11.2.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/123

1.1

The EESC takes an overall positive view of the new DCI, which is of unarguable importance in supporting EU development cooperation policy around the world. That said, the EESC recommends that cooperation policies be given more solid institutional underpinning under the new Lisbon Treaty, upholding the central role and primary responsibility of the Commission for programming development cooperation policies/strategies, and renewing its support for the role of the European Parliament by beefing up the democratic scrutiny and budgetary control procedure.

1.2

The EESC points to the need for ever-greater encouragement for the practical application of the objectives enshrined in the decent work concept. The EESC therefore urges the EU institutions, especially the Commission and the Council, to give concrete support to the implementation of decent work within development cooperation policies and, more specifically, to mainstream decent work into the action plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

1.3

The social partners (workers' and employers' organisations) are actively engaged in social dialogue, a key element of decent work, and must therefore be seen as crucial players and EU partners in this context. The social partners must be fully involved in the political dialogue, and must be entitled to direct support.

1.4

The EESC emphasises the importance of the private sector's role in development. In this regard, the EESC points to the concept of corporate social responsibility which, based on compliance with basic labour and environmental protection standards, gives greater transparency to the social and environmental commitments of companies to ensure fairer development in the countries where they operate.

1.5

The EESC recommends programming that is more closely geared to including the social partners, an approach that should extend to service procurement procedures in areas that are an inherent part of upholding economic and social rights.

1.6

The EESC would emphasise in general the crucial role of civil society organisations in promoting the democratic development of the peoples and states in receipt of aid, in complete independence of governments' political approaches. In consequence, the EESC calls for more resources to be allocated to supporting civil society and the social partners through thematic DCI programmes, and also advocates enhancing the complementarity of the latter with the geographic programmes under the same instrument, especially in the case of budgetary support.

1.7

These DCI civil society support mechanisms should be strengthened if civil society is to play its role at all levels: in framing and monitoring policy priorities, and in implementing development initiatives. Consequently, the EESC suggests assessing and preparing consultation and operating arrangements for Commission programmes. These arrangements must reflect the characteristics and needs of the relevant actors (actor-based approach).

1.8

In this regard, the EESC accepts the need to recognise the international dimension of civil society to be recognised at both political and operational level. This is most effectively expressed through membership-based organisations in the global north and south: for example, the social partners, the cooperative movement, etc. Because these organisations represent global bodies, it should be possible for them to be consulted officially as part of the process of programming the EU's cooperation policy priorities on a permanent basis. In this context, the EESC could propose to serve as an institution facilitating the involvement of civil society organisations in the EU's decision-making process concerning development cooperation.

1.9

The EESC emphasises the importance of strengthening third country civil society actors, not least through direct support for regional civil society networks in the south. The EESC proposes that for this purpose, resources be included to back network coordination and capacity development activities in the south, in conjunction with those already operating in the north, under Objective 3 of the DCI's Non-State Actors programme, making it possible to ensure the overall consistency of policies and initiatives.

1.10

The EESC welcomes the comments by the EU Court of Auditors and recommends supporting longer-term programmes, known as framework agreements, which are mostly geared to strategic objectives, and aimed at civil society organisations.

1.11

The EESC also suggests the possibility of broadening the criteria for the use of sub-granting that is functional and complements programmes that are based on framework agreements and aimed at more efficient management of available resources.

1.12

The EESC underlines the need to boost the sustainability of development projects, and suggests:

1.13

The EESC considers that the selection, monitoring and evaluation phases of cooperation actions need to be reinforced, in order to enhance their efficiency. It points in particular to the need to:

2.1

A lengthy process of reorganising EU external assistance financial programmes has commenced in the light of the 2007-2013 financial perspective. The resulting framework comprises geographic instruments: IPA (instrument for pre-accession assistance, covering both candidate and potential candidate countries), ENPI (neighbourhood instrument for the countries of the Caucasus, eastern Europe and the Mediterranean), DCI (development cooperation instrument), ICI (cooperation with industrialised countries) – and thematic instruments: EIDHR (democracy and human rights) (1), IfS (instrument for stability) and INSC (instrument for nuclear safety cooperation, to improve nuclear reactor safety worldwide). The thematic instruments do not require the agreement of third country authorities in order to be implemented.

