Fear that Tacis rules risk delays

Date: 11/04/1996

By Elizabeth Wise

NEW rules designed to counter criticism of fraud and closed-door transactions in the Tacis development programme risk bringing new complaints of inefficiency from the recipients of EU money.

But both Commission officials and MEPs believe that increased accountability and transparency must be given top priority amid concern over whether EU funds have been well-spent in the past.

The measures, agreed by EU governments but still awaiting the approval of the European Parliament, include increased monitoring of programme spending for the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union and a new evaluation programme for reporting on completed projects.

They also change criteria for awarding project contracts, with the aim of making the process more open.

Under the new rules, the number of days allowed for interested firms to submit bids for Tacis tenders has been increased to 60, and the Commission's 'short list' of eligible companies has been lengthened.

The changes are designed to give the Commission a better chance of finding the best supplier or bid for its needs, but both risk extending the time-lag between project inception and implementation, already running at some 15 months.

“There is that risk,” admitted a Commission official. “The new rules seek to increase transparency, but that doesn't necessarily lead to increased efficiency.”

Since its debut in 1991, Tacis has attracted its share of complaints about effectiveness and speed. Commission officials say those criticisms are misplaced, adding that rapid solutions are never possible given the scale of the overhaul needed to bring the former Soviet states and their command economies out of decades of Communist rule.

But concerns over whether the money has been well-spent have apparently overridden those of how quickly it reaches its destination.

“If there has to be a choice between swiftness and transparency, I'd go for increased accountability,” said British Socialist MEP Peter Truscott.

The proposed changes must be approved by the Parliament, where concern for openness in Tacis transactions has increased since the Commission's Moscow envoy, Michael Emerson, has been the subject of an internal inquiry.

Although Emerson was not accused of mishandling Tacis funds, the inquiry has highlighted the fact that Commission representatives abroad are responsible for disbursing large sums of money.

Emerson did not have a hand in awarding Tacis contracts, but he did handle small, rapidly implemented projects accounting for tens of thousands of ecu.

MEPs, together with the Court of Auditors and Tacis beneficiaries, have consistently criticised the lack of involvement of local recipients in designing and implementing projects. They complain that the programme is too centralised in Brussels and that excessive Tacis funding is spent on EU-based consultants.

This criticism is echoed by Russian officials. “Money goes to western consultants who don't know the realities of our villages and our enterprises,” said one.

The Commission counters that Tacis' raison d'etre is to bring western experience to the east. But EU member state diplomats say they would be happy to see better use made of local people.

In its first multi-year plan, which will run until 1999, Tacis will emphasise two new project areas: the environment and cross-border cooperation between the former Soviet states.

According to the Commission, new Tacis programmes will be designed to help each of the newly independent countries move toward political and market reforms along western European lines and improve their candidacy for eventual membership in the World Trade Organisation.

Diplomats and MEPs agree that the proposed evaluation and monitoring efforts are the most important changes that can be made to Tacis. “We need to be able to learn lessons from previous projects,” said a diplomat, adding that it was also important to monitor projects to detect problems as they developed.

“For four years, the money has been spent and no one has done any follow-up,” commented Truscott.

The proposals are likely to win parliamentary approval, but whether they will win favour in recipient countries is another matter.

The Russians, who receive about half of the Tacis budget, are already critical of the slow implementation of projects. “Despite the huge spending, Tacis efficiency is very low,” said one Russian official, complaining that some projects take up to two years to come to fruition. “In the rural areas, the people are sceptical.”