twinning projects: analysing the experience of 'old' … projects: analysing the...

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.czIČO: 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

http://www.epin.org/papers/CommandAnalysis/07_Hoereth_bargConvlim.pdf

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 Administrative Office AEI Agentur für Europäische Integration und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung (Austria) AP Accession Partnership AWP Annual Work Plan BC Beneficiary Country (beneficiary of PHARE/Transition Facility, CARDS, TACIS or

MEDA assistance) BMWi German Federal Ministry of Economics CAP Common Agricultural Policy CARDS 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)

CBC Cross Border Cooperation CC Candidate Country CEECs Central and Eastern European Countries CFA Centre for Foreign Assistance CFCU Central Financing and Contracting Unit CR Czech Republic DG Directorate General (within the European Commission) DIS Decentralised Implementation System EC European Commission EDIS Extended Decentralised Implementation System ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

(Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine)

ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instruments ERFA Danish expert network ESC Economic and Social Cohesion ESDP European Security and Defence Policy ESF European Social Fund EU European Union EUR Euro(s) EVD Dutch Agency for International Business and Cooperation FIIAPP Fundación Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas

(Spain) GIP ADETEF Groupement d’Intérêt Général Assistance au Développement des Technologies

Economiques et Financières GIP FCI Groupement d’Intérêt Général France Coopération Internationale GTZ Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (Germany) IB Institution Building IBs Intermediary Bodies (Structural Funds bodies) IE Interim Evaluation IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession IPA Institute of Public Administration (Ireland) JHA Justice and Home Affairs KfW Kreditanstalt of Wiederaufbau (Germany) LFA Logical Framework Analysis LFM Logical Framework Matrix MEDA 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)

MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoU Memorandum of Understanding MR Monitoring Report MS (EU) Member States MTE Mid-term Expert NAC National Aid Co-ordinator NAO National Authorising Officer NCP National Contact Point NMS New Member States NPAA National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis

3

OMS Old Member States PAA Pre-Accession Advisor PAO Programme Authorising Officer PCM Project Cycle Management PF Project Fiche PHARE 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)

PIU Project Implementation Unit PL Project Leader PRAG Practical Guide to Contract Procedures (issued by the EC’s EuropeAid) PSI Private Sector Input REC / DEC Representation / Delegation of the European Commission RTA Resident Twinning Adviser SFs Structural Funds SGAE Secrétariat Général des Affaires Européennes SGCI Secrétariat Général du Comité Interministériel pour les questions de coopération

économique européenne SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIGMA Support for Improvement in Governance and Management in Central and Eastern

European Countries SPO Senior Programme Officer SPP Special Preparatory Programme STE Short-term Expert TA Technical Assistance TACIS 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)

TAIEX Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office TC Twinning Covenant / Twinning Contract TF Transition Facility

(Cyprus, Malta, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia)

ToR Terms of Reference TW / TWL Twinning / Twinning Light TWI Twinning In TWO 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 short-

to 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 Twinning-

Light 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 Pre-

10 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. 14 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. 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), Short-

and 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

18To 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 co-

operation) 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. 21 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. 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 Twinning-

related 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

Office Ministry of Foreign

Affairs Ministry of

Economy / Finance Agency / Support

Structure Austria X AEI Belgium X

Denmark X Finland X France X

Germany X GTZ Greece X Ireland X - IPA

Italy X Luxembourg X Netherlands X EDV

Portugal X Spain X FIIAPP

Sweden X - SIDA UK X

Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of NCPs (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/current_ncpms_en.pdf)

I. 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 in-

house 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,european-cooperation/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. 29 These are regular newsletters sent by the Twinning and SIGMA Co-ordination Team (Institution Building Unit, Directorate-General Enlargement). 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 For more see e.g. Bouquet 2006. 34 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

21%

45%

6%2%

26%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

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

29%24%

52%

15%

2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

by prospectiveproject leaders

by prospectivetwinners

by prospectiveproject leaders and

twinners

by a personresponsible for

twinning

don't know

38

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

85%

45%52%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

participating in the draftingstage

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

18%

5%

68%

16%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

in a competitive selection by the NCP by a person responsiblefor 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

63%

32%

58%

45%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

project management skills

previous experience in theregion

experience in similar project

communication skills

other/don't know

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?

