European Economic and Social Committee
24th Meeting of ACP-EU Economic and Social Interest Groups
ADDRESS
on
'Assessment of the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement-
best practices and challenges for non-state actors'
by
Mr Bruno Vever
Chairman of the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee
Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
EESC
Brussels, Belgium
29 June 2005
Your Excellencies
Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Having heard this interesting intervention by Ms Moreau of the European Commission, it is with great pleasure that I would like to present to you today the principal conclusions of a report which we have called "Assessment of the Involvement of Non-State Actors in the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement: Opportunities, Challenges and Recommendations of ACP-EU Economic and Social Interest Groups". In effect, this report summarises your views on your involvement in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement, as communicated to us since the year 2002. This includes your replies to the questionnaires which were sent out before this conference and previous regional seminars, the discussions and Final Declarations of the past four ACP-EU Regional Seminars and hearings organised in a number of ACP countries. Central to this report are of course the experiences of the members of the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee and case studies have been made of the ACP countries of the Follow-up Committee for the years 2002 to 2004.
The reasons for drawing up this report are twofold: firstly, this analysis is among the priorities of the work programme of the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee and allows us to better communicate your concerns to the relevant authorities. Secondly, it constitutes our response to a draft report of the European Commission on the involvement of non-state actors in the Mid-term review process of the Country Strategy Papers. For these reasons, I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss these issues with you, in the presence of the representative of the European Commission.
I would like to start my presentation by briefly looking at the opportunities of the Cotonou Agreement for non-state actors, as summarised from our work over the past three years. Subsequently, I will present the key challenges and recommendations of our draft report.
1) Opportunities for non-state actors
Arguably, the principal opportunity of the Cotonou Agreement for non-state actors has been the right of involvement and the impetus for institution-building or structuring of civil society organisations. In effect, the Agreement has encouraged non-state actors in ACP countries to identify their own priorities and to establish or consolidate organisations, which could be recognised as legitimate partners in the Agreement.
Secondly, the Cotonou Agreement has been a catalyst for dialogue: among non-state actors, with national authorities and with the European Commission. In the case of civil society dialogue, over the past three years we have seen increasing examples of networks or platforms of non-state actors, or indeed Economic and Social Councils, which regroup the various actors into a single structure. The advantage of such a structure is that it encourages coherence vis-à-vis the national/regional authorities or the European Commission and increases cooperation and understanding of the issues by sharing of information and expertise.
As regards dialogue with national authorities, the legal status of 'partners' awarded to non-state actors by the Cotonou Agreement, has in a number of countries led to the enhanced visibility and credibility of civil society as viable actors in policy making. In this sense, in some ACP countries, the Cotonou Agreement has contributed to the promotion of participatory democracy which is a necessary component of good governance. For example, when we asked the previous members of the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee if the attitude of the government was changing, the majority replied positively, commenting that the government is becoming more open to discussions and that the role of non-state actors is increasingly recognised.
Similarly, to varying degrees, the Cotonou Agreement has brought about varying degrees of dialogue with the European Commission, in the form of information and consultation sessions for non-state actors on the programming and review processes of the Country Strategy Programmes.
However, undoubtedly the most advantageous aspect of the Cotonou Agreement for civil society representatives is the fact that EU funds are set aside specifically for capacity-building of non-state actors. These funds, which in some countries reach 12-14% of the National Indicative Programme, are central to the ability of non-state actors to contribute to the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement.
2) Challenges for non-state actors
Unfortunately, despite the above-mentioned opportunities, there are a number of challenges to the involvement of non-state actors in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement. These relate to the extent of their institution-building or structuring, to their levels of information on the Agreement, to the quantity and quality of consultations and to their capacity to contribute to the process.
Limitations to institution building for non-state actors
I would like to start by discussing the extent of institution-building or structuring of civil society organisations. Unfortunately, although the Cotonou Agreement provided the necessary impetus to help structure non-state actors, in reality, there are varying degrees of organisation of civil society. Indeed, there are varying attitudes as to the added value of the Agreement. For example, only 32% of the delegates here today who responded to the questionnaire stated that the Cotonou Agreement had contributed towards improving the structure and efficiency of non-state actors in their country.
In effect, the activities of the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee since 2002 suggest that there are four broad categories of organisation of non-state actors, which can exist concurrently in the same country. Firstly, in some countries non-state actors have created platforms involving economic and social actors and NGOs, which act as a single interlocutor vis-à-vis the EU Delegation and/or the national authorities. Examples of such platforms include the Forum for Social and Economic Development Partners of Kenya (FOSEDEP), the Fiji Forum of non-state actors (FFONSA), the platform of non-state actors of Rwanda and the National Economic and Social Council of Mauritius. Secondly, in a number of countries non-state actors have organised themselves into three clusters (Employer organisations, trade unions and NGOs), which operate independently, but have varying levels of communication among the clusters. This is the case in countries such as Suriname, Mauritius, Kenya, Burkina Faso, the Ivory Coast, Guinea (Conakry) and Botswana. A third category involves countries where civil society consists of a myriad of different organisations with little or no contact among actors. This situation leads to duplication of activities and limited resources for each organisation. Finally, a fourth category involves countries where civil society is not organised and communities are represented solely through traditional forms of authority (village, local or national level).
