- 1 -

European Economic and Social Committee

REX/223
Civil society involvement at local level in the ENP/Euromed

Brussels, 24 July 2007

INFORMATION REPORT
of the
Section for External Relations
on
Civil society involvement at local level in the context of the implementation of action plans for the European Neighbourhood Policy and balanced and sustainable development
______

REX/223 –CESE 504/2007 fin IT/KH/PM/ms

- 1 -

Study Groupon / President: / López Almendáriz
Civil society involvement at local level in the ENP/Euromed
Rapporteur: / Iuliano
Members: / Mr/Ms
Barabás
Batut
Gauci
Hamro-Drotz
Jasiński
Joost
Kallio
Osborn
Piette
Tshistova
Experts
Cassina (for the rapporteur)
Cambier (for Group II)
Lozano (for Group III)

Representatives of the Economic and Social Councils of Greece, France, Tunisia, Israel and Palestine also took part in the preparatory work.

On 18 January 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 31 of its Rules of Procedure, to instruct its Section for External Relations to draw up an information report on:

Civil society involvement at local level in the context of the implementation of action plans for the European Neighbourhood Policy and balanced and sustainable development[1].

The preparatory work was carried out by the members and experts, in cooperation with the rapporteur and the groups. The group met on:

6February 2007

30March 2007

7June 2007.

The Section adopted the information report on 16 July 2006 by 53 votes to one.

*

* *

1.Summary and recommendations

1.1The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) cannot be implemented – through either the national action plans or cross-border cooperation – without the local and regional dimension, if it is to achieve the aim of economic and social cohesion in neighbourhood and partnership policies, which is vital to more harmonious, sustainable and stable development, or if the contribution of local communities, of the social and socio-economic partners' organisations and of NGOs in general at local and regional level in the different partner countries is to be recognised and put to good use.

1.2Following the first launch phase of the ENP, assessment of this phase, and the adoption of the Regulation establishing a European neighbourhood and partnership instrument, clearerprospects for decentralised cooperation at regional and local level are opening up, particularly by means of cross-border cooperation, although the resources for such action account for only 5% of the total resources allocated to the ENP.

1.3Cross-border priorities will therefore have to be decided on an agreed and negotiated basis with the civil societies concerned, regarding both the methods and the political objectives and areas for action.

1.4The objective of economic and social cohesion must also be mainstreamed into the National Action Plans (NAP), and national and local administrations will have to take all necessary steps to support and develop the involvement of the social partners and socio-economic organisations at regional and local level, fromthe framing of NAPs – and hence, of policy – throughout the decision-making process, and subsequently in the assessment of what has been achieved.

1.5The role of the consultative bodies will be decisive at national, regional and local level in promoting involvement and ensuring that localdevelopment is balanced and socially and environmentally sustainable, which will producea strong feeling of ownership by the public in the partner countries regarding the implementation of the ENP and movement towards involving people as part of a bottom-up process, based on their requirements.

1.6The EESC, in coordination with the Euromed economic and social councils, will bring its know-how and experience in promoting economic and social cohesion to bear on involving the partner countries' social partners and socio-economic organisations, and will work closely with the Committee of the Regions to generate as much useful synergy as possiblebetween administrations and organised civil society at regional and local level. If necessary, this could also include devising joint cooperation instruments.

2.Introduction: the importance of the regional[2] and local dimension in the European integration process

2.1The importance of balanced regional development was affirmed when the Community was initially founded, but it has become increasingly important in the European integration process[3], to such an extent that it has become a touchstone for all other policies. The main vehicle for this principle is economic and social cohesion policy; the operating instrument is the Structural Funds, which account for approximately one third of the Community budget and, thanks to co-financing from the Member States, marshal more than double the resources allocated at EU level, providing a powerful incentive for further private investment.

2.2Economic and social cohesion policy is essentially a policy to redistribute resources and support development in lagging areas. It aims to create a competitive area which, without being uniform, is one in which European regions can have an at least comparable level of development. This is of benefit to all: to advanced regions, because they can find a market for their products in Structural Fund areas; and to lagging regions, because they are supported in their development and they are more able to unleash their productive and competitive potential. Consequently, it is a policy based on solidarity, but one which also encourages greater internal competitiveness and a more dynamic single market.

2.3Since the reform of the Structural Funds in 1988, the Community's economic and social cohesion policy has operated on the basis of five principles: targeting resources on priority-based intervention; multiannual programming of action and expenditure; partnership between the European Union, the Member States and regions (institutional or vertical partnership) but also between institutions at various levels and the social partners and other social stakeholders at various levels (social or horizontal partnership); additionality of Community resources with national resources; sound management of intervention and funding, which requires scrupulous administrative transparency and the requisite controls.