2.2

Within this division of tasks, the DCI is the specific instrument for development cooperation (2). It is in turn subdivided into geographic and thematic programmes (3) whose funds are distributed in various ways ranging, from example, from budget support, grants and contracts to support for international organisations.

2.3

It is important to note that the categories of actors, the potential beneficiaries of DCI resources, have been broadened significantly, particularly where grants are concerned. There has been a shift away from the traditional idea of development NGOs as the main civil society actors in development cooperation, to a more nuanced view that has come to see the social partners, and especially trade unions, as new actors who are eligible to work with this instrument (4).

2.4

The EESC has taken the initiative of presenting the present opinion in response to the current mid-term review of the DCI, in conjunction with the present Structured Dialogue process (5), with the aim of making recommendations backing the fundamental role of civil society organisations in cooperation (6), with a particular focus on the contribution to development made by the social partners.

3.1

Mention should be made of recent developments concerning the general EU framework and development cooperation contained in the Lisbon Treaty that came into force on 1 December 2009. Innovative elements from the institutional Treaty point of view include the appointment of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, and the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (7), operating under the direction of the High Representative. The EU delegations, fully-fledged diplomatic representations, also come under the direction of the High Representative and will be part of the EEAS. Although the Treaty allocates responsibility for development cooperation policies to the Commissioner for development, the High Representative's mandate remains that of ensuring that the Union's external action is consistent and coordinated. According to the recent proposal put forward by the High Representative (8), the preparation of programming documents for the main cooperation instruments (both thematic and geographic) would be the responsibility of the EEAS (under the supervision of the Commissioner responsible for development policy). This approach could entail a risk of compromising the independence of development policies, as they could in this way be influenced and subordinated to the external policy objectives of the EU and the Member States. The EESC therefore highlights the central role and primary responsibility of the Commission for programming development cooperation policies/strategies, and renews its support for the role of the European Parliament by beefing up the democratic scrutiny and budgetary control procedure.

3.2

The EESC takes an overall positive view of the new DCI, which is of unarguable importance in supporting EU development cooperation policy around the world. It also welcomes the fact that the various pre-existing programmes are now gathered together under a single DCI Regulation, lending greater transparency to programming and resource management. Moreover, the EESC takes note of the continuously growing financial resources earmarked for this sector, and which make the European Union one of the world's biggest funders of development cooperation. The EESC also welcomes the inclusion of the social partners as new partners who are eligible for the DCI. Lastly, the EESC considers that the themes covered by the instrument closely match the strategic priorities identified by its Section for External Relations (9).

3.3

The EESC however intends to underline a number of general requirements regarding the effective application of DCI objectives and the role played by organised civil society and the social partners in development cooperation.

3.4

The EESC points to the need for ever-greater encouragement for the practical application of the objectives enshrined in the decent work concept. At international level, decent work is explicitly included among the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) laid down as part of the United Nations' anti-poverty efforts and consequently as an instrument for development cooperation. At European level, decent work was formally taken on board among development policies in 2006 (10) and included among the DCI objectives. Difficulties persist, however, in putting decent work into practical application in cooperation programming/negotiations between the EU and third countries. It is therefore surprising that the European Commission makes no mention of decent work in its recent Communication on the Spring Package on Development (11). The EESC consequently urges the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to put decent work back into development policies and give it a more prominent place in practice.

3.5

The EESC recalls that freedom of association and of collective bargaining and social dialogue are crucial elements in implementing policies to support decent work, through the social partners. As the European Commission itself points out, ‘[t]he EU believes respect for social rights and labour standards leads to durable and equitable social and economic development’ and consequently that ‘key players are the social partners (business, trade unions)… trade unions are often the largest mass membership organisations in partner countries, and are watchdogs for international labour standards’ (12). Moreover, in 2005 the Council of the European Union mirrored this concept in its joint statement on the European consensus on development: ‘economic and social partners such as trade unions (…) play a vital role as promoters of democracy, social justice and human rights’ (13). The EESC therefore emphasises that the social partners must be seen as key EU actors and partners in this context. The social partners must be fully involved in the political dialogue and must be able to receive direct support.

3.6

The EESC would stress the importance of the private sector, which is based on the principles of the freedom to conduct a business, to the generation of development dynamics that can facilitate the effective integration of third countries into the global economy. The EESC emphasises that corporate social responsibility (CSR) could subsequently make the private sector responsible for fairer development in the countries where companies operate. Based on compliance with basic labour standards and world environmental protection priorities, CSR strengthens the social and environmental aspects of activities under the DCI banner.

