Chair, Honourable Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in this dialogue between yourselves, as representatives of governments from the EU and ACP states, and representatives coming from civil society organisations. This opportunity for dialogue is to be welcomed, and we look forward to it taking place on a regular and consistent basis. It is an important part of the partnership between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific regions.

Let me start by saying a few words about myself and the organisations on whose behalf I participate in this meeting. Eurostep, of whom I am the Director, is a network of European development NGOs. Collectively the member organisations of Eurostep are involved with civil society organisations in over 100 countries. Eurostep is responsible for co-ordinating the collective action of European development NGOs towards Europe’s co-operation with the ACP within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. We do this as the convening organisations of the Cotonou Monitoring Group, which regularly brings together European organisations actively engaged on EU-ACP co-operation, and as part of CONCORD, the newly established confederation of Europe’s development and humanitarian NGOs at the level of Europe.

As Europeans we recognise that our primary role lies here in Europe, to promote a fairer world, to encourage Europe’s citizens to recognise our common destiny with people all over the world. We work for the accountability of our governments and elected representatives, not only to the promises on which they have been elected, but also to the commitments that they have made as part of the international community. Similarly, we strive to hold corporations that operate from our countries, accountable for their social, ecological and ethical responsibilities – wherever they operate, and especially in developing countries.

As European development NGOs we work with civil society organisation in other parts of the world towards achieving commons goals. In the context of this meeting, we work towards the effective implementation of the co-operation between Europe and the ACP countries so as to achieve the central objectives of the Cotonou Agreement – the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty.

Our aim is to promote co-operation between people of Europe and people in developing countries based on solidarity and the recognition that we live in the same world and therefore share the same resources. When the process of co-operation within Europe was conceived half a century ago its aim was to foster peace and stability in the region and to promote prosperity for its citizens. To do this it was recognised that there was a vital need to diminish the economic inequalities that existed between different parts of Europe. This remains a central objective of the European Union today. It is important for us Europeans to remind ourselves of our history, and to recognise that what applied to Europe in the mid 20^th century – and remains valid today – must be applied equally to the world beyond our borders. The co-operation between the EU and the ACP should be seen in this context.

Good governance, as the focus of this meeting, is central to any realistic ability to achieve those concepts of partnership and ownership – concepts that are so easy to project as being the basic components of the EU-ACP co-operation, but which are often derided as being rhetorical rather than real. Indeed, these concepts are used very frequently in Europe to describe the EU’s approach to co-operation with the ACP, but very much less from the side of the ACP.

This difference of perception is no surprise. After all, relations of power between the partners define the dynamics of partnership. True ownership is a function of the real ability to make decisions. Within the context of the EU’s co-operation with the ACP the focus of power is clearly on the side of the EU. The EU may have aspirations for true ownership by the ACP of national development strategies, but this in itself will not make such ownership a reality. It is within this context that I want to place the importance of civil society participation in all aspects of EU-ACP co-operation. Civil society has a vital role to play in helping to build accountability of the official partners in the co-operation – both in Europe and ACP countries. Formally this is the role of democratically elected Parliaments, whose members have a mandate from the people who they represent. However, vibrant and active civil society organisations play a complementary role to Parliament, by representing the specific concerns and perspectives of the interest groups that they represent. They provide an important means with which national development strategies can be rooted in their own societies, thus giving substance to the concept of ownership of those strategies. This will consequently help increase the strength of ACP governments towards the EU. The question is how effective participation of civil society can be developed. That this dialogue is taking place, and the increasing processes of engagement at national and regional level, are in themselves a tribute to the implementation of the articles in the Cotonou Agreement that recognises the important role of non-state actors in EU-ACP co-operation (articles). Ultimately, of course, while dialogue is important at the level of the Joint Council, it cannot be a substitute for a vibrant participation regionally, nationally and locally. It is important, however, to link the different levels – and in the context of the co-operation within the Cotonou Agreement, to develop a partnership of equals between civil society from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific with that in Europe.

Like others, we have worked with colleagues in ACP countries to assess how Cotonou’s commitments to the participation of civil society organisations is being put into practice – focusing on the preparation of the country strategy papers. The conclusions were clear: While the basis for engaging civil society is being built it is partial, and there is a long way to go. In too many instances participation is equated with consultation – no doubt carried out with the best of intentions, but with inadequate preparation, little consistency, and what often seems to be an arbitrary selection of civil society representation.

The process of engaging non-state actors needs to be open and transparent, predictable and inclusive. Participation can only be effective where there is adequate information provided on a continuous basis, and where there is a regular process that enables planned involvement by all stakeholders. It should be viewed as a means to strengthen visions and plans, which involves ongoing dialogue. While it is always easiest to centralise these processes, there has to be the means to involve the interests of society and stakeholders from all parts of the country. After all, if the principal objective is the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty, then representatives from these groups – and those sections of society that are most excluded and marginal – need to be involved. Surely they must be central stakeholders in a nation’s development strategies.