2.4Can the experience of economic and social cohesion policy be useful for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and Neighbourhood policies[4]? And, more importantly, can it be useful for the Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPCs)? Should the EU also strive to promote it in implementing the ENP? We should not necessarily take it for granted that the answer will be in the affirmative. Nevertheless, this report aims to give a reasoned argument in favour, particularly in view of the need to involve organised civil society at a devolved level.

3.The need for a regional and local dimension to MPC development and the proper implementation of the ENP

3.1The Partnership Policy has often been criticised, but it has undoubtedly provided support for a number of economic reforms in the MPCs that are beginning to bear fruit. The intention is that the ENP will continue along these lines, aiming to achieve more efficient intervention and to strengthen the partnership and sense of ownership between the EU and its neighbours. However, the increase in economic growth obtained thus far has not yet produced greater development, or greater regional balance within individual countries; if anything, it has produced some further social and environmental imbalances. Indeed, in some of the larger MPCs there are major internal disparities that are not only capable of creating or aggravating local pockets of poverty, but also of holding back the development of the country as a whole, making it unattractive for the direct foreign investment that is so badly needed, as many previous Euro-Mediterranean summits have complained[5].

3.2Even in average- (or smaller-)sized countries, local disparities can be a serious economic and social handicap because economic activity is confined to areas – usually around the capital city or largest conurbations – that already offer a favourable climate for development (more efficient infrastructure, ease of communications and transport, a large, skilled workforce, the know-howavailable in research centres, etc.). This causes serious human and urban planning problems, both in the growth area and in the peripheral areas that tend to become depopulated as people leave to chase income opportunities where development is to be found.Indeed, in describing the scope of Community assistance, the Regulation establishing a European neighbourhood and partnership instrument itself points to "pursuing regional and local development efforts, in both rural and urban areas, in order to reduce imbalances and improve regional and local development capacity"[6].

3.3Local situations often give rise to clichés, such as the agricultural or pastoral vocation of peripheral or desert areas, or the unwillingness of local people to accept new economic initiatives. Without wishing to do an injustice to any of the rich traditional activities that live on in many MPCs, but rather to capitalise on them, it would appear legitimate to ask whether the peripheral or lagging areas do not also have a right to grow, to diversify and, above all, to be provided with infrastructure, connections, opportunities and the support they deserve in order to be part of the development and modernisation of the country to which they belong. As part of a healthy local development picture, traditional activities such as agriculture, fisheries and crafts should form a foundation for the development of industry and services, and must under no circumstances be penalised.

3.3.1Moreover, local development is the best way of halting the decay of the social fabric in the most problematic areas,the spread of poverty, and the progressive abandonment of the land, especially by young people. In the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries that have growing numbers of young people, the lack of employment and career prospects is increasing the pressure to migrate: but these migration projects are undefined and do not take place within a transparent framework of EU-level procedures and laws, further impoverishing the migrants' areas of origin and creating problems of security and social unrest in the European countries. In contrast, local development – if properly managed along democratic and participatory lines – can offer prospects not only for job-seekers, but also for long-standing migrants in Europe who might want to return to their places of origin in order to set up businesses or simply to work.

3.3.2It is important to emphasise, from the outset of this discussion, that the principles guaranteeing sustainable development must necessarily be built into all local development options, in order specifically to prevent environmental damage, with its serious social, human and also economic consequences. The attitude that backward areas must first develop and only then worry about improving environmental conditions is profoundly wrong and irresponsible: the need to mainstream the objective of sustainability is theparticular responsibility of all institutional and social players, and not only of dedicated environmental organisations, although they must clearly play their role of stimulating and formulating proposals in this field.

3.4The debate on local development is sometimes distorted by an objection – albeit one that is not always made explicitly – that should be addressed immediately: there is some support for the view that in highly centralised states, a stronger regional and local level (withthe devolved administration that this necessarily entails) would undermine the political cohesion of the country and encourage opposition and/or separatist movements. The correct response to this objection is that the cohesion policy pursued as part of European Union integration is in fact an instrument of economic and social cohesion, implemented irrespective of the degree of centralisation of individual states. In fact, whatever the institutional organisation, the local level has a right to develop because it has economic and social dynamics and potential that it must be able to express. Action to unleash this potential is not destructive for the country as a whole; rather, it significantly strengthens the whole economy, society and even the institutions of the state. Naturally, if this is to happen the various regional and/or local social players must be involved. They must be listened to, given training and made part and parcel of the planning process and share responsibility for implementing and monitoring development initiatives in their area.

4.Why organised civil society needs to be involved at regional and local level

4.1An analysis of the association agreements and action plans concluded with the MPCs shows that most of the policies that the EU and MPCs are preparing to share must, of necessity, be articulated locally: examples include the development of infrastructure and public services, the environment, education and training, promotion of employment, networks (especially information society-related), prevention of natural catastrophes, policies to combat poverty and to promote the status of women, etc. None of these policies which, in the context of the ENP will help bring the EU ever closer to its partners and vice versa, can be usefully applied mechanically or unilaterally at the regional and local levelas if they were a meaningless gift; they require an environment that is ready and prepared to exercise a type of ownershipthat involves conscious sharing of values and involvement, and which the ENP refers to when it speaks of the principles that regulate relations between the EU and the partner countries.

4.2The social and socio-economicpartners[7] and other local level civil society organisations[8], together with devolved administrative structures, are the natural players in local development[9] and in implementing partnership and neighbourhood policies, as these policies aim to promote quality growth and sustainable development. This is something the Committee of Regions also asserted very clearly in an opinion in October 2006, where it stressed that, particularly in areas where the Euro-Mediterranean partnership has not made great progress, "it is essential that substate (regional and local) players should work together with the social partners and civil society organisations if results are to be achieved…"[10].

4.3Then there is a very important aspect,which is the social acceptability of the intervention. If the objectives of a plan are obscure and the plan has not been incorporated organically in the development strategy of the country, the local population will never understand why it needs to be put into action and will tend to oppose it or merely endure it without supporting it. Now, more than ever, development programmes include aspects that are difficult to grasp immediately; consequently it is not enough for a central or even a local authority to vouch for their benefits. Only through dialogue and the provision of information and training for the social and institutional players at various levels will it be possible to work out – together – planning solutions that might appear more complex, but that have the advantage of being mutually endorsed.In order to properly inform, consult and negotiate with local populations, and to involve them in decision-making, implementation and monitoring, channels for dialogue and consultation need to be set up at all levels.

4.4Finally, during the implementing phase, involving the social partners and other civil society organisations, backed up by an efficient administrative and legal system, provides a powerful guarantee of transparency. Bringing development to lagging areas is often a long process taking several years and every phase must be carefully monitored and assessed.It goes without saying that involving the social partners and other civil society organisations in these delicate operations that can remedy shortcomings or develop further potential is not only useful but essential.

4.5Our previous contributions to the Euromed socio-economic summits have focused principally on the involvement of organised civil society, implicitly at these organisations' national level, but a key aspect of civil society organisations emerges most clearly at regional and local level: at local level, civil society organisations are by definition in direct contact with grassroots society and its various problems. Consequently, if they want to play a more than purely theoretical role, they must have the capacity to help solve real problems and represent specific interests. They represent a potential of human energy and dynamism which can serve as a decisive factor in the eventual location of the national and international investment the partner countries need.Official institutions – both at European level and in the MPCs – will naturally have to back the work of the civil society organisations, in particular by facilitating training, so that they can take on the responsibility of actors in the socio-occupational partnership[11].

4.5.1The purpose of this contribution is not to embark on a detailed discussion of sectoral policies, whichmust involve a range of civil society bodies in their implementation at local level. Attention should however be drawn to two points – the role of women, and services of general interest:

without anticipating other contributions to the 2007 socio-economic summit[12] or returning to the reports[13] by the EESC and the French ESC[14], it should be remembered that women have always had a special contribution to make to development: in the MPCs, women are working intensively – but with little recognition – in farming, the crafts and, increasingly, in industry and the service sector, in addition to the unfortunately even less recognised commitment, work and responsibility borne by women every day in bringing up their children, learning and disseminating good hygiene, health and environmental practices and cultivating social links, beginning with the family.Women's contribution to local development is irreplaceable and their work, the quality of which is so high, must be put to the best possible use. It is incumbent upon every country to recognise this work, to protect it with appropriate regulations and make it an integral part of the planning and implementation of ENP-related policies;

the issue of services of general interest is a particularly sensitive one at decentralised level: the policies to liberalise public services that are now under way both in the EU and a number of the partner countries have either had, or may yet have, a very serious regional or local social impact, creating further imbalances that erode economic and social cohesion and development. In this case too, it is essential that service workers and the general population (i.e. the users) should be involved at every stage of service development, structuring and rationalisation. There is also a need for a legal framework guaranteeing a number of basic principles[15] which mustensure that service provision contributes to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms and rights[16], and facilitates mobility (transport) and communication[17] between different areas within the country.