P.O. BOX 151
3700 AD ZEIST
THE NETHERLANDS
TELEPHONE: + 31 30
69.27.827
TELEFAX: + 31 30 69.25.614
e-mail: ecsiep@antenna.nl
|
|
European
Centre on Pacific Issues
Third Mesolevel Dialogue between Pacific Civil Society, EU NGDOs,
European Commission and other actors
Brussels, Monday 9 July 2001
1.1 On the occasion of the
presence of a large delegation of Pacific Civil Society in Brussels (which participated in the ACP-EU Conference
on the participation of Civil Society in the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement),
the European Centre on Pacific Issues (ECSIEP) organised a meeting with these
representatives, European NGDOs, European Commission representatives and other
interested parties.
The meeting was attended by 44 people, including 16 participants from the
Pacific representing Civil Society of 10 Pacific Island Countries and 3
regional organisations, 12 representatives of the EU NGDOs, 5 representatives
of the European Commission and the Brussels-based ambassadors of Samoa and
Papua New Guinea.
2.1 During the meeting, it
became apparent that there has not been a positive change in the trend that
European NGDOs are withdrawing from the Pacific. Due to a lack of resources and
time, EU NGDOs do not see opportunities to expand their presence in the
Pacific. There was however a clear willingness of the EU NGDOs to explore the
options to combine forces between the European organisations, to be able to
strengthen their presence in the Pacific. The EU NGDOs indicated however, that
they are also waiting for input from the Pacific NGOs which can be used in
their discussions to keep the Pacific on the European agenda and that they
would like to receive a better picture from other funding sources that are
presently active in the Pacific (such as Australia, New Zealand, USA,
Japan,etc.).
2.2 Pacific Civil Society delegates stated that they are presently in
transition. In a couple of years, the
main funding sources from Europe to civil society in the Pacific will come from
the regional and national indicative programmes, and NGOs will therefore have
to start lobbying with their own national governments, to be able to access
funding via these sources. In the meantime, EU NGDOs will continue to play
important roles in enabling the Pacific organisations to work towards this
structure. In the longer run, the major role that EU NGDOs will have to play in
support of Pacific civil society will relate to lobbying on issues that are
important to the Pacific such as climate change, human rights, bio-diversity
and globalisation.
2.3 During the meetings prior to the Mesolevel dialogue, the Pacific
CSOs discussed amongst themselves a project proposal to enable smaller and
geographically remote organisations to benefit from funding coming from Europe.
The proposal should improve the “absorption capacity” of the smaller
organisations by combining many smaller initiatives into one big proposal that
can be presented to the EC for co-financing. The EU NGDOs present were
interested to learn more about this ”Omnibus” proposal. Accordingly, the
Pacific CSOs will develop the concept further and will submit the proposal to a
(consortium of) EU NGDOs for co-financing.
3.1 Complaints were heard from the EU NGDOs about the processing of
co-financing proposals by the Commission. Problems that were encountered by the
EU NGDOs included a long waiting time between submission of proposals and
response, and the bureaucracy they encounter.
3.2 The European Commission welcomed the intention of the EU NGDOs to
look into closer co-operation between the EU NGDOs and joint project submittals
for the Pacific region.
4.1 The present civil society representatives
expressed their understanding that in the future accessing resources from the
European Union will be mainly via the NIPs and RIP. They therefore emphasised
the importance of setting up national platforms and a regional ACP-CSO liaison
unit to co-ordinate lobbying activities with governments. The first step needs
to be discussion with governments regarding how the indicative percentage of up
to 15% of the total EU financial resources under the 9th EDF can be
made available to ACP Civil Society and non state actors.
4.2 Another concern was regarding the monitoring of civil society
participation in the Country Support Strategy (CSS) papers. In a brief inventory during the meeting, it
became apparent that in several cases where the Commission had been told by
governments and delegations that civil society had been appropriately consulted
for the preparation of the CSS, the CS representatives denied having been
consulted at all and had no knowledge of other organisations being consulted in
the CSS process.
5.1
It was observed that it is important to
continue mesolevel dialogue as it is contributing to a better understanding
among the participants.
5.2 Co-ordination of networks for the purpose of increasing the
understanding of the Cotonou agreement is necessary. A lot of information has
been distributed over the past couple of years by PCRC and ECSIEP and this need
for information is ongoing.
5.3 It is important to receive information on the several actors
(Pacific NGOs, funding agencies active in the Pacific, etc.) to get a better
view of who is doing what in the Pacific. ECSIEP is working together with the
Development Resource Centre (DRC) in New Zealand to produce a data base with
this information. The participants will be kept informed about the
developments. Information on the different EU budget lines will be provided by
the European Commission and distributed via ECSIEP.
Summary_____________________________________________________________________ 1
1. Introduction_____________________________________________________________ 1
2. Pacific Civil Society – EU NGDOs interaction___________________________________ 1
3. EU NGDO – EC interaction_________________________________________________ 2
4. Pacific
Civil Society and Cotonou___________________________________________ 2
5. Information
supply_______________________________________________________ 2
Table of Contents______________________________________________________________ 3
Acknowledgements_____________________________________________________________ 4
Meeting Report________________________________________________________________ 5
Introduction_________________________________________________________________ 5
Briefing on the outcome of the ACP Civil
Society meetings___________________________ 5
Contribution of the European Commission_________________________________________ 6
Questions
and Discussion____________________________________________________ 7
Contribution from the EU NGDOs________________________________________________ 8
Questions
and Discussion____________________________________________________ 9
Experiences from the Pacific___________________________________________________ 9
Questions
and Discussion___________________________________________________ 10
Briefing NGO Capacity Building Workshop
Vanuatu, November 2000___________________ 12
Status of Country Support Strategies___________________________________________ 12
Questions
and Discussion___________________________________________________ 13
Contributions from the EU NGDOs______________________________________________ 14
Closing Session_____________________________________________________________ 17
Annex_______________________________________________________________________ 18
Outcomes of the ACP Civil Society Meetings
addressing Civil Society Participation in the implementation of the Cotonou
Agreement, 2-7 July 2001 Brussels______________________________________ 18
Report from the Pacific Region Caucus on
ACP-Civil Society Plan of Action and institutionalising ACP Civil Society (and
Non State Actors) within the Cotonou Agreement._____________________ 20
Draft Pacific Plan of Action for Civil
Society participation in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement 24
Participants list of the Third Mesolevel
Dialogue between Pacific Civil Society, European Commission, European NGDOs and other actors –
Brussels, Monday 9 July 2001.__________________ 28
ECSIEP would like to thank all participants for their input into the
meeting and particularly Fei Tevi and Henri Vira for their efforts in chairing
the meeting. Furthermore we are grateful to Mr. Pao Luteru of the ACP
Secretariat for kindly offering us a meeting space within the ACP secretariat
and to his secretary Ms. Josephine Byalugaba for her assistance with the
practicalities at the Secretariat.
