 | ||
| November-December 2009 | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
None of these photographs may be reproduced without the written permission of the Development Gateway Foundation. Give us feedback: sitefeedback@developmentgateway.org View past issues of the newsletter: http://www.developmentgateway.org/news-events/dgf-newsletter/archives.html The Development Gateway Foundation provides Web-based tools to make aid and development efforts more effective. It offers innovative solutions that increase access to critical information, building local capacity and bringing partners together for positive change. The Development Gateway Foundation is a nonprofit organization with activities around the world. Development Gateway Foundation 1889 F Street NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20006 USA Tel: +1-202-572-9200 Fax: +1-202-572-9290 |
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
[test 8] November-December Newsletter
Monday, December 28, 2009
System change not climate change
Dr. Ama Biney
2009-12-23
cc oxfam international
A capitalist economic system dependent on fossil fuels and the exploitation of natural resources to generate profit has left people and ecosystems across large parts of the planet – including swathes of Africa – vulnerable to climate change, Ama Biney writes in this week’s Pambazuka News. The ‘derisory’ funding developed nations have offered to ‘assist developing countries to adapt to climate change’ is not enough to solve the problem, Biney argues. The real focus, says Biney, should be on ‘transforming the exploitative, unsustainable, profit-driven ethos that underpins the current system of wealth accumulation that simultaneously damages the environment’.
Why is it that trillions could be found to bail out the banks by both President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown? Is bailing out the banks to the tune of trillions more important than climate change? Why is it that millions have been spent waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and continue to be spent, yet sufficient funds cannot be offered to assist developing countries to adapt to climate change with clean technology, other than the derisory US$100 billion a year? If we have sent a man to the moon, how is it not possible that the global community with research capabilities and technology have invented wind turbines as a source of energy but cannot enable African countries to harness the one thing they have in abundance – sunshine – into solar energy?
The fundamental cause of global warming and carbon emissions has been perpetrated by the developed nations of the world and most critically the profit motive they are wedded to. In other words, it is the neoliberal capitalist system of overproduction in the North that has damaged the planet and continues to do so.
Capitalist accumulation is based on the inexorable rape of the world’s resources in terms of fossil fuels to power industry and create products; oil energy to transport via sea, land and air such goods; pillage of forests such as the Amazon and those forests in Africa that are rarely mentioned in relation to climate change. Yet, African forests take in 20 per cent of carbon absorbed by trees across the world and therefore Africa has a central role to play in the collective endeavours to save the planet.
The colossal exploitation of the resources of the planet has been waged by the drive for increased profits. The juggernaut of capital searching for greater returns for its money in markets, and human beings transformed into consumers purchasing goods is the ruthless logic of the capitalist system that has evolved for over two hundred years. It is aided in the North by the arm of powerful subliminal advertising agencies that are effective in getting consumers to become modern slaves to materialistic objects to the extent of buying such goods (cars, TVs, computer games, etc) on credit. For in neoliberal capitalism there is never a cut off point for maximum profit – it is infinite. Corporations simply swallow up whatever stands in their way in takeovers. Neither is there a moral compass nor ethic in capitalist production, other than ‘greed is good’. If there was, such an ethic would have resolved world hunger when ‘milk lakes’ and ‘butter mountains’ existed in the 1970s and 1980s with such overproduction in the European community, whilst others starved and died in the ‘Third World’ as it was then called.
Africa’s contribution to carbon emissions is a mere 3.8 per cent. Yet we are all aware that the continent, along with other developing countries such as the tiny Association of Independent Island States, is highly vulnerable to future climate changes. Vulnerable countries are likely to be wiped off the face of the earth if there is not a commitment by richer nations to 2 degrees Celsius as the maximum temperature of global warming. Lumumba Di-Aping, chairman of the G77 group of nations, has said that such a figure entails both a ‘certain death for Africa’ and a type of ‘climate fascism’ imposed on Africa by high carbon emitters. Di-Aping states that in reality 2 degrees Celsius means 3.5 degrees Celsius for much of Africa.
