006.
Vakulová, Lucia, Ministry of Finance, Section for European Affairs, International Relations Division.
Virčík, Mário, Director, Senior Programme Officer, International Relations Department, Ministry of Finance,
interview Bratislava, 18 August 2006.
Zvara, Peter, Project Manager, Public Administration Section, Ministry of Interior.
Participation at Meetings, Workshops and Presentations:
Annual meeting of National Contact Points (NCP), Brussels, 8-9 June 2006. Discussions with participants from
France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, Serbia/Montenegro, European Commission.
Annual ERFA-meeting with RTAs (PAAs) and project leaders at the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Copenhagen, 28 August 2006. Discussions with Danish RTAs, former PAAs, PLs and the Danish NCP as
well as the representative of the European Commission.
Presentation of the Final Summary Report on the PHARE Programme (2000-2003) in the Czech Republic,
Prague, Ministry of Finance, 18 September 2006.
TAIEX Information Meeting, Prague, Ministry of Finance, 25 September 2006.
Relevant background interviews:
Möller Matthias, Transform programme, PHARE/Twinning and TACIS coordination, German Federal Ministry
of Finance, Berlin, 12 February 2001.
Horn Ursula, Transform, Twinning, German Federal Ministry of Economy, Berlin, 15 February 2001.
Větrovský Jiří, Director of department for economics and financial affairs, Czech Ministry of Finance, Prague,
15 August 2001.
Frühbauerová Jiřina, NF-PHARE, ISPA unit, Czech Ministry of Finance, Prague, 15 August 2001.
Pálfi Katalin, PHARE and ISPA programmes, Hungarian Ministry of Environment, Budapest, 23 August 2001.
Rozsa Judit, CFCU, national Treasury, Budapest, 24 August 2001.
Zupan van Eijk Jerica, coordination of European programmes, PHARE/twinning, Governmental Office of
European Affairs, Ljubljana, 17 July 2002.
Speck Andreas, Zawadzki Detlev, German Pre-Accession Advisors, PHARE/Twinning project on strategy to
combat illicit use of drogues, Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs, Tallinn, 11 September 2002.
Kern Martin, PHARE task Manager, EC Delegation in Tallinn, 12 September 2002.
Hilep Ülle, PHARE/Twinning, Estonian Ministry of Justice, Tallinn, 13 September 2002.
Sagstetter Norbert, PHARE/Twinning task manager, agriculture and regional policy, EC Delegation in Tallinn,
16 September 2002.
Mändmets Ronaldo, CFCU, coordination of financial assistance, Estonian Ministry of Finance, Tallinn, 26
September 2002.
Henkel Jürgen, Mächtel Robert, PHARE/Twinning task managers, SEQUA e.V., Bonn, 28 November 2002.
Stadler Mrs, PHARE/Twinning in the Baltic States, IRZ-Stiftung, Bonn, 3 December 2002.
Vreden Claus, Director of the IRZ-Stiftung, Bonn, 3 December 2002.
Von Arnim Mr, Twinning National Contact Point, German Federal Ministry of Finance, Berlin, 28 January
2003.
Cornuau Claude, French expert at the European Commission, DG Enlargement, participated to the creation of
Twinning from 1997 to 2000, Paris, 19 March 2003.
Debeusscher Anne-Louise, PHARE/Twinning and CARDS, DGCID, Bureau de l’ingénierie administrative,
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, 20 March 2003.
Canton-Bacara George, French Twinning National Contact Point, Secrétariat général du Comité interministériel
pour les questions de coopération économique européenne (SGCI) (now SGAE), Office of the Prime
Minister, Paris, 28 March 2003.
Leffler-Roth Carolyn, Twinning Team, DG Enlargement, European Commission, Brussels, 1st April 2003.
Van Hamme Alain, Institution-Building Unit, responsible for Twinning, DG Enlargement, European
Commission, Brussels, 2 April 2003.
Stausbøll Hans-Christian, AidCo, previously DG1A, European Commission, Brussels, 2 April 2003.
Verger Myriam, Desk Estonia, coordination of PHARE for Estonia, DG Enlargement, European Commission,
Brussels, 2 April 2003.
Digne Marie, previously Pre-Accession Adviser in Hungary, DG Regio, European Commission, Brussels, 3
April 2003.
Sinno Khaldoun, Task manager Twinning CARDS, EuropeAid Co-operation Office, European Commission,
Guyader Maurice, analysis on economics and trade, DG enlargement, European Commission, 3 April 2003.
Schuebel Dirk, Desk Hungary, DG enlargement, European Commission, 3 April 2003.
Burdin Catherine, coordination of bilateral and multilateral assistance to Eastern Europe (PHARE/Twinning),
GIP ADETEF, French Ministry of Finance, Paris, 17 April 2003.
Bouscharain Gérard, vice-director of GIP France Coopération Internationale (FCI), French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Paris, 24 April 2003.
Haworth Julia, Leigh Warren, British Twinning National Contact Point, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
London, 8 May 2003.
McLeish Brian, Terzeon Rebecca, Latto Benedict, Department for international Development (DfiD), London, 9
May 2003.
Schwartz Pierre, Pre-Accession Adviser, Zdenkó Ildikó, assistant PAA, French-Hungarian Twinning project on
rural development, Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Budapest, 8 September
2003.
Heil Péter, national development plan and EU programmes, Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 10
September 2003.
Krarup-Pétersen Tue, coordination of Twinning, EC Delegation in Hungary, Budapest, 10 September 2003.
Szabó Terez, PHARE/Twinning and ISPA, EC Delegation in Hungary, Budapest, 10 September 2003.
Wiley Thomas, general coordination of PHARE/Twinning, EC Delegation in Hungary, Budapest, 11 September
2003.
Matheidesz Réka, institution-building, national development plan and EU programmes, Office of the Prime
Minister, Budapest, 11 September 2003.
Rapcsák Janós, advisor of the government, Hungarian Twinning National Contact Point, Office of the Prime
Minister, Budapest, 11 September 2003.
Nemes Richárd, assistance PAA, Franco-German-Hungarian Twinning project on water management, Hungarian
Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest, 11 September 2003.
Henry de Villeneuve Pierre, PAA, Augusztinovicz Ádám, assistant to the PAA, French-Hungarian Twinning
project on accidental water pollution, Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest, 11
September 2003.
Ray Alex, PAA, British-Hungarian Twinning project on regional development and structural funds, National
Office for Regional Development, Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 12 September 2003.
Böhönyey Ágnes, vice-director of department, Twinning project manager, National Office for Regional
Development, Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 12 September 2003.
Poncelet Elisabeth, PAA, French-Hungarian Twinning project on Seveso directive, Hungarian Ministry of
Environment and Water, Budapest, 12 September 2003.
Tothné Pálfi Katalin, coordination of PHARE/Twinning and ISPA projects, department of international funds,
Bóla Boglárka, PHARE and Twinning project manager, Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 16 September
2003.
Mautner Zsofia, director of department, Office of national development plan and EU programmes, Office of the
Prime Minister, Budapest, 16 September 2003.
Markó Csabá, vice-director of the department for waste management and environmental technologies, Hungarian
Jacobsen Maria, PAA, German-Hungarian Twinning on IPP directive, Hungarian Ministry of Environment and
Water, Budapest, 17 September 2003.
Romeis Andrea, Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU, Brussels, 3 March 2004.
Descôtes Anne-Marie, advisor on enlargement (PHARE committee), Permanent Representation of France to the
EU, Brussels, 4 March 2004.
Veyssière Gaël, advisor on development and cooperation, Permanent Representation of France to the EU,
Brussels, 4 March 2004.
Canciani Egidio, Task Force Wider Europe, DG Enlargement (previously desk Hungary), European
Commission, Brussels, 25 May 2004.
Cornelis Mr, DG Enlargement, European Commission, Brussels, 26 May 2004.
Avigdor Gavriel, DG Enlargement (previously desk Estonia), European Commission, Brussels, 26 May 2004.
Bonwitt Bob, Director, SIGMA programme (co-financed by PHARE), Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), Paris, 2 June 2004.
Joras Andrea, Director of GTZ Twinning Office, Berlin, 13 July 2004.
Moran Mary-Teresa, General Coordination (Country Reports and Actions Plans East), European Neighbourhood
Policy Coordination, DG Relex, European Commission, Brussels, 23 February 2006.
Muscheidt Bettina, General Coordination, European Neighbourhood Policy Coordination, DG Relex, European
Commission, Brussels, 23 February 2006.
Wissels Rutger, Director, European Neighbourhood Policy Coordination, DG Relex, European Commission,
Gerstbrein Heike, General Coordination (Country Reports and Actions Plans South), European Neighbourhood
Policy Coordination, DG Relex, European Commission, Brussels, 5 April 2006.
Meijerman, Bernard G., Head of the MATRA Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview The Hague, 14
September 2006.
Appendix 4 – NCP Location and Organigrams
Location of NCPs in Old Member States:
Prime
Ministry of
Minister’s
Foreign Affairs
Office
X
Austria
X
Belgium
X
Denmark
X
Finland
X
France
Germany
X
Greece
Ireland
X
Italy
X
Luxembourg
X
Netherlands
X
Portugal
X
Spain
Sweden
X
UK
Ministry of
Economy /
Finance
Agency /
Support
Structure
AEI
X
GTZ
X (IPA)
EDV
FIIAPP
X (SIDA)
Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of NCPs
Location of NCPs in the New Member States and Applicant Countries:
Prime
Minister’s
Office
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Malta
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
Ministry of
Economy /
Finance
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of NCPs
AUSTRIA
NCP
Ministry of Finance
Agency of European Integration
(AEI)
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Ministry
Ministry
Mandated Bodies
DENMARK
NCP
Ministry
Ministry
Ministry
Mandated Bodies
FRANCE
Prime Minister’s Office
Secrétariat Général des Affaires
Européennes (SGAE)
NCP
GIP FCI
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
other Ministry
other Ministry
GIP Adetef
other GIP
Ministry of Finance
other Ministry
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Mandated Bodies
GERMANY
Federal Ministry of Economy
(BMWi)
NCP
GTZ Office
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Federal Ministry
Mandated Bodies
Bundesland
Bundesland
Bundesland
Bundesland
Mandated Bodies
Bundesland
Bundesland
IRELAND
Institute of Public
Administration (IPA)
NCP Twinning
Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Employment
NCP TAIEX
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Mandated Bodies
NETHERLANDS
MATRA
NCP
Ministry of Economic Affairs
Agency for International
Business and Cooperation
(EVD)
Ministry
Ministry
Ministry
Mandated Bodies
Ministry
Ministry
SWEDEN
SIDA (SIDA EAST)
NCP
Phare-Twinning (and Cards)
Ministry
Ministry
Ministry
Authorities
UNITED KINGDOM
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NCP
Government
Department
Government
Department
Government
Department
Local Government
Offices
Mandated Bodies
other UK Public Sector Bodies
Regional
Government Offices
Appendix 6 – Summary Report from the Annual Meeting
of Institution-Building Instruments
(Twinning/TAIEX)
Brussels, 8-9 June 2006
Executive summary
The main topics discussed during the NCP meeting were following:
- the complementarity between Twinning and TAIEX (but also SIGMA), between private consultancy and
Twinning in enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
- the importance of Twinning and TAIEX in building networks and of having NCPs in charge of both Twinning
and TAIEX
- scope of the new rules introduced in the common Twinning manual of June 2005, like the “guillotine clause” of
6 months for the reimbursement of preparatory expenses, the rate of per diems (especially in Turkey), the list of
mandated bodies, new training system for RTAs
- the single frame proposed by the new Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) and the European Neighbourhood
and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)
- Twinning as a factor of professionalisation in EU civil servants’ carrier and MS human resources’ policy
- the emphasis put on decentralisation in the ENP and on the communication tasks of the NCPs
- improving the quality of Twinning and its visibility as an EU assistance
- the importance of the Transition Facility for new member states and of the role of the new MS to play in further
enlargement and neighbourhood policies
***
Detailed summary
* Opening session by Alexander Italianer, Deputy Secretary General of the European Commission.
Mr Italianer stressed the necessity to have coherence and commonalities around EU instruments like TAIEX
and Twinning. The meeting was the occasion to celebrate the 10th anniversary of TAIEX, created in 1996.
Twinning (created in 1997) and TAIEX (Tw&T) should allow for a proper application of community law in
proposing expertise in the field of public sector. Tw&T are instruments for peer assistance, they are different
than business to business approaches and resemble government to government assistance. Since 1998, more than
1400 twinning project have been implemented, more than 1000 events have been organised (Tw&T), they cover
all beneficiary countries and regions. The Commission intends to offer as much as possible a common model of
working with the EU, for example through the common Twinning manual agreed in June 2005. This offer of
Tw&T has not been proposed anywhere else in the world. Since the failure of the constitutional treaty in 2005,
the EU is questioned: what is its usefulness, what does it mean? What are the results? Tw&T are very concrete
results.
The Commission’s role as a political body is to diffuse political results. The large added value of Tw&T is their
large networks, which is reflected in the number of participants to the conference (about 100 persons). Tw&T
are different than a one way street, they show what happens in the member states, i.e. how implementation
functions on the ground.
Tw&T are typical instruments of European governance: community law is for example capitalising on the
expertise of the member states (MS). Currently, there are more than 4000 new cases linked to incorrect
implementation of EU law inside the EU, so even inside the EU, it is important to have a good cooperation
between administrations. Tw&T are used in the fields of enlargement, the Stability Agreement for the Western
Balkans and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
Discussion:
The Danish NCP Carl Balle Petersen asked what is the role of the private sector in the reform of public
administration.
For Alexander Italianer, if the knowledge comes only from the private sector, it would be difficult to reform
the public sector, the reforming impact of Twinning has to be considered, it achieves a very high level of change.
Alain Van Hamme and Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni insisted on the complementarity of the instruments in
achieving changes. There is room for everyone.
Ms George Canton-Bacara (French NCP) pointed at a legal problem: the Twinning framework contract signed
between the Commission and each MS concerns only PHARE, thus it is problematic when sending experts for
TACIS, MEDA or CARDS. Alain Van Hamme (Twinning coordination, IB-unit, DG Enlargement) answered
that the framework contracts signed after 1998 were conceived as a way to get MS involved into Twinning.
Some MS even did not sign any, only 12 MS did so far. They were conceived as a way to anticipate the creation
of the rules then set in the Twinning manual. In the next pre-accession instruments, the manual will be
mentioned in the agreements, so the legal basis will be provided.
* Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni presented the experience of enlargement as adapted in the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Tw&T is a way to build networks, to exchange practical innovations and to keep
a diversity of languages. The Twinning NCP are very often the same as the programme coordinators of TAIEX
or Programme assistant officers (PAO) in neighbouring countries. NCP are already settled in following countries
of the European Neighbourhood Policy: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Ukraine, Moldova and
Azerbaijan. The same person should deal with the coordination of Twinning and TAIEX.
Since the last enlargement, the EU launched a policy for its new neighbours: the aim is to offer the same kind of
instruments to the neighbour countries. While during enlargement the mandate, aims and tools to reach these
aims were clear for all, this is not the case in the ENP. The first idea was to offer a stake in all EU policies,
except in the institutions (cf Prodi, 2002). The first Action Plans (AP) were negotiated too rapidly, the result was
that Action Plans were all a bit too similar, there was a loss of specificity of each country in the APs. There are
currently discussions at high level at the Commission in order to rethink the relationship with neighbouring
countries. The EU wants to present a credible answer to the needs of countries like Algeria, Syria, the Palestinian
Authority, Israel, Bielorussia, Armenia and Georgia, in order for EU’s policy to be efficient and to have an
impact there. Some ENP countries have very high expectations from the EU: they see the ENP either as a way to
get closer to the EU, to go towards accession, to intensify trade relations or even as an alternative to the
American foreign policy. If the EU wants to be credible, it needs some money, but it also needs to think
intelligently about the instruments it proposes.
