WG EPAN Working Group on Enlargement, Pre-Accession and Neighbourhood 20 th May 2008 Dear Dr. Grabbe, On behalf of the CONCORD Working Group on Enlargement, Pre-Accession and Neighbourhood (EPAN), we would like to thank you for joining our meeting on 24 th April. The group found your intervention very useful, and was grateful for the chance to have an exchange of views with someone from Commissioner Rehn s cabinet. Following your request for feedback on the conference organised by DG Enlargement for civil society in Southeast Europe, please find attached a brief summary of points from members of the group and their partners who attended the conference. Main points that came from the feedback included the perspectives that it was a good introduction to what will hopefully become a continuous process of consultation with CSOs in the region, and that as the conference s theme was very broad, smaller scale, more focused events might be useful in the future. We are also enclosing the text prepared by the group for the European Commission s budget review, which focuses on the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and the model of civil society that it promotes. We look forward to meeting you again in the future and would welcome any comments and suggestions you may have regarding the conference feedback, the budget review text or the Working Group meeting itself. Yours sincerely, Vince Caruana EPAN Chair KOPIN Rebecca Steel EPAN Convenor TRIALOG
Annex 1: EC conference feedback Members of the CONCORD Working Group on Enlargement, Pre-Accession and Neighbourhood (EPAN) who attended the EC conference on the development of Civil Society in Southeastern Europe, and their partners, have pooled their experiences of the conference to provide feedback to the EC. Individual questionnaires have been returned to DG Enlargement, but this summary gives an overview of how the group members and their partners perceived the conference. The logistics of the conference were assessed favourably overall, but the content of the two-day session was met with a range of different responses. Positive - The conference was a good initiative, providing a first opportunity for Commission officials and CSOs from Southeastern Europe to meet face-to-face for direct discussions and exchanges; - It was a good introduction to what will hopefully become a continuous process of consultation with CSOs in the region; - The Commission s openness to support and engage with civil society in the region is welcome; - The conference resulted in good and promising conclusions. Neutral observations - The added-value of networking among CSOs from the region was higher for local CSOs than intermediary CSOs, as this developed basic contact with established EU networks directly; Needs improvement - The large number of participants meant that some topics were not discussed in as much depth as desired, and there were limited opportunities to intervene and ask questions; - The conference theme was very broad - in the future, smaller scale, more focused conferences and workshops could be useful; - There was a lot of information and possibilities for networking but little time to use them; - Some workshops and presentations were not contextualized to the needs and situations faced by civil society in the region at present; - The focus of the debates in the panels was on funding rather on cooperation and dialogue, which should be improved in the future.
Annex 2: The EC Budget Review submission The European Commission s Budget Review A Focus on the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance This contribution complements the CONCORD EU budget review submission, and builds in particular on the importance of the partnership principle and civil society involvement. The Working Group The CONCORD Working Group that works on Enlargement, Pre-Accession and Neighbourhood issues (EPAN) brings together representatives from across Europe. Long-established member states, newer member states and candidate countries are all represented within the group, which is convened by TRIALOG, a project to reinforce the role of development NGOs in the enlarged EU. The group welcomed the European Commission s invitation to take part in a thorough assessment of the EU budget and submits this review of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) for consideration. The Instrument The IPA was first presented by the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council in September 2004, as part of the preparations for the new financial framework covering 2007-2013. The IPA Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 was adopted on 17 July 2006. The IPA provides financial aid to countries that are candidate and potential candidate countries for membership of the EU. This is intended to help those countries introduce the political, economic and institutional reforms necessary to bring them in line with EU norms. As well as focusing on political reform, institution building in particular, the IPA also aims to strengthen the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities, and to contribute to the development of civil society. The model of Civil Society promoted by the IPA The funding mechanisms of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) demonstrate recognition by the EC of the importance of supporting a vibrant civil society in pre-accession countries. The principle of partnership was emphasised as a key basis of the assistance given through the IPA. The IPA Council Regulation and the later Commission Regulation 1, which details implementing rules, provide the legal basis for inclusion of civil society actors into the programming, implementing, monitoring and evaluation processes of EU assistance. However, the documents 1 Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 of 12 June 2007
