The DCI Committee unanimously approved the following point on the agenda:
1- Annual Action Programme 2017 on the Pan-African Programme for an amount of EUR
22.5 million.
The EDF Committee unanimously approved the following points on the agenda:
2- Annual Action Programme 2017 in favour of Sierra Leone for an amount of EUR 54.5
million.
3- Annual Action Programme 2017 Part 3 in favour of West Africa for an amount of EUR 29
million.
4- Individual Measure in favour of Guinea (Programme d'appui à la réforme du secteur de
sécurité en Guinée (PARSS 3)) for an amount of EUR 17 million.
5- Individual measure in favour of Nigeria (Second Contribution to the African Investment
Facility (AflF) in support of the Energy Sector in Nigeria) for an amount of EUR 65 million.
The EDF Committee approved by qualified majority the following points on the agenda:
6- Annual Action Programme 2017 in favour of Eritrea for an amount of EUR 78.9 million.
7- Programme for Transboundary Water Management in the Nile River Basin for an amount
of EUR 10 million.
The Commission gave a presentation on the Evaluation of Joint Programming and informed
about the forthcoming launching of a written procedure for the draft Commission decisions on
the creation of the
Africa Investment Platform and the allocation of EUR 400 million from
EDF reserves to the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) Guarantee.
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
1.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved without modifications.
2.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE 485th EDF COMMITTEE
MEETING OF 16 JUNE
The minutes were approved without modifications.
3.
FOR OPINION
DCI
1. PAN-AFRICAN
Result: unanimous positive opinion.
BE said that the Action Document on the EU contribution to the African Legal Support
Facility (ALSF) does not mention how this action will ensure complementarity with other
initiatives taken by the EU or other donors; on digital dividend, BE observed that COM has a
comparative advantage in working on the legal framework, thus accompanying what it is done
in the domain of infrastructure. According to BE, it would be interesting to determine which
concrete applications to digital technology will be done in the project. On gender equality, BE
wondered how it will be integrated in the project. UK announced that it is going to publish a
strategy on working on digitalisation in developing countries and it is therefore keen on
finding synergies with COM on the matter. ES saw the measures as fully in line with the
roadmap adopted at the EU-Africa Summit; concerning the EU-Africa Safety in Aviation
project, ES noted that Mozambique might be soon removed from the EU black list thanks to
the enormous efforts that its civil aviation authorities have been done; it would therefore be
counterproductive not to fund Mozambique under this measure only because they are not on
the list anymore. FR underlined the importance that the African Legal Support Facility respect
legal traditions of each African country taking part to it. On Policy and Regulation Initiative
for Digital Africa (PRIDA) – formerly known as Accessing the Digital dividend in Africa, FR
asked more details on the expected results to which Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
the measure is meant to contribute. PT joined ES on Mozambique and recommended that
COM involves local authorities; moreover, PT invited COM to look for synergy with other
donors as well as with bilateral and regional programmes.PT also asked that for all these
continental programmes that have activities in specific countries, the concerned EU
Delegation and EU Member States' representations at national level should be more
systematically informed.
COM pointed out that Africa is currently based on mobile Internet and PRIDA is trying to
solve the issue of access: a key part of the project is to get together the different stakeholders
around Internet governance. PRIDA is not addressing gender equality directly but in broader
terms generating sustainable growth and gender has been incorporated in specific objectives
and indicators. Regarding the EU-Africa Safety in Aviation project, COM reassured MS that
it intends to continue supporting the countries that have just gone out of the EU black list in
order to ensure the sustainability of their improvements. The choice of targeted countries will
be lead of course also by the eagerness of the partner counties and their political will. On the
EU contribution to ALSF, the COM will be sitting in as an observer in the Governance Board
of the Facility, alongside several Member States who are members of the ALSF, and will be
also a member of the donors' table. Both these bodies will allow the EU (COM and MS) to
highlight the links with its other relevant initiatives and will allow ALSF to look for further
synergies and complementarities in their activities.
EDF
A POINTS
2. SIERRA LEONE Result: unanimous positive opinion.
The AAP 2017 in favour of Sierra Leone was approved without discussion.
3. WEST AFRICA Result: unanimous positive opinion.
The AAP 2017 Part 3 in favour of West Africa was approved without discussion.
4. GUINEA Result: unanimous positive opinion.
The Individual Measure "Programme d'appui à la réforme du secteur de sécurité en Guinée
(PARSS 3)" was approved without discussion.
5. NIGERIA Result: unanimous positive opinion.
The Individual Measure "Second Contribution to the African Investment Facility (AflF) in
support of the Energy Sector in Nigeria" was approved without discussion.