Finally, we are very much
indebted to Nicci Simmonds who took notes during the meeting and assisted in
the finalisation of this report.
European Centre
on Pacific Issues
Zeist, August
2001
This meeting was planned to take advantage of the
presence of Pacific civil society representatives in Brussels for the occasion
of the ACP-EU conference on the participation of civil society in the
implementation of the Cotonou Agreement. Their presence, together with the
representatives of the European Commission and EU NGDOs created a balanced
meso-level dialogue.
The objectives of the meeting were to:
Ř
Inventorise
progress made thus far;
Ř
Identify
opportunities and obstacles lying ahead;
Ř
Quantify
the interests of EU NGDOs in the Pacific;
Ř
Discuss
various initiatives to tighten the link between the Pacific & Europe;
Ř
Discuss
if and how these initiatives taken in the past have come into practice, or what
is needed to get them operational.
This report endeavours to
provide as full and descriptive an account of the meeting as possible by
recording the questions, concerns and discussions made by delegates.
Michael Makasiale (PCRC) presented
a brief summary of the outcomes of the ACP meetings as they related to the
Pacific, including: taking stock of importance of the ACP, co-ordination
modalities, defining priorities for partners, and working out an agreement and
action plan. The text of his presentation is also added as an annex to this
report. The issues were discussed in
global, regional, sub-regional and national terms, and in relation to
sub-issues including capacity building.
The
declaration looked at 5 areas of improvement:
- Capacity building
- Structuring of civil society
- Financial resources
- Effective dialogue
- Monitoring the Cotonou Agreement and
evaluation
It was considered crucial
at all levels to set up a forum in Brussels that would support the structures
at regional levels.
The
meetings concluded with a new knowledge of ACP civil society, and were thus
able to provide new inputs to the EC.
All
parties agreed that political involvement at high levels were critical to any
decisions being effective, and thus agreed to raise issues with ambassadors and
the EC; especially regarding accountability, governance structures and
financing.
Tupou Vere (PCRC) linked the outcomes of the ACP civil society
meetings to follow-up actions Pacific civil society organisations (CSOs)
consider critical in their region. On
behalf of the Pacific CSOs, she requested time for discussion on possible
follow-up actions considered by Pacific CSOs and what support European NGDOs
and EC could provide toward those ends. The issues that were put forward were:
1. The suggested framework highlights certain
major objectives for building or strengthening CSOs at national, regional and
global levels. The CSOs note the
importance of setting up national platforms; there is a general consensus they
will look at other non-state actors. Six
platforms have been currently set up in the Pacific, another eight are
planned. Aside from national platforms,
Pacific CSOs have identified the need for ensuring support for these national
platforms. They request that regional
NGOs in the Pacific support the activities of the national platforms.
2. Capacity building: An immediate need is that
following information seminars there is an expectation that CSOs be able to
access resources directly or indirectly.
In that regard they would like to request technical assistance to access
resources. EU delegates have been
provided with Euro 80,000.- for such efforts, but the difficulty for CSOs is
how to access these funds.
3. Advocacy: Need for dialogue and advocacy
especially in the area of the trade aspect within the Cotonou agreement. Request for information from regional bodies
such as the Forum Secretariat to access matters such as trade negotiations and
have the opportunity, to make their needs and concerns known. Pacific CSOs
confirmed their need for structured dialogue between themselves and
governments.
4. Monitoring should take place at regional and
local levels. Having a Europe-Pacific
watchdog. Recommending an ombudsman type body to monitor the extent of
commitments by EC regarding CSOs at all levels.
5. The need to look at thematic platforms: i.e.
looking at Cotonou from a gender, human rights, and other perspectives.
Clodagh O'Brien
(European Commission) gave
a brief overview of budget-lines including co-financing.
The
EC is reforming its external aid and is still working through the consequences
of the reform decisions. In the medium
and short term the changes are causing delays and lack of clarity, which the
Commission hopes this meeting will help clear.
There will be a larger role for delegations, with a stronger role in
assessment of projects and dialogue with CSOs.
On
co-financing, decisions will continue to be made in Brussels without dialogue
with governments. Co-financing is primarily
for EU NGDOs – this was its original intent.
The EC is however looking at this in terms of a role for civil society
more widely, and it is expected that there will be a progressive opening to
include Southern NGOs in the co-financing scheme directly. At this stage the EC is still discussing the
issue with European NGDOs. One item that
needs to be discussed is the positive and negatives effects of this role on
civil society organisations.
This
year the budget line is 200 million Euro – having grown from the previous
year. It is complemented by a small
budget for direct funding to Southern CSOs (of 3 million Euro).
One
of the main features of the reform is the move toward calling for proposals to
try and level the playing field. This
has occurred after criticisms of too little clarity, the undue length of the
pipeline and unfairness in the process.
As a consequence, all proposals are now being accepted at the same time,
are subject to the same process, and contacts with NGDOs are no longer accepted
until after the first selection phase.
There has been an introduction of 20 pages of standardised
criteria. This should make the process
more transparent and professional.
The
first proposal process started last year, and is now being processed with the
aim of distributing 200 million Euro in total.
Most of the projects are now under discussion with the delegations.
In
the last two years, the increased awareness of the Pacific (aided by ECSIEPs
work) should help the cause of Pacific CSOs.
Delegations should also play a stronger role in the process. There is a need to retain a balance between
the different regions within the Pacific, and the different regions of the
world, and to ensure the LDCs receive a major part of the budget. What is
coming out of the plan of action is where we should be looking for
complementarity within global NGOs; considering EDF procedures and tactical
considerations. The future of the budget
line is assured, and copies of the evaluation will be provided. The main critique has been that the EC was
reactive rather than proactive to ensure development objectives are
reached.
Issues
relating to NGDO autonomy have also been raised. There are competing views
about what co-financing means regarding the EC and CSO relationships. It is hoped this meeting will help clarify
some of these issues.
Bas Van Helden
(European Commission): In
the past 3 years there have been difficulties in the budget line. It has been possible only through European
NGDOs, who have been re-orienting their direction of aid toward particular
areas – particularly in Africa. There
has also been a battle to redirect European NGDOs back toward the Pacific and
there is a framework and a need for development cooperation in the Pacific, and
so we hope to retain the interest of European NGDOs focus on the Pacific as
there is an onus to maintain a kind of geographical balance. The new procedure for proposals has
advantages. It is more honest and straight forward but the people facing the
proposals are faced by a mountain of papers (there were 900 proposals in the
last call for proposals) that causes delays, requiring further staffing or
other solutions.
In
the field, delegations have appointed contact persons for NGOs to improve
relations between the commission and civil society. The delegate in Fiji is always available for
any questions.
Clodagh O’Brien
(EC): There are no specific
new priorities, CSOs should keep in touch with delegates and websites for new
information on budget-lines and co-financing particularly.
