|
|
Doc. 9013
3 April 2001
Budget of the Council of Europe for the financial year 2002
Report
Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Rapporteur: Mr Björn von der Esch, Sweden, Group of the European People’s Party
I. Draft opinion
1. The Assembly restates its view that the pan-European Council of Europe must be given financial and human resources commensurate with the mission and tasks entrusted to it. It deeply regrets that, in the last four years, no additional funds have been made available to the Organisation. Should this be the case even for 2002, the overall functioning of the Organisation will be seriously jeopardised, especially at a time when it is striving to assist new member states in their transition towards better and more stable institutions.
2. In the present political context, where insecurity remains and democracy has not yet been fully established in some member states, depriving the Organisation of the necessary financial resources would hamper its ability to contribute to European affairs, undermine its credibility in member states and jeopardise its important activities aimed at preserving peace, consolidating democratic institutions, fostering political pluralism, promoting respect for human rights and the rule of law, providing legal assistance and combating crime, corruption and social exclusion.
3. To improve the Organisation’s budgetary situation in the future, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers carefully examine the following measures:
i. co-ordinating the Organisation’s budgetary timetable with the national budgetary timetable of member states. Such a change would enable governments to examine the Council of Europe’s budgetary needs in detail before taking any final decision on their forthcoming national budgets;
ii. given the major shortcomings and cumbersome nature of the current budgetary procedure, introducing a two-year system such as exists in other international organisations, as pointed out in Assembly Opinions Nos. 199 (1996), 203 (1997), 211 (1999) and 218 (2000). This would enable the Organisation to plan and implement multi-annual projects, in particular as regards the consolidation of democratic institutions in central and eastern Europe, the protection of minorities and the fight against social exclusion;
iii. creating a special “Council of Europe” heading within national budgets and allowing the ministries concerned, such as those engaged in cultural, educational, legal and social activities, to contribute to the financing of certain intergovernmental activities, as already requested in Assembly Opinions Nos. 99 (1996), 211 (1999) and 218 (2000). Contributions to the Council of Europe come from provisions in the budgets of foreign affairs ministries labelled ‘contributions to international organisations’. Indeed, in most Council of Europe member states the lowest rate of budget growth in recent years has been precisely in the foreign affairs ministries, which explains why the Council of Europe’s rightful claims for budgetary increases have been frustrated over the last four years;
iv. reviewing the criteria contained in Resolution 94 (31) whereby the contributions of the five major contributors were reduced to only 12.70% of the ordinary budget, thereby aggravating the position of less wealthy member states. The Assembly continues to be greatly concerned at what it perceives as a certain lack of solidarity among member states. One option would be to use only Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita as a basis for calculating the contribution scales. An alternative proposal would be to amend Resolution 94 (31) by including a provision setting a minimum contribution to be paid by each member state;
v. exploring additional methods of financing other than the traditional one of seeking increased contributions from member states;
vi. believing that the current, consensus-based, decision-making process of the Committee of Ministers has the effect of frustrating any effort to increase the Organisation’s human and financial resources, the Assembly encourages the Committee of Ministers to modify its modus operandi, in particular when it comes to taking decisions on the Council of Europe’s budget.
4. Believing that its contributions in respect of the budgetary and administrative affairs of the Organisation has greatly helped the Committee of Ministers to identify new priority areas, the Assembly proposes that, in keeping with Recommendation 1344 (1997), joint decision-making powers be granted to the Assembly in setting the Organisation’s overall budget.
5. As already proposed in Assembly Opinions Nos. 203 (1997), 211 (1999) and 218 (2000), the Assembly considers it essential to make specific budgetary provision for the European Court of Human Rights as the European body entrusted with the protection of human rights on our continent. Given the importance and the scope of the Court’s activities and its ever growing structural needs, increased obligatory contributions are required to ensure the smooth functioning of such an important organ, even though voluntary contributions are welcomed. Expenditure under Vote IV covering the operation of the European Court of Human Rights could be the subject of a specific contribution coming from the justice ministries in the member states.
6. The Assembly urges the Committee of Ministers to earmark adequate financial resources whenever it takes political decisions resulting in additional tasks to be undertaken by the Organisation. While welcoming the introduction of a budget line labelled “Intervention Fund”, the Assembly considers that the method of financing via voluntary contributions is insufficient to ensure the financial coverage of unforeseen, albeit necessary, expenditure.
7. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers carefully consider all the financial implications of the accession of new member states. It therefore strongly deplores the Committee of Ministers’ refusal to raise the 2001 budget ceiling so as to give the Council of Europe the financial resources needed to implement initial assistance programmes for its most recent members, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
8. While welcoming the funds initially made available for the Council of Europe’s contribution to the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, the Assembly expects the 2001 Regional Funding Conference to provide urgently the Organisation with the financial resources necessary for its continued involvement.
9. The Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to pay closer attention to the rising costs associated with treaty monitoring arrangements, in particular where new accessions place additional strain on human and financial resources.
10. In view of the Council of Europe’s observer status with the United Nations General Assembly and its fruitful and long-standing co-operation with the United Nations bodies and specialised agencies, the Committee of Ministers should consider how a permanent presence for the Organisation in New York could be established in the future.
11. The Assembly believes that - as part of the ongoing restructuring of the Council of Europe aimed at prioritisation of activities and rationalisation of working methods - the Committee of Ministers should increase the resources needed to enhance the Organisation’s communications impact, through technological developments, an updated and efficient network of media contacts and multi-lingual publications strategy.
12. The Assembly, noting its objection to the perpetuation of zero real budgetary growth which hinders the implementation of a new human resources policy, asks the Committee of Ministers to take special measures, based on Resolution (92) 28, in respect of an early retirement scheme, in order to speed up the renewal of the Organisation’s human resources and to foster the systematic and efficient redeployment of staff.
13. The Assembly underlines the importance of establishing a complementary pension fund, as requested in its Recommendation 1391 (1998) and Opinions Nos. 211 (1999) and 218 (2000), which would help member states to meet their statutory obligation to pay the pensions of retired staff members.
14. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers carefully examine the Council of Europe’s precarious office space situation, especially in view of the ongoing expansion of the activities of the European Court of Human Rights, as pointed out in Assembly Opinion No. 218 (2000).
15. The Assembly encourages the Committee of Ministers to monitor the evolution of member states’ voluntary contributions and consider their effect on the long-term work of the Organisation.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteur
1. The Assembly’s annual opinions on Council of Europe budgets have over the years provided parliamentarians with a deeper insight into the Organisation and its political evolution. The primary aim of these reports is to make recommendations on the Council’s activities, with a view to examining the political implications of decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers with regard to the Organisation’s overall budget.
2. The present report takes into account the exchange of views which Sub-Committee members and the Rapporteur had in the course of a meeting with Mr Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; Mr Bruno Haller, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly; and representatives of Administration. It is worth noting that, at the time of writing, few official documents on budgetary prospects for the year 2002 were available.
3. Following the budgetary and administrative proposals made in its Recommendations 918 (1981), 1155 (1991) and 1344 (1997), the Assembly notes with satisfaction that some progress has been made towards a more direct and genuine dialogue between its representatives and the Committee of Ministers on budgetary matters. Unfortunately, the early results were not entirely satisfactory, as the Committee of Ministers insisted on zero real growth in the Organisation’s budget over the last four years. The Committee of Ministers thereby rendered impossible any measured increase in the financial resources allocated to the Council as a whole in line with its growing commitments, often decided upon by the Committee of Ministers itself or by Council of Europe Summits. To meet the costs of expanding Council’s activities – e.g. by increasing the operating expenditure of the European Court of Human Rights, the costs implied by the Programme of Assistance for Developing and Consolidating Democracy (ADACS) and the budgetary needs of the Parliamentary Assembly - member states must now increase their contributions and the current method for financing the Council’s expenditure must be improved.