These instruments have to offer an important quantitative and qualitative leverage. Operations of budgetary
support and structural adjustment would allow to enter into an economic dialogue with EU’s neighbours. A
novel instrument is cross border cooperation (CBC), which are projects difficult to set up. The European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instruments (ENPI) should replace MEDA and TACIS in 2007 (final phase of
discussion at the Council and the European Parliament). The ENPI will also contain possibilities of bank loans
(European Investment Bank) and other financial transactions which would allow the EU to become a partner for
important investments in infrastructure projects like transport. A whole range of other instruments will be
offered in the ENPI like Twinning and TAIEX.
Twinning was introduced in 2005 in the MEDA zone. The approach is mainly “demand driven”, i.e. the partner
should progressively develop a sense of ownership according to its own experience. It should also favour
Twinning projects along the priorities defined in each Action Plan. Therefore, Action Plans should be more
compact in order to have more strategic priorities and benchmarks better defined. Twinning projects would be
easier to define and priority projects could be identified. There is a difference in the way programmes are
managed in the East and in the South. The management cycle is more developed in the South than in the East.
MEDA is deconcentrated and decentralised to a certain extent, TACIS still functions on a rather centralised and
unflexible way.
In June 2006, there were around 80 Twinning projects in the pipeline, the first results were rather good when
taking into account the constraints of non-accession. In the ENP, EU’s attractiveness is weakened by the
absence of accession perspective, so it is more difficult to use Twinning. Since last NCP meeting, two
workshops were organised on Twinning in ENP countries: one in Cairo and one in Kiev. In May 2006, a raw of
Twinning projects were agreed with these two countries, which reflects the concrete results of the workshops.
Other countries are interested, like Moldova and Azerbaijan. There is no association agreement yet with Syria
and the EU has difficulties to define its relationship with Libya.
One important question needs to be raised, the one of delays currently needed to launch a Twinning project
until the contract is signed. In 2005, the Commission introduced the rule of 6 months for the reimbursement of
preparatory expenses (also called “guillotine clause”). The test was rather positive, excepting for one country, all
Twinning contracts were signed on due time. The delays are still too long as the EU is in competition with
other donors. Coming closer to the EU is a very long process, in the meantime ENP countries receive proposals
from other donors who are quicker than the Twinning procedures. The EU has to be sure that administrations are
quicker in preparing Twinning projects, that project fiches are elaborated in a more detailed manner before rather
than after the project is accepted. All necessary actors should be mobilised as soon as a first version of a project
is ready: the junior partners, the NCP, the delegation of the Commission, etc. This could pose some budgetary
problems to organise, but the meetings are necessary.
It was decided to enlarge TAIEX to the ENP. TAIEX is a huge machine which has to be used to stay financially
profitable. Some TAIEX experts have also been invited to participate to Twinning projects. The demand driven
approach also have to apply to TAIEX. DG Relex is working on a second version of the Twinning Thesaurus.
The first version was appreciated as a way to share past experience on enlargement with third states.
As there are no Twinnings without member states, MS are not only in the position of advisors, they are also
providers of human resources. It will not be possible to have a substantial Twinning policy as long as the MS do
not consider Twinning as an important factor in a carrier, so the policy of human resources has to be
improved in enlargement as well as in the ENP.
Discussion:
Mr Lilian Moraru, from the delegation of Moldova, explained that Twinning represents a very strong political
signal from the EU, but that the administrations of ENP countries are not always ready to manage this kind of
projects, they do not always have enough knowledge, for example on EU law. There is a risk of saturation and
that Twinning will represent a “canon to kill a mosquito”. What can the EU propose to deal with such context, is
there any possibility to play with intensity, with time, with more flexible instruments, can the EU offer salaries /
training for more skilled staff?
Mr Mazzocchi-Alemanni highlighted the fact that the weakness of public administration is more present in the
East than in the South. In the framework of MEDA, Twinning and technical assistance is possible. Due to the
weakness of public administrations, technical assistance will first be mobilised and then Twinning. Programme
management units will be settled to create administrative structures. The involvement of the delegation of the
Commission will be crucial. TAIEX seems to be adapted to answer the challenges of the context of
neighbourhood.
Mr Pablo Benavides, from the Spanish NCP, explained that even if the incentive of accession is absent in the
ENP, there is a need for reforms in the ENP countries, whatever the political position of their government is. The
problem is rather if administrations are ready and able to adapt. Technical assistance proved efficient, but it also
showed some limits, more than Twinning. There is therefore a risk to spend a lot of money for reports which are
going to stay in the cupboards of ministries. It is important to keep in mind this “flou politique” which is more
problematic in the context of neighbourhood.
One should not be afraid of the “guillotine clause” (the 6 months). Both parts are involved, nevertheless, the
problems more often occur on the beneficiary’s side than on the provider’s one. Some means need to be found to
mobilise efficiently the beneficiary’s administrations.
There is a strong diversity of motivations among the neighbouring countries to be part of the ENP (road towards
accession, more intensive trade, counter-balance the USA). The delegations of the Commission thus need to be
more present, the programme management units will need to make sure that projects are written in a more proper
manner.
For the Italian delegation, adaptation to the local context is important, the EU has to use some kind of
flexibility, some financial aspects can be improved and the use of Twinning light should be expanded. M.
Mazzochi-Alemanni insists on the necessity of sequencing the instruments in order to gain flexibility, for
example to have first Twinning light, then TAIEX, then a Twinning project. For Carl Balle Petersen (Danish
NCP), there is no need to focus on the input, on the way project fiches are prepared. It is more important to see
how the various instruments fit together, if the different instruments are going to reach the necessary impact, it is
a question of programming exercise, not of a project view. One has to look at the background for each
institutional reform: which expert was present before and who will come after? Mr Mazzocchi-Alemanni
answers that the EU is spending a lot of money on project fiches, which are sometimes only copied and pasted
when they are good. Twinning fiches have to be excellent, but of course they have to leave some lee-way for the
MS and their own methodology.
* Anne-Marie Masquet from DG Enlargement presented the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA). After 2007,
IPA will represent the single legal frame for candidate countries. IPA should replace PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD,
Turkey’s pre-accession instrument and CARDS. The budget was signed on the 17th of May 2006. The financial
envelope for 2007-2013 will represent €10 213 billion, 20% less than the initial proposal by the Commission. It
will cover assistance to candidate countries and to countries which have a perspective of being a candidate
country (Western Balkans).
IPA has five components:
1. Transition assistance and institution-building instruments, assistance related to taking over the acquis
communautaire
2. Cross border cooperation between MS and candidate countries
3. Regional development: IPA will replace the ERDS for candidate countries
4. Human resources development
5. Rural development
It will also provide targeted assistance to all IPA countries. The Commission chose a differentiated approach
between potential candidates and candidate countries so that assistance could be more targeted. Concerning
potential candidate countries: IPA will support participation in the Stabilisation and Association process under
component 1, there will also be possibilities of financing components 3, 4, 5 type measures. Concerning
candidate countries: the 5 components should help the countries to:
-
adopt and implement the acquis
-
prepare for EU funds on accession
Decentralisation / deconcentration has to be present.
The regulatory framework of IPA will be composed of
- a Council framework regulation: the proposal of the Commission COM(2004)617 of 29 Sept. 2004 was still in
discussion at the Council and the Parliament in June 2006.
- a detailed implementing regulation: it will be prepared by the Commission and will be subject to discussion in
the framework of comitology. It should have been presented to the MS through comitology soon before the
Summer break.
The general policy and programming framework will be composed of:
A) Political and strategic framework: enlargement package including the Multi-annual indicative financial
framework (MIFF), per country and per component, 3 years rolling forward
B) Strategic programming: multi-annual indicative planning document (MIPD). Per country and for all
components, it will follow the logic of the MIFF
C) specific programming: per country and per component
A
Enlargement package (MIFF)
B
MIPD
C
Comp. 1
Comp. 2
Comp. 3
Comp. 4
Comp. 5
national &
joint prog.
operational
operat.
rural
horizontal progr.
document
progr.
progr.
development
(large projects)
programme
The management of assistance will include:
-
operations implemented through decentralised management, joint management or shared management
-
the final objective is a fully decentralised management
Institution-Building will function mostly under the transition assistance and the institution-building component
which is included in the component 1 of IPA. Some institution-building actions will also fall under other
components like 3, 4, 5 when some elements are not directly related to the acquis. This will be available only
with some candidate countries and with strict limits.
Component 1 is about:
- development of civil society and promotion of fundamental rights, as well as reconciliation and confidencebuilding measures. Support to the dialogue between civil society and government
- Justice and home affairs, public administration
- modernisation of the regulatory framework (+ access for SME for example)
- financial control
- administrative cooperation measures
- grant schemes
- technical assistance
- investment in regulatory infrastructure
- implementation of finance facilities
- participation in EU programmes and agencies
What are the differences between IPA and the previous pre-accession strategy?
- IPA offers a single legal base: it should provide coherence and efficiency, should allow for a better
coordination of assistance and more targeted projects
- the single implementation regulation will harmonise implementing procedures to the maximal possible extent
- the framework has improved for institution-building projects.
* Morten-Jung Olsen, head of the Institution-Building Unit at DG Enlargement, presented some remarks on
public administration reforms and possible synergies between Twinning, TAIEX and SIGMA.
Accession offered various challenges, also quite similar in the ENP. During enlargement, the copy and paste
approach of the EU acquis was running pretty good, but the institution-building part was more complicate.
Assistance has been planned until accession in 2004, but not after. A transition facility was created for new MS,
as the process of building EU acquis takes a lot of time. The EU cannot build institutions in a specific sector
only, it has to train civil servants (long process). It cannot export its institutions, candidate countries cannot
import exactly the same structures, but only best practices. The implementation gap is not only an issue for
accession countries, but also for the MS, as some of them are not implementing or not correctly implementing
the acquis. The acquis does not prescribe in detail how implementation works. But there are countries which are
not candidate and are ready to take over the acquis in some sectors. The EU cannot have an impact at the
sectoral level if it does not work at the central level (complementarity with SIGMA).
There is no acquis on public administration, but there is a gradual convergence among MS on what is
appropriate. These became EU’s benchmarks. This is the same with the new MS who will bring their own
benchmarks. The problem is that these benchmarks are evolving all the time, thus the EU resembles a “moving
target”.
It is important that administrations develop “trading capacities” and that partners are aware of this and stay
coherent in the process of changing institutions. So third states should not ask a Twinning for political reasons
or in order to have a good screening process.
The Commission’s inclination is decentralisation, to move responsibility to partner countries. This is what is
done through EDIS measures. The philosophy is “the more you manage, the more you get”, but it is difficult to
implement on the ground, so partner countries should not underestimate that challenge. How can Tw&T help
partner countries, especially to implement the acquis? It is a question of harmonisation and of expertise. In
Twinning, RTAs are embedded in the administration of the partner, they are working for the administration of
the partner, together. The Commission celebrates the 10th anniversary of TAIEX, a fast and flexible instrument
based on peers and on the cooperation between colleagues. The SIGMA programme [launched in 1992, mainly
financed by PHARE, implemented by the OECD] proposes thematic support in relation with internal/external
financial control, public procurements, etc. SIGMA goes together with public sectoral reforms.
The instruments proposed are complementary, it is about coherence, coordination and sequencing. There will be
a general assessment on Twinning in 2007. What the Commission wants through meetings like this is to keep
networking alive. The Commission is looking forward to having the new MS on board, so they can also propose
some improvement of the instruments.
* Laia Pinos-Mataro and Alain Van Hamme presented the implementation of Twinning in PHARE, the
Transition Facility (TF) and CARDS.
Laia Pinos-Mataro presented figures related to standard Twinnings in PHARE and CARDS. The database
elaborated since 1998 on Twinning in PHARE, CARDS and the Transition Facilities contains 1179 projects for
the period of 1998-2005. PHARE and TF represent alone around 1106 projects (1998-2005, figures not fixed
yet). 244 projects took place in the field of Justice and home affairs (JHA). For CARDS, 73 projects were
launched for the period of 2000-2005. There is still a tendency to design big projects. 31 projects concern JHA,
internal market and agriculture also represent important sectors.
Between 1998-2005, Germany proposed most projects (644), then France (476), the UK (390), Sweden (345),
the Netherlands (313) and Austria (237). New MS also start sending proposals now.
Following number of project fiches is expected for 2006:
- Transition facility:
CZ: 2
EE: 4
MT: 1
LV: 5
LT: 1
PL: 10
- Candidate countries:
BU: 9
RO: 27
TR: 10
- Cards:
Armenia: 3; Bosnia & Herzegovina: 2; Rep. Of Macedonia: 4; Serbia (& Montenegro): 9 (no Twinnings for
Montenegro)
(see further statistics on Twinning in enlargement, TF and CARDS)
Alain Van Hamme explained that the Commission has done a lot about quantity, but less about quality.
Therefore, one needs to avoid a “Twinning fatigue”. The commitment to Twinning is good, but it has to be
improved. Networking is thus important. The quality of Twinning depends on transparency and on
communication between the stakeholders. A good project starts with precise benchmarks, the quality of the
project depends on the project fiches, it has to concentrate on results and to leave space for implementation. In
practice, one can see that there are links between bilateral aid and EU assistance, projects fiches sometimes
mention bilateral assistance from the MS. But it is important to indicate in the project fiches that Twinning is
EU assistance. Benchmarks also take a different shape in PHARE and in CARDS project fiches.
Twinning money is EU money, so projects should be implemented in a clear and transparent way. If national
Twinning experts are involved in the preparation of project fiches, they should not be proposed as PAAs / RTAs.
As for dead lines, one should take more into account the holiday periods.
As for the scope of circulation: the best way to circulate them is putting them on a web-site.
Twinning was evaluated several times, in particular by the European Court of Auditors, which formulated some
recommendations for example on the List of mandated bodies. Now there are 25 MS with 460 mandated bodies.
Mandated bodies attract rates from 2,5 to 4,5 with a possibility of increase: they should not be used to increase
rates. The list is now open to new MS in order to have a larger pool of expertise.
The “guillotine clause” and other new provisions in the Twinning manual should be seen as an improvement:
Twinnings should start when needed, so the new rules are useful. But the problems of EDIS blockage are still
there. Some MS try to negotiate the rates and fees. They are fixed, there should be no negotiations about rates in
order to become a mandated body. The fixed fees are there to facilitate the selection of mandated bodies.
Enlargement was proposing different instruments, among them four different financial instruments. The common
manual was created in order to avoid this, assistance policy should not become a supermarket where MS take
what they like most. Technically, Twinning is a grant. There will be a revision in order to streamline the
procedure. Twinning will then follow the same rules as IPA.
Among other innovations, the Commission set up a new training system in April this year on budgetary and
management issues for Twinning managers. The same manual and the same skills will apply. Other trainings
will be organised for raising Twinning advisors. The RTA training is where civil servants and experts get a
feeling for EU issues as such. It is thus a good occasion to network and to make oneself acquainted with EU
questions. Feedback on how to improve Twinning is welcome.
The third term rule for RTA has been simplified. In a Twinning project, there are a project leader and short term
experts. Temporary project leaders should be hired at least 6 months before the beginning of Twinning.
The Commission counts on the NCPs to communicate. Some NCPs organise regular meetings with line
ministries in order to identify positive and negative experiences. They sometimes also invite RTAs to share their
experience on the ground, they plan evaluations of planning schemes and Twinning projects. MS have a solid
back of experience which they should share with other (new) MS in order to build consortia. This could enhance
the EU label, it would be also more challenging for the refinement of administrative capacity as such. Before
August 2006, there should be a possibility to set up a new framework for grants and to have cooperation between
public and private actors. There should also be a new Twinning contract in a revised version of the manual
before the end of the year which could also allow to integrate case law. What is important is European visibility:
bilateral means should be given a larger European flavour.