This will never be easy, and given the diverse nature of civil society it is likely that from time to time tensions will rise between different interest groups. Clearly there is a need for the structuring of civil society participation – recognising the principals that I set out above – but also for funding to be provided to facilitate involvement.

A process for defining Eligibility criteria of non state actors has been taking place over for over a year, and the results are being presented to the Joint Council today for adoption. This is an important document as it will be instrumental in identifying who, from the diverse range of non- state actor organisations, will be invited to participate in EU-ACP co-operation, and consequently who will be excluded. The criteria are primarily concerned with eligibility for receiving funds, but in defining the characteristics of non-state actors who will be permitted to received finance, they will no doubt be used in assessing who should be engaged in the ACP-EU co-operation process as a whole. Given that the criteria focus on organisational and financial requirements – to assure transparency, representivity, and accountability – is there not a danger that traditional groups, and organisations of marginalized and excluded groups may find it hard to be part of the process? We hope that this is not the case.

During this process in which the Eligibility criteria have been developed we have made some representation – as Eurostep – about their content. We are not aware, however, of any systematic process to engage with ACP non-state actors on drafting of these proposals. Given the commitments to engage with non-state actors as set out in the Cotonou Agreement, the lack of consultation on this is hard to understand. We hope that in the process to translate these criteria into procedures at the national level that this will be rectified.

In a similar way, while we welcome the Commission Communication on participation of Non-state actors, we believe that it could be expected that the Commission’s guidelines on how its delegations should work with non-state actors would also be subject to a process of consultation with non state actors in ACP (and other developing ) countries. We are unaware of any such consultation having taken place. The Commission guidelines for delegations to engage with non-state actors are now being developed, but where is the engagement with users in the drafting of these guidelines?

The next major test of the progressive involvement of civil society representatives in ACP-EU co-operation will be the mid-term reviews of the country strategy papers. Preparations for these are already being made, and we understand will take place next year. Can we expect the involvement of civil society and other non-state actors in this process in a way that reflects the ‘standards’ of participation around which there seems to be some increasingly common understanding? If so, then I would expect the plans, timetables and criteria on which the Mid-term reviews are to be conducted will be openly available well in advance of the process.

The participatory process will encourage increased debate, both within Europe and ACP countries, on all aspects of the Union’s co-operation with the ACP. This should be welcomed as it will give increased substance and depth in understanding the nature of the co-operation by a broad range of people from both sides. It will also demand more transparency in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement in all its aspects – from the negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreements to the fulfilment of the commitments by the EU to consult the ACP on decisions it is proposing to take that may impact on them. A case in point would be the Union’s adoption of the Everything But Arms initiative prior to the UN LDC III conference in 2001 when there were clear questions raised by the ACP about the lack of prior consultation with them. I would like also raise concerns about the initiative to establish an ACP water fund, an item that is on today’s agenda. The motivation for such a fund is stated to be its ability to release the €1 billion locked within the EDF, while at the same time addressing what is an increasingly important issue – access to clean water. These may be true, but its timing provokes questions. It comes amid controversy over EU proposals in the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) negotiations that press for the privatisation of services. Water is a key service where privatisation is being pursued, and in which European based companies are important players. In addition, from analysis recently done by Social Watch – a global coalition of citizens organisations monitoring the implementation of commitments made by national governments in the UN conferences of the 1990s – the privatisation of water services is not proving to be profitable. Inevitably, therefore, this provokes questions about whether the water fund is intended to support the Union’s approaches to the GATS negotiations. True or false, it emphasises the need for open debate and full transparency.

In conclusion, a full and effective involvement of civil society representatives in Europe’s co-operation with countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific is a critical and necessary pre-condition to making a country’s ownership of its own development strategies more than mere rhetoric. This is part of the accountability of government and elected representatives that is the cornerstone of any system of good governance. It should be said, however, that while the principal accountability of a government is to the people that it represents and whose interests it is working for, there is also accountability to the international community as a whole, particularly in adhering to the international rule of law. Recent events have emphasised the importance of this, and signal the potential far reaching implications for the credibility of the multilateral system when these are disregarded.

As a global player the European Union – and its individual member states, has a key role to play in upholding the international system of governance. It also has a responsibility to recognise that the way it acts, and the policies it pursues have profound implications, not only for the people of Europe, but also for the global community. That is why the current debates in the European Convention about the future role of Europe in the world should be of great interest – and concern – for the governments and people of ACP countries. Recent events show that as Europe discusses its future there are some stark choices to be made about the way in which it relates to the rest of the world. Don’t let us leave this to be debated by a few people at the core of the Union. It is a discussion in which the views of people from all parts of the world should be heard. The EU emphasises that its co-operation with the ACP and other developing countries is based on the principle of partnership. As partners, the ACP must be involved in these critical debates about the future role of Europe in the world.