4. It is against this background that the Rapporteur wishes to underscore the inadequacy of the Council’s present financing mechanisms, which are progressively reducing the annual contributions of the five major contributors. Current scales of contributions highlight a certain lack of solidarity among member states.
5. Contributions to the Council come more or less entirely from provisions in the budgets of foreign affairs ministries for ‘contributions to international organisations’ or a similarly worded heading. The reason why the Council of Europe’s rightful claims for budgetary increases have been frustrated over the last four years is therefore clear. Indeed, in most Council of Europe member states the lowest rate of budget growth in recent years has been precisely in the foreign affairs ministries. The Rapporteur therefore believes that it is urgent to create a special “Council of Europe” heading within national budgets and to allow the ministries concerned, such as those engaged in social, cultural and legal activities, to contribute to the financing of certain intergovernmental activities, as already requested in Assembly Opinions No. 199 (1996) and No. 211 (1999). In this way, expenditure under Vote IV relating to the operation of the European Court of Human Rights – if clearly identified as such - could be the subject of a separate contribution coming from the justice ministries of the member states. Similarly, expenditure under Vote V, “Expenditure of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe”, could be assigned to the budgets of the ministries responsible for devolved government.
6. Another problem concerns Resolution 94 (31) fixing the scale of member states’ contributions to the Council of Europe ordinary budget. Contributions to the ordinary budget are based on a formula that essentially takes account of the population and GDP of member States, giving a weighting of 5 to GDP and 1 to population. With the accession of Georgia in 1999, the contributions of the five major contributors have fallen to 12.70% of the Organisation’s ordinary budget. This fact not only underlines a lack of solidarity among member states but also aggravates the budgetary position of less wealthy countries. One option would be to use the GDP per capita in order to avoid situations where less wealthy countries have to contribute virtually as much as small, but rich, member states. This proposal would result in a Council of Europe funded in a way which fairly reflects the economic weight of each member state. An alternative proposal would be to amend the present resolution by including a provision setting a minimum contribution to be paid by each member state.
7. With regard to the European Court of Human Rights, it should also be noted that a system for apportioning the contributions called for is entirely in line with opinions expressed since 1997 about the possibility of specific budgetary provision. Moreover, budgeting for the Parliamentary Assembly’s activities - which reflect constantly changing political circumstances – should not reasonably be subject to the straitjacket of a uniformly imposed rule of zero real budgetary growth.
8. Special attention must be paid to ways of avoiding a situation where the European Court of Human Rights consumes most of the resources – whether new or existing - of the Organisation. This can hardly have been envisaged either by the founding fathers of the Council of Europe or by the authors of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, let alone by the various Council of Europe Summits of Heads of State or Government that have steadily added new tasks to the Organisation’s agenda. Moreover, the Rapporteur is convinced that the Court, being the European body entrusted with the protection of human rights on our continent, should receive increased obligatory contributions which are essential for meeting its ever growing structural needs. Voluntary contributions have proved insufficient to ensure the smooth functioning of this important organ.
9. As regards the Assembly’s budgetary proposals for the year 2002 and against the background of its rapidly increasing workload, it is essential for the Council of Europe in general and the Secretariat of the Assembly in particular to have greater resources for retaining and motivating its highly qualified permanent staff and for engaging temporary staff for specific projects and activities.
10. Moreover, the Rapporteur wishes to draw the Committee of Ministers’ attention to three additional budgetary aspects. The first concerns the office accommodation needs of the Council of Europe's Secretariat. On the one hand, the enlargement process has increased the number of people working for the Organisation. On the other hand, the lowering of the criteria for allocating office space in the Council of Europe’s buildings (reduction in the areas allocated to senior managerial staff, in archive areas, etc) will not afford a lasting solution to this pressing problem. The Committee of Ministers should look for a new building capable of effectively and permanently alleviating an accommodation situation which has become precarious.