* Stéphanie Palombi and Marcello Mori from the Twinning Operations Unit of EuropeAid Co-operation
Office presented Twinning as an instrument of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). In 2005, it was
decided to enlarge Twinning to MEDA. Recommendations came from the MS to have a common set of
procedures. The elaboration of the common manual was a long and extensive work of one year and a half. A
thesaurus 2003 was also edited, there should be a new updated version by the end of 2006. The figures presented
concern Twinning light only to a small extent.
There should be greater synergy between private consultancy and Twinning: there is a need of time to prepare a
Twinning project. Old and new MS should work more together. Old and new MS have a different knowledge
on twinning.
In MEDA, there is a PAO, the contracting authority is the ministry in charge of the PAO, which has thus some
staff to manage operational accounts. In TACIS, the construction is different: as there is no PAO, the EU has to
publish a tender to recruit the staff. It is for example the case in the Ukraine: a director was hired to recruit the
rest of the staff. Tenders have also been launched in Moldova and Azerbaijan. Denmark was the first country to
propose a Twinning project in the ENP, in Jordan.
(Report drafted by Elsa Tulmets who took part in the meeting)
III.
Návrh věcného záměru zákona
o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí
A. Přehled právních předpisů, k nimž se věcný záměr zákona váže
1. Oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
Oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce není dosud v podmínkách České republiky
upravena žádnou jednotnou zákonnou normou.
Jedinou zákonnou normou, která se o této oblasti zmiňuje, je zákon č. 2/1969 Sb.,
o zřízení ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České republiky, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů (tzv. „kompetenční zákon“). Kompetenční zákon vymezuje působnost
Ministerstva zahraničních věcí v oblasti rozvojové spolupráce. Tento zákon v § 6 odst. 1
stanoví: „Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí je ústředním orgánem státní správy České republiky
pro oblast zahraniční politiky, v jejímž rámci vytváří koncepci a koordinuje zahraniční
rozvojovou pomoc a koordinuje vnější ekonomické vztahy“.
Pro aktivity v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce však existuje celá řada
dokumentů na úrovni usnesení vlády. V březnu 1995 – po vstupu České republiky do OECD a
obnovení systému zahraniční rozvojové pomoci - přijala vláda usnesením ze dne 15. 3. 1995
č. 153 Zásady pro poskytování zahraniční pomoci. Česká republika se dokumentem přihlásila
k pozicím mezinárodního společenství vyjádřeným v závěrech konferencí OSN a nové
rozvojové strategii OECD. Zásady stručně definovaly podmínky pro poskytování pomoci a
popisovaly role jednotlivých aktérů. Koordinační role připadla Ministerstvu zahraničních
věcí, nicméně za implementaci projektů a správu finančních prostředků byla zodpovědná
jednotlivá sektorová ministerstva.
Na přelomu století přišel nový impuls pro reformu systému zahraniční rozvojové
pomoci České republiky, neboť se dosavadní praxe ukázala jako nevyhovující, a to i
v souvislosti se závěry tzv. Miléniového summitu OSN v roce 2000 a mezinárodní konference
o Financování rozvoje v Monterrey v roce 2002. Na základě zevrubné analýzy byla vládě
předložena Koncepce zahraniční rozvojové pomoci ČR na období 2002-2007, kterou vláda
vzala na vědomí usnesením ze dne 23. ledna 2002 č. 91. Nová koncepce se přihlásila k
mezinárodním rozvojovým principům jako je princip partnerství, respektování priorit
partnerských zemí a zvyšování efektivnosti pomoci. Za hlavní cíl rozvojové pomoci bylo
v Koncepci deklarováno přispět k omezení chudoby cestou udržitelného ekonomickosociálního rozvoje. Kromě toho existuje řada dalších podpůrných cílů (šíření demokracie a
lidských práv, integrace rozvojových zemí do světové ekonomiky atd.). Koncepce poprvé
definovala teritoriální a sektorové priority (tehdy cca 20 zemí) a načrtla změnu systému
organizačního zajištění zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce s cílem posílit jeho transparentnost a
efektivnost.
V souvislosti s členstvím České republiky v EU je současný systém zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce postupně transformován a přizpůsobován praxi a závazkům
vyplývajícím ze členství v unii. Částečnou úpravu přinesl materiál „Zásady zahraniční
MZV/odbor rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci, 18. září 2006
1
rozvojové spolupráce po vstupu ČR do EU“ schválený vládou usnesením ze dne 31. března
2004 č. 302. Ten představuje nově formulované zásady zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
zohledňující členství České republiky v EU a definuje prioritní programové země, na které se
má Česká republika orientovat v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. Dle těchto zásad
zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci České republiky koordinuje Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí,
které současně vede evidenci poskytované rozvojové pomoci a zajišťuje výkaznictví pro účely
OSN, OECD a dalších mezinárodních organizací.
Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce ze strany České republiky se řídí ročním plánem,
který je vždy do 21. května předchozího kalendářního roku předložen Ministerstvem
zahraničních věcí ke schválení vládě, a to v souladu s usnesením vlády ze dne 31. března
2004 č. 302. Součástí návrhu je věcné a teritoriální zaměření rozvojové spolupráce, je
stanoven její dvoustranný a mnohostranný podíl. Současně se předkládá i návrh rozpočtu
rozvojové spolupráce pro další rozpočtový rok a střednědobý výhled na následující dva roky
v souladu s usnesením vlády ze dne 12. března 2003 č. 248 ke Střednědobému výhledu
financování zahraniční rozvojové pomoci ČR. Za účelem upřesnění a kontroly programu
spolupráce svolává Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí nejméně jednou za tři měsíce porady
zainteresovaných resortů. Zainteresovaná ministerstva vykazují v pravidelných termínech
přehledy o realizované rozvojové spolupráci.
Konkrétní finanční prostředky na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci České republiky
jsou schvalovány každoročním pravidelným usnesením vlády, které umožňuje čerpání
finančních prostředků státního rozpočtu z kapitoly Všeobecné pokladní správy jednotlivými
resorty na základě vládou schváleného plánu (viz výše) v členění podle regionů a zemí a na
základě hodnocení rozvojových projektů z předcházejícího roku. Realizátoři projektů jsou
vybíráni ve výběrových řízeních uskutečňovaných v souladu s platnou legislativou a
s pravidly výběru a financování projektů zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, která byla
schválena usnesením vlády ze dne 12. října 2005 č. 1311.
Česká rozvojová spolupráce je realizována především formou konkrétních projektů,
což souvisí především s využíváním dlouholetých zkušeností a tradiční angažovaností
českých expertů (životní prostředí, tropické zemědělství, geologie, vodní hospodářství) v řadě
rozvojových zemí. V loňském roce byly schváleny usnesením vlády ze dne 1. června 2005 č.
664 střednědobé programy spolupráce s prioritními zeměmi, díky čemuž by projekty měly být
lépe koncentrované do větších sektorových celků.
Součástí rozvojové spolupráce je i tzv. transformační spolupráce, která je na základě
usnesení vlády ze dne 9. února 2005 č. 188 financována ze samostatné položky s názvem
„Transformační spolupráce“ v rámci specifického dílčího ukazatele „Transfery mezinárodním
organizacím, zahraniční pomoc“ v kapitole Všeobecná pokladní správa. Transformační
spolupráce je v gesci Ministerstva zahraničních věcí. Specificky se zaměřuje na podporu
demokracie, obhajobu lidských práv, vytváření a posilování demokratických institucí a
občanské společnosti v zemích procházejících procesem společenské transformace i v zemích
nedemokratických. Je realizována ve spolupráci s nevládními organizacemi v přijímajících
zemích a v těsné spolupráci s českým nevládním sektorem.
Poskytování stipendií studentům z rozvojových a jiných zemí pro studium na českých
vysokých školách je upraveno usnesením vlády ze dne 25. července 2001 č. 773 o zřízení
vládních stipendijních míst ke studiu na veřejných vysokých školách v České republice pro
občany z rozvojových a dalších potřebných zemí na léta 2003 až 2007.
2
2. Oblast humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
Humanitární pomoc do zahraničí je poskytována na základě zákona č. 2/1969 Sb., o
zřízení ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České republiky. Humanitární
pomoci poskytovaná do zahraničí zde sice není explicitně zmíněna, je však považována za
součást zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce.
Problematika humanitární pomoci do zahraničí je dílčím způsobem upravena v zákoně
č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů, který upravuje povinnosti zejména Ministerstva vnitra v oblasti
integrovaného záchranného systému, a v příslušných pasážích i v případě poskytování
humanitární pomoci do zahraničí. V § 7 odst. 1 písm. b) je uvedeno: „Ministerstvo vnitra plní
úkoly v oblasti zapojení České republiky do mezinárodních záchranných operací při
mimořádných událostech v zahraničí a poskytování humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí v součinnosti s Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí; humanitární pomocí se pro účely
tohoto zákona rozumí opatření prováděná za účelem pomoci obyvatelstvu postiženému
mimořádnou událostí, v jejichž rámci se využívají lidské a materiální zdroje.“. Dále je v § 7
odst. 2 písm. i) cit. zákona uvedeno: „Ministerstvo vnitra rozhoduje v dohodě s
Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí o humanitární pomoci poskytované státem do zahraničí a
zapojování do mezinárodních záchranných operací.“. V ustanovení § 7 odst. 3 cit. zákona je
zakotvena působnost Ministerstva vnitra v tom směru, že zabezpečuje ústřední koordinaci
záchranných a likvidačních prací i tehdy, jestliže mimořádná událost přesahuje státní hranice
České republiky a je nutná koordinace záchranných a likvidačních prací nad rámec
příhraničních styků. Pravidla pro zapojování do mezinárodních záchranných operací a
pravidla pro poskytování a přijímání humanitární pomoci jsou stanovena nařízením vlády č.
463/2000 Sb., ve znění nařízení vlády č. 527/2002 Sb.
Obecný rámec pro poskytování pomoci do zahraničí, včetně pomoci humanitární, byl
stanoven v „Zásadách pro poskytování zahraniční pomoci“, které vláda schválila svým
usnesením ze dne 15. března 1995 č. 153. Tyto zásady byly v bodech týkajících se
humanitární pomoci novelizovány usnesením vlády ze dne 31. března 2004 č. 302
o Zásadách zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce po vstupu ČR do EU. V zásadách je stanoveno
(v bodě 33), že „humanitární pomoc vzhledem ke svému specifickému charakteru není
součástí plánu zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. Prostředky se rozpočtují v kapitole
Všeobecná pokladní správa v rámci ročního státního rozpočtu a ve střednědobém výhledu na
následující dva roky. Humanitární pomoc je koordinována MZV“. Dále je v bodě 34 uvedeno,
že rozhodnutí o poskytnutí humanitární pomoci do zahraničí přísluší ministru zahraničních
věcí do 5 mil. Kč a vládě nad 5 mil. Kč a je zde popsán způsob uvolnění finančních
prostředků na humanitární pomoc. V bodě 35 je pak stanoven termín pro podání informace
vládě o poskytnuté humanitární pomoci.
Možnost zajištění materiální humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
prostřednictvím Správy státních hmotných rezerv byla stanovena v usnesení vlády ze dne 21.
dubna 1999 č. 381 k výběru a pořízení materiální humanitární pomoci vlády do zahraničí,
které se týkalo poskytnutí humanitární pomoci Kosovu. Dle tohoto dokumentu bylo pořízení
materiální humanitární pomoci České republiky do zahraničí zajišťováno Správou státních
hmotných rezerv, a to na základě žádosti ministra zahraničních věcí.
Explicitní zmínka o humanitární pomoci je rovněž v zákonu č. 137/2006 Sb.,
o veřejných zakázkách, který stanoví, že v souvislosti s poskytováním humanitární pomoci
není zadavatel povinen podle tohoto zákona zadávat podlimitní zakázky na dodávky či služby
(§ 18 odst. 2 písm. c), přičemž tyto podlimitní zakázky mají zákonem stanovený limit do
4.290.000 Kč v případě, že zadavatelem je státní orgán.
3
Dalšími důležitými právními předpisy, které souvisejí s humanitární pomocí
poskytovanou do zahraničí, jsou například:
•
•
•
•
•
•
zákon č. 133/1985 Sb., o požární ochraně, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
zákon č. 219/1999 Sb., o ozbrojených silách České republiky, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů,
zákon č. 221/1999 Sb., o vojácích z povolání, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
zákon č. 238/2000 Sb., o Hasičském záchranném sboru České republiky a o změně
souvisejících zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
zákon č. 240/2000 Sb., o krizovém řízení a o změně některých zákonů (krizový
zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
ústavní zákon č. 300/2000 Sb., který upravuje rozhodování o vyslání ozbrojených sil
ČR do mírových operací a jejich účast na záchranných pracích v zahraničí při
živelních pohromách, průmyslových nebo ekologických haváriích.
Dosud nejrozsáhlejší a nejkomplexnější materiál zabývající se pouze poskytováním
humanitární pomoci byl schválen Bezpečnostní radou státu v roce 2001 – „Postup při
zapojování České republiky do záchranných operací a poskytování humanitární pomoci do
zahraničí“ (Informace MZV a MV z 23.5.2001, schválená Bezpečnostní radou státu).
V současné době v České republice humanitární pomoc koordinuje Ministerstvo
zahraničních věcí ve spolupráci s Ministerstvem vnitra – generálním ředitelstvím Hasičského
záchranného sboru (MV-GŘ HZS ČR). Postupy v případě humanitární pomoci poskytované
do zahraničí jako bezprostřední reakce na mimořádnou událost jsou dále rozpracovány v
nařízení vlády č. 463/2000 Sb., o stanovení pravidel zapojování do mezinárodních
záchranných operací, poskytování a přijímání humanitární pomoci a náhrad výdajů
vynakládaných právnickými osobami a podnikajícími fyzickými osobami na ochranu
obyvatelstva, ve znění nařízení vlády č. 527/2002 Sb.
Česká republika v současné době – bez ohledu na nedostatečnou právní úpravu poskytuje humanitární pomoc jako: okamžitou reakci na mimořádnou událost (např. přírodní
pohromu, technologickou havárii), na výzvu postižené země či mezinárodní komunity, jako
okamžitou pomoc obětem konfliktu aj., kterou realizuje vysláním záchranářů, lékařů a jiných
expertů nebo poskytnutím materiálu do několika hodin či dní po události či finančního
příspěvku mezinárodní humanitární organizaci aj.; dále jako následnou humanitární pomoc
(pomoc postiženému obyvatelstvu v překonání období po události, po ukončení bezprostřední
krize – týdny, měsíce až zhruba do půl roku po události, případně obnova infrastruktury,
budov aj. – tato fáze může trvat několik měsíců i let), na tuto pomoc pak případně navazuje
pomoc rozvojová; a jako pomoc v případě vleklých humanitárních krizí.
Humanitární pomoc bývá poskytována jako záchranářská pomoc (záchranáři, lékaři,
případně jiný odborný personál), jako pomoc materiální nebo formou finanční
(prostřednictvím mezinárodních organizací, zastupitelských úřadů, nevládních neziskových
organizací). Do poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí může být rovněž zapojen
soukromý sektor, případně dobrovolníci.
4
B. Zhodnocení stávající právní úpravy
1. Oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
Současná situace v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce se opírá o jedinou
zákonnou normu, které se o této oblasti zmiňuje, a tou je zákon č. 2/1969 Sb., o zřízení
ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České republiky, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů. Dle kompetenčního zákona je Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí jediným ústředním
orgánem státní správy pro zahraniční rozvojovou pomoc. Žádný jiný ústřední orgán státní
správy v České republice nemá v této oblasti explicitně stanovené pravomoci.