61% 60%

47%

8%

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%60%

70%

fact-f inding missions research of informationon the country/f ield

involve the country'sembassies 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

55%

27%

15%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

well, contract was easy tonegotiate

well, but contract was noteasy to negotiate

not so well, contract wasnot 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

49%

37%

8%6%

68%

21%

8%3%

68%

25%2%5%

67%

24%2%8%

48%

33%

11%8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

time allocation commitment expertise communication language skills

How did the receiving institutions cope with their twinning contract commitments?

well not so well poorly 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.

46

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.

Figure 9

5%14%

20%

36%

17%8%

2%13%

25%

33%

19%

9%

2%9%

27%

41%

14%8%

2%12%

14%

35%

29%

8%

2%9%8%

34%

39%

8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

offices equipment workingconditions

communication workingrelationships

Working conditions and environment in the receiving country

very bad bad normal good excellent 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

language

expertise

communication

coordination

management

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

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 long-term 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) National public administration bodies; 2) Other MS NCPs and institutions; 3) Beneficiary Countries; 4) 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. Inter-

ministerial 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 Positives Negatives

low - strong administrative and management skills

- good presentation skills

- clear vision and well-developed workplan

- strong language skills

- a competent RTA and availability of STEs

- top-level support

- stronger image of the CR and the sending institution

- no difficulties arising from consortium management issues

- better control over project outcomes

- higher management fees for sending institution

- substantial demands on the time and availability of Czech experts

Model 2: Czech Republic as a Lead Partner in Twinning Out Consortia

Model Probability Prerequisites Positives Negatives

low to medium - strong management and administration skills

- preferably experience from previous, similar projects

- good coordination, communication and negotiation skills

- clear vision and well-developed workplan

- a competent RTA and availability of STEs

- top-level support

- stronger image of the CR and the sending institution

- more control over project outputs and outcomes

- lesser capacity demands

- creation of partnership for future bids / co-operations

- learning experience for Czech experts

- consortium management and coordination difficulties

- substantial demands on the time and availability of Czech experts

Model 3: Czech Republic as a Junior Partner in Twinning Out Consortia


high - good partnership skills

- good technical expertise

- good “marketing” of the country on the TW market

- flexibility

- adaptability

- better chances of success

- little or no demands for management and coordination skills

- some administrative demands on sending institution

- lesser control over project outcomes

Model 4: Czech Republic as a Strategic Junior Partner of Some Member States


medium to high -commitment to strategic partnership

- strengthened cooperation with some

- restricted options for cooperation

68

- good “marketing” of the country on the TWO market

- good technical expertise

- provision of updated CVs of Czech experts

- flexibility

- adaptability

MS with strong positions in some countries

- little or no demands for management and coordination skills

- guaranteed chances in certain sectors/domains/countries

- some administrative demands on the country

Model 5: Czech Republic providing Individual Experts for Consortia


high - good technical expertise

- provision of updated CVs of Czech experts

- frequent and extensive contact with other MS

- very little administrative and no management demands on home administration

- flexibility

- good option to use the expertise of Czech STEs

- greater complementarity with TAIEX

- little control over project results and impact

- limited effect on the reputation of the country / sending institution

- no management fees for home administration

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 decision-

makers.

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. 155-

189.

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://eur-

lex.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

http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/_0130163334_001_en.pdf

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 Foreign Affairs - 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 pre-bidding phase?

a) excellent b) good c) not very good d) poor e) 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) by prospective project leaders b) by prospective twinners c) in prospective project leaders and twinners d) by a person responsible for twinning.

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 4. What was/has been your role in the bid preparation?

a) participating in the drafting stage b) feeding in some data c) recommending experts d) other – please describe

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 6. Which criteria have been considered in the selection of project leaders and twinners and which have been the most important ones?

a) project management skills

b) previous experience in the region c) experience in similar project d) communication skills

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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?

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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) 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 d) Are/were the guaranteed results and other targets easy to define? Which criteria or previous experience

are/were the targets based on?

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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) expertise: - well - not so well

- poorly

d) communication: - well - not so well

- poorly

e) language skills: - well - not so well

- poorly (Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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)

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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) (Please feel free to comment on any of these options)

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)

- transfer of knowledge

- transfer of rules/norms/standards

- transfer of technology IV. 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) significant negatives of twinning: b) significant positives of twinning: c) what worked best in twinning: d) 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 pre-bidding phase?

a) excellent b) good c) not very good d) poor e) none of the above – please describe in your own words

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 3. Who has initiated twinning projects at your ministry/institution?

a) a person responsible for twinning in (please, indicate if there is one) b) a prospective project leader c) EU department d) 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) by prospective project leaders b) by prospective twinners c) by prospective project leaders and twinners d) by a person responsible for twinning.

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 5. What was/has been your role in the project fiche preparation?

a) participating in the drafting stage b) feeding in some data c) recommending participants d) other – please describe

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 7. Which criteria have been considered in the selection of project leaders and twinning participants and which have been the most important ones?

a) project management skills b) previous experience with foreign aid/international cooperation projects c) communication and/or language skills (please specify which one of these two) d) prospective involvement in the implementation of what is the subject matter of the twinning e) no particular skills – random choice and general availability

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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) always (if so, what was his/her role?) b) sometimes (if so, what was his/her role?) c) rarely d) never

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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

(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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


c) expertise: - well


d) communication: - well


e) language skills: - well


(Please feel free to comment on any of these options) 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)

- transfer of knowledge

- transfer of rules/norms/standards

- transfer of technology IV. 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) significant negatives of twinning: b) significant positives of twinning: c) what worked best in twinning: d) 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 Questionnaires and/or Interview Old Member

States

Austria questionnaire & interview Belgium questionnaire Denmark questionnaire & interview Finland questionnaire Greece questionnaire France Questionnaire & interview

Germany questionnaire & interview Italy questionnaire

Ireland questionnaire Netherlands questionnaire & interview

Portugal -* Spain -*

Sweden interview UK interview

New Member States

Bulgaria - Czech Republic questionnaire & interview

Estonia questionnaire Hungary questionnaire Poland -

Romania - Slovakia interview Turkey -

TOTAL * Several e-mail requests sent and phone contact made without any results.

II. Interviews and Questionnaires – RTAs/PAAs, PLs, STEs, MTEs

Country Respondents Contacted

Respondents Reached

Interviews and Completed

Questionnaires

Reaction Rate*

Success Rate**

Old Member States

Austria -*** -*** - - - Belgium - - - - - Denmark 21 21 13 62% 62% Finland 34 29 11 32% 38% Greece 11 10 1 9% 10% France 27 3 3 11% 100%

Germany 61**** 61 23 38% 38% Italy - - - - -

Ireland 6 6 0 0% 0% The Netherlands 5 5 5 100% 100%

Portugal - - - - - Spain - - - - -

Sweden 9 9 4 45% 45% UK 55 42 6 11% 14%

New Member States

Bulgaria 27 15 4 15% 27% Czech Republic 11 11 11 100% 100%

Estonia 19 15 4 21% 27% Hungary 23 8 3 13% 38% Poland 54 37 8 15% 22%

Romania 46 46 19 41% 41% Slovakia 13 12 10 77% 83% Turkey 8 3 0 0% 0%

TOTAL 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 Co-

operation Office, European Commission, Brussels, 4 April 2006. “OLD” MEMBER STATES Austria

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point Demesmaeker, Katty, Desk Officer, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Denmark

• National Contact Point 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,

interview Copenhagen, 30 August 2006. 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,

interview Copenhagen, 29 August 2006. 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point Bakatsianos, Georgios, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Expert in European Affairs, DG European Affairs,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ireland

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point Aliberti, Pier Giorgio, NCP for Twinning and TAIEX, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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

• National Contact Point 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,

Brussels, 3 April 2003. 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, Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest, 15 September 2003.

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 Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest, 17 September 2003.