B POINTS
6. ERITREA Result: positive opinion by qualified majority. EL and NL voted against.
NL expressed its appreciation for the FAIR project which takes into account the
recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council;
on the other hand, NL voiced its negative opinion on the REACH project. SE welcomed the
continuous dialogue with the UN on human rights but called on COM to avoid overlap. IT
remarked that the energy sector has a great potential to help the population. Concerning the
letter of the European Parliament on the AAP on Eritrea, IT pointed out that the EP has no
role in the decision-making of the EDF Committee. FR said to agree with the AAP but to be
doubtful about the capacity of the Eritrean capacities to implement it, especially when it
comes to the availability of spare parts and equipment in the long run. On the other hand, FR
regretted that there was not more attention on renewable energy. EL praised the work of COM
but declared to be very much concerned about the human rights situation in Eritrea; moreover,
EL recalled the confiscation by the Eritrean authorities of the building where EL has its
honorary consulate in Asmara; given the lack of the rule of law and of respect towards private
properties, EL concluded that it could not vote in favour of the measure and suggested to
postpone it. DE highlighted that the EU will have to monitor closely the progress of the
Eritrean authorities in both the domain of energy and human rights but the formulation of the
AAP is good. AT observed that the recommendations of the UPR remain a central part of the
EU strategy towards Eritrea and suggested further support to the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights in Eritrea in order to ensure an appropriate implementation
of the FAIR project. CZ lamented the lack of link with the Valletta Summit in both
documents and asked whether the REACH project had drawn some lessons from the
digitalisation project which ran under the 10th EDF.
COM pointed out the major impact that the REACH project can have on livelihoods and
population in terms of food security and basic services; moreover, on-grid electricity can also
have a major role in making hospitals running. Appropriate committee procedures are kept
and the Commissioner is going to reply soon to the letter of the EP. Concerning the
sustainability of REACH, during the development of the project COM gave a close look at it
and it was also because of that that COM chose a hybrid system as the most effective way to
proceed. COM is of course concerned by the issue of EL property and the EU ambassador has
already called for a joint demarche towards the authorities. Capacities are certainly an issue
but the projects aim partly at building them. One key result of past projects is to have
established a good relationship with the Ministry of Justice. There will be strong monitoring
and evaluation components in both projects.
7. NILE RIVER BASIN Result: positive opinion by qualified majority. EL, CY and PT voted against. HR, LU, HU,
MT, RO and SK abstained.
FR announced to be ready to vote in favour of the measure since COM and EEAS added a
political declaration on the water management of the Nile River Basin, therefore promoting
the constructive neutrality of the EU. ES also appreciated the text of the declaration and, in
particular, three of the elements included in it: i) the emphasis put on the possibility for Egypt
to participate in the programme although it is not part of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), ii)
the availability of funding to meet the needs of all the riparian countries along the Nile; iii)
the political neutrality of the programme. PT took the view that the project will not help in
improving the relations between Egypt and the other riparian countries and proposed to
postpone it until full reintegration of Egypt in the NBI. EL praised the efforts made by COM
and recognised that the technical aspects of the project are sound; however, it believed its
implementation cannot be successful without Egypt. According to EL, water management is
an issue of survival for the riparian countries, so the consensus among them is absolutely
necessary. Moreover, local ownership should be guaranteed. For all these reasons, EL joined
PT in asking for a postponement. DK pointed out that the project is relevant for all the eleven
riparian countries, it is a technical project and it is neutral; therefore, although COM should
do everything in order to involve Egypt, it should go ahead. SE expressed support for the
measure but insisted that further politicising should be avoided. In addition, the EU should
guarantee the maximum transparency, in order to gain the trust of Egypt. According to SE, it
will also be important that the data gathered are disseminated through academics, civil society
and the media. Further political debate should find its place in the Council, in COAFR or
MAMA. PL said to be favourable to the measure and that, if the process should be as
inclusive as possible, it should not be dominated by one single country. HU recalled that the
project should feed regional cooperation and not hostility and pointed out that water resources
are under pressure because of climate change and population growth; having said that, HU
preferred to abstain. MT joined EL and PT in asking for a postponement and explained that, if
this is not possible, it will abstain. UK proposed an amendment in order to clarify
inclusiveness but expressed its support. But approval does not set any precedent and we
should try to ensure that all Nile states are fully supportive of any future programmes. BE
announced its support, while HR underlined that Egypt is an important partner and preferred
to abstain. AT recognised its sensitivity on the issue of water management but recalled that
the EU did everything it could to reassure Egypt. RO also declared its abstention. IT objected
that the EDF Committee could not take any political declaration on a legal basis, since this
does not belong to the competences of the EDF Committee. The project is consistent with
what the EU and its MS do in the region and IT said to be ready to support it; it will be,
however, difficult to maintain a neutral position if the EU reasons on the basis of incentives.