Jacques
Goedertier (EC): Despite all the
previous discussions, the co-financing projects in the Pacific are not so
impressive. In 2000 there were only 3 or
4 projects approved, for 2001 we don’t know the outcome along the co-financing
budget-line.
For
the limited budget-line on Decentralised Co-operation (B7-6430), there were 2
projects (a brief follow-up of the ECSIEP/PCRC project and a capacity building
project of local government). It should
be noted that there are also other budget lines available: the Human Rights
budget line for example could be very useful for some of the Pacific CSOs.
Jochem
Schneemann (ICCO): On top of the 6 projects that
were approved last year, were there other submissions not approved and how
many?
EC: Around 10 proposals in total. There have been problems for several reasons,
but were usually in the administrative and financial field.
Art
Pennebaker (Marshall Islands): Is it possible for
the Micronesian states to hear the name of the delegate for Micronesia?
EC: It is not yet official, but it is expected
that Micronesia will be served under the Fijian delegation.
Rex Horoi (FSPI): What delegation will be the focal point for
Vanuatu?
EC: Again unofficially, it is expected to be
under the PNG office; for the sake of maintaining balance between the
delegations.
Madeleen Helmer: noted that the staff numbers at the
delegations were remaining the same whereas their tasks are expanding. How will
this affect the missions?
EC: They will have to work harder! They expect to eventually get more staff, but
the process of decentralisation will take time, and staff numbers are not
expected to increase within the next 3 years.
Simon Passingan
(ENBSEK): If there is increased awareness of Pacific
issues in Europe, what is the reason for the slow improvement on processes to
achieve objectives?
EC: One of the main objectives of the new system
is to ensure a maximum of a six-month term for proposal response. This will be
extended if there is a need for discussion, and there is the intention to speed
up this process.
Tupou
Vere (PCRC): Requested verification from the
Commission regarding an issue that arose during the regional seminar in Tonga
in November last year:- is there 80,000 Euro available for delegates to
dispense for capacity building of non-state actors?
EC: This is a general provision under which
delegations themselves can decide interventions, mainly for technical assistance/provision,
but not excluding capacity building, the EC is happy to see it used in that
way.
The 80,000 Euro referred to is linked to 0-50% for capacity-building
and information under the facility for this 80,000 Euro.
Tine Schmale
(EC): This is a ‘procedure’, a
facility to install technical assistance to the Pacific. The terms of reference are now being
finalised. The money will be going to a
consultant who will be visiting the 6 new ACP countries.
Jochem Schneeman
(ICCO): ICCO started working in the Pacific in
1975. It is currently phasing out in
Vanuatu (Vanuatu is being phased out due to the need to concentrate their focus
and due to limited resources inside ICCO).
ICCO contributed 2.5 million Euro to the Pacific in the last 5
years. 0.8 million comes from the EC via
the co-financing budget line. ICCO currently has 20 partners in the
Pacific.
ICCO
has experienced a lot of commitment from Pacific CSOs. They have witnessed problems of CSO
enlargement, management and administration, and keeping staff on board. ICCO
expressed that it finds it difficult to see what their support has achieved in
the Pacific because the effects are not always reported on or evident. Although these problems are not specific to
the Pacific, these are important issues for ICCO, and relate to increasing
competition for funds for European NGDOs and their staffing limitations. This year ICCO drafted a new Pacific policy,
which has been sent to all their Pacific partners, and some of the Pacific CSOs
and European NGDOs.
ICCO
has submitted 5 projects for EC co-financing – all were approved, although
sometimes the time period for approval was up to 16 months. ICCO has close relations with other European
NGDOs like BfdW, EZE, OED, Just World partners.
When working with other European NGDOs, ICCO tries to agree on a lead
agency to avoid duplication, and to cooperate and share information. ICCO noted their appreciation of ECSIEPs
information supply on all European NGDOs.
ICCO's
future policy in the Pacific is to focus on sustainable forest use, and
strengthening civil society – particularly in regards to how it relates to
sustainable forestry. This means timber
and other forest products, marketing etc. ICCO sees a strong link between poverty and sustainable
resources. ICCO looks at the
professional management of NGOs, their organisational development and their
future perspective, and stated that they are open to providing support towards
organisational development.
ICCO identified the main obstacles to achieving development
objectives in the Pacific as:
-
ICCO’s
own time constraints;
-
The
need for improvement of proposals.
On the issue of joining
forces with other European NGDOs, Jochem Schneemann stated that European funds
are not easy money (administration and monitoring are laborious and expensive)
and that co-operation between organisations can have added benefits in that
field. ICCO also invited other European
NGDOs to review their policy papers, as this enhances dialogue with Pacific
partners;
In
response to the question of what the Pacific CSOs can do to increase funding
from Europe, ICCO recommended CSOs to look at the Pacific experiences with
decentralised co-operation? This is a
kind of direct funding, and a trend he believes will continue.
ICCO would also like to know what other donors
are active in the Pacific. For example Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the
United States – what are their foci, regions and funding? They need to know where the European added
value lies. ICCO invited the Pacific
NGOs to supply the EU NGDOs with ammunition for advocacy and lobbying to come
forward: “We need good arguments to stay in the Pacific”.
Rex
Horoi (FSPI, Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International): noted that other donors are phasing out: DFID is pulling out, AusAid is focusing on
East Timor. There is a general reduction
of activities in the Pacific as a whole.
Jese Sikivou
(Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association): Interested that ICCO had a 100% success rate in its
applications for co-financing from the EC.
Following up on Tupou Vere’s suggestion that they all meet as a group,
and noting that BfdW supported an omnibus facility to enable funding,
reporting, administration, etc. Would ICCO consider coming to the Pacific and
providing some guidance to helping Pacific CSOs get a 100% success rate in
proposal submissions?
Jochem
Schneemann: ICCO has one travel ticket to the Pacific per
year, and they try to combine events for that reason, but they believe they
should be able to provide some suggestions and help on proposal writing.
Caspar
Fa’asala (DSE): Regarding new approaches and
programmes in sustainable forestry; what is the quality of organisations and
what level does the program focus on?
Casper noted that for most countries in the Pacific, the custodians of
forests are the local community. Does
ICCO focus on the local level or national level?
Jochem Schneeman: ICCO is
supporting NGOs on the local level, but increasingly also at the national
level. NGOs in PNG created an
eco-forestry forum at the national level, which exchange members and lobbies
the national government, commenting on national legislation and policies. ICCO recognises that these initiatives take
time, and need to start at the local level, but both levels are important.
Tina Takashy (FSM Women’s Association Network):
Micronesia is a new member under the Cotonou Agreement, and is consequently
learning how to gain resources and what their role is. CSOs are based around local community
functions, and have not been active on the regional, national or global level.
CSOs are largely unorganised and lack resources and organisational skills. Since 1997 they have been part of the PCRC
decentralised cooperation, and have thus become familiar with Cotonou and Lome,
FSM Women’s Association Network has come to the meeting hoping to meet possible
partners and see how committed the EC is to the Pacific.
Currently,
Micronesian CSOs fund projects from their own resources. When they look at how to access new
resources, problems arise because of a lack of formal structure within the CSO. There is no mechanism to access resources
from the government. FSM Women’s
Association Network is in the process of re-negotiating its internal structure.
Regarding
the NIPs: CSOs have not entered into any consultation with the Micronesian
government, and the government has not timetabled any such dialogue. NGOs feel they are in the dark and that it is
difficult to dialogue with government.
To ensure Civil Society is part of the process, they are looking to
Northern NGDOs for co-financing and decentralised co-operation. Tina’s organisation has approached 4-5 NGDOs
in Europe, but received the response that European NGDOs are not active in this
regional area. They would look at EU ACP contacts for assistance to put
together a consultation process to facilitate government opening the dialogue
to focus more on these areas and on traditional groups. The FSM Women’s Association Network has
documents available which give a brief intro on Pacific civil society and human
resource development. A final request
was that Northern NGDOs consider collaboration and give their suggestions. Micronesian people feel very far away, and
exist on 2 million square miles of ocean, with all the associated problems of
communication and transportation which make involvement and action difficult.
Annie Homasi
(TANGO): The decentralising
process also took place in Tuvalu, and it took until the last year for Tuvalu's
civil society to learn about Lomé, there is still very little knowledge about
the Lomé Treaty. The last series of
meetings were very useful. From Tuvalu’s
perspective, they appreciate learning about Cotonou from the beginning.
TANGO
has developed a 4 year strategy plan, with a vision for an efficient and
effective organisation, assisting NGOs to achieve human development, and they
draw upon the metaphor of coconut trees providing services for civil society
development.
There
is a need for CSOs to work on legalisation, registration and the structure of
civil society. TANGOs annual report
indicates their transparency in the process of trying to access resources
through the Lomé convention. Annie asked for clarification on which of the
European NGDOs will be working with them on the Cotonou agreement.
Bas Van Helden
(EC): Notes difference
between Cotonou and budget-lines. For
clarity, budget-lines (of any kind) are the Commission’s own resources, and
they should be seen as detached from Cotonou.
They will remain irrespective of Cotonou or Lomé. A certain amount of funds have been
discussed as ear-marked for direct funding to Southern civil society.
Henry Vira
(PIANGO): noted a contradiction in
that Pacific civil society can access resources through NIPs and RIPs, but
during this period of opening up, European NGDOs feel their role is
increasingly limited. In the context of
this meeting, how can we ensure the relationship between European NGDOs and
Pacific NGOs to continue?
Fei Tevi
(World Council of Churches): Regarding the proposed
meeting before November to meet in the Pacific to look at how best NGOs can be
organised in relation to accessing EC resources. He encourages Northern NGDOs to consider this
more seriously. One initiative in the
Pacific is to bring together regional NGOs in October, to put forward a
regional perspective, and to ensure a regional perspective is understood, and
that a process is not entered into in which partners are pulling out at the
national level. It is important to
ensure we don’t lose any more partners.
Secondly in regards to
capacity-building as mentioned earlier by Ms. Tine Schmale. A consultant is being identified to work on
Cotonou – he finds this disappointing, as this work has already been done by a
regional organization and the information has been disseminated. There is thus a lack of communication
resulting in a lack of continuity. He at
least hopes the consultant comes from the Pacific.
Thirdly regarding co-financing and
decentralisation; this has been emphasised and now we are at a cross-roads
where we need to ensure CSOs are present and active in discussion with
governments. 15% is given in Cotonou for
that pursuit. Fei noted a danger of
Pacific CSOs losing the progress made in DC by going door to door seeking funds
while on trips to Europe. This allows EU
NGDOs to dictate where/how much to provide.
Bas van
Helden (EC): Explained that there is a need for
country support strategies; this is not to redo the work but to build upon it.
Jese
Sikivou (Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association):
In response to the EC noting that funding is not provided to
organisations/projects that are ‘too small’, there is a limited absorptive
capacity in the Pacific. He requested
clarification and guidelines on what is ‘too small’, and reflection on the
specific nature and requirements of the Pacific.
Bas van
Helden (EC): Responded that nothing is too small;
the importance is how funds are managed.
Calls upon Pacific CSOs to combine proposals – umbrella proposals by
civil society. Requests that CSOs
remember that management capacity is a key issue.
Madeleen
Helmer: Supports the idea that Cotonou be used
strategically to strengthen Pacific intervention and push access to budget-lines. NGOs can be backed-up
by EU NGDOs and this can be more effective than approaching the EC
directly.
Morgan
Armstrong (FSP Vanuatu): Notes lack of clarity on papers on national
support programmes – when is it going to start?
Simon
Passingan (ENBSEK): experience leads him to
question what is the’ partnership’ – a structure/resource/encouraging
classification of NGDOs?
Ambassador
Pepson (PNG): Noted that ACP CSOs, governments and
the EU all see a greater role for ACP CSOs.
When the next step – accessing resources – is reached, he foresees
difficulties in the areas of organisation, and development of mechanisms
between actors.
There is a need for consolidation
of relationships. Cooperation of ACP CSOs with ACP governments is critical. The
ambassador requested a list of available budget-lines, and emphasised the need
for development of 'partnership’, emphasising that governments, EC and civil society are in it
together.
Aren U
Teannaki (Collective Kiribati Non-State Actors):
Regarding the Country Support Strategy, Aren asked what the stages of the
strategy are. In the case of Kiribati,
CSOs were given 3 weeks by the government to comment – this was done, but CSOs
do not know whether they were taken into consideration or not. They would like to receive a copy before the
final submission.
Rex
Horoi (FSPI): Explained that FSPI works with
regional organisations, and expressed support for PIANGO’s and PCRC’s work in
the Pacific. Highlighted the contradiction between the lessening of European
NGDO activities in the Pacific, and the need in the Pacific for their
assistance.
Requested that Pacific CSOs all see
a matrix of the activities and issues (northern NGDOs and Pacific CS) so we can
all see who is doing what and how.
Question to the EC: what is the
terminology of co-financing within and outside of Cotonou, and what is match funding?
Peter
van der Vlies (ECSIEP) Responded that ECSIEP is
working on a database to make the matrix sort of data available to Pacific CSOs
and other interested parties. Information
on budget-lines will be sent by the Commission via ECSIEP after this meeting
Tine
Schmale (EC): Match-funding is common at different
levels, 15% at least has to come from European sources.
Ambassador
Meredith (Samoa): Emphasised that the ‘fundamental’
element of Cotonou is good governance, and noted that this was a decrease in
importance from being an ‘essential’ element – but it remains a trace element
at all levels of Cotonou.
Noted the important role of the
Commonwealth secretariat along with the ACP secretariat – and highlighted their
greater experience and that much can be learnt from them.
Henry Vira (PIANGO) briefed the meeting
on the outcomes of the NGO Capacity Building Workshop which was organised in
Vanuatu in November 2000.
The specific focal areas of the workshop were:
Ř Organisational development improvement,
Ř NGO sustainability and funding,
Ř Information sharing,
Ř Stakeholder relations,
Ř Level and regularity of co-operation.
Regarding stakeholder
relations, the issues covered included how to conduct regular meetings, monitor
NGO capacity building, and increase NGO participation in development.
Regarding
donor programs, the discussion focused on facilitation, regular sharing of
information, identification of appropriate ways for donors to support greater
co-operation, and sensitisation of donor agencies to Pacific needs (conduct
regular NGO forums, strengthen common advocacy issues).
The
dialogue in Vanuatu focused mainly on Pacific NGO issues. The dialogue did not deal directly with
country strategy papers or Cotonou, but issues were discussed, and commitments
from donors were made. Directly after
the meeting a regional Pacific NGO working group was organised to produce
proposals for consultation between Pacific NGOs with the Pacific Island Forum.
The need and importance of information
technology was emphasised, as was the importance of trade.
Bas van Helden (EC)
informed the meeting about the current status of the Pacific ACP States’
country support strategies as it is known by the Commission.
PNG: paper has been submitted by government; internally
reviewed, and changes are to be made but they are largely of a cosmetic
nature. A common problem is the link
between analysis of the situation and action – this link needs to be strengthened.
Solomon Islands: minor cosmetic changes to be made.
Vanuatu: complete. Once the internal discussion in Brussels is
complete, the paper will be returned to the country for verification. The EC
hopes for feedback from Vanuatu shortly.
Samoa and Tonga: some changes and reviews are being made
Tuvalu: paper received favourable, being shortened at present
before discussion
Kiribati: recent intensive discussion with government and NGOs.
Fiji: note yet received final document from delegation.
New ACP states (Marshall Islands, Cook
Islands, FSM, Nauru, Niue, Palau): no CSS has been received yet. They are posting a technical assistant to
these countries to help draft a first version and bring them up to speed with
the Cotonou Agreement.
Madeleen Helmer: How does the EC
verify the participation of CSOs?
Bas van Helden
(EC): Normally there is an
annex detailing the process and activities that have taken place regarding
consultation. If any non-state actors feel that this has not taken place
sufficiently, it is up to them to bring their concerns to the attention of
other parties in the dialogue.
Morgan Armstrong
(FSP Vanuatu): Raised the
attention of the participants to the fact that none of the focal sectors of
Vanuatu were involved in the writing of the CSS, and further, that the paper
incorrectly claims to have the support of CSOs while not one of the CSOs was
consulted!
Fei Tevi (Chair): Requested that the Civil Society
representatives of the other countries indicate who has and has not been
consulted:
Lopeti
Senituli (Tonga Human Rights Democracy Movement): the Tongan government has
consulted CSOs four times.
Annie Homasi (TANGO, Tuvalu): Stated that the
CSOs have been very proactive, but they think that without the workshops, they
wouldn’t have seen the CSS.
Aren U Teannaki (Collective Kiribati Non-State
Actors): The first time they heared about CSS was after workshops when a draft
had already been written, some CSOs were consulted and some were not.
Simon Passingan (ENBSEK: PNG): Stated that
they have not seen one CSS, and that in PNG,
NGOs have to go to the government for consultation to take place.
Casper Fa’asala (DSE: Solomon Islands) : In
the Solomons, CSOs took the initiative with the government, but they haven’t
been consulted regarding the CSS.
Michelle Meredith (Women in Business
Foundation Inc, Samoa): Stated that the umbrella organisation was invited and
were just told by the government what arrangements were made. Other NGOs had been invited.
Nisha Buksh (National Council of Women, Fiji):
Stated that there has been no consultation with government as yet, but that
they learnt of issues through the PCRC.
Non-state actors have been approached by governments for comment.
Tina Takashy (FSM Womens Association Network,
Micronesia): The Micronesian CSS has not been submitted yet; there has been
consultation on the national level, but not with CSOs.
Art Pennebaker (Marshall islands ) There was
consultation in the Marshall Islands during a meeting two months ago. Art stated that the government had demanded
changes to the final CSS document. After
changes had been suggested by CSOs, the document ‘disappeared’ and has not been
seen since by the consulted CSOs.
Madeleen Helmer: Can the European Commission consult NGOs in
Europe and Pacific to obtain information on Civil Society participation and
consultation in the CSS process?
Bas van Helden
(EC): The EC relies on the
delegations to verify if CSOs have been consulted. The EC does not consider NGOs an appropriate
vehicle for verification.
It is up to CSOs to raise
issues, and the EC will follow up on such issues when they are raised. The EC noted that civil society is not one
body, and does not always work together.
Consequently, governments often only talk to a section of civil society,
but all partners should be consulted, and the Commission is aware that this is
not always the case. These issues build on the case for an umbrella organisation
of CSOs.
Lopeti Senituli (Tonga Human Rights Democracy
Movement): Noted that there is a
need for each country to build a national platform and a clearly defined
mechanism, defining who the members are.
Only on the basis of such a well-structured national platform, can a
well-structured platform be created regionally and globally, and legitimate and
cohesive action can only arise out of this.
Tupou Vere
(PCRC): there is a need for
information sharing and education to enable this.
Rudo Chitiga
(Commonwealth Foundation):
Asked if there are guidelines on what is minimum acceptable consultation?
Lopeti Senituli
(THRDM): Responded that the
benchmark should be whether or not CSOs had an opportunity to influence the
outcome.
Tupou Vere (PCRC): Added that this is a key issue in the
operationalisation of Cotonou, but which does not provide guidelines. At present, the Agreement allows flexibility
but also explains why guidelines are lacking.
This is an issue Pacific CSOs want to raise with their respective governments.
Bas van Helden
(EC): Stated that it helps if
the EC talks with one umbrella organisation rather than a large number of
separate entities. Adequate consultation
is when one or two workshops discuss the pre-draft document, and that views of
CS, whenever appropriate, be taken into account.
To supplement the
information that was shared by Jochem Schneemann of ICCO in the morning
session, the European NGDOs were given the opportunity in the afternoon to
share their thoughts and observations with the rest of the meeting.
Martin Remppis
(BfdW): Expressed
discouragement from co-financing due to the unreliability from the EU
side. Explained that due to the
bureaucratic nature of the EC application process, BfdW tends away from
co-funding.
On the other side, BfdW
is very interested in the results of the negotiations, the regular update from
ECSIEP, and they encourage their partners to be involved in the national and
regular discussions.