Za zásadní problém je třeba považovat skutečnost, že stávající znění kompetenčního
zákona a neexistence samostatné právní úpravy pro tuto oblast měly za následek vznik
situace, kdy je rozvojová spolupráce, konkrétně realizace rozvojových projektů, roztříštěna
mezi 9 ministerstev. Základ současného systému zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České
republiky položily Zásady pro poskytování zahraniční pomoci schválených usnesením vlády
ze dne 15. března 1995 č. 153. Zásady vycházely z kompetenčního zákona, který pojímá
zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci jako integrální součást zahraniční politiky. Zároveň však
byla odpovědnost za realizaci bilaterálních projektů v rámci jednotlivých sektorů přenesena
na rezortní ministerstva, přičemž Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí má pouze roli koordinační.
Každé ministerstvo odpovídá za realizaci projektů ve své sféře působnosti (např. Ministerstvo
zdravotnictví je odpovědné za projekty v oblasti zdravotnictví, Ministerstvo zemědělství za
projekty v oblasti zemědělství apod.).
Jednotlivá rezortní ministerstva přitom často chápou účel rozvojové spolupráce
odlišně. Mezirezortní bariéry jsou překážkou synergického působení spolupráce
v souvisejících sektorech.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí plní roli koordinátora s podporou tzv. Rozvojového
střediska Ústavu mezinárodních vztahů, postrádá ale efektivní nástroje pro dosažení
jednotnosti politiky v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. Pro zajištění závaznosti pro
ostatní resorty musí i v méně podstatných otázkách rozhodovat vláda.
Současná právní úprava kompetencí Ministerstva zahraničních věcí v oblasti
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce je tedy zcela nedostatečná. V současné době, která naléhavě
vyžaduje zejména účinný, závazný, pružný, transparentní a nediskriminační systém zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce, Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí nemá žádný efektivní nástroj
k vlastnímu řízení a financování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, která je nedílnou součástí
vnějších vztahů státu.
Prostředky na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci (kromě prostředků na pomoc
uprchlíkům v České republice, příspěvků mezinárodním finančním organizacím a příspěvků
do rozpočtu ES a do Evropského rozvojového fondu) jsou rozpočtovány v kapitole
Všeobecná pokladní správa. To je však v rozporu s charakterem těchto prostředků, neboť se
nejedná o nic neurčitého a všeobecného, ale naopak o zcela určité a v podstatě v rámci
mezinárodního společenství povinné každoroční poskytování peněžních prostředků na
konkrétní účel. Převádění prostředků z kapitoly Všeobecná pokladní správa do kapitoly
jednotlivých resortů na počátku kalendářního roku vede pravidelně ke zbytečným průtahům
při zahájení realizace zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce.
Ve stávající právní úpravě rozpočtových pravidel rovněž chybí specifická pravidla pro
uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce tak, aby její financování mohlo být pružné,
soustavné a bez nadbytečných a administrativně náročných operací. Dokonce v ustanovení § 7
5
odst. 1 rozpočtových pravidel, upravujícím taxativním způsobem výdajovou stránku státního
rozpočtu, není dosud výslovně uvedeno, že ze státního rozpočtu se hradí právě i výdaje
související s prováděním zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce.
Problémem je rovněž aplikace vyhlášky č. 231/2005 Sb., o účasti státního rozpočtu na
financování programů pořízení a reprodukce majetku, ve znění vyhlášky č. 269/2005 Sb. a
vyhlášky č. 466/2005 Sb., na oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, a to zejména
v souvislosti s nutností evidovat projekty obsahující investiční prvek v Informačním systému
programového financování ISPROFIN. Vyhláška je nastavena na realizaci aktivit v České
republice, cíl i účel kapitálových výdajů vynakládaných v rámci rozvojové spolupráce je však
odlišný (cíl – mimo ČR, účel – pomoc/dar). Problémem je zejména skutečnost, že v rámci
rozvojové spolupráce je velmi obtížné aktivity naplánovat na více let dopředu a reálně je
zařadit do dokumentace příslušného programu před jeho schválením Ministerstvem financí,
resp. vládou. Rovněž nelze v mnoha konkrétních případech u akcí realizovaných v
rozvojových zemích zajistit všechny požadavky investičního záměru podle § 4 výše uvedené
vyhlášky a požadavky na závěrečné vyhodnocení akce podle § 8 výše uvedené vyhlášky
například z důvodu rozdílné místní praxe a legislativy.
Problematické je rovněž i to, že jednak chybí jednoznačná definice, co je zahraniční
rozvojová spolupráce, a jednak nejsou upravena práva a povinnosti právnických a fyzických
osob při realizaci projektů rozvojové spolupráce. Dodržování některých povinností ze strany
právnických a fyzických osob podílejících se na zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci má natolik
mimořádný význam pro její úspěšné uskutečňování, že je žádoucí nespoléhat jen na správnou
aplikaci smluvních vztahů či dodržování norem rozpočtového práva a správních aktů
vydaných na jeho základě, ale vyjádřit je přímo zákonnou formou.
Překážku pro úplné statistické vykazování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
financované z veřejných zdrojů pro Organizaci pro ekonomickou spolupráci a rozvoj
představuje skutečnost, že samosprávné celky (obce a kraje), z nichž mnohé z vlastních
rozpočtů uskutečňují zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci, nemají povinnost o těchto svých
aktivitách informovat Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí.
2. Oblast humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
Současná legislativa týkající se humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí je
nedostatečná. Humanitární pomoc je dílčím způsobem výslovně upravena pouze v zákoně č.
239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů, který ji ale chápe velmi úzce, a to pouze jako vysílání záchranných týmů
a poskytnutí materiální humanitární pomoci – tedy jako bezprostřední reakci na mimořádnou
událost. Další formy humanitární pomoci jako pomoc finanční, pomoc prostřednictvím
národních nebo mezinárodních humanitárních organizací nebo další fáze pomoci jako pomoc
následná nebo pomoc v případě vleklých humanitárních krizí zmíněny vůbec nejsou.
Humanitární pomoc je však komplexní oblastí související např. s rozvojovou spoluprací,
zahraniční politikou, s činností mezinárodních organizací aj.
Za klíčový problém je třeba považovat skutečnost, že v současné době jednak chybí
jednoznačná definice, co je humanitární pomoci poskytovaná do zahraničí, a jednak jsou
v této oblasti nevyjasněné rozhodovací kompetence. V rozporu se zahraniční dimenzí těchto
aktivit je ustanovení v zákonu č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému a o
změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, dle něhož má o humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí rozhodovat Ministerstvo vnitra v dohodě s Ministerstvem
zahraničních věcí. Výše uvedený zákon byl koncipován primárně s ohledem na zajištění
6
operací civilní ochrany v souvislosti s mimořádnými událostmi na území České republiky a je
tedy pro účely humanitární pomoci do zahraničí nevhodný.
V oblasti materiální humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí není vyjasněná
působnost Správy státních hmotných rezerv. Tato působnost byla explicitně upravena pouze
v souvislosti s poskytnutím humanitární pomoci Kosovu, na základě usnesení vlády ze dne
21. dubna 1999 č. 381, takže není zcela jasné, zda lze obdobný mechanismus využívat i pro
ostatní případy poskytování materiální humanitární pomoci.
Za problém pro rychlé a efektivní poskytování humanitární pomoci při použití
speciální letecké dopravy lze považovat i ustanovení zákona č. 546/2005 Sb., kterým se mění
zákon č. 219/1999 Sb., o ozbrojených silách ČR. V § 24 tohoto zákona je stanoveno, že
k zabezpečení humanitární a zdravotnické pomoci použije armáda letecké dopravy na
základě rozhodnutí vlády. To v praxi znamená, že nelze rozhodnout o vyslání leteckého
speciálu do postižené oblasti bezodkladně na úrovni rozhodnutí ministra, jako tomu bylo až
do vstoupení v platnost výše uvedeného zákona dnem 1. 7. 2006, nýbrž nejprve musí být
předložen tento návrh vládě ke schválení, což ve výsledku znamená zpoždění o několik dnů.
Významným problémem je mechanismus financování humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí, jak je zakotven v usnesení vlády ze dne 31. března 2004 č. 302,
které vychází z platného znění rozpočtových pravidel. Podle tohoto usnesení rozhoduje
ministr zahraničních věcí o poskytnutí humanitární pomoci do 5 mil. Kč v jednotlivém
případě, a v těch případech, které svým rozsahem vyžadují poskytnutí pomoci ve větším
rozsahu či které vyžadují spolupráci více ministerstev, rozhoduje vláda na návrh ministra
zahraničních věcí. V praxi pak musí každé poskytnutí humanitární pomoci do zahraničí (do 5
mil. Kč včetně) schválit kromě ministra zahraničních věcí i ministr vnitra, a to i v případech,
kdy není Ministerstvo vnitra do poskytování humanitární pomoci vůbec zapojeno – např. při
poskytování humanitární pomoci formou finančního příspěvku prostřednictvím
mezinárodních organizací (případ okamžité humanitární pomoci i déle trvajících
humanitárních krizí) či formou dotace na projekty nevládních organizací. Nutnost žádat o
souhlas vládu, pokud je humanitární pomoc vyšší než 5 mil. Kč, která vyplývá ze skutečnosti,
že prostředky na humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí jsou rozpočtovány v kapitole
Všeobecná pokladní správa (VPS), účelová položka Humanitární pomoc, vede k časovým
prodlevám v případech, kdy je nezbytná okamžitá reakce na mimořádnou událost.
Zároveň je výrazně omezena (pouze převodem do rezervního fondu) možnost použít
prostředky schválené na humanitární pomoc i v následujícím roce (případně letech).
V současné době musejí být prostředky využity v daném roce (do 31.12.), kdy byla pomoc
schválena. Jako omezující faktor se toto pravidlo jeví zejména v případě poskytování
humanitární pomoci formou poskytnutí dotace na projekty nevládních neziskových
organizací, a to především pokud se jedná o reakci na náhlou událost v druhé polovině
kalendářního roku.
Za limitující pro uskutečňování účinné a efektivní humanitární pomoci je tedy třeba
stejně jako u zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce označit stávající znění rozpočtových pravidel,
která neobsahují potřebná specifická ustanovení směřující k tomu, aby financování
humanitární pomoci mohlo být pružné, soustavné a bez nadbytečných a administrativně
náročných operací. Obdobně jako u zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce je problémem rovněž
aplikace vyhlášky č. 231/2005 Sb., o účasti státního rozpočtu na financování programů
pořízení a reprodukce majetku, ve znění vyhlášky č. 269/2005 Sb. a vyhlášky č. 466/2005 Sb.,
a to zejména v souvislosti s nutností evidovat akce obsahující investiční prvek v systému
ISPROFIN. Vyhláška je nastavena na realizaci aktivit v České republice, cíl i účel
kapitálových výdajů vynakládaných v rámci rozvojové spolupráce je však odlišný (cíl – mimo
7
ČR, účel – pomoc/dar). Problémem je zejména skutečnost, že v rámci humanitární pomoci je
zcela nemožné aktivity naplánovat na více let dopředu a reálně je zařadit do dokumentace
příslušného programu před jeho schválením Ministerstvem financí, resp. vládou. Rovněž
nelze v mnoha konkrétních případech zajistit všechny požadavky investičního záměru podle §
4 a požadavky na závěrečné vyhodnocení akce podle § 8 například z důvodu rozdílné místní
praxe a legislativy.
3. Závěr
Z tohoto zhodnocení stávající právní úpravy vyplývá, že dosavadní právní úprava
problematiky zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí je nedostatečná a je třeba přijmout zcela nový zákon upravující tuto problematiku
komplexně a v celé její šíři.
8
C. Návrh věcného řešení
Návrh věcného řešení navazuje na výše uvedené zhodnocení a rozbor stávající právní
úpravy. Hlavním cílem je komplexně upravit v jediném právním předpise se silou zákona
problematiku zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí a reagovat tak na závazky a posilující se roli České republiky v této oblasti v rámci
mezinárodního společenství. Obsahem zákona by mělo být zejména vymezení jednotlivých
pojmů, vymezení působnosti orgánů státní správy, definování postupů při financování
relevantních aktivit v této oblasti a stanovení práv a povinností fyzických a právnických osob
a samosprávných celků.
Navrhované věcné řešení vychází ze zkušeností získaných v průběhu uskutečňování
rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci do zahraničí za podmínek, kdy právní úprava pro
oblast rozvojové spolupráce neexistuje a pro oblast humanitární pomoci je nedostatečná. Při
přípravě návrhu věcného záměru zákona bylo přihlédnuto rovněž k právním úpravám uvedené
problematiky v jiných evropských státech, které byly přijaty nebo podstatně novelizovány
v nedávné době a odrážejí tak současné trendy na tomto poli, např. Španělsko, Rakousko,
Švýcarsko a k doporučenému vzoru ze strany OECD.
Návrh věcného řešení je postaven na těchto základních východiscích:
1) Oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
-
Pojem zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce bude definován v souladu mezinárodního
konsensu (např. Evropský konsensus o rozvojové spolupráci, Miléniová deklarace
OSN apod.).
-
Působnost orgánů v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce je navržena na
základě osvědčené praxe vyspělých dárcovských zemí, které zahraniční
rozvojovou spolupráci v podmínkách demokratického zřízení a tržní ekonomiky
poskytují po několik desítek let. Navržené institucionálního zakotvení předpokládá
zapojení ministerstev do formulování politiky rozvojové spolupráce
prostřednictvím koordinačních a konzultačních orgánů a jejich pracovních skupin.
2) Oblast humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
-
Pojem humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí bude definován v souladu se
zásadami tzv. dobrého humanitárního dárcovství, k nimž se Česká republika
přihlásila.
-
Působnost orgánů státní správy a vymezení rozhodovacích procesů je navrženo
tak, aby bylo možné na mimořádnou událost v zahraničí reagovat rychle, pružně a
efektivně a zároveň aby byla dostatečně zohledněna zahraničně-politická dimenze
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
9
Oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
I. Vymezení pojmů
Zákon bude jednoznačně definovat, co se rozumí zahraniční rozvojovou spoluprací.
Při vymezení tohoto pojmu se doporučuje vycházet z doporučení OECD; navrhuje se
následující definici:
Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce České republiky je souhrn činností hrazených
z veřejných prostředků, jejichž cílem je omezení chudoby v rozvojových zemích v kontextu
ekonomického, sociálního a environmentálního rozvoje. Do zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
nelze zahrnovat poskytování vojenského materiálu a služeb s výjimkou přesně vymezených
případů vycházejících z dokumentu OECD1.
II. Působnost orgánů podílejících se na zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci
Základem věcného řešení je systémová změna dosavadního stavu spočívající v novém
vymezení působnosti orgánů podílejících se na zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci tak, aby tato
mohla být vykonávána účelně, hospodárně a efektivně. Toto institucionální vymezení je
založeno na řízení veškerých činností z jednoho centra, přičemž řídící činnosti jsou svěřeny
Ministerstvu zahraničních věcí a výkonné činnosti specializované nově vytvořené instituci
(agentuře).
Předpokládá se, že v navrženém uspořádání zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci řídí
ministerstvo zahraničních věcí, a to na základě vládou schválené koncepce zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce obsahující sektorové a teritoriální priority a schválených programů
rozvojové spolupráce s prioritními zeměmi.