IT also highlighted that it is of paramount importance that the interests of downstream
countries are taken into consideration as well. CY said to be on the same line as EL and
announced its negative vote. BG, CZ, NL and DE expressed support, LU and SK declared
their abstention.
The EEAS replied that the statement will be annexed to the minutes of the meeting and to the
press release of the project but cannot be defined "political" as such, since it is merely
explaining the rationale behind the project. COM confirmed that it will continue working with
Egypt and trying to involve it in the project. COM underlined that the programme has been
substantially modified so as to make sure Egypt can fully participate and benefit from it.
Since Egypt is not going to come back any time soon to the NBI, it makes no sense to further
delay the adoption of the project, which in fact will indeed facilitate confidence building
between riparian states. The alternative proposal for implementation with the eleven riparian
countries bilaterally would not be manageable and the option of implementation through
regional organisations would be challenged by insufficient adequate staffing. The Chair
concluded that COM is going ahead on the basis of a positive opinion expressed by qualified
majority.
4.
FOR INFORMATION
1. EVALUATION OF JOINT PROGRAMMING COM gave a presentation on the evaluation of Joint Programming (JP) together with EEAS.
SE welcomed the report and pointed out that a joint evaluation is good even when there is no
JP. According to SE, JP is relevant also for the regional context and it should be first and
foremost tied to partner countries' preferences and not to those of EU MS agencies. FR
noticed that the replacement of the programming document by JP does not come out so much
from the evaluation and wondered how COM and EEAS see the matter. PT pointed out that it
is a particularly useful exercise, at a time in which there is pressure on multilateralism and
growing influence from actors such as emerging countries. Assessment, ownership and
synchronisation should constitute the essential factor that the EU has to take into account with
JP. According to PT, there are some open issues, like how to make progress when there is no
clear agreement by partner countries or when not all MS are involved in taking decisions. PT
recalled that JP is a voluntary process and flexibility is of paramount importance in this
respect, as some sectors might not be covered by the exercise and there is the need for a case-
by-case approach. Clear gains of the JP are certainly visibility and value-added.
COM recognised that so far JP has been applied only to bilateral cooperation and that the
possibility to expand it to regional cooperation should be explored. Joint Implementation is
another commitment and can be found in the European Consensus on Development; though it
is linked to JP, it has not necessarily to be coupled with it. The role of partner countries and
the consultation of civil society are aspects that need further reflection, as well as the way to
align to National Development Plans (NDPs). JP helps in establishing a good division of
labour and in enhancing policy dialogue. Some partner countries, like for example Cambodia,
have already expressed their appreciation for JP.
2. AFRICA INVESTMENT PLATFORM AND EFSD GUARANTEE With the EFSD Regulation soon entering into force, COM announced its intention to start its
implementation before the end of the year. Two COM Decisions were part of a package that
COM proposed in September 2016 to the EDF Committee, one on the creation of the African
Investment Platform (AIP) and another on a contribution of EUR 400 million to the EFSD
Guarantee Fund; those decisions will be adopted only once the Regulation enters into force.
Since the Strategic Board of the EFSD is foreseen for the end of September, COM urgently
needs the contribution of EUR 400 million to the EFSD Guarantee Fund.
BE asked to clarify the calendar. IT voiced some perplexity on the idea to give an opinion on
a legal text which does not yet exist and expressed the wish to read the opinion of COM Legal
Service. SE wondered how things can be arranged in order to ensure priority assistance to
fragile States. SE also added that good governance and the fight against corruption should be
high on the agenda. FR recalled that the documents needed to be amended to integrate the
comments of the COM Legal Service and the amendments that were proposed in the
meantime. LV inquired on the links with the Neighbourhood Investment Platform. UK
recognised the importance of the capacity-building component.
Concerning the AIP decision, COM agreed to process it at the occasion of the next EDF
Committee after the entry into force of the Regulation, in order to align with DG NEAR.
Regarding the contribution of EUR 400 million to the EFSD Guarantee Fund, COM explained
that the intention is to start the written procedure at the end of July with the deadline at the
end of August. COM Legal Service confirmed that the procedure is in line with the rules, as
long as the adoption comes once the Regulation is entered into force; on this respect, IT
insisted that the COM legal service opinion should be shared with the Committee. The Chair
said that he needed to verify internally how to deal with this request. DG NEAR has already
begun its internal process to mobilise the first EUR 25 million for EFSD guarantees. EEAS
added that the priorities, including particular attention on fragile States, will be further
determined by the Strategic Board, for which the first tentative date might be 29 September.
VISA OF THE CHAIR: XXXXXXX,
ON 02/08/2017