Exacerbating the future of Africa’s ability to deal with climate change will be the need to ensure that the ongoing land deals by Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf States do not make particular communities in Sudan, Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia and elsewhere, even more vulnerable to poverty and hunger. In northern Kenya, the UN has estimated that 400 people have died this year as a result of conflict between ethnic groups over grazing rights for cattle in areas that have seen decreasing amounts of rain. The director of the UN Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, has pointed out that the consequences of climate change for Africa and other developing countries will be desertification in the Sudan, rainfall decline in the Horn of Africa, freshwater evaporating in the South, droughts, heat waves, epidemics and floods. He says climate change ‘amplifies and escalates vulnerability.’ There is no doubt that such pronouncements paint a doomsday scenario. However, he says ‘It doesn’t mean that conflict is inevitable, but it’s much more likely.’
Similarly, should we not consider the implication of toxic waste dumping in Africa by companies such as Trafigura, which dumped truck loads of sulphuric sludge in Ivory Coast in 2006, and the damaging consequences it has for Africa, or the ecological damage caused by Anglo-Dutch Shell in the extraction of oil in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria? Surely any deal at Copenhagen should ensure that richer nations are made to dispose of toxic waste safely? Equally important should be fair compensation for the victims of environmental degradation and not the paltry £100 million paid by Trafigura to the Ivorian government in 2007.
African NGOs such as the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance and Northern NGOs genuinely committed to climate justice in an egalitarian global community need to consistently mobilise post-Copenhagen to ensure that the movement for climate change does not become a business opportunity for the corporate world to profit from. There is a need for all of us to be aware of the smokescreen that will be presented by the elaborate carbon emissions accounting.
For example, developed countries can claim they have ‘cut’ their emissions without actually releasing lesser CO2 emissions by paying a poor country to discharge less. It could be argued that theoretically this is acceptable as we all breathe the same air. However, whose interests does this really serve? Doesn’t the earth continue to suffer under such an arrangement? If the developing countries seek to imitate the model of capitalist development often pushed by the North, it will need another planet to pillage and plunder in order to catch up with the West.
Another creative carbon emissions accounting that developed nations can adopt is to trade their allocated permits in carbon emissions. For example in 1990 the Soviet Union and several Eastern Europe countries such as Romania and Poland were issued such permits. Some have used them. Those who have not can sell them to rich countries to use. Consequently, the US or UK can buy them from Poland and proudly claim they have reduced emissions. We must not be bamboozled.
Therefore reading the fine print that comes out of any Copenhagen deal and holding all to account, particularly the rich nations, is necessary.
Climate change is the single most important threat to human existence today. It is one of the myriad problems facing the African continent and it acutely exacerbates other long-term problems in Africa. I do not accept that some US$100 billion per year until 2020 – or whatever figure – is a key to addressing the fundamental problem. It is simply applying a sticking plaster to a world suffering from a brain haemorrhage. Transforming the exploitative, unsustainable, profit-driven ethos that underpins the current system of wealth accumulation that simultaneously damages the environment is the real focus. Helping countries in the South to develop greener technologies – whilst the North does the same is a cosmetic tinkering with the capitalist economic system that remains intact. We must recognise and accept that it is the way wealth is created and distributed in our world that causes the devastating impact of climate change as well as huge social, economic, and political global inequalities.
With the implosion of the banks, the capitalist system has been discredited and the people of the North and the South must lead the way in finding another fairer economic system that is in harmony with the environment. The challenge of progressive forces both in the South and North is to demand the realisation of the slogan on one placard hoisted at Copenhagen: ‘System Change Not Climate Change!’
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Dr Ama Biney is a Pan-Africanist and scholar-activist who lives in the United Kingdom.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.
* This article: http://pambazuka.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Copenhagen: Voices of those Affected Ignored and Transparency Disregarded
ARTICLE 19
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
22 December 2009
The outcome of the Copenhagen summit was deeply disappointing. It failed to deliver the legally binding and fair global climate deal sought by civil society organisations and individuals, and promised by many governments. The process lacked transparency, and restrictions on freedom of expression were widespread.
“Whilst at the summit, we were especially alarmed by various restrictions on human rights - notably freedom of expression and the right to protest - which were imposed during the Copenhagen meeting,” says Dr Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
Over one thousand people were arrested during the middle weekend of the summit and also many accredited non-governmental organisation representatives were unable to attend the final stages of the meeting. Too much of the political negotiations took place behind closed doors and were led by the principal CO2 emitting states.
