ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly 21st session – Budapest 16 -18 May 2011

Concord Cotonou Working Group

Governance: a central priority in EU-ACP cooperation

Introductory note:

The concept of « governance » has significantly evolved since its first appearance in the debates on development at the end of the 1980s. At the beginning, it was a cross-cutting concept including a whole series of mechanisms that were meant to harmonise societal organisation and to facilitate the process of development. More recently, « good governance », as an objective, has became one of the main criterion by which donors define their policies and take decisions regarding the allocation of official development assistance (ODA). This concept is understood as the way a government manages a country’s social and economic resources, at different power levels, according to the principles of effectiveness, integrity, equity, transparency and accountability.

The Cotonou Agreement, signed in 2000, represents an important change in the paradigm of the relations between the EU and the ACP states because political dialogue has been placed at the centre of the Partnership and the objective of « good governance » has been effectively established. Since this time, the European Commission (EC) has been significantly refining its approach to governance. Through the use of « Governance Profiles » and the system of « Incentive Tranches », the institution clearly shows that it aims to link part of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) to the results attained by reforms put in place by the ACP states. For some, this new approach is seen as primarily giving priority to the strategic interests of the EU, for others, the objective is simply to promote a European approach to governance.

In August 2006, The European Commission (EC) drew up a Communication on «Governance in the European consensus on development – towards a harmonised approach within the European Union», according to which « the EU expects ACP partners to embark on the reforms necessary for development aid and international cooperation to bring lasting benefits. Though governance is already systematically included in the regular political dialogue with the ACP countries, it will play an even more strategic role in the future, especially when programming the EDF» .This is the case for the 10th EDF. Governance is a focus area in numerous Country Strategy Papers (CSPs), in Mali CSP, Niger CSP, Cameroun CSP and Benin CSP for example. At the end of the 10 th EDF programming process, 15% of the funds were allocated to governance and 30% to overall budget support.

The EC Communication reaffirms the basic principles of governance: (1) there is no given and superior model of governance but different and differentiated processes according to the national/regional context; (2) governance should not limit itself to the question of the fight against corruption; (3) the EC and the EU Member States should work together and in harmony with other international donors with a view to increase the support given to partner countries; (4) governance includes mutual indebtedness, which means that the responsibility falls equally to the partner countries and the donors.

In the light of these developments, the former European Commissioner Louis Michel defined the new development policies as « revolutionary». Is it, though, really a new way of « doing development »? In reality we are witnessing a promotion of the culture of results, of evaluation and of the establishment of measurable objectives. The Communication also talks about the notion of «democratic governance» which, without giving a clear definition, highlights the following principles: the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the support of the democratization process and the participation of citizens to the choice and control of those who govern; the respect of the rule of law and universal access to independent justice, the access to information; human security, etc.

What instruments have been developed in order to strengthen the principle of governance?

In the first place, budgetary support (BS) is today the preferred instrument for EDF implementation. In several CSPs of the 10th EDF, budgetary support represents a very high proportion (39% of the funds in Niger; 28% in Mali and 30% in Benin). However, this strategic change in favor of stronger institutions could easily be used to put pressure on the recipient States or even into a mechanism which does not reach those most in need. There has not been any transparent benchmarks or mechanism so far to scrutinize overall budget support allocation. Moreover, this type of aid is often accompanied with macroeconomic conditions, which tends to establish the accountability of ACP governments with respect to the European donor country, rather than to ACP citizens. To address these criticisms, the EC has increased the variety of proposed instruments. For instance, the EC has recently introduced a financial instrument called «Millenium Development Goals contracts» in which the ACP countries commit to making faster and predictable disbursements in the social sector. In addition, the « governance profile » is the perfect proof of the EC’s intent to make its discourse on good governance and democratic governance operational. The Profiles have been developed by the EC services during 2005 and 2006 and represent an analytical tool or framework aimed at measuring and evaluating a country’s situation. In this respect, the profiles deal with political, economic, institutional questions as well as financial, environmental or social questions. On the basis of these mechanisms, 2.7 billion euros have been allocated to ACP countries according to the quality of their respective reform plans in the framework of the 10 th EDF. The Governance Incentive Tranche therefore represents a complementary allocation which can increase the initial envelope by as much as 35%, in support of a country’s National Indicative Programme (NIP). In other words, ACP countries can increase the aid volume allocated to them on the basis of their advertised willingness to embark on governance reforms. Isn’t there therefore a concern that these criteria might be applied to certain States in an inconsistent manner? One of the main criticisms we can address to this new framework for dialogue in the field of governance is that it lies on a unilateral diagnosis of the ACP states’ governance mechanisms, which furthermore stands out for its significant opacity. Governance profiles lie on a definition of governance set up by the EC. Among the nine criteria we find security, trade and migration issues which are highly linked to European domestic priorities.

The implementation of the EC Communication has happened at the same time as the elaboration of the Country Strategy Papers (CSP), the preliminary versions of the CSP having been submitted by the EC Delegations at the same time as the governance profiles and subsequently sent to the EDF Committee (composed of the EU Member States). For this reason, several Member States have demanded that this overlap does not affect their own bilateral consultations and dialogue with partner countries. In fact, the Incentive Tranche is applied only to EC programming, though in practice it is possible for an EU Member State to adopt the whole or part of a governance profile for its programming, and/or to use its own governance profile. In light of the fact that it is a very sensitive political tool, the evaluation of the profile is not communicated to the partner country nor made public.

Recommendations The dialogue on governance between the EU and the ACP states remains largely unsatisfying and not appropriated by the ACP states. A clear example of that: the EC recognized to CONCORD that it could not assess properly the ACP states’ performance on governance in the framework of the 10 th EDF mid-term review and that the evaluation should be postponed. Assessments and information received by the EC delegations were not satisfying and sufficient. The EU must recognise that governance and “development models” cannot be imposed from outside. In order to be successful, an open political space and the strengthening of national leadership are necessary. In this respect, the EU good governance initiative is probably counterproductive and the EU must radically change its approach to governance in developing countries and ensure that the ACP concerns are integral to the process through the implementation of important principles:

. Transparency: clarify why these decisions are taken, what are the overall objectives and how the priorities are decided. It is of vital importance that parliamentarians and civil society have the opportunity to oversee these processes in order to ensure democratic governance. Transparent mechanisms and benchmarks should be set up to help scrutinize overall budget support allocation.

. Accountability: European donors must align their development policies and plans with the national development plans of partner countries, at the same time as recognising the right of each country to develop its own governance model and respecting their political space.

. Use of funds: The partner countries must make proper use of the development aid of the EC and ensure consultation with their populations.

. The gender dimension: Given that, both African and European institutions must be fully representative of their popultations, it is vital to include measures which promote the role of women in decision-making.

. Evaluation of cases of « poor governance ». It is essential that the EU sets an example in making its own development programmes a model of transparency and of good governance, particularly through the evaluation of, and drawing on, lessons from its processes of “poor governance”.

. Revise, in detail, the governance incentive tranche so that it does not create new economic or geopolitical conditions (relating to migration or anti-terrorism).

The Malian national platform of NGOs (FECONG) is really worried by the governance profile, which, in the case of Mali, is an instrument to impose migration policies, in the interests of some European member states. The FECONG demands an in-detailed revision of the governance profile’s criteria. It wrote a series of recommendations in the framework of the 10th EDF mid-term review: http://www.coordinationsud.org/IMG/pdf/Recommandations_atelier_FED_-_14-11-09.pdf

For further information, visit www.concordeurope.org Tel : + 32 2 743 87 81