The central factor which differentiates the above categories, is the extent of communication, both between and within organisations. This can be due to geographical distances, as in the case of the Pacific island states, or to competition among organisations, or even because of the political affiliations of some organisations.
All of the above are rendered more problematic by the fact that the levels of information, consultation and capacity-building for non-state actors often do not meet the required levels.
Necessity for more information on the Cotonou Agreement
In all of the meetings organised by the ACP-EU Follow-up Committee, the absence of sufficient information, including information on funding opportunities, has been identified as a crucial challenge to be overcome. Over the past 3 regional seminars, an average of 56% of delegates have informed us of having insufficient information on the Cotonou Agreement. It appears that economic and social actors and civil society organisations in rural areas are particularly ill informed. However, I am pleased that among the delegates here today who responded to our questionnaire, only 45 % stated that they were insufficiently informed so hopefully the regional seminars are having a positive impact!
Information is also lacking on the Economic Partnership Agreements, as 53% of the delegates here today who replied to our questionnaire stated that they were not informed on the negotiations. This compares to an average of 55% from previous regional seminars.
Finally, only 30 % of the respondents stated that they knew the name of the civil society focal point in the EU Delegation in their country, who is responsible for relations with civil society.
Limited consultation to date
A second common complaint from ACP economic and social interest groups relates to the quantity and quality of consultations on the programming or the Mid-term review of the Country Strategy Papers. For example, only 15 % of the delegates here today who responded to our questionnaire stated that they had been consulted on the Mid-term review exercise. This is clearly a worrying situation which needs to be addressed.
Our meetings with non-state actors over the years also point to qualitative differences between information sessions and consultations. For example, only three of the eleven members of the previous ACP-EU Follow-up Committee were consulted on the Mid-term reviews, namely the members from Surinam, Rwanda and Burkina Faso. Of these three only one stated that he had been 'properly consulted'. It should also be noted that none of the members of those ACP-EU Follow-up Committee have been informed of follow-up to the consultations or to their proposals.
The necessity to increase the capacity of non-state actors
A third challenge to the involvement of non-state actors in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement relates to their capacity to effectively engage in the process. Clearly, without capacity-building, non-state actors will not have the ability to contribute.
In particular, ACP economic and social actors have highlighted that access to EU funding for non-state actors from the resources of the National Indicative Programmes, remains the key challenge to reinforcing their capacity. To date, this challenge has been even more complex as access to funds for non-state actors have been subject to authorisation from both the European Commission and the National Authorising Officer.
3) Recommendations
In view of all of the above, what recommendations should we, representatives of ACP-EU economic and social interest groups be making?
Our draft report identifies a considerable number of proposals, some of which I would like to share with you today.
Measures to increase information to non-state actors
As regards measures to increase information to non-state actors, the proposals for how to do this came directly from you. For example, in the questionnaire we asked how you could be better informed and many of you replied that there was a need for workshops and seminars to be organised by both the National Authorising Officers and the EU Delegations. You asked for information in the form of brochures and newsletters to be distributed via the internet or by normal post. You also recommended that the media could take on a more proactive role in informing economic and social actors and the public at large. To these recommendations we could add that information specifically on funding opportunities for non-state actors needs to be widely distributed.
Measures to increase the consultation of non-state actors
With regard to measures to increase the consultation of non-state actors, we recommend that they are informed of consultations sufficiently in advance, and that all interest groups should be consulted, including trade unions, women's organisations and groups from isolated rural communities. In addition, we ask that these consultations take place on a regular basis and that non-state actors are informed of the follow-up to the consultations.
In order to measure the extent to which civil society has been consulted, we recommend that reports on the consultation of non-state actors be annexed to official Commission documents which review the National Strategy Papers.
Finally, based on your replies to the questionnaire, we strongly support the appointment of a focal point for relations with non-state actors within the office of the National Authorising Officer.
The fundamental need to increase the capacity of non-state actors
In relation to increasing the capacity of non-state actors, we recommend that civil society representatives cooperate more closely by establishing networks or platforms of non-state actors, including representatives of all actors. We also strongly support existing structures of dialogue, for example, fora for Social Dialogue and structures for cooperation of socio-professional organisations at the national or regional level, as such structures can reinforce the capacity of civil society.
Secondly, we recommend that steps be taken to facilitate access of non-state actors to EU funds. For example, involving non-state actors in decisions on the eligibility criteria, simplifying procedures and providing technical assistance for the application forms.
Finally, we propose the publication of comparative reports by the Commission and the National Authorising Officers on the extent to which non-state actors in each ACP country have actually obtained the funds reserved for them.
Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, it can clearly be seen that the Cotonou Agreement has provided many opportunities to non-state actors and indeed continues to provide such opportunities. We are very pleased that on the weekend the ACP-EC Council of Ministers agreed to amend the Cotonou Agreement to allow for direct access to EU funds for non-state actors, without prior authorisation of the National Authorising Officer. Arguably, in some ACP countries, this will have a direct positive impact. However, despite the progress, there are also many challenges, including limitations to institution-building, the necessity for more information on Cotonou and on the Economic Partnership Agreements, the importance of more consultations and for capacity-building. It is my recommendation to you today that we should be concentrating our efforts equally on these issues and I look forward to your comments on this proposal.
Thank you for your attention.
Page 2 of 8