The resulting political document, the Copenhagen Accord represents the summit’s marginalisation of the voices, interests and participation of the states and peoples who are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Progress can only be made by honouring and elaborating upon the transparency provisions contained in the text and the drafting of a legally binding agreement at the next possible opportunity. ARTICLE 19 calls on states to resist adopting any such legally binding agreement in small groups without the participation of countries and communities most exposed to climate threats. A planet-saving treaty requires a multilateral approach in which all voices may be heard.
NOTES TO EDITORS:
• Read ARTICLE 19’s analysis of the Right to Information and Freedom of Expression in Climate Change debates in English at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/changing-the-climate-for-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-information.pdf
In Spanish at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/cambiar-el-clima-para-la-libertad-de-expresion-y-la-libertad-de-informacion.pdf
In French at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/changer-le-climat-pour-la-liberte-d-expression-et-la-liberte-d-information.pdf
In Portuguese at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/mudando-o-clima-para-a-liberdade-de-expressao-e-a-liberdade-de-informacao.pdf
In Arabic at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/arabic-changing-the-climate-for-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-informa.pdf
Stiffer Competition Ahead for African and Caribbean Banana Producers
www.acp-eucourier.info
16/12/2009 - By Debra Percival
The longest running global trade dispute in history - over bananas – may well have have been brought to an end with the deal done at a meeting 15 December at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva between ambassadors from the EU and Latin American countries. But for African and Caribbean nations who export to the EU market duty and quota-free under separate trade agreements, stiffer competition lies ahead with Latin American banana producers.
The core of the EU-Latin America deal, which is seen as a boost for the Doha Round of world trade talks, is a gradual reduction by the EU of its import tariff on bananas from Latin America from €176 per tonnes presently to €114 by 2017 at the earliest. The EU has agreed to immediately cut its tariff by €28 per tonne to €148 on the signing of the deal by all parties. This has triggered the United States to settle its related trade dispute with the EU.
“This is the best possible deal we could achieve. It reconciles all parties’ legitimate interests. I know ACP producers will face challenges in adjusting to the new situation. But the EU will do its best to help. With a more stable environment, all stakeholders will be able to focus more on the improvement of production conditions in banana supply chains,” said EU Development Commissioner, Karel De Gucht.
As compensation, the EU says that it will offer funding of up to €200M to help the main African and Caribbean exporting countries to adjust. They include several small islands Caribbean countries who still rely on bananas for a big part of their income including; Dominica, St Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines who have already paired back their production in recent years because of tougher competition from Latin American exporters.
African and Caribbean banana exporters to the EU remain concerned that any cut in the EU tariff makes Latin American bananas cheaper in the EU market, thereby reducing demand for their own bananas which are more costly to produce.
Further, under the deal done, the EU has guaranteed that it will not cut its banana tariff any further in the current Doha Round of WTO talks. EU member states still have to sign the agreement reached. Under the EU’s newly-ratified Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament must give also give its consent.
For more information:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1938
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/557
16/12/2009 - By Debra Percival
The longest running global trade dispute in history - over bananas – may well have have been brought to an end with the deal done at a meeting 15 December at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva between ambassadors from the EU and Latin American countries. But for African and Caribbean nations who export to the EU market duty and quota-free under separate trade agreements, stiffer competition lies ahead with Latin American banana producers.
The core of the EU-Latin America deal, which is seen as a boost for the Doha Round of world trade talks, is a gradual reduction by the EU of its import tariff on bananas from Latin America from €176 per tonnes presently to €114 by 2017 at the earliest. The EU has agreed to immediately cut its tariff by €28 per tonne to €148 on the signing of the deal by all parties. This has triggered the United States to settle its related trade dispute with the EU.
“This is the best possible deal we could achieve. It reconciles all parties’ legitimate interests. I know ACP producers will face challenges in adjusting to the new situation. But the EU will do its best to help. With a more stable environment, all stakeholders will be able to focus more on the improvement of production conditions in banana supply chains,” said EU Development Commissioner, Karel De Gucht.
As compensation, the EU says that it will offer funding of up to €200M to help the main African and Caribbean exporting countries to adjust. They include several small islands Caribbean countries who still rely on bananas for a big part of their income including; Dominica, St Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines who have already paired back their production in recent years because of tougher competition from Latin American exporters.
African and Caribbean banana exporters to the EU remain concerned that any cut in the EU tariff makes Latin American bananas cheaper in the EU market, thereby reducing demand for their own bananas which are more costly to produce.
Further, under the deal done, the EU has guaranteed that it will not cut its banana tariff any further in the current Doha Round of WTO talks. EU member states still have to sign the agreement reached. Under the EU’s newly-ratified Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament must give also give its consent.
For more information:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1938
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/557
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Banana wars: the fruits of world trade
Europe business reporter, BBC News, Brussels
Bananas are one of the world's favourite fruits, a staple of almost everyone's supermarket shopping. Europeans munched their way through 5.4 million tonnes of them in 2008.
Yet the way bananas are grown by often poor workers in hot places and sold to richer consumers in colder countries tells us a lot about the nature of world trade today.
The eventual "initialling" in Geneva of a stand-alone banana trade agreement between the European Union and Latin American countries not only ends what the EU itself acknowledges was "the longest trade dispute in history", it also breaks one of the many stalemates in the stalled Doha round of world trade talks.
The first shots were fired in the banana wars decades before Latin America and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) trade negotiators set out their respective stalls at the current World Trade Organisation in Geneva.
Frozen out
Since 1975, each Caribbean country has been given a generous import quota for bananas. The idea was to enable the economies of former European colonies or dependencies to grow independently without recourse to overseas aid.
Tariff-free entry to the EU was extended to a string of ACP countries. Meanwhile, banana producers on Spain's Canary Islands and in the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe also enjoyed tariff-free status.
But the effect of the agreement was to freeze out competitors from Latin America, or at least make their EU imports more expensive.
So called "dollar" bananas are generally cheaper to start with because they are grown on larger mechanised plantations run by giant US corporations such as Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte.
Eurobananas
Not everyone in the EU was happy with the Brussels banana regime; Germany for one. For a start, the country had lost all its colonies after World War I, so had no favoured supplier to champion.
In the 1990s, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl pledged to try and get the EU import regulations liberalised. His election campaign played on the simple fact that Germans seemed to prefer the larger bright yellow dollar bananas from Latin America.
Some turned up their noses at the smaller, paler "eurobananas".
Bananas have mattered to Germans ever since hunger overtook war-torn Germany, the fruit symbolised luxury.
When the Berlin wall crumbled, jubilant East Germans were seen sporting car stickers featuring two bananas forming the letter D for Deutschland. The banana was a symbol of better times to come.
Soaring prices
Certainly one of the dire predictions about the likely impact of the EU's banana policies bore fruit. Prices soared 63% in 1994 and demand fell by a quarter.
For some the banana became the symbol of the EU's hypocritical refusal to act on its own free-trade rhetoric. Yet now the EU is starting to phase out its tariff "banana split", there will be be others who complain that desperately poor family farmers will be disadvantaged at the expense of wealthy American-owned agribusinesses.
Meanwhile, the banana will doubtless continue to feature in jokes about its curvature, or its uncanny ability to trip up their canniest trade negotiator. But, as banana specialist and writer Peter Chapman once wrote, nobody laughs at the banana in its areas of origin: "It is too serious a business, on which jobs and lives depend."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8413979.stm
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
"A Done Deal"
by
Renwick Rose,
WINFA
PHOTO: Renwick Rose
Once again our banana industry and, by extension, the livelihood of tens of thousands of people in the Windward Islands, is attracting international media attention. Once again, it is for the wrong reason.
This time the news agencies are commenting on developments relating to the long-standing dispute between Europe, the United States and Latin America over banana imports into Europe in which our banana farmers have taken a real beating. It now seems that after 16 years the warring factions are to arrive at a final settlement of the dispute.
“A done deal” is how the impending settlement is being dubbed, meaning, that for all intents and purposes, the parties have agreed on the contents of that “deal”. Yet, those who will suffer most as a result, banana farmers and their dependents in the Windward Islands, are far from happy with the terms. These include:
- A substantial reduction in the tariffs on bananas from Latin America to Europe, dropping from 176 euros per tonne to 148 euros per tonne in January 2010 (3 weeks time), and then right down to 114 euros per tonnne in seven years time.
- Agreement to settle all disputes and other claims by the US-based multi-nationals and Latin American exporting countries.
- So- called “Banana Accompanying Measures” (BAMs) under which a sum of 190 million euros is proposed to be provided between 2010 and 2013 to assist countries negatively affected by the settlement to improve competitiveness, spur economic diversification and to mitigate the social consequences of the adjustment.