only make it necessary for IPA Component 2: Cross-border cooperation to involve civil society actors in developing the programming documents. The mechanisms of the IPA aim to support strong networks of civil society, including support for dialogue and cooperation across national borders. Recent funding, although still spending against pre-ipa budgets, has been framed in terms of the IPA mechanisms of cross-border cooperation, and the region wide People-to-People Actions, in furtherance of these aims. In a current call for proposals, under the IPA, funding has been allocated to actions which Support a better informed public debate about EU Enlargement. These principles are laudable and support for these initiatives which strive to strengthen civil society, are welcome. However there are causes for concern about the nature of the model of civil society engagement that is promoted by the IPA in practice. Although there are efforts to build the capacity of CSOs to act as active stakeholders in their own countries and to hold their own governments to account, there is less evidence of the willingness of the European Commission to engage with them in defining priorities for assisting the often marginalised communities they represent. Although the IPA can be seen as progressive for including a legal basis for civil society involvement in setting assistance priorities, this principle is framed with a caveat that allows Commission staff to decide the parameters for this engagement determining when such engagement is appropriate. 2 This kind of limitation can also be seen for example in the call for proposals aimed at supporting a better informed debate on EU Enlargement, which limits its scope to informing the public of EU policies and accession related reforms (including their challenges) without seeking to build on the opportunity this creates for improving policy and programmes as a result of this greater public scrutiny. Opportunities for engagement are also very limited for international civil society. There are no annual reviews of the IPA, and the first formal opportunity for feedback is not until the mid-term review of 2010. By failing to provide opportunities for engagement, the IPA fails to capitalise on the considerable experience gathered by European NGOs both national and international as stakeholders in the recovery and development of the Western Balkans. The involvement of civil society actors to date has been on an ad-hoc basis. Civil society 3 has been consulted on the strategic aims and mid-term priorities of the multi-annual indicative programming documents and annual, short-term priorities of the programmes in which civil society organisations are also targeted as beneficiaries (Component 1: Institutions building and Component 2: Cross-border cooperation). However, the consultations usually take place under considerable time constraints and come late in the decision-making process. Additional problems result from the limited capacities on the part of civil society to make this a long-term strategic relationship rather than a fundraising opportunity. Establishing funding eligibility criteria that allow national NGOs to apply as the sole or main applicant is a progressive step. Until recently, national NGOs had limited access to larger grants. However there remain significant access barriers which limit the availability of support to less well established entities. 2 Article 6.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing the IPA 3 This information is based on the experience of MCIC in Macedonia.
Some of the key concrete steps that could improve the implementation of the partnership principle are: The mandatory inclusion of civil society representatives into the programming process and monitoring and evaluation bodies for all components; The establishment of mechanisms for regular and structured transparent trialogue (civil society- EU institutions-national institutions); The improvement of access to EU programming and other documents and an increase in opportunities for capacity-building to engage in trialogue/civil dialogue. The Conclusions The European Commission has become the most important development stakeholder in the Western Balkans, and will continue to hold this role through future accessions and beyond. Although the IPA funding mechanisms foster an enabling environment for civil society, through their targets and transparent process, the lack of engagement by the European Commission restricts the potential for civil society in pre-accession countries to give full voice to the people they represent, and therefore limits the impact of the work that the European Commission is undertaking through the IPA. Authors: Mark Chadwick Mercy Corps/BOND United Kingdom mchadwick@uk.mercycorps.org Tanja Hafner-Ademi MCIC/BCSDN Macedonia thf@mcms.org.mk For more information, please contact: Rebecca Steel EPAN Convenor TRIALOG Policy Officer Belgium trialog@concordeurope.org Vince Caruana EPAN Chair KOPIN Malta censu.caruana@um.edu.mt