Philippe
Guichandut (CCFD):
Stated that CCFD have not done much regarding Cotonou due to lack of time and
because they cover many countries.
Another reason is that they have not received much pressure or questions
from Southern partners to address this issue.
Noted that EU NGDOs need to receive pressure from Pacific NGDOs if they
are going to make time to follow up, and that European NGDOs need to feel these
issues are important to Pacific CSOs and stressed the importance of
networking.
Stressed that it is becoming more difficult and less appropriate for
European NGDOs to access co-financing funds.
While many European NGDOs are withdrawing from the Pacific, the new
trend of the EC is not helping, because it pushes NGDOs towards big
projects.
Helen Jeans
(VSO): Stated that they have
applied for co-financing to mirror the
TANGO partnership model with other Pacific CSOs, and emphasised that VSO is
committed to the Pacific region.
Karine Sohet
(APRODEV): Stated that if there is a lack of information
among Pacific CSOs, this is the same among European NGDOs and that it is even
more difficult for EU NGDOs to access EC funds.
Asked the EC what procedures and plans are in place to help Pacific CSOs
access EC direct funding. Noted a
frustration in dealing with the EC.
In regards to trade,
APRODEV has been involved in negotiations and in regard to Cotonou. They
financed an impact study on trade on poverty reduction and gender. It will be
done in relation to trade network and the focus will be on Southern Africa.
Maren von der
Heyde (EMW): Explained that EMW is an umbrella organization
for protestant churches. They are losing
their development desks, but the funds will remain for lobbying and theological
education based in Hamburg. They are no
longer a donor agency but member organizations are churches and missions, and
as such have relations with Pacific communities. Believes the Cotonou would be seen by
churches as an interesting political tool.
Notes regret that it is so difficult for churches to apply for
co-financing from the EC.
Fei Tevi, (World
Council of Churches):
Stated that the World Council of Churches is looking at various mechanisms and
challenges for churches to be involved in development CSOs in the South
Peter van der
Vlies (ECSIEP): Placed a
question to ICCO regarding the effectiveness of NGDOs, and Jesse’s mention of
an omnibus; asked if it is conceivable that ICCO would fund beyond its
geographical focus, should an attractive project and efficient funding
mechanism arise such as an omnibus?
Jochem
Schneemann (ICCO): Yes, there is a potential,
proposals are seen in relation to other proposals at any one time. Noted that ICCO first funds an NGO directly
and checks the relationship before co-financing while for BfdW, the main
concern is the frequently changing modalities.
Reinhard
Scheumann (World Vision):
Development & Relief projects. Noted
difficulty in accessing new funds and maintaining offices in the Pacific for
European NGDOs.
Bas van Helden
(European Commission):
Encouraged European NGDOs interested in the Pacific to be at least informally
linked together. Noted the strong
presence of churches in the Pacific and their importance in the area within
civil society. Asked if it is possible
to combine submissions under one?
Regarding maximum 15/50% under Cotonou; experience has been gained over
the past years, and it is recognised now that a platform of NGDOs that screens
projects, or a kind of steering committee is often effective.
Day to day
management requires a focus on technical knowledge, but even more important is
proper account-keeping. This sort of
practical issues are critical.
Jochem Schneemann
(ICCO): Advised Pacific NGOs to
identify their need for information; suggested more requests and proactive-ness
from Pacific CSOs. Invited CSOs to come
up with proposals rather than waiting to be approached.
Lopeti Senituli
(THRDM): Stated that when ECPDM
sent information to all ACP nations, there was positive feedback, and that
shows good progress in networking and co-ordination. However, there has been an effective delivery
of resources – and this is the key issue on which Cotonou stands. This requires a shift from an educational to
a technical approach to bring Cotonou to life for the Pacific.
Asked that European NGDOs do not forget their advocacy role regarding
the Pacific: Negotiations on climate change, bio-diversity, human rights,
etc. The Pacific CSOs will continue to
rely on European NGDOs regarding how to develop relations with other sectors in
Europe.
Henry Vira (PIANGO): Noted that partnership is a
confusing term and that there is often discomfort using it. Asked the participants to consider what we
see as partnership, from both the European as well as the Pacific side.
Helen Jeans: Responded that it takes a long time, and requires a
shared vision.
Jochem Schneemann: Requested Pacific
NGDOs to state what they expect of European NGDOs.
Madeleen Helmer: 80% is about money and hence fails to
achieve partnership. Partnership can
only grow out of and after funding relationships have ended.
Simon Passingan: Noted that while there has been a reduction
in funding from current donor-NGDOs, the other part of the relationship has
continued. Developing the capacity of
the Southern CSO is key.
Tupou Vere: Asked how many European NGDOs share the same
vision as Pacific CSOs. Stated that
there is continuing need for clarification of how Pacific CSOs can take
advantage of Cotonou. Stated that
partnership is about more than resources.
Jese Sikivou: Partnership should be regarded as a joint
effort to achieve a common goal for a certain constituency. Emphasised the importance of a shared vision
and the danger of Southern CSOs being perceived as always on the take.
Lopeti Senituli: Under
Lome, civil society had no formal place; this was an additional reason why
partnerships with EU NGDOs were established.
Under Cotonou, there is a central role for CSOs, and it spells out
clearly that there is no need for continuing to access funds via European
NGDOs. But, partnerships need to be
established instead with their own governments.
There will be continuing reliance on information and advocacy, but the
old era is passing. Considered it a good
thing that EU NGDOs are leaving.
Jese Sikivou: Wanted to note his regret at not working
with a European NGDO and that they see partnerships as a means to pick up on
technological and informational leads, and that they are still looking for such
relationships.
Tupou Vere: The greatest attraction of EU NGDOs is that
they offer another means of accessing resources.
Hanne
Damsgaard (DanChurchAid): Responded that partnership had to be more
than accessing resources.
Simon Passingan: Emphasised the central role of a shared
vision: the values and the culture is critical to how ‘partners’ work together.
Jochem Schneemann: For ICCO, money is important, but
partnership is about an open dialogue and recognising that problems exist on
BOTH sides.
Fei Tevi (Co-Chairman):
1. Asked Tupou Vere and Michael Makasiale (PCRC)
to come up with the wording for ‘appropriate consultation’ between governments
and CSOs vis-ŕ-vis the CSS.
-Tupou Vere and Michael Makasiale: adequate and proper
consultation is the opportunity of non-state actors to shape RIPs, NIPs. A necessary precondition is information
sharing and awareness raising.
2. Noted need for a further meso-level dialogue
to maintain momentum.
3. Mechanisms for allocating the 15% is the
stumbling block for EU and Pacific NGDOs, as there is a lack of proposals as to
how to access these funds. Noted this is deliberate, as countries are allowed
to choose how to allocate this 15%. It
is now dependent on Pacific CSOs to lobby their governments to establish the
mechanisms as they wish. Pacific CSOs
therefore need to take the initiative.
4. Further work and understanding is needed
regarding existing (funding) options and opportunities, to this end a greater
coherence and co-ordination in the Pacific will help, including the development
and strengthening of platforms in the Pacific.
5. A matrix on existing budget lines will be
circulated by the European Commission via ECSIEP after this meeting. A database on NGOs and CSOs in the Pacific
and donors active in the Pacific is being developed by the Development Resource
Centre (DRC, New Zealand) in co-operation with ECSIEP. When the database is
online, CSOs and NGDOs will be advised by ECSIEP.
6. Need to investigate and report on the
capacities and interests of Pacific CSOs regarding co-financing, taking into
account the limits of absorptive capacity.
7. The debate between co financing and other
budget-lines is continuing, consequently Pacific CSOs still rely heavily on EU
NGDOs for advocacy. Pacific NGOs should ask EU NGDOs to take initiatives when
they feel Pacific interests are involved.
8. Regarding an omnibus/'Omni-canoe', there is
interest by various European partners in this area, so Pacific CSOs should get
proposals together regionally and bring this idea to the commission for
assistance. This would encourage the
European NGDOs toward a dialogue and co-ordination role. The proposal will come
via PCRC. WCC stated its interest in
this proposal given the context and the focus on greater co-ordination.
9. Co-ordination, coherence and complementarity
remain pertinent, and is well addressed by the omnibus proposal.
Presentation by Michael Makasiale, PCRC
Mr Chairman, Representatives of the European
Commission, ACP Ambassadors, Representatives of the ACP Secretariat, EUNGDO
Representatives, and Pacific Civil Society Colleagues present here today, it is
my pleasant task to present to you an overview of the outcomes of the last six
days of meetings and deliberations that we have participated in.
In terms of processes ACP Civil Society Organisations
participated in six days of meetings, firstly on its own in the First-ever ACP
Civil Society Preparatory meeting from 2-3 July 2001, thence the ACP Civil
Society was joined by the ACP Secretariat and some EUNGDO’s wherein a
Declaration and Plan of Action was the product of deliberations. This was then
taken to the first ACP/EU Conference on the participation of Civil Society in
the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement. This meeting had four key
objectives:
Ř
To
take stock of the growing importance of ACP Civil Society in ACP/EU
Co-operation;
Ř
To
work out co-operation modalities between Civil Society and Government in the
ACP Region, in particular the area of dialogue, programming, and implementation
of ACP/EU Co-operation;
Ř
To
define capacity building priorities for civil society partners and official ACP
& EU bodies for effective participation in ACP EU Co-operation;
Ř
To
work out and agree on an action plan for civil society participation in ACP/EU
Co-operation
To briefly look at the ACP Civil Society Declaration,
the document combined the passionate pleas of ACP Civil Society to develop a
common understanding of the challenges and opportunities of the Cotonou
Agreement and Civil Society involvement, participation and role in the process
of implementation of Cotonou.
The Declaration looked at five key areas for enhancing
ACP civil society to be fully equipped to play its role under Cotonou. The five
key areas put forward by ACP Civil Society in its Declaration were:
i.
Capacity
building
ii.
Structuring
civil society
iii.
The
need for financial resources
iv.
The
need for effective dialogue
v.
The
need for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the
impact of Cotonou at all levels
To try to operationalise the outcomes of the
deliberations, the ACP Civil Society Meeting also came up with a Civil Society
Plan of Action covering the crucial next year: July 2001 to June 2002.
The ACP Civil Society plan of Action addressed
four key objective areas at all intervention levels namely, global, regional,
sub-regional and national:
i.
Dialogue
and advocacy
ii.
Establishing
and strengthening Civil Society Structures
iii.
Capacity
Building
iv.
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Briefly looking at the key objective areas it
was generally accepted that for the process of the implementation of Cotonou to
succeed there was a need for dialogue and advocacy at all levels on such areas
as programming, trade negotiations, decentralised co-operation, political
co-operation and financial co-operation.
In terms of Establishing & strengthening
Civil Society Structures, it was generally accepted that this was crucial at
all levels and there was a crucial need to set up a ACP Civil Society Forum Secretariat at the
Global level here in Brussels to complement the establishment and strengthening
of Civil Society Structures at the Regional and National levels.
In terms of capacity building the Plan of
action outlines activities that will ensure that the ACP Civil Society is
suitably equipped to take on its role in terms of Cotonou.
Finally, the plan of action addresses the need
for setting up monitoring and evaluation mechanisms at all levels to ensure
that the objectives of Cotonou are achieved.
The ACP/EU Conference on the participation of
Civil Society in the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement concluded with an
increased knowledge and understanding of the new roles of civil society in
ACP/EU Cooperation. It was able to enhance dialogue between ACP Civil Society
and key institutional players of ACP-EU cooperation. The conference was also
able to elaborate and adopt the action plan with priority actions for civil
society participation in the Cotonou ACP-EU Agreement. Finally the conference was
able to provide inputs into the preparation of an EC Communication to be
presented to EU Council of Ministers.
To maintain the momentum of the last six days
from an ACP Civil Society perspective, all parties represented at the
conference agreed that the presentation of the outcomes at the political level
was essential. The ACP Secretariat undertook to table the meetings declaration
and plan of action to the ACP Committee of Ambassadors here in Brussels – late
this week, the Belgian presidency of the European Commission undertook to
present the declaration and plan of action to the EC Council of Ministers in
November 2001 and to ensure that these deliberations were presented to the
Joint ACP/EU parliamentary assembly in July 2002. The Civil Society for its
part will commence on the establishment and strengthening of its structures at
all levels. The ACP Civil Society Regional Focal Points have the task of
developing further the idea of ACP Civil Society Forum Secretariat, addressing
such issues as Accountability and Governance structures, financing and
modalities of work with an deadline of late October 2001.
That in a brief summary,
Mr Chairman are the outcomes of the of the last six days of meetings and
deliberations that we the Pacific Civil Society have been honoured to
participate and share our experiences with our Caribbean and African
Colleagues.
A. One of the four Fundamental Principles of the
Cotonou Agreement is “participation” which is described as: “apart from central
government as the main partner, the partnership shall be open to different
kinds of other actors in order to encourage the integration of all sections of
Society including the Private Sector and civil society organisations into the
mainstream political, economic and social life”. (Article 2)
The role of the “other actors” (apart from
state actors) is qualified in article 4 which states: “The ACP states shall
determine the development principles, strategies, and models of their economies
and societies in all sovereignty. They shall establish with the Community, the
cooperation programmes provided for under this Agreement. However the parties
recognise the complimentary role of and potential for contributions by
non-state actors to the development process. To this end, under the conditions
laid down in this agreement, non-state actors shall where appropriate:
Ř be informed and involved in consultation on
cooperation policies and strategies, on priorities for cooperation especially
in areas that concern or directly affect them and on the political dialogue;
Ř be provided with financial resources under the
conditions laid down in this agreement in order to support local development
processes;
Ř be involved in the implementation of
cooperation project and programmes in areas that concern them or where these
actors have a comparative advantage;
Ř be provided with capacity building support in
critical areas in order to reinforce the capabilities of these actors,
particularly as regards organisation and representation and the establishment
of consultation mechanisms including channels of communication and dialogue and
to provide strategic alliances.”
ACP
Civil Society (and non state actors) have been informed that an indicative
percentage of up to 15% of the financial resources available under Cotonou for
national level work will be considered for use by non-state actors to
operationalise what is promised in the second and fourth bullet points of
Article 4. In the 9th EDF (first 5 years of Cotonou) a total of 10
billion Euro will be available for programmes at the national level. But there
is no financial provision for ACP Civil Society work at the global level.
ACP Civil Society must insist that the 15% “indicative percentage”
must also be available to it for their initiatives at all levels and not simply
confined to the “local development” processes as stated in the second bullet
point of article 4.This will enable ACP civil society to access these resources
to carry out their work at the global level. This may entail the review of
Article 4 of the Cotonou Agreement, in accordance with Article 95.
B. In their working document for the 9th
EDF Programming Process the European Commission has stipulated ten (10) sectors that will be the focus of attention.
These are: Education; Gender Equality; Poverty Reduction; Environment
Sustainability; Health, HIV/AIDS, Population; Transport; Rural Development;
Agriculture; Food Security and Energy. These stipulated sectors must be
welcomed. However apart from “Gender Equality” no financial provisions are
being programmed for Human Rights and Good Governance in general which are
entrenched as the “Essential Elements” of the Cotonou Agreement.
Part of Article 9(2) says, “Respect for human rights,
democratic principles and the rule of law, which underpin the ACP-EU
partnership shall underpin the domestic and international policies of the
parties and constitute the essential elements of the agreement”.
Part of Article 9(4) says, “The Partnership shall
support the promotion of human rights, processes of democratisation,
consolidation of the rule of law and good governance. These areas will be an
important subject for the political dialogue……. These areas will also be a
focus of support for development strategies. The Community shall provide
support for political, institutional and legal reforms and for building the
capacity of public and private actors and civil society in the framework of
strategies agreed jointly between the State concerned and the Community”.
Yet under the 9th EDF these “Essential
Elements” are not a sectoral focus. If a member of ACP Civil Society wants to
undertake work in this sector within
Cotonou they must as of necessity first gain the approval of the State
within which they operate. We know from experience that relations between the
State and civil society organisations (especially those involved in human
rights, justice and good governance) are precarious at best of times. ACP civil
society must therefore be given the option of seeking assistance from within
the Cotonou budget lines without having to first gain the blessings of the
State who could very well be the perpetrator of the violation of the “essential
elements” that the organisation of civil society is trying to stop or redress.
The other existing alternative for organisations of civil society is to seek
assistance from the EC human rights and good governance budget lines which are
outside of the Cotonou Agreement. For that to happen they must successfully
compete against the thousands of other civil society organisations from non-ACP
regions of the world, such as Central and Latin America, South and South East
Asia.
The proposed alternatives are:
To call for making Human Rights,Good Governance and
the Rule of Law as a sector of its own equally deserving of resources as the
ten sectors already identified by the EC.
To impress on the State Partners (both ACP and EU) to
allow for derogation at the Commission and State level to allow existing 9th
EDF resources to be used for human rights and good governance work.
To review Article 9 (4) so as to ensure that the
“essential elements” in the Cotonou Agreement are also “essential elements” in
the financial allocations in the EDF’s.
In the final analysis it is extremely unfair on the
ACP States (and civil society organisations) that resources available to them
under Cotonou could be suspended under Articles 96 and 97 for the violation of
the “essential elements” yet there is no resources allocated for their
implementation in the EDF’s.
C. After
discussing the African subregional Plan of Action we propose the following
specific amendments.
|
OBJECTIVES
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
To build or strengthen civil society structures on:
National level
Subregional Level
Global Level
|
Extensive awareness raising on the Cotonou Agreement is needed at
all levels Eg. CSO’s, Parliamentarians and Government Officials.
Continue with current
regional initiative including ACP Civil
Society Forum.
Establishment of permanent ACP Civil Society Forum with a executive committee,
permanent secretariat and constitutiovn.
National and Regional
Programming Process, Economic Partnership Agreements
|
|
Capacity Building
National
Subregional
Global
|
Fundraising:
-
how
do we access the funding?
-
Construct
a matrix of donors operating in the areas of concentration of Cotonou and try
to ensure that NIP and RIP resources compliment existing activity by other
donors
Research &
Information Dissemination (Knowledge Generation)
Training
Strengthen
institutional capacity at all levels (Resource mobilisation and project
management)
Enhance the technical
skills of Civil Society to undertake programming, trade negotiation,
decentralised cooperation, political cooperation, and financial cooperation
dialogue
|
|
Dialogue and
Advocacy
Programming (national and regional)
Trade negotiations
Decentralized
Cooperation
Political Cooperation
Financial Cooperation
|
Participation at all
levels and stages
Dialogue with other ACP
& EU CSO’s, Governments, Regional Governmental Agencies, ACP Secretariat,
ACP Civil Society Forum and EU Delegations
Conduct regular reviews
of monitoring and evaluation exercises at all levels (Eg. Tripartite
arrangement consisting of CSO’s, Government Institutions and ACP and EU
Secretariat)
Raise awareness of
CSO’s
Encourage Electronic
discussion on the implementation of Cotonou via discussion groups
(listservers) or the production of information on websites at all levels
|
|
Monitoring and
Evaluation
|
Encourage Electronic
discussion on the implementation of Cotonou via discussion groups
(listservers) or the production of information on websites at all levels
Monitoring and
evaluation at all levels
|
|
Focal Sectors
|
Human Rights and Good
Governance to be included in existing
ten focal sectors
That derogation at the
state or commission level be permitted for the financing of human rights and
good governance work.
That negotiations be
reopened at the Ambassodorial or Joint Parliamentary level on this issue
|
This Pacific
Region Caucus report was prepared by: Morgan Armstrong (FSP Vanuatu), Nisha
Buksh (NCWf), Casper Faasala (DSE), Annie Homasi (TANGO), Rex Horoi
(FSPI),Hassan Khan (FCOSS),Michael Makasiale (PCRC), Simon Passingan (DPF), Art
Pennebaker (RMI), Lopeti Senituli (THRPDM), Jese Sikivou (PIBA), Simione
Silapelu (TANGO), Tina Takashi(FSM),Aren Teannaki (Amak), Tupou Vere (PCRC),
Henry Vira (PIANGO) and Raymond Voight
(SUNGO)
Tuesday 3rd
July 2001, Brussels, BELGIUM