The countries in the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) group which export bananas to Europe are far from happy with the “deal”. In the case of the Caribbean, the Windward Islands in particular, this settlement is yet another disastrous blow against, not just the banana industry, but economic and social development in general. Already the Latin American exporters, dominated by the US multinational trio of Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita, have more than 80% of the European market for themselves. By contrast, the Windwards have only a 1 percent share, posing no threat to Latin American domination. It must also be borne in mind that these same multinationals have the entire North American market for themselves. Lowering the tariffs means that they can market their bananas even more cheaply than us thereby forcing our producers out of business.
This banana “deal” comes one year after our governments were duped into signing an Economic Partnership Agreement(EPA) with the European Union, under threat that if we did not sign, we would lose our market preferences for bananas. Well, sign we did, yet we are still about to lose those same “guaranteed” preferences. What kind of partnership is that? In addition, the sum being offered for compensation, the “bamsee” 190 million euros, is far from adequate given the scale of dislocation expected and given the fact that in addition to the Windwards, it must cover the Cameroons, Ivory Coast and Ghana, along with Suriname and Belize.
Concern was also expressed by ACP expressed by ACP countries, not just about the amount but also about timeliness. The European Union is notorious for elaborate procedures which are timeconsuming.
By the end of January some farmers in the Windwards may well have been forced out of production. No one with even the faintest understanding of EU procedures can begin to dream of how such farmers will catch their “bam”. WINFA had proposed to Caribbean governments that they should insist that arrangements for compensation be not only simple and flexible, but that farmers’ organizations should have direct access. That appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
The big problem is not just with EU treachery. Our own governments seem to have surrendered under the stress. They gave in to the EPA, which while having some benefits, is a long way off from offsetting the economic losses as in banana. Then there was a backing away from the further onslaught. Quite frankly, on the BAMs, the Windwards have been acting in a manner which borders on irresponsibility, seemingly waiting to see what we get and not taking the fight to the aggressors.
If only the energy we find to fight each other at election time could be expended in defending our own interests! We have failed to mount lobbies or to take up the matter aggressively with Latin America in spite of the growing links with Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Costa Rica among others. We have not reached out to the British consumer or given those who do so, the support they deserve. Worse, nearly all of us, from government to ordinary citizen, fall into the trap of meekly accepting our fate, even hitting out at those of us who defend our right to livelihood, accusing us of seeking preferences in perpetuity. Yet these same people are never shy of begging and lobbying governments for their own preferential treatment as in tax breaks. We seem to be our own worst enemy.
The sad reality is that we will all suffer. Unless we are prepared to stand up for justice and fairness in international relations and trade, we will all lose. If our banana market goes through, then heaven help us all.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
THIRD ACP CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM ESTABLISHES ACP INFORMATION AND DIALOGUE NETWORK
Left: Mr. Lawman Lynch, 3rd Chairman of the ACP Civil Society ForumBelow: Dr. Natallie Corrie-Kordas and Sir John Kaputin, Secretary General of ACP
By Joyce van Genderen-Naar
On 10 and 11 December 2009 the 3rd ACP Civil Society Forum was held at the ACP House in Brussels. Representatives from Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Civil Society came together to discuss how to move forward after many years of silence and inactivity under the Cotonou Agreement.
In 1997 the Forum was established by ACP Civil Society organizations from the ACP regions in Entebbe, Uganda with the aim to provide a platform for civil society actors in the ACP countries, where they could articulate views and concerns, share information and facilitate dialogue with official ACP-EU institutions in order to support and strengthen the participation of ACP Civil Society in the ACP-EU development cooperation.
The follow up was an impressive and unique Conference on the Participation of Civil Society in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement, organised in July 2001 by the Belgian EU Presidency and the ACP Secretariat in Brussels. For almost a week, from July 2nd – 7th 2001, more than 150 representatives of ACP civil society came together in Brussels to discuss their role in the ACP-EC cooperation and the ACP-EC-Agreement, signed by the EC and the ACP countries a year before in Cotonou on 23 June 2000.
This was the first ACP Civil Society Forum. A Plan of Action was adopted. However, between 2001 and 2006 there was no follow up and no implementation. Only in 2006 the 2nd ACP Civil Society Forum was organised. During a 4-day meeting in April 2006 at the ACP Secretariat in Brussels a Declaration and Plan of Action was adopted, and never implemented during the years to follow.
