Participation in the Post-Lomé Process:
An Analysis of the Issues and Negotiating Options
Issues Paper prepared for the Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government
Libreville, Gabon, 6-7 November 1997
As the process of negotiation of a comprehensive EU-ACP agreement to replace the current Lomé Convention between the European enters a new phase, it has become evident that the European Commission proposes to bring quite radical changes to the current convention. One new direction appears to provide a greater place in the development process to what has been termed "decentralised actors".
Participation has not generally been a high priority concern for ACP governments in the past. It is however quite likely to become more important during the forthcoming negotiations. This contrasts with the interest in the outcome among many sectors n Europe. The ACP countries would benefit in their strategic planning from a network of research and support networks similar to those in Europe, which could help facilitate analysis of issues and promote participation on non-governmental sectors.
The aim of this paper is to examine some of the major issues of interest to the ACP and the EU countries regarding participation and development; to analyze their relevance in the context of the debate on cooperation and to assess and explore some negotiation options and strategies for consideration by the ACP group during the forthcoming negotiations.
In many ACP countries, popular participation has not been a common feature in the political and social processes as the State sector was expected to assume leadership for promoting development in the absence of a well-developed private sector of entrepreneurs and investors. Participation, for which a case can be made on economic, political, social and cultural grounds, is now considered essential to the globalisation and modernisation processes of today. Considered as a fundamental part of democratic society, it may be defined as: the capacity and the ability of the community to contribute to, share in and benefit from, diverse social, economic, political or other processes of the society. Participation in development involves in the first place the national community, but cooperation with the European Union can play an important role.
Participation has to be planned and supported by policy and other measures. Some areas for action include: commitment by ACP governments to the principle; search for methodologies of effective participation for development; donor commitment to fund and support target sectors and programmes and commitment by the civil society organisations to efficiency, accountability, improved capability. The principal targets in promoting participation in development in the framework of EU-ACP cooperation could be: the community sector, the private sector, and non-governmental organisations.
There are prospects to increase participation through an expanded Decentralised Cooperation programme. Possible strategies include: Expanding the range of projects supported under the DC portfolio; providing funding resources to decentralised actors as a specific component of national projects, local or regional sub-contracting of competent NGOs and other civil society organs in designing and operating development activities. Managing these strategies under the portfolio of the DC unit of the European Commission would build greater linkages and consistency between this and technical units in the Commission.
ACP governments may strengthen their negotiating strength through greater public awareness of the issues and involvement in the process. Governments should state their commitment to the principle of participation during the negotiation and in the convention; define target sectors, including the most vulnerable and marginal segments of the civil society; involve the public through awareness campaigns and include representatives of civil society sectors more fully in the negotiating process; and strengthen administrative decentralisation as a mechanism to provide for greater local participation in national affairs.
Strategies to involve the private sector may include strengthening diverse segments especially micro, small and medium enterprises to have a wider share in national development; making available greater resources for venture capital; operating credit; investment protection, to take advantage of domestic and niche export opportunities; and strengthening the business enterprise climate through training, technology improvement, and export assistance.
In their negotiations, ACP leaders will need to be able to add strategic value their negotiating strength from commitment to participation without this becoming a condition of EU programme support. EU support may be requested in the following areas: financial, technical and other support to ACP governments to implement participation. expanded assistance for modernising small and medium enterprises, increased technology cooperation to facilitate and hasten the insertion of ACP countries into the global context.
In summary, an ACP negotiating strategy on participation should aim to: include community participation as an integral component of the ACP brief, and solicit EU financing and other resources to assist the national and regional effort, and encourage the EU to augment resources to support decentralised actors in the ACP.
Fall back positions may include defining priority targets for EU funding support, including high-priority sectoral targets or programme areas related to national or regional strategies, and indicating priority programmes or development objectives, selected in consultation with civil society organisations, to be considered for direct funding to decentralised actors.
Other measures to increase participation and improve ACP/ EU cooperation include:
Priority areas include greater individual and group discipline; and an openness to modern technologies, in particular to developing computer skills to facilitate management and communication.
Civil society organisations probably have the strongest vested interest in demonstrating improved capability in programme management since it is they who stand to benefit most from a new convention that gives greater space to participation.
