EU ACP > Forum > Summaries > Monthly Summary 1 (10 May

Summaries of the debates on the forum

Monthly Summary 1 (10 May - 2 July)

FOLLOWING IS A MACHINE TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL IN FRENCH. IT HAS BEEN EDITED FOR MISTRANSLATION ONLY. THE ORIGINAL IN FRENCH IS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE AT: <http://www.ue-acp.org/fr/forum/syntheses/syntm1.html>

KEY WORDS: PROGRESS OF THE DEBATE

* * Title: Monthly Summary 1 (10 May – 2 July) * *
by: Anne SIMON <anne.simon@skynet.be>
<http://www.ue-acp.org/fr/forum/presentations/simon.html>
°°° Summary: The first monthly summary focuses on the launching of the discussion, and on the three first topics discussed. Participants (71 people on July 2) insisted on specifying some definitions of which some are at the heart of discussions such as the notions of project and process, governance and regional integration. The discussion led to some varied and pragmatic points of view. Some concrete proposals were formulated.
Topic 3.1 - Moving from Project Support to Supporting Processes: Participants agree to recognize that to come out of the assistance-type aid, it is necessary " to liberate the initiatives ", to come out of exogenous and pre-established models, to move to a logic of supporting processes. It would be necessary to pay attention however to the risk of peoples' losing their sense of responsibility linked to the length of time that could take such a form of aid.
Topic 3.2 - Backing a Twofold Dynamics of Decentralization and of Regional Integration: Most participants agree on the need of a bigger mobilization of the echelons of local decision, without penalizing the state, which would generate unbalances. The strong idea is that processes of decentralization should anchor with the processes of regional integration to which they are closely linked. But it must especially not become one more conditionality for aid.
Topic 3.3 - Transforming Procedures and Practices: Some plead for the maintenance of privileged institutional relations between ACP countries and European Commission so that the management of the aid is adapted. For participants that have a close experience "on the field ", it is necessary to arrive to practices that are "simpler, more direct and more transparent ". Mediation is questioned. Some pose as a prerequisite the political recognition of the lack of transparency of the system in the past. A number of concrete proposals were formulated (see the detail of the summary). °°°