Mezi úkoly, které Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí bude v rámci řízení zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce plnit, bude obdobně jako dnes patřit zajištění koordinace přípravy a
předkládání koncepce zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, včetně stanovení teritoriálních a
sektorových priorit zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a výhledu objemu a struktury financí na
její poskytování, dále příprava programů zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce s prioritními
zeměmi a sjednávání memorand o porozumění a dohod o spolupráci
s přijímajícími zeměmi. Dále Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí bude připravovat rozpočet
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce na následující rok, včetně střednědobého výhledu na
následující dva roky a bude předkládat vládě informace o realizaci zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce v předchozím roce. Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí bude rovněž koordinovat
rozvojové aktivity ostatních orgánů státní správy, které v rámci svých kompetencí provádějí
činnost v zahraničí a bude zajišťovat koherenci politik České republiky s cíli a prioritami
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v součinnosti s ostatními resorty. Bude spolupracovat se
soukromým sektorem, s nevládními neziskovými organizacemi a dalšími subjekty.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí rovněž zajistí koordinaci rozvojových aktivit s dalšími dárci,
zejména v rámci EU a OECD, a spolupráci s mezinárodními organizacemi v rámci
mnohostranné zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. V neposlední řadě zajistí statistické
výkaznictví zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. V souvislosti s nárůstem pomoci směřované do
prioritních zemí se předpokládá, že Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí vytvoří organizační
1
Dokument OECD DCD/DAC/STAT(2001)8.
10
předpoklady na zastupitelských úřadech v prioritních zemích pro efektivní realizaci rozvojové
spolupráce.
Na rozdíl od současného stavu se navrhuje přesunout kompetence spojené se
zajištěním realizace dvoustranné rozvojové spolupráce (zejména odpovědnost za řízení
projektů) z jednotlivých resortů na specializovanou instituci (navrhuje se název Česká
agentura pro rozvojovou spolupráci), kterou Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí zřídí jako
organizační složku státu pro zajištění realizace dvoustranných projektů zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce. Tato instituce bude hlavním výkonným orgánem v oblasti dvoustranné zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce a jejími úkoly bude identifikace témat rozvojové spolupráce na základě
vládou schválených programů, formulace zadávací dokumentace veřejných zakázek a
podmínek dotačních výběrových řízení, vypisování a vedení výběrových řízení a uzavírání
smluv s realizátory a vydávání rozhodnutí o poskytnutí dotace. Dále agentura zajistí řízení,
průběžnou kontrolu realizace projektů a evaluaci programů a projektů rozvojové spolupráce.
Agentura bude také připravovat podklady a zprávy o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a
poskytovat informace zainteresované veřejnosti.
Poradní a koordinační funkci budou zajišťovat orgány, vytvořené za tímto účelem.
Jedním z nich bude Rada pro zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci jako poradní orgán ministra
zahraničních věcí pro oblast zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. Dalším poradním orgánem
bude Národní koordinační výbor pro rozvojovou spolupráci jako orgán pro koordinaci a
koherenci mezi jednotlivými sektory státní správy a dalšími subjekty, které mohou
spolupracovat v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce (například zástupci podnikatelských
a nevládních organizací).
Tímto návrhem nebudou dotčeny kompetence ostatních ministerstev v oblasti
mnohostranné rozvojové spolupráce včetně agendy poskytování příspěvků do mezinárodních
finančních organizací, do rozpočtu Evropské unie a Evropského rozvojového fondu
Ministerstvem financí. V oblasti dvoustranné rozvojové spolupráce nebudou dotčeny
dosavadní kompetence Ministerstva školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy v oblasti poskytování
stipendií, kompetence Ministerstva financí v oblasti odpouštění dluhů rozvojovým zemím a
kompetence Ministerstva vnitra při poskytování pomoci uprchlíkům z rozvojových zemí na
území České republiky.
Zároveň všechny orgány státní správy České republiky v rámci příslušných
kompetencí, které se mohou týkat rozvojových zemí, budou mít povinnost zohledňovat
princip koherence politik pro rozvoj, tedy zajistit, aby ostatní „nerozvojové“ politiky České
republiky nebyly v rozporu s cílem omezování chudoby v rozvojových zemích.
III. Pravidla pro nakládání s prostředky na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci
Navrhuje se, aby v zákonu byly upraveny způsoby využití prostředků vyčleněných na
zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci. Zákon by měl stanovit, že prostředky poskytnuté na
zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci budou spravovány způsobem, který zajistí jejich
transparentní a účelné použití.
Navrhuje se, aby prostředky na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci nebyly nadále
rozpočtovány v kapitole Všeobecná pokladní správa, a to z toho důvodu, že nejde o nic
neurčitého a všeobecného, ale naopak o zcela určité a v podstatě v rámci mezinárodního
společenství povinné každoroční poskytování peněžních prostředků na konkrétní účel.
Navrhuje se tedy, aby byla vytvořena samostatná kapitola státního rozpočtu České republiky
11
„Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce a humanitární pomoc poskytovaná do zahraničí“ v gesci
Ministerstva zahraničních věcí, jejíž výše bude každoročně určována v závislosti na
mezinárodních závazcích, na ekonomických možnostech České republiky a na efektivním
využívání poskytnutých prostředků. V této kapitole budou rozpočtovány prostředky na
jednotlivé formy zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce rozdělené minimálně do tří položek
(Dvoustranná rozvojová spolupráce, Mnohostranná rozvojová spolupráce, Transformační
spolupráce), další samostatnou položkou bude položka Humanitární pomoc poskytovaná do
zahraničí. Navrhujeme, aby prostředky na pomoc uprchlíkům v České republice, příspěvky
mezinárodním finančním organizacím a příspěvky do rozpočtu ES a do Evropského
rozvojového fondu byly i nadále rozpočtovány v rozpočtech příslušných gesčních
ministerstev.
Předpokládá se, že návrh rozpočtu na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci bude tak jako
dosud vládě předkládán na následující kalendářní rok s výhledem na další dva roky ke
schválení vždy do 21. května a že Ministerstvo financí přihlédne při sestavování návrhu
státního rozpočtu České republiky a jeho střednědobého výhledu ke schválenému rozpočtu
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
Zákon by měl umožnit převedení finančních prostředků, které nebyly v rámci
příslušného kalendářního roku využity, do rezervního fondu, který bude vytvořen v rámci
kapitoly Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce v gesci Ministerstva zahraničních věcí. Další
ustanovení týkající se vracení nevyužitých prostředků do státního rozpočtu by mělo umožnit
jejich vypořádání až v roce, v němž bude program nebo projekt ukončen.
Zákon by rovněž měl upravit mechanismy zajištění průběžné kontroly, závěrečné
veřejnosprávní kontroly a evaluace dvoustranných rozvojových projektů ze strany České
agentury pro rozvojovou spolupráci.
Zákon by měl dále výslovně stanovit, že na majetek pořízený podle tohoto zákona se
nevztahují ustanovení zákona č. 219/2000 Sb., o majetku České republiky a jejím vystupování
v právních vztazích, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, upravující podmínky převodu do
vlastnictví jiné právnické nebo fyzické osoby (§ 21 až 24 cit. zákona), a měl by dále výslovně
stanovit, že tento majetek může být převeden přijímající straně i bezúplatně.
Zákon by měl výslovně stanovit, že se na prostředky určené pro účely vymezené
tímto zákonem nebudou vztahovat ustanovení o programech podle rozpočtových pravidel
s odkazem na ustanovení § 12 a 13 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech. Tímto krokem se
dosáhne toho, že ve vztahu k těmto prostředkům nebude uplatňována vyhláška č. 231/2005
Sb., ve znění vyhlášky č. 269/2005 Sb. a vyhlášky č. 466/2005 Sb., a nebude pak nutné tyto
prostředky registrovat v Informačním systému programového financování ISPROFIN.
Navrhuje se, aby zákon stanovil možné způsoby využití prostředků na spolupráci
dvoustrannou, tedy poskytovanou přímo přijímající rozvojové zemi, i mnohostrannou, tedy
poskytovanou prostřednictvím mezinárodní organizace, a upravil pravidla pro každou z těchto
forem.
Dvoustranná rozvojová spolupráce
Dvoustranná rozvojová spolupráce je realizována v následujících formách: odborná
(technická) spolupráce, spolupráce v oblasti ekonomických a sociálních infrastruktur, finanční
spolupráce, odpouštění dluhů rozvojovým zemí, pomoc uprchlíkům na území České
republiky, poskytování vládních stipendií, rozvojová výchova, vzdělávání a osvěta
12
o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci, rozvojový výzkum a posilování kapacit nevládních
neziskových organizací působících v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce.
a) Odborná (technická) spolupráce2 zahrnuje všechny varianty pomoci zaměřené na
školení lidských zdrojů partnerské země cestou zlepšování její úrovně vyučování,
výcviku, kvalifikace a technických či výrobních kapacit v institucionální, správní,
ekonomické, zdravotnické, sociální, kulturní, vzdělávací, vědecké nebo
technologické oblasti. Odborná spolupráce je realizována nejčastěji formou
projektů za účasti expertů, sociálních pracovníků, nevládních organizací, podniků
nebo převodem technologií.3 Prostředky určené na realizaci odborné (technické)
spolupráce mohou mít charakter výdajů za služby a dodávky zboží nebo účelových
dotací neziskovým a dalším oprávněným subjektům.
b) Spolupráce v oblasti ekonomických a sociálních infrastruktur je realizována
prostřednictvím investičních projektů pro navýšení fyzického kapitálu
partnerských zemí a projektů na pomoc ekonomickým sektorům. Prostředky na
budování ekonomických a sociálních infrastruktur mohou mít charakter výdajů za
služby, dodávky zboží a stavební práce, účelových dotací neziskovým a dalším
oprávněným subjektům nebo zvýhodněných úvěrů ve prospěch sociálního a
ekonomického rozvoje partnerských zemí.
c) Finanční spolupráce zahrnuje poskytování finančních darů (v rámci konkrétního
projektu nebo jako příspěvek do sektoru či státního rozpočtu přijímající země),
vládní úvěry za účelem rozvoje přijímajících zemí, odpouštění dluhů rozvojových
zemí, půjčky a mikrogranty obyvatelstvu těchto zemí. Ministerstvo zahraničních
věcí/ Česká agentura pro rozvojovou spolupráci nebo Ministerstvo financí bude
zmocněno poskytnout finanční dar do zahraničí v rámci zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce.
d) Pomoc uprchlíkům na území České republiky spočívá v poskytnutí ochrany
uprchlíkům cestou umožnění pobytu a lidsky důstojné existence na území České
republiky. Tato agenda je v souladu s kompetenčním zákonem v gesci
Ministerstva vnitra a je hrazena z jeho rozpočtu.
e) Poskytování vládních stipendií studentům z rozvojových a jiných potřebných
zemí ke studiu na veřejných vysokých školách, včetně úhrady zdravotní péče
poskytované stipendistům. Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy je
oprávněno vyplácet prostředky určené ke zřízení vládních stipendijních míst ke
studiu na veřejných vysokých školách pro studenty z rozvojových a jiných
potřebných zemí, včetně úhrady zdravotní péče poskytované stipendistům.
Celkový objem prostředků na stipendia v daném roce bude rozpočtován v kapitole
Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce a humanitární pomoc do zahraničí, kterou
spravuje Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí.
f) Rozvojová výchova, vzdělávání a osvěta o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci
zahrnuje vzdělávání a osvětu české společnosti s cílem zlepšit pochopení
ekonomických,
sociálních,
náboženských,
politických,
kulturních
a
environmentálních vlivů, které působí na obyvatele rozvojových zemí. Prostředky
2
Termín „odborná spolupráce“ je odvozen z mezinárodně užívané terminologie pro tento typ spolupráce
doporučené OECD („technical cooperation“).
3
Realizátory projektů se v zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci či v humanitární pomoci rozumějí dodavatelé zboží,
služeb a stavebních prací, příjemci dotací nebo partnerské instituce.
13
určené pro tuto oblast mohou mít charakter výdajů za služby a dodávky zboží,
účelových dotací neziskovým a dalším oprávněným subjektům.
g) Rozvojový výzkum je systematický sběr a analýza informací vedoucí
k prohloubení znalostí o ekonomických a sociálních problémech v rozvojových
zemích a nalézání nových postupů řešení těchto problémů. Prostředky určené pro
tuto oblast mohou mít charakter účelových dotací neziskovým a dalším
oprávněným subjektům nebo výdajů za služby.
h) Posilování kapacit nevládních neziskových organizací probíhá za účelem zvýšení
jejich podílu na řešení problémů obyvatel rozvojových zemí. Prostředky mají
charakter účelových dotací nevládním neziskovým organizacím činným v oblasti
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce.
V rámci dvoustranné spolupráce lze realizovat společné aktivity s dalšími dárci
v rozvojových zemích (např. tzv. trojstranná spolupráce) včetně spolufinancování.
Mnohostranná rozvojová spolupráce
Mnohostrannou zahraniční spolupráci vyvíjí Česká republika prostřednictvím
mezinárodních organizací systému OSN, mezinárodních finančních institucí, ES a dalších
mezinárodních organizací. Podmínkou pro poskytování této formy spolupráce je soulad mezi
zaměřením aktivit a prioritami jednotlivých organizací a prioritami České republiky.
Česká republika realizuje zahraniční mnohostrannou rozvojovou spolupráci formou:
a) povinných či dobrovolných příspěvků do rozpočtu mezinárodní organizace;
b) účelově vázaných příspěvků mezinárodní organizaci s přihlédnutím k prioritám zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce České republiky (např. svěřenecké fondy, specifické projekty,
vysílání expertů apod.);
c) participací na rozhodovacích procesech mezinárodních organizací.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí/ Česká agentura pro rozvojovou spolupráci bude
oprávněno poskytnout příspěvky mezinárodním organizacím podílejícím se na rozvojových
aktivitách, a to v souladu s koncepcí mnohostranné rozvojové spolupráce schválené vládou.
Ministerstvo financí bude oprávněno poskytnout příspěvky mezinárodním finančním
organizacím a příspěvky do řádného rozpočtu EU, do Evropského rozvojového fondu či do
jiných fondů rozvojového charakteru.
IV. Práva a povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob a samosprávných celků
podílejících se na provádění zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
Práva a povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob podílejících se na provádění
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce budou založeny především na smluvním základě, pokud
bude v jednotlivých případech uzavírána mezi Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí, popřípadě
Českou agenturou pro rozvojovou spolupráci, a osobou, která bude zahraniční rozvojovou
spolupráci realizovat, smlouva podle příslušných ustanovení obchodního zákoníku. Práva a
povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob podílejících se na provádění zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce mohou být rovněž odvozeny ze zákona č. 218/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových
pravidlech a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (rozpočtová pravidla), ve znění
pozdějších předpisů, pokud bude v jednotlivých případech peněžní plnění uskutečňováno
14
prostřednictvím dotačního titulu a rozhodnutí o přidělení dotace; v takovém případě mohou
být některá specifická práva a některé specifické povinnosti i obsahem rozhodnutí o přidělení
dotace.
Jelikož však jde o problematiku z hlediska celkového uskutečňování zahraniční
politiky České republiky a prvořadého zájmu na udržení a další posílení dobrého jména České
republiky v zahraničí velice významnou, bude účelné, aby zákon o zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí přímo stanovil některá oprávnění
a některé povinnosti osob podílejících se na provádění zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, a to
především ty z nich, které jsou obecné a zásadní povahy. Zejména dodržování některých
povinností má natolik mimořádný význam pro úspěšné uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce, že je žádoucí nespoléhat jen na správnou aplikaci smluvních vztahů či dodržování
norem rozpočtového práva a správních aktů vydaných na jeho základě a vyjádřit je přímo
zákonnou formou.
Budou-li některé povinnosti osob podílejících se na provádění zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce stanoveny přímo zákonem a dojde k jejich porušení, dopustí se taková osoba
nejen porušení smluvní povinnosti, ale povinnosti zákonné, čímž i její odpovědnost za takové
jednání bude spíše postižitelná adekvátními právními prostředky, včetně případné trestní
odpovědnosti těch fyzických osob, které za tuto osobu jednaly či se dopustily opomenutí
jednání, ke kterému byly povinny. Porušení smlouvy je jednak mnohdy složitě prokazatelné,
mezi smluvními stranami nemusí být dosaženo shody ohledně toho, zda k takovému porušení
opravdu došlo a může být i předmětem dlouhodobého posuzování příslušnými soudy či
rozhodci, kdy i často stát nemusí být úspěšný z důvodů třeba pouze procesní povahy, zatímco
porušení povinnosti stanovené zákonem vyvolává samo o sobě právní důsledky zákonem
stanovené.
Zákon o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí by měl výslovně stanovit zejména tyto povinnosti osob podílejících se na provádění
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci :
a) povinnost postupovat při uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
hospodárně a s veškerou odbornou péčí,
účelně,
b) povinnost o všem podstatném při uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
informovat Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí, popřípadě Českou agenturu pro rozvojovou
spolupráci, a umožnit jim v kterémkoli okamžiku provedení kontroly, včetně kontroly
konkrétního použití poskytnutých peněžních prostředků,
c) povinnost ověřit si právní řád státu, ve kterém je zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce
uskutečňována, a postupovat při své činnosti podle právních norem platných v tomto státě,
d) povinnost postupovat tak, aby za žádných okolností nebylo poškozeno dobré jméno České
republiky v zahraničí.
Z důvodu zachování potřebné míry vyváženosti práv a povinností osob podílejících se
na provádění zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce by mělo být zákonem o zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí výslovně stanoveno rovněž toto
jejich oprávnění :
a) právo na zajištění potřebné součinnosti Ministerstva zahraničních věcí, popřípadě České
agentury pro rozvojovou spolupráci, a to v jakékoli fázi uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce.
Navrhuje se, aby zákon stanovil samosprávným celkům uskutečňujícím zahraniční
rozvojovou spolupráci povinnost informovat Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí nejméně jednou
15
za rok (vždy s údaji za předcházející kalendářní rok) a nejméně v rozsahu zahrnujícím
informace, do kterých zemí byla pomoc poskytnuta, v jakém objemu prostředků, jakou
formou a do jakého sektoru.
__________________________________________________________________________
Oblast humanitární pomoci
I. Vymezení pojmů
Zákon bude výslovně definovat, co se rozumí pojmem humanitární pomoci
poskytovaná do zahraničí, bude specifikovat jednotlivé fáze humanitární pomoci, stanoví, o
jaké formy aktivit se může jednat a pro které země je tato pomoc určena. Navrhuje se, aby se
zákon nevztahoval na pomoc při řešení následků mimořádných událostí v zemích zapojených
do mechanismu civilní ochrany Evropské unie4 ani na operace na záchranu občanů těchto
států na území třetích zemí. Pomoc těmto zemím a jejich občanům v případě mimořádné
události by měla být ošetřena připravovanou novelou zákona o integrovaném záchranném
systému.
Navrhuje se následující definice humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
v souladu s principy dobrého humanitárního dárcovství:
Humanitární pomoci poskytovaná do zahraničí je souhrn činností hrazených z veřejných
prostředků, jejichž cílem je zmírnit utrpení, zachovat lidskou důstojnost a zamezit ztrátám na
životech a zdraví občanů nečlenských zemí EU5 v důsledku přírodních pohrom nebo lidmi
způsobených mimořádných událostí, k nimž došlo mimo území EU6. Humanitární pomocí do
zahraničí se rozumí také pomoc při obnovení základních životních podmínek po
mimořádných událostech mimo území EU7 a pomoc při předcházení jejich negativním
následkům. Humanitární pomoc se poskytuje bez diskriminace některé ze skupin postižených
lidí a nezávisle na politických, ekonomických, bezpečnostních nebo jiných cílech dárce.
Civilní obranné a vojenské prostředky mohou být při poskytování humanitární
pomoci do zahraničí použity pouze jako krajní řešení a pokud má jejich použití jasnou
přidanou hodnotu oproti jiným řešením8.
Na základě časového hlediska se doporučuje upravit následující fáze pomoci:
Okamžitá humanitární pomoc do zahraničí - takovouto pomocí se rozumí humanitární pomoc
poskytnutá bezprostředně po mimořádné události se zaměřením na záchranu lidských životů a
zajištění základních životních podmínek postiženého obyvatelstva.
4
Mechanismus civilní ochrany EU byl vytvořen na základě rozhodnutí Rady EU ze dne 23. října 2001
o vytvoření mechanismu Společenství na podporu zesílené spolupráce při asistenčních zásazích v oblasti civilní
ochrany (2001/792/ES, Euratom). Do mechanismu je v současné době zapojeno 30 zemí, z toho 25 členských
zemí EU, dále Bulharsko, Rumunsko, Norsko, Island a Lichtenštejnsko.
5
Kromě občanů zemí zapojených do mechanismu civilní ochrany EU.
6
A mimo území států zapojených do mechanismu civilní ochrany EU.
7
A mimo území států zapojených do mechanismu civilní ochrany EU.
8
V souladu s Pravidly OSN pro použití vojenských a civilních obranných prostředků pro pomoc při
katastrofách (UN Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief) přijatými
v Oslo v roce 1994.
16
Následná humanitární pomoc do zahraničí (až do 2 let po události) - takovouto pomocí se
rozumí pomoc postiženému obyvatelstvu zaměřená na postupné obnovení základních
socioekonomických aktivit (tzv. rehabilitace), případně obnova infrastruktur (tzv.
rekonstrukce), zajištění návratu obyvatelstva do původních domovů (tzv. repatriace).
Pomoc při vleklé humanitární krizi – takovouto pomocí se rozumí pomoc obyvatelstvu
dlouhodobě trpícímu následkem přírodních pohrom nebo lidmi způsobených krizových
situací.
II. Působnost orgánů podílejících se na humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
Předpokládá se, že na základě vládou schválené koncepce humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí a v rámci schváleného celkového objemu prostředků na humanitární
pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí pro daný kalendářní rok rozhoduje o poskytnutí
humanitární pomoci České republiky do zahraničí ministerstvo zahraničních věcí (v případě
okamžité reakce na mimořádnou událost po dohodě s ministrem vnitra). V případech, které
svým rozsahem vyžadují poskytnutí pomoci nad rámec těchto finančních prostředků, učiní
rozhodnutí vláda na návrh ministra zahraničních věcí. Jedná se o změnu současného stavu,
kdy o humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí do výše 5 mil. Kč rozhoduje dle zákona
č. 239/2000 Sb., ve znění pozdějších předpisů, ministr vnitra po dohodě s ministrem
zahraničních věcí a kdy o humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí nad 5 mil. Kč
rozhoduje vláda.
V případě okamžité reakce na mimořádnou událost rozhodne ministerstvo
zahraničních věcí po dohodě s ministerstvem vnitra o poskytnutí humanitární pomoci do
zahraničí, o jejím rozsahu a formě. V případě záchranářské či materiální pomoci postupuje
ministerstvo vnitra v souladu s mechanismy integrovaného záchranného systému (včetně
součinnosti s dalšími orgány státní správy, samosprávy, nevládními či soukromými subjekty).
Zodpovědnost za předání materiální pomoci přijímající straně nese ministerstvo zahraničních
věcí. Poskytnutí okamžité humanitární pomoci ve finanční formě, a to dvoustranně i
mnohostranně, provádí ministerstvo zahraničních věcí.
V případě následné humanitární pomoci či pomoci při vleklých humanitárních krizích
rozhodne ministerstvo zahraničních věcí o poskytnutí humanitární pomoci do zahraničí, o
jejím rozsahu a formě. Realizaci humanitární pomoci ve formě projektů zajistí Česká agentura
pro rozvojovou spolupráci. Agentura zajišťuje vypisování a vedení výběrových řízení nebo
dotačních výběrových řízení na projekty humanitární pomoci a řízení, průběžnou a
závěrečnou kontrolu a evaluaci projektů humanitární pomoci. Poskytnutí humanitární pomoci
ve finanční formě, a to dvoustranně i mnohostranně, provádí Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí rovněž koordinuje orgány státní správy, které se na základě
výzvy ministerstva zahraničních věcí mohou do této pomoci zapojit.
Dále ministerstvo zajišťuje koordinaci přípravy a předkládání koncepce humanitární
pomoci, včetně výhledu objemu a struktury financí na její poskytování, spolupracuje
s rezortními ministerstvy, mezinárodními organizacemi, nevládními neziskovými
organizacemi a jinými subjekty v rámci oblasti humanitární pomoci, předkládá informace o
poskytnuté humanitární pomoci vládě a připravuje statistické výkaznictví humanitární
pomoci.
17
III. Pravidla pro nakládání s prostředky na humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do
zahraničí
Navrhuje se, aby v zákonu byly upraveny způsoby využití prostředků vyčleněných na
humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí. Zákon by měl stanovit, že prostředky
poskytnuté na humanitární pomoc do zahraničí budou spravovány způsobem, který zajistí
jejich transparentní a účelné použití.
Navrhuje se, aby prostředky na humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí nebyly
nadále rozpočtovány v kapitole Všeobecná pokladní správa a aby byla vytvořena samostatná
kapitola státního rozpočtu České republiky „Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce a humanitární
pomoci poskytovaná do zahraničí“ v gesci Ministerstva zahraničních věcí. Prostředky na
humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí by byly rozpočtovány v samostatné položce
této kapitoly. Výše prostředků by vycházela ze schváleného střednědobého plánu, přičemž
součástí těchto prostředků by již nebyly prostředky na operace civilní ochrany v rámci zemí
EU a na záchranu obyvatel těchto zemí ve třetích zemích, ale ty by zůstaly i nadále v kapitole
Všeobecná pokladní správa
Předpokládá se, že návrh rozpočtu na humanitární pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí
na následující kalendářní rok s výhledem na další dva roky bude předkládán vládě ke
schválení vždy do 21. května a že Ministerstvo financí přihlédne při sestavování návrhu
státního rozpočtu České republiky a jeho střednědobého výhledu ke schválenému rozpočtu
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
Zákon by měl výslovně stanovit, že se na prostředky určené pro účely vymezené tímto
zákonem nebudou vztahovat ustanovení o programech podle rozpočtových pravidel
s odkazem na ustanovení § 12 a 13 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech. Tímto krokem se
dosáhne toho, že ve vztahu k těmto prostředkům nebude uplatňována vyhláška č. 231/2005
Sb., ve znění vyhlášky č. 269/2005 Sb. a vyhlášky č. 466/2005 Sb., a nebude pak nutné tyto
prostředky registrovat v Informačním systému programového financování ISPROFIN.
Zákon by měl upravit možnost, aby finanční prostředky, které nebyly v rámci
příslušného kalendářního roku využity, bylo možné převést do rezervního fondu, který bude
vytvořen v rámci kapitoly Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce a humanitární pomoc v gesci
Ministerstva zahraničních věcí. Prostředky rezervního fondu určené na financování projektů
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí, které na tyto programy a projekty nebyly
použity, organizační složka státu vrátí nejpozději ve lhůtách finančního vypořádání se státním
rozpočtem za rok, ve kterém byl program nebo projekt ukončen.
Zákon by měl dále výslovně stanovit, že na majetek pořízený podle tohoto zákona se
nevztahují ustanovení zákona č. 219/2000 Sb., o majetku České republiky a jejím vystupování
v právních vztazích, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, upravující podmínky převodu do
vlastnictví jiné právnické nebo fyzické osoby (§ 21 až 24 cit. zákona), a měl by dále výslovně
stanovit, že tento majetek může být převeden přijímající straně i bezúplatně.
Navrhuje se, aby zákon stanovil možné způsoby využití prostředků na humanitární
pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí, a to jak pomoc dvoustrannou, tedy poskytovanou přímo
přijímající zemi, i mnohostrannou, tedy poskytovanou prostřednictvím mezinárodní
organizace, a upravil pravidla pro každou z těchto forem:
a) Záchranářskou pomoc zahrnující vyslání záchranářů, lékařů, odborníků apod. do
postižené oblasti bezprostředně po mimořádné události. Záchranářská pomoc je
uskutečňována v souladu s postupy integrovaného záchranného systému.
18
b) Materiální pomoc spočívající v poskytnutí potřebného materiálu (léků, vybavení,
přístrojů apod.) do postižené oblasti bezprostředně po mimořádné události. Finanční
prostředky na materiální pomoc by měly charakter plateb za dodávky zboží či služby
spojené s realizací humanitární pomoci. Za předání materiální humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí odpovídá Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí, které
v součinnosti s orgány státní správy ČR a dalšími subjekty zabezpečí předání
materiální humanitární pomoci v přijímající zemi včetně uzavření darovací smlouvy se
zástupcem přijímajícího subjektu.
c) Finanční pomoc zahrnující finanční příspěvky mezinárodním organizacím nebo
nevládním neziskovým organizacím, poskytování finančních darů přijímajícím zemím
nebo vybraným skupinám obyvatelstva, vládní úvěry přijímajícím zemím, půjčky a
mikrogranty obyvatelstvu těchto zemí. Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí/ Česká agentura
pro rozvojovou spolupráci nebo Ministerstvo financí by mělo být zmocněno
poskytnout finanční dar do zahraničí v rámci schválené objemu prostředků
vyčleněných na humanitární pomoc do zahraničí.
d) Odbornou (technickou) pomoc ve formě vysílání expertů nebo realizace projektů
zaměřených mimo jiné na psychosociální podporu, školení a výcvik personálu,
posilování kapacit v institucionální, správní, zdravotnické, sociální nebo technologické
oblasti a při předcházení negativním následkům mimořádných událostí. Prostředky na
odbornou (technickou) pomoc by měly charakter plateb za služby či dodávky zboží
spojené s realizací humanitární pomoci nebo účelových dotací neziskovým či jiným
oprávněným subjektům.
e) Pomoc v oblasti infrastruktur realizovanou v rámci následné humanitární pomoci
prostřednictvím investičních projektů pro navýšení fyzického kapitálu přijímajících
zemí (zejména rekonstrukce sociálních a ekonomických infrastruktur). Prostředky na
pomoc v oblasti infrastruktur by měly charakter plateb za služby, dodávky zboží a
stavební práce spojené s realizací humanitární pomoci nebo účelových dotací
neziskovým či jiným oprávněným subjektům.
IV. Práva a povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob podílejících se na provádění
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
Práva a povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob podílejících se na poskytování
humanitární pomoci do zahraničí budou založeny především na smluvním základě, pokud
bude v jednotlivých případech uzavírána smlouva podle příslušných ustanovení obchodního
zákoníku mezi Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí nebo Ministerstvem vnitra, popřípadě Českou
agenturou pro rozvojovou spolupráci, a osobou, která bude humanitární pomoc do zahraničí
realizovat. Práva a povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob podílejících se na poskytování
humanitární pomoci do zahraničí mohou být rovněž odvozeny ze zákona č. 218/2000 Sb., o
rozpočtových pravidlech a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (rozpočtová pravidla), ve
znění pozdějších předpisů, pokud bude v jednotlivých případech peněžní plnění
uskutečňováno prostřednictvím dotačního titulu a rozhodnutí o přidělení dotace; v takovém
případě mohou být některá specifická práva a některé specifické povinnosti i obsahem
rozhodnutí o přidělení dotace.
Jelikož však jde o problematiku z hlediska celkového uskutečňování zahraniční
politiky České republiky a prvořadého zájmu na udržení a další posílení dobrého jména České
republiky v zahraničí velice významnou, bude účelné, aby zákon o zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí přímo stanovil některá oprávnění
19
a některé povinnosti osob podílejících se na poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí, a
to především ty z nich, které jsou obecné a zásadní povahy. Zejména dodržování některých
povinností má natolik mimořádný význam pro úspěšné poskytování humanitární pomoci do
zahraničí, že je žádoucí nespoléhat jen na správnou aplikaci smluvních vztahů či dodržování
norem rozpočtového práva a správních aktů vydaných na jeho základě a vyjádřit je přímo
zákonnou formou.
Budou-li některé povinnosti osob podílejících se na poskytování humanitární pomoci
do zahraničí stanoveny přímo zákonem a dojde k jejich porušení, dopustí se taková osoba
nejen porušení smluvní povinnosti, ale povinnosti zákonné, čímž i její odpovědnost za takové
jednání bude spíše postižitelná adekvátními právními prostředky, včetně případné trestní
odpovědnosti těch fyzických osob, které za tuto osobu jednaly či se dopustily opomenutí
jednání, ke kterému byly povinny. Porušení smlouvy je jednak mnohdy složitě prokazatelné,
mezi smluvními stranami nemusí být dosaženo shody ohledně toho, zda k takovému porušení
opravdu došlo, a může být i předmětem dlouhodobého posuzování příslušnými soudy či
rozhodci, kdy i často stát nemusí být úspěšný z důvodů třeba pouze procesní povahy, zatímco
porušení povinnosti stanovené zákonem vyvolává samo o sobě právní důsledky zákonem
stanovené.
Zákon o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci by měl výslovně
stanovit zejména tyto povinnosti osob podílejících se na poskytování humanitární pomoci do
zahraničí:
a) povinnost postupovat při poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí účelně, hospodárně
a s veškerou odbornou péčí,
b) povinnost o všem podstatném při poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí
informovat Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí nebo Ministerstvo vnitra, popřípadě Českou
agenturu pro rozvojovou spolupráci, a umožnit jim v kterémkoli okamžiku provedení
kontroly, včetně kontroly konkrétního použití poskytnutých peněžních prostředků,
c) povinnost řídit se v případě okamžité záchranářské pomoci postupy vyplývajícími ze
zákona o integrovaném záchranném systému,
c) povinnost ověřit si právní řád státu, kterému je humanitární pomoc poskytována, a
postupovat při své činnosti podle právních norem platných v tomto státě,
d) povinnost zapojených subjektů spolupracovat v postižené oblasti se zastupitelským úřadem
České republiky a s koordinátorem záchranných prací,
e) povinnost postupovat tak, aby za žádných okolností nebylo poškozeno dobré jméno České
republiky v zahraničí.
Z důvodu zachování potřebné míry vyváženosti práv a povinností osob podílejících se
na poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí by mělo být zákonem o zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci do zahraničí výslovně stanoveno rovněž toto
jejich oprávnění:
a) právo na zajištění potřebné součinnosti Ministerstva zahraničních věcí nebo Ministerstva
vnitra, popřípadě České agentury pro rozvojovou spolupráci, a to v jakékoli fázi poskytování
humanitární pomoci do zahraničí.
Dále bude v zákoně stanovena samosprávným celkům uskutečňujícím humanitární
pomoc poskytovanou do zahraničí povinnost informovat Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí
nejméně jednou za rok (vždy s údaji za předcházející kalendářní rok) a nejméně v rozsahu
20
zahrnujícím informace, do kterých zemí byla pomoc poskytnuta, v jakém objemu prostředků,
jakou formou a do jakého sektoru.
21
D. Způsob promítnutí navrhovaného věcného řešení do právního řádu
Navrhované věcné řešení předpokládá přijetí samostatného zákona o zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí, jehož struktura a obsah
by odpovídaly věcnému řešení uvedenému v části C věcného záměru zákona. V tomto zákoně
by dále bylo obsaženo zmocňovací ustanovení pro Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí k vydání
prováděcí vyhlášky, ve které by byla blíže upravena technická pravidla pro realizaci projektů
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce, která nevyžadují zákonnou formu. V zákonu bude dále
stanoveno, že k určitému datu zřídí Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí Českou agenturu pro
rozvojovou spolupráci jako organizační složku státu k plnění úkolů v rámci působnosti
Ministerstva zahraničních věcí. Nabytí účinnosti zákona se předpokládá ke dni 1. ledna 2009
s tím, že během jara 2008 by byl připraven návrh rozpočtu pro zahraniční rozvojovou
spolupráci na rok 2009 a došlo by k zajištění přesunu funkcí v oblasti dvoustranné rozvojové
spolupráce z jednotlivých resortních ministerstev, které až dosud spravovaly přidělené
prostředky na tyto projekty na sekci rozvojové spolupráce a Českou agenturu pro rozvojovou
spolupráci.
Výše uvedené právní řešení je v souladu s Ústavou České republiky a Listinou
základních práv a svobod.
Přijetí navrhované právní úpravy si bude vyžadovat vytvoření některých dílčích
novelizací stávajících právních předpisů, které se předmětu právní úpravy určitým způsobem
dotýkají. Půjde zejména o tyto zákony:
•
zákon č. 2/1969 Sb., o zřízení ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní
správy České republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
•
zákona č. 218/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových pravidlech a o změně některých
souvisejících zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
•
zákon č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému a o změně
některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
•
zákon č. 219/1999 Sb., o ozbrojených silách České republiky, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů,
•
zákon č. 97/1993 Sb., o působnosti Správy státních hmotných rezerv, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů,
•
zákon č. 586/1992 Sb., o daních z příjmu, ve znění pozdějších předpisů,
a o nařízení vlády č. 463/2000 Sb., o stanovení pravidel zapojování do mezinárodních
obyvatelstva.
1) Zákon č. 2/1969 Sb., o zřízení ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České
republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
Především bude nutné novelizovat kompetenční zákon tak, aby v tomto zákoně
stanovené působnosti Ministerstva zahraničních věcí odpovídaly obsahu nového zákona o
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí. Bude
nezbytné v ustanovení § 6 stanovujícího působnost Ministerstva zahraničních věcí výslovně
zakotvit jeho novou působnost spočívající v řízení zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a
22
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí, přičemž v rámci této činnosti toto ministerstvo
koordinuje spolupůsobení ostatních ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy na
tomto úseku.
2) Zákon č. 218/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových pravidlech a o změně některých souvisejících
zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů (dále jen „zákon o rozpočtových pravidlech“)
V § 7 odst. 1 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech upravujícím výdaje státního rozpočtu
se navrhuje doplnit nové písmeno, ve kterém by bylo výslovně uvedeno, že ze státního
rozpočtu se hradí výdaje související s prováděním zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí. Tímto se vytvoří naprosto jednoznačná
zákonná opora pro uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí ze státního rozpočtu, která je s ohledem na taxativní povahu
ustanovení § 7 odst. 1 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech dosud postrádána.
V § 10 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech upravujícím kapitoly státního rozpočtu se
navrhuje doplnit nový odstavec, který by založil novou kapitolu státního rozpočtu Zahraniční
rozvojová spolupráce a humanitární pomoc. Z legislativně technického hlediska lze využít
zavedené právní úpravy v § 10 odst. 3 až 5 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech, kdy zvláštní
kapitoly Všeobecná pokladní správa, Státní dluh a Operace státních finančních aktiv již jsou
zřízeny a jejichž správcem je rovněž organizační složka státu, a to Ministerstvo financí, která
tak kromě své vlastní kapitoly spravuje i tyto tři další kapitoly státního rozpočtu. Doplněný
šestý odstavec v § 10 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech by tedy přibližně zněl takto: „Příjmy
a výdaje státního rozpočtu spojené s prováděním zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a
humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí tvoří kapitolu Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce
a humanitární pomoc poskytovaná do zahraničí, jejímž správcem je Ministerstvo zahraničních
věcí.“.
Povaha zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do
zahraničí, kdy jednotlivé projekty se zpravidla uskutečňují dlouhodobě, a tedy i v delším
časovém horizontu než pouze v období jednoho kalendářního roku, si vyžaduje přijmout
taková pravidla, aby finanční prostředky mohly být využívány soustavně, bez přerušení a ty,
které by nebyly využity v průběhu kalendářního roku, by mohly být přesunuty do
kalendářního roku následujícího. Zároveň je třeba vyloučit administrativně náročné a zcela
zbytečné operace spočívající v přesunu zbývajících dosud nevyčerpaných prostředků dotace,
která je určena k víceletému použití, na konci kalendářního roku směrem od příjemce dotace
k poskytovateli, v jejich následném naprosto formálním převodu do rezervního fondu a po
opětovném vydání rozhodnutí o poskytnutí téže dotace pak ve zpětném přesunu týchž
prostředků na začátku příštího kalendářního roku směrem právě opačným, tj. od poskytovatele
k příjemci dotace. Legislativně by naplnění tohoto cíle mělo umožnit systematické propojení
následujících konkrétních úprav.
a) V § 48 odst. 1 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech upravujícím problematiku, které
peněžní fondy organizační složky státu tvoří, doplnit specifické ustanovení v tom smyslu, že
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí tvoří v rámci kapitoly Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce a
humanitární pomoc poskytovaná do zahraničí zvláštní rezervní fond, pro jehož použití
obdobně platí obecná pravidla o použití rezervního fondu s výjimkou těch ustanovení, jejichž
aplikace je z povahy věci u tohoto zvláštního rezervního fondu vyloučena. Tím se dosáhne
toho, že bude možno uplatnit i ustanovení § 47 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech o možnosti
převedení částek ze státního rozpočtu do tohoto zvláštního rezervního fondu na konci roku.
23
b) Platnost ustanovení § 48 odst. 6 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech, které zakládá
možnost organizační složky státu vrátit prostředky rezervního fondu určené na financování
programů spolufinancovaných z rozpočtu Evropské unie až v tom roce, kdy byl program nebo
projekt ukončen, rozšířit i na projekty financované podle zákona o zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
c) V § 14 odst. 8 zákona o rozpočtových pravidlech, kde je zakotveno pravidlo, že
příjemce dotace je povinen ji s poskytovatelem vypořádat v rámci finančního vypořádání
s odkazem na § 75, tj. na zásady finančního vypořádání stanovené vyhláškou č. 551/2004 Sb.,
doplnit specifické ustanovení, které by stanovilo, že dotace poskytnuté v rámci zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci pro víceleté použití se mezi příjemcem dotace a
poskytovatelem vypořádají až po jejich vyčerpání nebo po ukončení možnosti jejich použití
pro stanovený účel. Takový způsob finančního vypořádání poskytnutých dotací byl ostatně
zvolen např. pro vypořádání dotací poskytnutých obcím a krajům na řešení povodňových škod
vzniklých v letech 1997, 1998 a 2002.
3) Zákon č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému a o změně některých zákonů,
ve znění pozdějších předpisů
Nezbytné budou rovněž změny v zákoně 239/2000 Sb., z jehož uplatňování by měla
být důsledně vyňata oblast humanitární pomoci do zahraničí v souladu s předkládaným
věcným záměrem.
Působnost Ministerstva vnitra by měla být pro účely tohoto zákona v ustanovení § 7
důsledně omezena pouze na integrovaný záchranný systém, operace civilní ochrany,
záchranné a likvidační práce uskutečňované při řešení následků mimořádných událostí
v zemích zapojených do mechanismu civilní ochrany Evropské unie9.
Novela zákona by dále měla upravovat působnost orgánů státní správy a ekonomické
zajištění operací civilní ochrany na území států zapojených do mechanismu civilní ochrany
Evropské unie a operací na záchranu jejich občanů v souvislosti s mimořádnými událostmi ve
třetích zemích. Tato novela by měla být projednávána společně s paragrafovaným zněním
předkládaného zákona.
4) Zákon č. 219/1999 Sb., o ozbrojených silách České republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
V ustanovení § 24 tohoto zákona, které upravuje podmínky, kdy se armáda použije
k zabezpečení letecké dopravy, by pro takové použití z důvodu humanitární a zdravotnické
pomoci měla být dosavadní kompetence vlády k přijetí příslušného rozhodnutí nahrazena
kompetencí ministra obrany. Důvodem je skutečnost, že mnohdy hrají podstatnou roli i
minuty a hodiny a jakákoli prodleva může efekt poskytnutí humanitární a zdravotnické
pomoci značně snížit.
5) Zákon č. 97/1993 Sb., o působnosti Správy státních hmotných rezerv, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů
9
Mechanismus civilní ochrany EU byl vytvořen na základě rozhodnutí Rady EU ze dne 23. října 2001
o vytvoření mechanismu Společenství na podporu zesílené spolupráce při asistenčních zásazích v oblasti civilní
ochrany (2001/792/ES, Euratom). Do mechanismu je v současné době zapojeno 30 zemí, z toho 25 členských
zemí EU, dále Bulharsko, Rumunsko, Norsko, Island a Lichtenštejnsko.
24
Při poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí se předpokládá spolupráce se
Správou státních hmotných rezerv. Vzhledem k tomu, že zákon č. 97/1993 Sb., o působnosti
Správy státních hmotných rezerv, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, nepočítá s poskytováním
pomoci do zahraničí, doporučuje se zvážit doplnění příslušné úpravy cit. zákona.
6) Zákon č. 586/1992 Sb., o daních z příjmů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
V ustanovení 15 odst. 1 zákona č. 586/1992 Sb., o daních z příjmů, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů, které pro stanovení daně z příjmů fyzických osob vypočítává
odečitatelné položky od základu daně a které již výslovně zahrnuje hodnotu darů pro účely
humanitární, by byl doplněn i účel jejich poskytnutí v rámci zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí. Obdobná úprava by se provedla v ustanovení
§ 20 odst. 8 cit. zákona, které obdobným způsobem vypočítává možnosti odečtení hodnoty
poskytnutých darů pro stanovení daně z příjmů právnických osob. Touto navrženou úpravou
by se stimulovalo poskytování darů fyzickými i právnickými osobami v rámci zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci do zahraničí.
7) Nařízení vlády č. 463/2000 Sb., o stanovení pravidel zapojování do mezinárodních
obyvatelstva
Nařízení vlády č. 463/2000 Sb., o stanovení pravidel zapojování do mezinárodních
obyvatelstva, bylo vydáno na základě zmocnění v zákonu č. 239/2000 Sb. a upravuje způsob
financování (§ 4 odst. 2) odlišně, než předpokládá připravovaná právní úprava (hradí se
z kapitoly Všeobecná pokladní správa). V návaznosti na schválenou variantu institucionálního
zabezpečení předmětné oblasti a na samotný text paragrafového znění zákona bude třeba
zvážit novelizaci nařízení vlády č. 463/2000 Sb.
25
E. Předpokládaný hospodářský a finanční dosah navrhovaného věcného
řešení, zejména nároky na státní rozpočet
Celkový objem finančních prostředků na zahraniční rozvojovou spolupráci České
republiky (kromě prostředků na pomoc uprchlíkům a na příspěvky do mezinárodních
finančních organizací, EU a na oddlužování, které budou tak jako dosud rozpočtovány
v kapitolách Ministerstva vnitra a Ministerstva financí) bude tvořit samostatnou kapitolu
státního rozpočtu ČR v gesci MZV ČR, jejíž výše bude každoročně určována v závislosti na
závazcích vyplývajících pro ČR z mezinárodních smluv a v závislosti na ekonomických
možnostech ČR.
Návrh institucionálního zajištění zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce nebude znamenat
zvýšení finanční zátěže pro rozpočet ČR oproti stávajícímu stavu, naopak se předpokládá, že
dojde ke snížení nákladů. Na základě analýzy provedené auditorskou společností Deloitte,
v níž byly náklady na zajištění současného administrativního uspořádání porovnány s výší
nákladů na nové uspořádání, se ukázalo, že jako nejméně efektivní se jeví zachování
současného stavu institucionálního uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce ČR. Nové
uspořádání se jeví nejen jako levnější, ale jako lepší i z hlediska procesních a informačních
toků. Níže je uvedena tabulka, z níž vyplývá porovnání finanční náročnosti návrhu se
současným stavem. Podrobnější rozbor je uveden v příloze č. 2. Konkrétnější vyčíslení
finančních dopadů bude provedeno při zpracování paragrafovaného znění zákona.