11. The second matter concerns the additional costs associated with the launching of multi-disciplinary and multi-annual projects, the Organisation’s enhanced capacity to undertake action on the ground and treaty monitoring arrangements, including the improvement of the Committee of Ministers' machinery for following up judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Specific budgetary provision is required for the ongoing assessment of existing conventions. Additional ratifications of various conventions in the course of 2001 as a result of the accession of Armenia and Azerbaijan in January 2001 will place serious additional strain on the Organisation’s already over-stretched human and financial resources.
12. The third remark that needs to be made is more general. In recent years many political decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers have made no provision for the additional financial resources needed to implement them – the Committee no doubt assuming that rationalising and improving the use of existing resources would be sufficient to cover the cost of such new activities. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers should carefully consider all the financial implications associated with the accession of new member states, given its deplorable refusal to raise the 2001 budgetary ceiling in order to provide the Organisation with the necessary resources to implement the assistance programmes for Armenia and Azerbaijan.
13. Increasing the budgetary resources of the Council of Europe should become one of the Assembly’s main challenges vis-ŕ-vis the Committee of Ministers in the years to come, in particular in the light of the Secretary General’s priorities for the Council of Europe from 2001 to 2005. The Organisation aims to devise and implement a number of activities, including inter alia the promotion and proper functioning of democratic institutions, the protection of minorities, the fight against individual insecurity and social exclusion, the reinforcement of control mechanisms in the European human rights field, and the development of co-operation with the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations. In view of the fruitful and long-standing co-operation with the United Nations and its specialised agencies, the Rapporteur believes that the Committee of Ministers should consider how a permanent presence for the Organisation in New York could be established in the future.
14. Despite the working hypothesis of zero real budgetary growth for the 2002 budget, the Rapporteur seriously doubts whether the 2001 budget will permit the Council of Europe to carry out its expanding tasks and implement the decisions and proposals of the 2nd Summit of Heads of State and Government. It is very much open to question whether such a budget is consistent with the pan-European vocation of our Organisation.
*
* *
Reporting committee: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.
Reference to committee: standing mandate
Draft opinion unanimously adopted by the committee on 28 March 2001.
Members of the committee: Ms Zapfl-Helbing (Chairperson), Stepova, Kirilov, Blaauw (Alternate: Duivesteijn) (Vice-Chairpersons), Adam, Agius, Agramunt (Alternate: Yanez-Barnuevo), Akgönenç, Aleffi (Alternate: Lauricella), Aliyev, Andersen, Anusz, Arnau, Aylward (Alternate: Higgins), Berceanu, Billing, Blattmann, Bojars, Bonet Casas, Braun, Brunhart, Budisa (Alternate: Bulic), Burbiené, Calner, Cerrahoglu, Clinton-Davis, Cunliffe (Alternate: Etherington), Cusimano (Alternate: Turini), Dokle, Elo, Eyskens (Alternate: Annemans), Freyberg, Gryzlov (Alternate: Slutsky), Gülek, Gusenbauer, Haupert, Hoffmann, Hrebenciuc, Jung, Kacin, Kestelijn-Sierens, Kittis, Kosakivsky, Leers, Liapis, Lopes Cardona, Lotz, Makhachev, Mateju, Mitterrand, Naumov (Alternate: Kolesnikov), Patarkalishvili, Pereira Coelho (Alternate: Cesário), Ponsonby, Popa, Popescu (Alternate: Poroshenko), Popovski, Prokes, Puche, Ragnarsdottir, Reimann (Alternate: Marty), Riccardi, Rigo, Schmitz, Schoettel-Delacher, Schreiner, Schütz, Seyidov, Squarcialupi, Stoyanova, Suslov, Tallo, Townend, Tsekouras, Ustiugov, Valleix; Wielowieyski.
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries of the committee: MM. Torbiörn, Bertozzi, Ms Ramanauskaite.