There has been quite mixed reception given to the November 1996 European Union’s Green Paper with initial reflections of Commission’s trends and possible directions of a new agreement. Indeed there is some evidence that the paper does not reflect the total vision of the EU members, nor perhaps even the entire Commission itself. Yet, it is an important document and a good indicator of the framework of European thinking. This author is of the opinion that, despite some apparently extreme views and positions, the Paper does in fact represent, to a quite considerable degree, Europe’s real views on the future of aid and cooperation with the ACP and more generally with the South.
Some new focal directions for the EU-ACP negotiations appear to include: a lower priority to traditional forms of aid; an expanded focus on trade and investment, with greater attention to the commercial and industrial private sector in the South; an increased interest in non-traditional areas of cooperation such as scientific and technical research, and a greater place in the development process to what has been termed "decentralised actors". The last focuses on both the European Union actors and those in the cooperating states of the ACP, whose fuller involvement is deemed essential to the development of these countries.
Negotiation on a new cooperation agreement between the EU and ACP countries or the global South can hardly be entertained without reference to issues of participation; decentralised cooperation and ways to involve the population in the democratic process. This is a reflection of experiences in the past decades within Europe itself, and in parts of the South, where a conscious and active civil society has emerged, with a role in promoting and consolidating democracy. There is also evidence of disinterest among many Europeans towards "aid" to governments, as it has been practiced in the past; and disenchantment over the results of cooperation efforts since the 1960’s. Any new strategy would call for less direct involvement of the "failed developmental state" and a greater role for "actors that have been hitherto marginalised".
Reflection on the subject of participation is therefore pertinent to the strategic thinking and the broad process of social, economic and political development among the ACP group, as it is unlikely that negotiations on cooperation not accompanied by genuine efforts to build participation and democracy along with economic growth will find echo among the people of Europe.
This however poses some concerns and challenges that must be addressed. Participation involves State as well as non-State actors, yet, planning and negotiating cooperation between the ACP and the EU members has essentially been a process among governments, with limited space for involving the wide public. It is government leaders and officials who are engaged in the negotiations and who must be encouraged to adopt the principle of participation if it is to be part of the negotiation process. The public sector will have therefore to take leadership in exploring with the decentralised actors in their countries common issues and strategies on the negotiations. This may call for initiatives to facilitate consultation and debate among the community, and policy and institutional measures to strengthen participation in the process of building and consolidating democracy in the ACP countries.
Participation has not generally been a high priority concern for ACP governments in the past. It is however quite likely to become more important during the forthcoming negotiations. The public in ACP countries have not been part of the discussions and their distance from the negotiation process is further intensified by the relative lack of information available to them about the issues or the direction of the negotiation. This contrasts, for example, with the consultations and debate within Europe, where there is more heightened interest for the outcome, and even support in some sectors for a increased cooperation programme with the ACP countries.
In this context, the civil society, and especially the NGO community, are called upon to play an important role, to make known their stake in the process and to propose strategies to encourage greater participation for development. It is left to organisations of civil society and the private sector to assume responsibility for this. It is not always an easy task, as in some ACP countries there are few organisations to address public policy issues.
It is a task which NGOs and other community organs must nonetheless consider seriously. The private commercial and industrial sector, usually conscious of its stake, is generally well-organised in its own defense and able to influence the reflections and strategies around future cooperation. It is less evident in the case of community-based organisations. NGOs tend to be overburdened and underfinanced, and are unable to undertake a new role without new resources.
Cooperation between European NGOs and networks and their counterparts in the South constitutes an excellent example of potentially rewarding strategies to address some of the above concerns. The Post-Lomé project; the initiative of the Laison South newsletter; seminars in Europe and in the ACP regions on the issues and the proposals of the Green Paper are welcome contributions.
It is significant that the European Union itself, through its Unit on Decentralised Cooperation, has provided support to these initiatives. Mandated by the European Commission to promote the active involvement of "decentralised actors" in the EU’s cooperation programmes, the Unit is necessarily concerned with issues of participation and process. Its seminars in Europe and among the ACP regions; its publications and its funding and programme support for local initiative to increase civil society awareness of the debates have reached important, though limited, audiences. Yet, without widening the scope of its actions and increasing its resource base the Unit will be unable to make the impact needed to involve new actors in meaningful ways.
The collaboration of the DC Unit with at least two other important European institutions has helped to overcome some of these limitations. The Liaison Committee of European NGO Networks [CLONG-EU] is a vital link between European and Southern NGOs on the question of EU cooperation and the Post Lomé question. The Liaison Committee is a European body and consequently its primary clientele is the European NGOs, but through its Secretariat, and through its members and their partnerships in the ACP states, the network has been able to reach out to targeted audiences to share information and canvass opinions on the future of cooperation after Lomé IV.
The European Centre for Policy Development Management [ECDPM], is, as its name suggests, more focused on macro-policy questions. Furthermore, its principal clientele is rather governmental actors, both in Europe and in the ACP and not necessarily a wide public. Yet, it has served a very pertinent function by making available critical information and analysis on the issues, with ample space to Southern voices.
It should be noted that there are no similar or counterpart institutions in the ACP grouping. The ACP Secretariat in Brussels, carrying out the traditional functions of a service unit on behalf of participating governments, is not structured to serve as a liaison between the civil society and the various organs and services of the European Union and its Commission. It is left, therefore, to the home governments to take direct initiatives to ensure participation by non-State actors in the various relations between EU and the ACP Members.
The current phase of debate leading to the negotiations offers an important opportunity for reflection and strategy in an area which undoubtedly can provide significant contribution to sustained development among the ACP countries The effective involvement of people in their own development should improve the prospects for cooperation and hold out the promise of good returns on investments by governments and donor partners. The prospect of management efficiency and positive results, as much as commitment to democracy, should provoke greater attention by negotiators on both sides to encouraging greater participation in a new convention.
The aim of this paper is to examine some of the major issues of interest to the ACP and the EU countries regarding participation and development; to analyze their relevance in the context of the debate on cooperation and to assess and explore some negotiation options and strategies for consideration by the ACP group during the forthcoming negotiations.
There is consensus that decades of development effort and international cooperation have not produced the results which were optimistically projected at the start of the development era. All has not been negative, as several countries may have benefited from aid; various sectors within most countries have taken economic and political advantage of space opened by the post-colonial processes, and the quality of life has improved for some. Yet, slow economic growth and stagnation are still in evidence, as are increasing polarization of rich and poor and unacceptable levels of extreme poverty throughout the South.
Popular participation was not a common feature in the political and social processes of the independent countries, but by the late years of the 1980s this had become a major concern. It was often assumed that mere political independence and the existence of basic State institutions: central government, national elections and some measure of constitutional and fundamental rights would suffice to guarantee participation in public affairs. In practice, however, as the leaders and the political parties which paved the way to decolonisation and independence assumed power in new states, they tended to consolidate state authority and national government, and often neglected to share power internally. Local government was not always established and tended to be abandoned where it once existed.
The State sector was expected to assume leadership for promoting development. Without a well-developed private sector of entrepreneurs and investors, governments created and operated State enterprises in strategic areas of national interest, and in production areas usually considered as the domain of the private sector. In time, strong centralised government and effective State power not only limited the scope for popular participation, but in many instances led to strong opposition and to the rejection of initiatives for decentralisation and, at times, to open internal conflicts.
Participation has since become an issue of interest as a fundamental goal of democratic society. It is at once a means and an end and may be defined as: the capacity and the ability of the community to contribute to, share in and benefit from, diverse social, economic, political or other processes of the society. Participation is therefore a continuum, a permanent state which can only be achieved through providing the means for effective involvement of people in all facets of the society and actively promoting this as a matter of policy and practice. This raises questions about the nature of social, political and economic systems of the State and the policies, institutions and mechanisms of participation.
A case for participation can easily be made from several grounds: economic, [resource management; expansion of popular economies, etc.]; political [involvement of more sectors; scope for more equitable power allocation]; social [knowledge and value systems, inter-personal and group relations] and cultural [creativity, tradition, innovation and evolution]. Participation is therefore essential to the globalisation and modernisation processes at work today, but the end product should not result in the homogenisation of society, national or global. If cultural change is to be considered an integral part of modern development, the extent, direction and pace of change must however be allowed to emerge through genuine dialogue and consultation of those concerned.
Participation in development is therefore a process which involves in the first place the national community, but in which international cooperation, and especially with the European Union, can play an important role.
The political and social experience in the post-WW II era in countries now comprising the EU has been marked by economic growth and regional integration and by an increased public participation and widening democracy. This may be seen, for example, in the considerable non-governmental sector active in virtually every social domain and more recently in the expanded place of civil society as part of the fabric and the functioning of the State. At the same time, there is a trend towards reducing the role of the public sector and the rise of individual initiatives.
Awareness and personal and popular expressions have been fueled by the development of the mass media, and individual access to communications, leading to much greater public commentary about and participation in events. To an extent unknown in the past, popular views can easily be canvassed on almost every issue, offering opportunities to influence public opinion and inform policy. Community organisations; diverse segments of the society and even small interest groups now have the capacity to reach out, with very low operating costs, to targeted sectors and the general public through media such as fax, desktop publishing, electronic mailing and increasingly the Internet.
In this context, the role of the State is being redefined. At the start of the decolonisation era, it was expected, through its public sector organs, to play the principal role in promoting social and economic development. Primary responsibility for this has shifted to other actors: the private sector in the economic sphere, and the broader civil society in respect of national institutions and constructing democratic society. More groups are claming the right to be heard in making public policy. Economic functions in the global marketplace are increasingly yielding to new economic forces that transcend States. The importance of the private sector as the principal motor of economic growth and development has been actively promoted by the developed nations and by international financial institutions.
The concept of the civil society has emerged to define the community stake in national issues vis à vis other key segments of contemporary society, notably the public institutions of the State and the private economic sector. Social, economic and political processes at work serve to focus immense attention on the place and power of this segment of democratic societies. Increasingly, in a global village, civil society has potential for exercising oversight, and exacting accountability over organs of State, through the establishment of community organisations of all types; and through awareness and interactive approaches to news and events brought about by the information revolution. There is evidence that open society in the future will be impacted less by the behaviour and influence of governments than by the interactions of a range of actors in a consumer society and by the consciousness of individuals and groups around issues perceived as critical to community values.
The principal targets in promoting participation for democracy and development within the framework of EU-ACP cooperation could focus on at least three sections of the civil society:
Interest groups have long been a feature of open society, but the growth of democratic practice has facilitated relatively free expression by a wide range of groups and sectors. In the past, they felt themselves deprived of a voice and scope for participating in the debates and developments of the society. Elite classes dominated social debate in the past, but today the interests of indigenous peoples; women; youth; the aged; gays and lesbians or the extreme poor have emerged to define their stake in the society.
The major development policies and strategies being proposed in a consumer-led era tend to revolve around the primacy of the "formal" private sector. Yet this approach faces numerous challenges: In most developing countries, the formal private sector is small and inward-looking and has not tended to contribute to building democracy. Public policy and institutions often favoured the small corporate sector, aligned with the political leadership. The informal sector, comprising community ventures, small scale enterprises and rural businesses have not by and large been able to attain similar support. The informal sector has proven its ability to contribute to the community and the national economy and merits greater pubic attention. Strengthening and expanding the sector will be a high priority policy area for future cooperation programming with the European Union.
The role of the non-governmental sector is especially pertinent to a reflection on participation for development in the 90s. NGOs, essentially collective groupings designed to provide services to the community, are intimately concerned with concepts of empowerment, self-development and participation and with the functioning and relations of society. NGOs, for a host of reasons, can be a significant resource and can make important contributions to development in ACP countries. The number in operation today has grown considerably, as has the scope of their operations; many have accumulated valuable experience and expertise in key programmes areas; and through international partner networks are able to attract substantial financial and technical resources to address development needs. It must be assumed that they will play a major role in any new convention in fostering participatory practices and systems among the community.
The cooperation agreement to be negotiated between the ACP group and the EU will seek to define the broad framework of relations between these regions, but in essence it may be reduced to the specific contributions the European Union can be induced to make to development in the ACP countries. The Green Paper has suggested this as a distinct area for action, and much of the critical analysis of the development experiences of earlier Lomé conventions has hinted at the lack of genuine participation of people as a factor in the limited results of past efforts. Even so, the Paper does not allocate the level of focus which would appear necessary to ensure greater success in renewed cooperation efforts.
It is possible that participation issues will not take a prominent place among the range of themes, programmes and priorities that will be placed on the table by ACP government negotiators. The negotiations in the final analysis will essentially be around general terms of trade and cooperation, State to State relations and finance transfers to public sector programmes. A case can nonetheless be made for this as a substantive issue in the package of ideas and programmes to be proposed by the ACP, since participation can be expected to be an important underlying concern impacting on the tenor, scope and subsequent follow-up of the agreements. It may be suggested that specific reference should be considered in the body of the new convention, and European support encouraged to assist ACP countries implement participation strategies and programmes with non-State actors.
Participation in development does not necessarily happen naturally. It has to be consciously planned, nurtured and supported by well-designed policy and other measures. Some areas for strategic and policy concern implicating all the actors [State, civil society and donors] which may be envisaged in the framework of EU-ACP cooperation are considered here. These include:
Decentralised cooperation [DC] has emerged as a strategy to "strengthen and diversify the basis of long-term development in the ACP States" by facilitating the contribution of the broad community of non-State actors. Strengthened in the revised Convention signed in Mauritius in 1995, it reflects the increasing trend to involve non-State actors. The allocation to DC in the cooperation budget does not, however, appear adequate or consistent with a strategy of increasing participation in development cooperation programs.
ACP Governments have not universally accepted or integrated decentralised cooperation as a policy instrument or development strategy. Despite the improved climate in most countries between NGOs and other civil society sectors and governments, many Governments are still reluctant to admit non-State actors as part of the cooperation dialogue. Underlying this is the exclusive nature of inter-governmental relations or a concern that opening the way to non-public sector entities to direct international assistance may reduce financial resources available to public-sector programmes. In some cases, it is evident that mistrust for political, ideological or security reasons continues to shape governments position towards NGOs, making them reluctant to grant legitimacy to this sector.
To date, the experience the EU Decentralised Cooperation programme has shown itself to be a useful instrument for facilitating greater participation by civil society actors in development. This instrument appears quite inadequate at present to make the necessary impact on the development of the ACP regions and should be considerably expanded and improved, in its resource base, its scope of operations and its operating mechanisms. This will require a higher level of financial commitment by the European Union, but also greater and more evident commitment to DC on the part of the ACP governments.
There are excellent prospects, where the political will exists, for increasing participation through an expanded DC programme. It should however be recognized that there are obstacles which need to be addressed at the outset. Many communities, even if they may have viable ideas about their own development, do not have the organisational capability to identify and design programmes or may lack the management capacity for implementation, management and monitoring. Often, the human resources are too limited or strained to provide the necessary oversight, reporting and accountability for programmes.
Building capacity and promoting direct participation of decentralised ACP actors in their own development will call for creative approaches by these actors themselves, with support from their governments and the EU. A major concern expressed by the European Commission concerns ACP accountability for financial commitments. Yet this should not be projected as a justification for not seeking innovative approaches to secure community participation. It is possible to imagine that in a well-designed system, with adequate procedures, trained personnel and judicious monitoring and oversight, a high level of operational efficiency and financial transparency can be attained.
This would have the effect of making greater financial and technical resources more readily available to assist decentralised actors in promoting participation and advancing projects in their own benefit. A number of strategies may be envisaged to achieve these ends:
An approach which may be of interest to ACP community organisations could be to expand the role of national or regional bodies to serve as an intermediary between them and the DC unit of the EU. Such bodies, with the recognition and assistance of the EU, could strengthen their operational and management capacity and they could function as a financial go-between, assuming fiscal responsibility for fund management and for accountability. Indeed, such organisations could conceivably act as fiscal agents of the EU itself vis à vis DC projects and programmes. This would help both to decentralise and to increase efficiency of the operations of the DC unit.
ACP governments may strengthen their negotiating capacity, and their mandate, through greater awareness by their public about the issues and positions being presented to the European Union, and involvement in the process. Governments should therefore be encouraged to explore ways to maximize public participation in the debates and processes. These may include:
ACP governments, as an indication of genuine national commitment, may use the opportunity of the negotiations to introduce policy measures which promote effective community participation as a permanent feature of national development. Policy innovation may include such measures as:
ACP countries are not operating in a vacuum where participation is concerned. There are numerous experiences, many promoted by community and non-governmental groups of participation ventures, which comprise a valid body of learning, much of which needs to be documented and analyzed. The EU can help support learning in this area, to build upon the experiences of participation and to make the information accessible across regions. Examples of community-led experiments in participation to determine the type of economic and social development from the Caribbean include:
The role of the private sector should be considered a priority issues in developing participation programmes, considering the important place given to this sector in international cooperation and its potential for economic growth. In many ACP countries, the formal private sector is limited and not always efficient. The informal sector is often far more vibrant, but has not been the target of public sector support. Strategies to involve the private sector more fully need to recognize the dual nature of the sector and to reach out to the modern and the traditional sectors. Such strategies would also assist them to expand their activities to satisfy both domestic and export market development.
Support measures to private sector participation may include:
The primary objective of this paper is to help define a strategy for the ACP in negotiating a future convention with the EU with reference to the area of participation for development. As the preceding sections have suggested, participation, like charity, begins at home, and much of this strategy starts with actions by the ACP governments themselves which must be committed to the principle and show its commitment in tangible form through policy and programme measures. Then, the ACP group on the eve of negotiations will be well-positioned where the issue of participation is concerned.
Indicators from Europe suggest that greater community participation is an issue to which European leaders, including many conservatives, are themselves committed to in signing the next convention. It is a reflection of European reality and of public pressures on their governments within Europe itself, as is reflected in the Green Paper. While this issue may not be a condition of development cooperation, it is possible to conclude that EU negotiators would, on the one hand, apply this as one of their own yardsticks for measuring their position on programme support. They may also be well-disposed to giving priority support for proposals that include the principle among the ACP countries.
Commitment to participation as a feature of negotiations in fact implies little cost to ACP governments. Trends indicate that the place of individuals and communities will occupy greater prominence in the social and economic climate of the 21st century. This is seen for example in the attention given in the foreign relations of developed countries and the policies of international finance agencies to individual human rights or to the place of private initiatives in economic enterprise. It will be increasingly difficult for ACP governments to resist addressing the question of participation. In this sense, the negotiations with the EU may be seen more as an opportunity for the ACP than an imposition by Europe.
ACP negotiators will need to steer a fine line between, on the one hand, a situation where participation of the population in their countries’ development could be projected as a condition of EU programme support, and, on the other, giving value to their own commitment to this policy as a feature of their negotiating strength. Conditionalities have become common in international cooperation, where commitment to human rights; the fostering of basic democratic conditions and acceptance of structural economic adjustment, even where it is accompanied by major social dislocations, have been imposed on many countries in the Global South by developed countries and international institutions. It is not impossible therefore that participation, associated with democracy building, could be a consideration for the EU in the negotiations.
European support for participation in ACP development can be provided in multiple ways. These may constitute part of the ACP brief during the negotiations. The ACP countries can indeed challenge the Union to define the extent of its commitment to this issue by proactively proposing a number of areas which could benefit from EU funding assistance. As indicated above, this strategy will be reinforced by clear policies, programme initiatives and local funding to initiate activities.
Some of the areas where a role for the EU may be negotiated may include:
Despite the case that has been made for participation programmes, it is not expected that ACP governments will give very high priority to including these as part of their negotiating briefs for EU financing of the public sector. Even so, by committing themselves to participation policies as an approach to sustainable development, ACP countries should be able to establish good leverage against their EU counterparts and make gains in their negotiations. This could help pave the way for greater EU allocations to financing decentralised actors, as a complement to public sector funding commitments.
In summary, an ACP negotiating strategy on the theme of participation could adopt an approach based on the following:
Fall back positions in the strategic options above may include the following:
A number of other measures may be considered with the aim of increasing the scope for participation and more generally for improving cooperation between the ACP and the EU.
The ACP Secretariat has a role to play in supporting participation and the contribution of decentralised actors. Conceived as a service unit of governments, the secretariat as it now functions, is virtually divorced from non-governmental actors. This is inconsistent with the current debate that seeks to give greater space to this category. Some action which might be considered include:
ACP countries, through the Secretariat, should explore with the European Commission ways to maximize the efforts of the DC unit and its support to ACP decentralised projects. Some possible areas may be to provide easily accessed and relatively flexible funding to promote participatory approaches in technical projects; to share in the evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects and to contribute to procedural reforms within the Commission and the DC unit, to enable it to expedite processing and decision-making of project requests by decentralised actors.
Actions which can be undertaken by the European Union to improve participation under the current Lomé Convention as in new agreements, include:
It is expected that the community itself will need to make its own adjustments to access and benefit from expanded resources in a new EU/ACP agreement. The majority of NGOs and small community groups do not now have the capacity to manage projects efficiently and to ensure adequate accountability at a level exacted by donors. Often, it is the result of unskilled personnel, weak systems and insufficient oversight by leaders. Training activities can help provide responses, but more profound attitudinal changes are often called for among members and leaders. While governments and the EU can help, through an improved institutional and policy framework, through technical and financial assistance, the onus lies with the local and community actors.
Some priority areas which may be identified include greater individual and group discipline; and an openness to modern technologies, in particular to developing computer skills to facilitate management and communication.
Civil society organisations, after all, have probably the strongest vested interest in demonstrating improved capability in programme management since it is they who stand to benefit most from a new convention that gives greater space to participation.