Tabulka č. 1 – Křížové porovnání finanční náročnosti administrativního zajištění zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce podle jednotlivých variant (stav v roce 2008)
Zachování
současného stavu
Finanční náročnost
Úspora
96,1 mil. Kč
0
MZV + Agentura
62,3 mil. Kč
33,8 mil. Kč
Změnou institucionálního uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v souvislosti
s návrhem uvedeným ve věcném záměru tak nedojde ke zvýšení nákladů uhrazených
z veřejných rozpočtů oproti stávajícímu stavu. Centralizace řízení dvoustranných projektů do
jednoho místa zvýší transparentnost při kontraktaci realizátorů projektů zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce podle zákona č. 137/2006 Sb., o veřejných zakázkách. Snížení počtu zadavatelů a
jednotná projektová metodika podstatně sníží riziko korupce a zpřístupní oblast realizace
projektů zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce subjektům ze zemí EU.
Současně je nutné zdůraznit, že zřízení jednoho centrálního místa pro vypisování
výběrových řízení na realizátory či projekty zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce přispěje
k transparentnosti vztahů mezi státem a dalšími partnery (soukromým sektorem, nevládními
organizacemi a akademickou obcí) a potenciálně zvýší konkurenceschopnost českých podniků
a organizací i v mezinárodním prostředí. Lze tedy předpokládat, že nová právní úprava bude
mít pozitivní vliv v těchto oblastech.
Zákon nebude mít přímé sociální dopady ani přímé dopady na životní prostředí.
26
F. Soulad navrhovaného řešení s mezinárodními smlouvami a se závazky
vyplývajícími pro ČR z jejího členství v EU
1. Zhodnocení souladu navrhované právní úpravy s mezinárodními smlouvami
Navrhovaná právní úprava není v rozporu s mezinárodními smlouvami, kterými je
Česká republika vázána. Oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce se týkají tyto smlouvy:
•
Dohoda mezi vládou Československé socialistické republiky a Programem OSN pro
rozvoj (Zvláštním fondem) ve věci příspěvku z Programu OSN pro rozvoj (Zvláštního
fondu) ze dne 13.7.1967,
•
Memorandum k Dohodě mezi vládou Československé socialistické republiky a
Organizací spojených národů pro průmyslový rozvoj o spolupráci při rozvoji průmyslu
ze dne 27.4.1987,
•
Dohoda mezi vládou České republiky a Programem dobrovolníci Organizace
spojených národů ze dne 4.8.1997,
•
Dohoda o úplném financování mezi Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí České republiky
a Programem dobrovolníci Organizace spojených národů ze dne 6.12.2001.
Mnohostranné smlouvy, které se týkají oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
(vyhlášené mezinárodní smlouvy, k jejichž ratifikaci dal souhlas zákonodárný sbor a jimiž je
Česká republika vázána):
•
Konvence o Organizaci pro ekonomickou spolupráci a rozvoj (OECD) ze dne 14.
prosince 1960.
•
Dohoda o Mezinárodní bance pro obnovu a rozvoj ze dne 22. července 1944.
•
Dohoda o Mezinárodním sdružení pro rozvoj ze dne 26. ledna 1960.
•
Statut Mezinárodní banky hospodářské spolupráce ze dne 22. října 1963.
•
Dohoda o založení Evropské banky pro obnovu a rozvoj ze dne 29. května 1990.
•
Dohoda o zřízení Světové obchodní organizace (WTO) ze dne 15. dubna 1994.
•
Úmluva o boji proti podplácení zahraničních veřejných činitelů v mezinárodních
podnikatelských transakcích ze dne 17. prosince 1997.
•
Úmluva OSN o změně klimatu z roku 1992.
•
Úmluva OSN o biologické rozmanitosti z roku 1992.
•
Úmluva OSN o boji proti rozšiřování pouští v zemích, zejména afrických, stižených
úporným suchem z roku 1994.
•
Tamperská úmluva o poskytování telekomunikačních zdrojů pro zmírňování následků
katastrof a záchranné práce z roku 1989.
•
Úmluva o účincích průmyslových havárií přesahujících hranice států z roku 2000.
Navrhovaná právní úprava je plně v souladu s uvedenými mezinárodními smlouvami.
Další mezinárodní smlouvy, jimiž je Česká republika vázána, se na tuto oblast nevztahují.
Navrhované řešení je rovněž v souladu s doporučeními Výboru pro rozvojovou pomoc OECD
a OSN.
27
2. Zhodnocení slučitelnosti navrhované právní úpravy s právními akty ES/EU
Navrhovaná právní úprava je plně v souladu s právem ES/EU. Vnitrostátní právní
úprava obecně respektuje zásady vyplývající ze Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství,
zejména vztahy upravené v Hlavě XX, části čtvrté (články 177 – 181), a to i pro ty vztahy,
které nejsou právními akty ES přímo upraveny.
Z právně závazných aktů ES, které byly v oblasti rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární
pomoci přijaty, se na návrh věcného záměru zákona vztahuje nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1257/96
ze dne 20. června 1996 o humanitární pomoci, zejména čl. 10 odst. 1 tohoto nařízení týkající
se povinnosti informovat Komisi. Obdobné povinnosti jsou pak zakotveny například
v nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2258/96 ze dne 22. listopadu 1996 o akcích obnovy a rekonstrukce
v rozvojových zemích a v nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1658/98 ze dne 17. července 1998
o společném financování akcí na pomoc rozvojovým zemím s evropskými nevládními
organizacemi.
Předmětu věcného záměru zákona se dotýkají i tyto právně nezávazné akty
Společenství:
a)
Sdělení Rady – zásady posilování operativní spolupráce mezi Společenstvím
a členskými státy v oblasti rozvojové spolupráce (text přijatý Radou dne
9. března 1998), Úřední věstník C 097, 31/03/1998, celexové označení
31998Y0331,
b)
Sdělení Komise Radě a Evropskému parlamentu o komplementaritě politik
Společenství a členských států v oblasti rozvojové spolupráci,
COM/99/0218 final, celexové označení 51999DC0218,
c)
Závěry Rady EU z dubna 2006, které v § 15 explicitně uvádějí, že „závazky
EU si mohou vyžádat úpravu systémů zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce
v některých členských zemích“.
Tyto akty jsou právně nezávazné, jak již bylo uvedeno, na druhé straně však do určité
míry provádějí ustanovení primárního práva ES (zejména čl. 180 a čl. 181 Smlouvy o
založení Evropského společenství) a lze z nich případně vyvodit povinnosti příslušných
vnitrostátních orgánů, které by se při formulaci paragrafovaného znění návrhu zákona mohly
promítnout do jednotlivých kompetenčních ustanovení.
28
Příloha I.
Stávající a návrh nového institucionální uspořádání
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky
Schéma č. 1 - Stávající institucionální uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky
Stávající a navrhované institucionální uspořádání
MFspolupráce
MZV zahraniční rozvojové
v České republice
Rozvojové
středisko
Schéma č. 1: Stávající institucionální uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v České
republice
MPSV
MV
projekty
MZ
MPO
projekty
MŽP
projekty
projekty
MZe
projekty
MD
projekty
MŠMT
projekty
projekty
zastupitelské úřady
tok financí
řízení
koordinace/konzultace
1
Schéma č. 2 - Navrhované institucionální uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v České
republice
MZV + Agentura
MZV
MF
Česká
agentura pro
rozvojovou
spolupráci
projekty
Zastupitelské
úřady
Konzultační a poradní orgány
Resortní expertíza
Sektorová koherence
projekty
tok financí
řízení
koordinace k
ik
2
II.
Předkládací zpráva
k návrhu věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární
pomoci poskytované do zahraničí
Předkládá se návrh věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární
pomoci poskytované do zahraničí na základě usnesení vlády č. 1311 ze dne 12. října 2005.
Hlavním cílem materiálu je komplexně upravit v jediném právním předpise se silou zákona
problematiku zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí, a
reagovat tak na rostoucí závazky a posilující se roli České republiky v této oblasti v rámci
mezinárodního společenství. Obsahem zákona bude zejména vymezení základních pojmů, vymezení
působnosti orgánů státní správy, definování postupů při financování relevantních aktivit, práva a
povinnosti fyzických a právnických osob zapojených do poskytování pomoci do zahraničí.
Zároveň je také sledován záměr vytvořit podmínky pro efektivní a transparentní uskutečňování
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí v souladu
s mezinárodními závazky České republiky.
Česká republika realizuje svou politiku zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce od roku 1995 a
v současné době na tuto oblast vynakládá přibližně 3 mld. Kč ročně, což představuje 0,11 % hrubého
národního důchodu (HND). V souvislosti s mezinárodními závazky, zejména pak v návaznosti na
závěry Evropské rady z června 2005, by Česká republika měla v nadcházejících letech usilovat o další
navyšování prostředků, a to na 0,17 % HND v roce 2010, což by v absolutním vyjádření mělo činit
kolem 6,5 mld. Kč, a 0,33 % HND v roce 2015, tedy více než 15 mld. Kč. Stávající systém
neumožňuje řádné plnění mezinárodních závazků, neboť v důsledku silné decentralizace není
rozvojová politika České republiky jednotná.
V roce 2005 se ČR přihlásila k tzv. Pařížské deklaraci o efektivnosti pomoci, mezi jejíž
nejdůležitější body patří důraz na harmonizaci poskytování pomoci mezi jednotlivými dárcovskými
zeměmi. Principy obsažené v Pařížské deklaraci uvádějí i dokumenty schválené Radou Evropské unie,
zejména pak dokument „Urychlování pokroku směrem k dosažení Rozvojových cílů tisíciletí“ a tzv.
„Evropský konsensus o rozvojové spolupráci“. Dále Českou republiku zavazují závěry Rady Evropské
unie k efektivitě pomoci, které byly přijaty v dubnu 2006. Česká republika však svoji rozvojovou
spolupráci nemůže efektivně harmonizovat s ostatními dárcovskými zeměmi v situaci, kdy je pro ni
vážným problémem i sjednocení aktivit jednotlivých rezortních ministerstev.
Stávající legislativa tuto oblast téměř neupravuje. Jedinou zákonnou normou, kde je uvedena
explicitní zmínka o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci, je zákon č. 2/1969 Sb., o zřízení ministerstev a
jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, podle něhož
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí „vytváří koncepci a koordinuje zahraniční rozvojovou pomoc“. Avšak
stávající znění zmíněného zákona a neexistence samostatné právní úpravy pro tuto oblast způsobují, že
realizace bilaterálních projektů rozvojové spolupráce je roztříštěna mezi 9 ministerstev. Ministerstva
pak disponují prostředky na realizaci dvoustranných projektů v zahraničí, které jsou jim přidělovány
z rozpočtové kapitoly Všeobecná pokladní správa z položky Zahraniční rozvojová pomoc.
Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí jako koordinátor však nemá dostatek pravomocí k rozhodování o
způsobech využití těchto prostředků ani ke korektnímu zapojení do mezinárodních aktivit směřujících
ke snižování chudoby v rozvojovém světě.
Současný systém neodpovídá požadavkům na efektivitu. Jednotlivá rezortní ministerstva často
chápou účel rozvojové spolupráce odlišně, přičemž Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí postrádá účinné
nástroje pro dosažení jednotné národní politiky zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. I méně podstatné
problémy si proto vyžadují řešení na mezirezortní úrovni. Mezirezortní bariéry jsou překážkou
synergického působení spolupráce, ve většině případů chybí mezi aktivitami zahraniční rozvojové
spolupráce České republiky v jednotlivých sektorech žádoucí provázanost, která by odpovídala
komplexnosti rozvojových problémů. Stávající systém brání efektivní funkční specializaci pracovníků
zapojených do administrace rozvojové spolupráce. Roztříštěnost institucionálního rámce také
negativně ovlivňuje kvalitu rozhodovacího procesu.
Předkládaný návrh věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární
pomoci poskytované do zahraničí navrhuje zřízení svodného a jednotného pracoviště pro technické,
finanční a další specializované jakož i administrativní činnosti související s organizací, výkonem a
kontrolou primárně dvoustranných projektů zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce. Toto pracoviště – svého
druhu agentura – bude působit v těsném provázání s Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí jako organizační
složka státu. Předkládaný návrh institucionálního zakotvení rozvojových aktivit České republiky
vychází z osvědčeného organizačního modelu uplatňovaného státy, které zahraniční rozvojovou
spolupráci v podmínkách demokratického zřízení a tržní ekonomiky poskytují po několik desítek let.
Navržené institucionálního zakotvení předpokládá využití již získané expertízy a dalšího zapojení
rezortních ministerstev do formulování politiky rozvojové spolupráce prostřednictvím mezirezortních
koordinačních a konzultačních orgánů a jejich pracovních skupin.
V oblasti poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí se Česká republika přihlásila
k zásadám tzv. dobrého humanitárního dárcovství (Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles)
přijatými nejvýznamnějšími světovými poskytovateli humanitární pomoci ve Stockholmu v roce 2003.
Tyto zásady se opírají o principy lidskosti, nestrannosti a nezávislosti, zdůrazňují nezbytnost
dodržování mezinárodního humanitárního práva a vytvářejí rámec pro postup při řešení humanitárních
krizí v postižených oblastech.
Rozhodující pravomoci při poskytování humanitární pomoci do zahraničí přísluší dle zákona
č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném záchranném systému, Ministerstvu vnitra, což není v souladu se
zahraničně-politickou dimenzí humanitární pomoci do zahraničí ani s kompetenčním zákonem.
Stávající systém humanitární pomoci je legislativně nastaven na záchranné práce na území České
republiky a jen málo bere v úvahu její nasměrování do zahraničí. Některé modality humanitární
pomoci (např. následnou pomoc při obnově infrastruktur postižených míst) pak nejsou upraveny
vůbec.
Navrhuje se, aby předkládaný návrh věcného záměru zákona řešil pouze tu oblast, která se
týká poskytování humanitární pomoci do zemí mimo Evropskou unii a Evropský hospodářský prostor.
Operacemi civilní ochrany v souvislosti s mimořádnými událostmi na území Evropské unie a
Evropského hospodářského prostoru a záchranou jejich obyvatel na území třetích států se tento návrh
nezabývá. Úprava těchto činností včetně rozhodovacích mechanismů a ekonomického zajištění bude
řešena v rámci optimalizace současného bezpečnostního systému na základě usnesení vlády č. 1214
ze dne 21. září 2005. Doporučuje se, aby projednání novely zákona č. 239/2000 Sb., o integrovaném
záchranném systému, proběhlo současně s projednáním paragrafovaného znění zákona o zahraniční
rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
Vážným problémem je i skutečnost, že ve stávající právní úpravě rozpočtových pravidel
chybějí pravidla nutná pro uskutečňování zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí, která by vzala v úvahu specifickou povahu těchto aktivit a umožnila pružné
a kontinuální financování bez nadbytečných a administrativně náročných operací. Předkládaný návrh
věcného záměru zákona by měl také odstranit problémy spojené s uplatňováním vyhlášky č. 231/2005
Sb., o účasti státního rozpočtu na financování programů pořízení a reprodukce majetku, ve znění
vyhlášky č. 269/2005 Sb. a vyhlášky č. 466/2005 Sb. Pravidla stanovená touto vyhláškou nebyla
koncipována s ohledem na specifika zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí a představují proto vážnou překážku pro jejich realizaci.
Předkládaný návrh věcného záměru zákona dále upravuje práva a povinnosti fyzických a
právnických osob a samosprávných celků v oblasti zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární
pomoci poskytované do zahraničí.
Návrh věcného záměru zákona o zahraniční rozvojové spolupráci a humanitární pomoci
poskytované do zahraničí byl vypracován Ministerstvem zahraničních věcí ve spolupráci s dalšími
ministerstvy, Legislativní radou vlády, se zástupci nevládních organizací zapojených do uskutečňování
zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce a humanitární pomoci poskytované do zahraničí, se zástupci
soukromého sektoru a dalšími externími odborníky.

Twinning Projects - The Web site cannot be found

Transkript

Podobné dokumenty

Úvodní konference k projektu

Connecting through Science