The participants of the 3rd ACP Civil Society Forum, a two day meeting in Brussels, organised three years after the second one, concluded that the remaining 10 years should not be wasted, being aware that the Cotonou Agreement will expire in 2020. They decided to create a network for the exchange and sharing of information and dialogue through internet and any other appropriate media, connecting Civil Society organizations and their focal points in 79 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. They agreed upon a coordinator for each of the six ACP regions: four in Africa, one in the Caribbean and one in the Pacific. According to the ACP rotation system the Caribbean chaired the 3rd ACP Civil Society Forum and appointed Mr. Lawman Lynch (Jamaica). In 2006 the Chair of the 2nd ACP Civil Society Forum came from Africa (Cote d’Ivoire) and the next Chair will be from the Pacific.
The Secretary-General, Sir John Kaputin, opening the 3rd ACP Civil Society Meeting in Brussels, urged the participants to make the most of this all-ACP platform of stock-taking, policy dialogue and planning. He said that a high priority for Civil Society at the national, regional and all-ACP levels, is the aspiration to be involved in the consultation in the Programming, Implementation of National and Regional Indicative Programmes and all-ACP Programmes, consultation in the Mid-Term Review process of the Country Strategy Papers and the National and Regional Indicative Programmes; consultation in the review of the Cotonou Agreement (which is taking place now); the negotiation and Follow- Up of the Economic Partnership Agreements and the impact of the current Financial Crisis.
He encouraged the participants to exchange views evaluating the types of consultations that target the existing wide range of Non-State Actor Organisations, and to discuss and agree amongst themselves on the most appropriate working mechanisms for future cooperation at the national, regional and all-ACP levels.
As said before the participants of the 3rd ACP Civil Society Forum agreed upon a virtual network as the most appropriate working mechanisms for future cooperation at the national, regional and all-ACP levels.
Though internet discussions they will deal with the questions raised by the ACP Secretary General Sir John Kaputin, such as: How satisfied are we with our Governments approach to active policy dialogue with the wide range of Civil Society actors? Has significant progress been made, since our last all-ACP discourse, to greater include Civil Society in the consultation processes on Capacity Building needs? Have Civil Society Capacity Building requirement been addressed to facilitate greater involvement in the policy dialogue on issues highlighted in the thematic areas discussed at the last meeting? Are Civil Society stakeholders present at the negotiating table on Economic Partnership Agreements?
Mrs. Dominique DELLICOUR of the EuropeAid cooperation office (AIDCO) of the European Commission made a presentation on the participation of ACP Civil Society in the 9th and 10th European Development Fund (EDF). She gave an overview of the ACP programmes adopted, approved and the budget foreseen (191,6 million Euro for the 10th EDF). She said that there is a strong appeal and push for better and more involvement and engagement of Civil Society and that it is important for Civil Society to seize this momentum and to participate in the regional seminar, planned by AIDCO.F1 in Mali, Africa, in the 1st six months of 2010 in the framework of structured dialogue. She also informed the participants about the EC study on Civil Society participation and urged them to read this. The study is available on the site: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civil-society/index_en.htm
All ACP participants stressed the complexity and bureaucratic procedures of the EC procedures, the problems they experience in dealing with the European Commission, the National and Regional Authorizing Officers. They asked why the EC sees capacity building as the solution of all ACP problems. They even suggested that the EC in its turn needs capacity building too in order to deal with the ACP countries and their population. They made an urgent appeal upon the EC to involve ACP experts, ACP Universities and ACP research institutions for the design, implementation and monitoring of studies, research and capacity building programmes in the ACP countries. The practice followed by the EC to send EU consultants to the ACP countries has not resulted in capacity building nor exchange and transfer of knowledge, in contrary the many reports they wrote are not used and are a waste of time and money.
The second presentation was made by Dr. Stephanie Diakité, International Expert, on the Evidence Based Knowledge Sharing (EBKS) as a tool for Civil Society to influence ACP-EU policy. Once again the participants of the Forum noted that they have enough expertise and experience in the own countries and that nothing new was placed on the table.
Brussels, December 14, 2009
Joyce van Genderen-Naar
Lawyer/journalist
Email: vangenderen@unicall.be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