A list of discussion + a Web site
The phase of subscription and introductions was a bit prolonged (10 May – 4 June ) in order to reach a meaningful number of subscribed person. On July 2, 71 people were subscribed of which 33 had introduced themselves (we are waiting for the 39 others). Since, the number increases every day. Two types of expectations are determined in these introductions: the sharing of experiences to understand and to understand one another, the formulation in common of pragmatic proposals (proposals of process improvement to transmit to the political authorities and competent administrators)
It is always possible to subscribe all along the discussion. Participants receive in this case, progressively, the new introductions. " To catch up " on the discussion in progress, the Web site makes possible to be informed of all that happened week after week.
The Web site <http://www.ue-acp.org> is added to progressively with documents and supplementary resources. To the documents of the seminar (diagnosis, proposals, reports), are added the personal contributions of participants. Summaries are published every week. It is possible for everyone to send documents at all times in relation with the discussion so that these are made available on the site on <http://www.ue-acp.org/en/documents/contributions.html>.
Topics of discussion that have been discussed in the month of June
During the month of June, 27 contributions focused on the following topics:
3.1 Moving from Project Support to Supporting Processes
3.2 Backing a Twofold Dynamics of Decentralization and of Regional Integration
3.3 Transforming Procedures and Practices
Precision of definitions
Participants were eager to specify definitions of terms employed.
The notion of good governance can refer merely to a transparent and honest management of public affairs or yet to a local actors' taking responsibility in the management of affairs that involve them. It can more extensively include the whole of powers that the human societies develop at the different levels of exercise of power. Would not a real governance mean a capacity of assumption of responsibility, of decision making, a "certain cultural decolonization?" . The discussion remains open, but these discussions highlight that "good governance", even more so when it becomes a criteria of conditionality of aid or an objective of cooperation policies must be previously carefully clarified among partners.
The project and the "process" are of a different nature. The first is " designed according to an outside model and pre-constrained" during a limited period. The second is associated on the other hand with a "forward march", carried by individuals or structures " that have confidence in them ". Therefore, the support to a process would depend on the " liberation of initiatives ". It should be long (an example of construction of a fisherman's movement over forty years is mentioned) and progressive, and include adapted training actions. Its logic relies on the rebalancing of currently observable dissymmetry.
Content of discussions on the 3 topics
1. Moving towards project support and support to processes
To go from a project logic to a process logic? Participants agree to recognize that to come out of the assistance-type aid, it is necessary " to liberate initiatives ", to come out of exogenous and pre-established models, to move to a logic of support to a process. It would be necessary to pay attention however to the risk of peoples' losing their sense of responsibility linked to the length of time that could take such a form of aid.
Would it not be possible that the European cooperation use new tools such as those that are presented in case reports? (for example conventions of partnership that allow the local partners to negotiate the financial conditions, and give them the responsibility of the execution of actions that they identify successively) The project tool must not necessarily disappear, it could be used for specific circumstances within a longer-term logic.
Would it not be necessary to recognize the territory as more relevant development echelon. (considering that a territory is the place of implementation of a project, of a policy)? An actor of the South recalls that the projects presented or set up by the intermediate organisms, have more possibility to be selected. Would it not be possible for groups or individuals to have a direct contact with Delegations of the Commission, in order to not have to use these intermediate organisms, or does this mean that mediators must reconsider methods and the philosophy of their action? Facing deficiencies of information on cooperation, a clear policy should be defined in this direction. In particular, so that Internet is not the exclusive privilege of countries of the North, and that it is not accessible only to the privileged in the South, a " voluntary process " of rebalancing of the Internet should be planned in the next Lomé Convention. (infrastructure / training)
2. Decentralization and regional integration, processes that are linked, must not become conditions of the aid
Most participants agree on the need of a bigger mobilization of the echelons of local decision, without penalizing the state, which would generate unbalances. The strong idea is that processes of decentralization should anchor with the processes of regional integration to which they are closely linked. This twofold dynamics can constitute an answer to the crisis of nation- states. Without real decentralization, the regional integration can with difficulty answer expectations and requirements of citizens (in terms of democracy, market, and peace). It must not be limited to integration of market. However, this need to link decentralization and regionalization must especially not become one more conditionality of aid, after the fashions of "decentralizations" and of the creation of " regional structures " void of meaning for the citizens of these countries. It is the ACP countries that should carry the fatherhood of these processes. This will be long and institutions in charge of the aid to the development should accept this. In the resource documents available on the Web site, a participant proposes a pilot process of cross-regional dialogue.
3. Transforming procedures and practices
This topic recurrent to all the topics of discussion would deserve to be pursued throughout the progression of the discussion as it advances. The transformation of procedures is indissociable from the institutional reforms of the services in charge of the development cooperation. Some plead for the maintenance of privileged institutional relations (specialized services?) between the ACP countries and the European Commission so that the management of the aid is adapted. In principle, for participants who are close to "experience on the field", it is necessary to arrive to practices that " simpler, more direct and more transparent". The mediation is questioned. Some pose as a prerequisite the political recognition of the lack of transparency of the system in the past.
So that cooperation is able to answer challenges of the regional integration, some institutional adaptations are necessary. In particular, Delegations of the European Commission are not organized to this scale. A new practice of the regional cooperation should make possible to encourage the intra-regional exchanges between individuals or organizations (example of the Erasmus program for example). It should also encourage the communication and the accessibility to information on the regional topics. The current distribution of responsibilities within decision-making processes of the regional action programs should be simplified. In addition to the already existing regional organisms, the Commission should enter into dialogue and should encourage the emergence of different regional networks resulting from civil society, the private sector, and professional or academic organisms... A pool of ACP regional experts could be constituted also.

contact : publication@ue-acp.org