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,

Brussels, 5 April 2006. 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

Minister’s Office

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Economy /

Finance

Agency / Support

Structure Austria X AEI

Belgium X Denmark X Finland X France X

Germany X GTZ Greece X Ireland X (IPA)

Italy X Luxembourg X Netherlands X EDV

Portugal X Spain X FIIAPP

Sweden X (SIDA) UK X

Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of NCPs (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/current_ncpms_en.pdf) Location of NCPs in the New Member States and Applicant Countries: Prime

Minister’s Office


Ministry of Economy /

Finance

Other

Bulgaria X Cyprus X

Czech Republic X Estonia X X Latvia X

Lithuania X Hungary X

Malta X Poland X

Romania X Slovakia X Slovenia X

Source: Interviews with NCPs, NCP questionnaires and the DG Enlargement list of NCPs (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/institution_building/current_ncpms_en.pdf)

AUSTRIA

Ministry of Finance Agency of European Integration

(AEI)

Federal Ministry Federal Ministry Federal MinistryFederal Ministry Federal Ministry

Mandated Bodies


NCP

DENMARK

Ministry Ministry MinistryMinistry Ministry

Mandated Bodies


NCP

FRANCE

Ministry of ForeignAffairs Ministry of Finance other Ministryother Ministry other Ministry

Mandated Bodies

Secrétariat Général des AffairesEuropéennes (SGAE)

NCP

Prime Minister’s Office

GIP FCI GIP Adetef other GIP

GERMANY

Federal Ministry Federal Ministry Federal MinistryFederal Ministry Federal Ministry

Mandated Bodies

NCPGTZ Office

Federal Ministry of Economy(BMWi)

Bundesland

Mandated Bodies

Bundesland Bundesland Bundesland BundeslandBundesland

IRELAND

Department Department DepartmentDepartment Department

Mandated Bodies

Institute of PublicAdministration (IPA)

NCP Twinning

Department of Enterprise,Trade and Employment

NCP TAIEX

NETHERLANDS

Ministry of Economic Affairs Agency for International

Business and Cooperation (EVD)

Ministry Ministry MinistryMinistry Ministry

Mandated Bodies

Ministry of Foreign AffairsMATRA

NCP

SWEDEN

Ministry MinistryMinistry

Authorities

SIDA (SIDA EAST)NCP

Phare-Twinning (and Cards)


UNITED KINGDOM

GovernmentDepartment

Local GovernmentOffices

RegionalGovernment Offices



Mandated Bodies

Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeNCP

other UK Public Sector Bodies

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 confidence-

building 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 ekonomicko-sociálního 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. 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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


„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


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.


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


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 účelně, hospodárně a s veškerou odbornou péčí,

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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


zahrnujícím informace, do kterých zemí byla pomoc poskytnuta, v jakém objemu prostředků, jakou formou a do jakého sektoru.


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 záchranných operací, poskytování a přijímání humanitární pomoci a náhrad výdajů vynakládaných právnickými osobami a podnikajícími fyzickými osobami na ochranu 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


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.


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.


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 záchranných operací, poskytování a přijímání humanitární pomoci a náhrad výdajů vynakládaných právnickými osobami a podnikajícími fyzickými osobami na ochranu obyvatelstva

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, 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.


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

MZV + Agentura

Finanční náročnost 96,1 mil. Kč 62,3 mil. Kč

Úspora 0 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.


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.


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.


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 zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v České republice Schéma č. 1: Stávající institucionální uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v České republice

MV

MZV

MŠMTMŽP MD

MPO MZ

MZe MPSV

Rozvojové středisko

MF

projekty projektyprojekty

projektyprojekty projektyprojekty

projekty

zastupitelské úřady

tok financí řízení koordinace/konzultace

1

Schéma č. 2 - Navrhované institucionální uspořádání zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce v České republice

MF

Konzultační a poradní orgányResortní expertíza Sektorová koherence

MZV

Č eská agentura pro rozvojovou spolupráci

Zastupitelskéúřady

MZV + Agentura

tok financí řízení

koordinace - k ik

projekty projekty

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.