Taking into account all of that we have shown here, the European NGOs that subscribe to the present document permits us to present to the European Union that following recommendations:

1. That a compromise is made for the renegotiation of the external debt of Honduras and Nicaragua in terms that prevent, on one side, the placement and, on the other, the cancellation of the debt, being complimented by an immediate access to fresh resources from multilateral organizations in favorable terms.

 

2. That accomodating means are adopted to favor the commercial operations between Europe and Central America that benefit a recuperation of the local economies.

 

3. That participation in Central American civil society is promoted in the identification and execution of the politics and projects brought about by the European Union and Central America. Particular attention should be give to the most vulnerable sectors, especially rural sectors, marginal urban peoples, women, and ethnic minorities.

 

4. That decentralization with the impulse of identified and executed actions are favored in the local scope (communities, municipalities, and departments).

 

5. To utilize all of the instruments at the disposition of the European Union in a coordinated manner to aid in the sustainable reconstruction of Central America.
6. To not duplicate actions and optimize resources, that the member states adopt a unitary politic of coordination with the distinct lines of finances of the European Union, to end the form that brings about inequalities that could convert into destablement of the democratic incipient processes.

• That the administrative lines quicken, as in the case of ECHO, that have been extremely slow for an effective intervention.
• The actuation through humanitarian aid, home securities, and the line of rehabilitation, improving the distinct instruments at the disposition of the DGI and DGVIII to execute the actions in the following sectors: conservation and improvement of the environment, decentralized cooperation, activities with the indigenous population, human rights, and programs with gender focus. In all of these sectors, a great injection of resources is recommended in lines of specific financing and defined politics for Central American regions most effected by Mitch.

• That, at the time of supporting rehabilitation, the European Union replanted the proper prioritization of actions of construction of infrastructure, health, and educatio, and adopt a strategy with an integral, sustainable, and territorial focus with components directed at diminishing the vulnerability of the population.

• That in the actions of development, the activities are prioritized to the prevention of disasters, ordaining teritorrialy, to the protection of the environment, productive aspects, and the fortalization of the local institutions and grass-root organizations.

• That the referents (cell groups that will operate in Central America) have capability of reception of proposals that civil society and national and European NGOs have spaces for the presentation and execution of rehabilitation projects. Taking root in the territory and installed capacities, the NGOs should be considered as strategic partners as well in this phase, particullarly to the attention to damaged population.

• That there exists a continuity between the actions of rehabilitation with the perviously executed actions by ECHO in the emergency phase adn in others in progress concerning Mitch.

1. To the Office of Humanitarian Aid- ECHO

• That ECHO continues acting on the post-emergency actions until it can operate through a lone of specific finances for rehabilitation.
• That ECHO maintains a territorial focus and a presence in places where they operated in the immediate emergency phase. It is particularly necessary to give continuity  to the developed actions actuating, prioritally, in the sectors of water, environmental health, control of epidemics, and bringing about actions of preventions of disasters.
• That it make an evaluation of executed actions with the end of evaluating the propriety of its approval and having in the field more precise elements to contineu favoring previous decisions to the population that are necessary for the aid.

• That it have an improved coordination with Home Security particularly with Euronaid. Considering that ECHO is more agile and permits a quicker intervention, Euronaid could have actuated more in complementary roke to programs of home security and not as much in emergency, that is how it has actuated in, for example, Honduras and Nicaragua.
• That it program, for the Central American region, a greater inversion in preparation and prevention of disasters (DIPECHO). Worrying about the fact that in 1999, it forsees for DIPECHO in the world scope the same presupposition of 1998, that it should be applied in a greater number of countries. The hurricane has demonstrated the importance and urgency of interventions in this sector.

• That it has an improved coordination with ECHO in the management of emergency agricultural foods.
• That it actuates in Guatemala and El Salvador, taking into account the most vulnerable population and the most effected regions by the hurricane where a rehabilitation of the productive parcels is urged.
• That it has a greater flexibility for components of donations; in effect, it is impossible to think that the introduction of new productive habits (diversification) and the endowment of basic necessities could be attended only through credit.
• That it continues coordinating the actions of Home Security with Euronaid when it appears necessary to actuate with supplies in exchange for work. 
• That it also makes an evaluation of management created by Euronaid.  

1. To the DGVIII. Line 6000 - Co-finances for European NGOs

• That it priortizes the relative proposals to the directed regions in favor of reconstruction and that it considers possible the augmentation of percentages of EU co-financing through permitted limits for the internal governing of the line.