3.7

The EESC recommends programming that is more closely geared to including the social partners, among other aspects, in procurement procedures in areas that are an inherent part of upholding economic and social rights. The EESC notes that contracts for services often touch upon themes such as social dialogue, labour rights and social rights. However, the current selection criteria (organisational and financial requirements of the applicant organisations) often stand in the way of fair and balanced participation by the very social partners who in fact should be seen as the main actors in this sector.

3.8

The trend for the EU to channel a considerable part of development cooperation resources into budget support is becoming consolidated (14). Although this method may reflect a positive approach aimed at making the beneficiary countries more proactive and, at the same, assume greater responsibility in their own development processes, it also runs the risk of restricting the fundamental contribution made by civil society to the real democratic development of the peoples and governments receiving aid (15). Strengthening the independence of civil society is a guarantee of sustainable development and, as such, should be a priority objective of development cooperation policies. The EESC therefore draws attention to the need to boost the resources earmarked for supporting civil society at local level (thematic programmes) (16) in order to fulfil a dual function: effective monitoring of budget support (17), and implementing complementary actions which would not otherwise be practicable through cooperation at government level only (18). The same applies to the geographic programmes (19), where support for civil society should be included according to criteria of transparency, proper programming and the definition of specific objectives, in keeping with and safeguarding the right of own initiative.

3.9

From this point of view, the role of the social partners is essential with regard to thematic programmes (not only ‘non-state actors’) such as ‘investing in people’ (covering areas touching upon social cohesion, human and social development, general equality and health), ‘migration and asylum’ (aimed at consolidating legal pathways for labour migration), or ‘environment and natural resources’ (which also promotes monitoring of environmental sustainability by civil society in developing countries) and ‘food security’. In particular, the ‘employment, social cohesion and decent work’ theme (20) (under the ‘investing in people’ programme) should more closely reflect the role of the social partners and social dialogue. By the same token, developing basic agriculture should be explicitly included among the priorities of the ‘food security’ programme (21).

3.10

On the basis of the DCI objectives, there is a clear need to adopt global strategies for carrying out development cooperation. The same applies to civil society organisations, above all where they have an international dimension. The international dimension of civil society is most effectively expressed through membership-based organisations in the global north and south (for example, the social partners, the cooperative movement, etc. (22). These organisations represent global bodies and it should therefore be possible for them to be consulted officially as part of the process of programming the EU's cooperation policy priorities vis-à-vis the beneficiary governments. In this connection, the EESC would point to the consultation and decision-making machinery in place at the OECD and the Council of Europe (23).

3.11

The EESC emphasises the importance of strengthening third country civil society actors, in part through direct support for regional civil society networks in the south. The EESC proposes that for this purpose, resources be included to back network coordination and capacity development activities in the south (in order to consolidate their representative capacity), in conjunction with those already operating in the north, under Objective 3 of the DCI's Non-State Actors programme. Support for international and regional networks would help to enhance the overall consistency of development cooperation policies and initiatives.

3.12

It would therefore seem necessary for these DCI civil society support mechanisms to be strengthened if civil society is to play its role at all levels: in framing and monitoring policy priorities, and in implementing development initiatives. Consequently, the EESC suggests assessing and preparing consultation and operating arrangements for Commission programmes that reflect the characteristics and needs of the relevant actors (actor based approach). There is evidently at present a notable variety of cooperation actors at international level, characterised by their own areas of action, objective, strategies, and organisational and operational systems.

4.1

In its recent report on non-state actors' involvement (24), the European Court of Auditors focused on the need to introduce longer-term programme financing under framework agreements that are more geared to strategic objectives, for civil society organisations. The EESC shares and advocates this approach.

4.2

The EESC would also suggest that the criteria for the use of sub-granting might be extended, in this case complementary in function with framework agreement-based programmes in order to reach grassroots organisations more effectively. This would moreover represent a more effective system for managing available resources on the part of the European Commission, avoiding fragmentation of initiatives.

4.3

The EESC emphasises the need to boost the sustainability of development programmes, and suggests:

4.4

The EESC considers that the selection, monitoring and evaluation phases of cooperation actions need to be strengthened, in order to enhance their efficiency. It points in particular to the need to: