EU Enlargement Process: IPA Civil Society Facility & Involvement of CSOs Workshop 3 rd February, Belgrade

EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society Commission Communication 2005 & 2006: support to civil society dialogue The Enlargement package 2007: development of civil society and civil society dialogue a key priority

EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society Since Enlargement Strategy , civil society development and civil dialogue one of the key reform (Political) priorities for accession of Western Balkans countries No clear definition of what is civil society development and civil (society) dialogue

EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society Civil society dialogue = supporting better communication of enlargement and mutual understanding between MS and candidate countries’ societies, improved culture of civil society consultations Civil society development (CSDev)= strengthening the role of civil society in the democratization and reconciliation process

EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society The benchmarks and Progress Report on CSDev and civil dialogue incl. assessments of:  respect for freedom of assembly  and legal framework regulating it; participation of civil society to policy-making and decision- making  (national and local level) – both existing legislation and institutional mechanisms and practice;  allocation of state funding for civil society; and  access to public information.

EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society From general regional to individual countries’ benchmarks and assessments: Serbia, Kosovo & Macedonia (2007), Albania (2008), Montenegro (2010); Not yet a strategic or coherent benchmarking (Acquis) across countries; Assessments are neither longer, tougher language is used, although in some countries no significant progress is being made (political document); Enlargement Strategy 2010/2011 focus on “new legislation being consulted and properly implemented”, focus on “tough” reform areas, e.g. rule of law, anticorruption  CSDev and civil dialogue as horizontal policy measure

IPA Civil Society Facility – Definition Civil Society Facility = set of actions to implement above commitment through technical assistance, study trips (TAIEX) and grants, tripling the financial support in period to that in EU as the main supporter and driver of civil society development in the Western Balkans

IPA Civil Society Facility – allocations IPA Civil Society Facility (allocations) Country (in mil EUR) Pre-IPA CSF 2007 IPA CSF 2008Total Albania 0 00 Bosnia & Herzegovina Croatia 033 Kosovo 01.7 Macedonia Montenegro1 01 Serbia Turkey3.2 0 Multi-Beneficiary Programme 017 Total

Objective Overall objective: To contribute to anchoring democratic values and structures, human rights, social inclusion and the rule of law, thereby supporting the EU integration process. Programme purpose: A more dynamic civil society actively participating in public debate on democracy, human rights, social inclusion and the rule of law and with capacity to influence policy and decision-making processes.

Expected outcomes 1.Greater benefit of civil society from national and financial frameworks and improved dialogue with state institutions; 2. Greater commitment and capacity of CSO networks to give citizens a voice and influence public sector reform processes through analysis, monitoring and advocacy etc; and 3. Increased access of grass-root organisations and civic initiatives to financial resources, in-kind contributions or expertise from established CSOs and CSO networks.

Structure EIDHR EfC P2P (2mil €) P2P (2mil €) TACSO (6,7 mil €) Partnership Actions

Financing Enlargement Strategy 2008 ~ 2x CARDS financing IPA : 73,7 million EUR (EIDHR approx. 8 million EUR annually, 2% of all IPA) IPA : 60 million EUR 2x rise not achieved

Changes? “Complaints” by CSOs on design, consultation process and methods of implementation End of announced/presented new or revised approach

IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion 1. The tripling of allocations for 2008 realized (28.9 mil Euros), but on average and per country level allocations comparable to PHARE/CARDS support. It is also not clear whether this is additional or regular support;

IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion 2. The approach is accession, not demand driven; introduction due to internal (slow progress in key reform areas such as JHA, consolidation of democratic institutions) and external pressure (enlargement fatigue, institutional crisis, global economic crisis); 3. Local CSOs are not involved in original design. CSF is presented at the Commission conference in April 2008; 4. Lack of clear definition of civil society dialogue and civil society development. This renders the effectiveness of implemented activities and clear indicators of success;

IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion 5. 2/3 activities are to be implemented on behalf and not by civil society. The predominant mode of implementation are service, not grant, which enable ownership and sustainability the two main lessons- learned from PHARE period 6. In design of 2009 and 2010 CSF, further issues and modes of implementation are envisaged. Diversification in first will further erode the focus and the possible impact and in second, move away from ownerships as local civil society actors will only be indirect beneficiary of the assistance.

New/revised approach to IPA CSF Thematic focus  small and grass-root organizations (big help small);  Support to networking and partnership- building in key (Acquis) areas;  Support to strategic networks/organizations for activities in support of sustainability of the sector

New/revised approach to IPA CSF One unified Commission decision for regional and national funds for the period  depoliticization of funding Increased budget: 60 million EUR, of which 30 million EUR for regional activities. TACSO phase 2 (August 2011-August 2013) and P2P outside of this funding, as well as some of the national projects (e.g. IPA Macedonia 2011).

New/revised approach to IPA CSF Added-value of the approach: Improved coordination between regional and national activities; Shorter timeframe between CfP, decision and funding for CSOs; Flexibility in spending for EUD and DG Enlargement; Re-granting allowed (max. 100,000 EUR with max. grant of 10,000 EUR)

New/revised approach to IPA CSF Conclusions: Positive answer on complaints by local CSOs; Limited in timeframe and size: first call in 2012 and only Partnership Action; More flexible and smaller funding only for national level; Around, 2/3 of financing distributed through grants.

EU Enlargement Process & Involvement of CSOs Little or ad-hoc consultation on regional level; Mixed practices on national level:  Monitoring progress & accession negotiation e.g. Rep in WG/TF for negotiations, NCEI, parliamentary committees, NPAA consultations;  IPA design, implementation & monitoring e.g. sectoral committees, project fiche/ MIPD consultations

What local CSO can offer to the EC Improved monitoring of Acquis areas & IPA programming why? ownership, sustainability, policy coherence, cost-effectiveness, impact how? structured dialogue through existing mechanism (EC Min Standards of Consultation & RCC structures)

What local CSO can offer to the EC Communication & dissemination partner why? realistic expectations by citizens, accountability by the Gov for structure reforms how? Inclusion in advisory bodies such as the IPA CSF/TACO Programming Committee, IPA sector monitoring committees etc.