EU Enlargement Process:
IPA Civil Society Facility &
Involvement of CSOs
Workshop
3rd February, Belgrade
EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society
• Commission Communication 2005 &
2006: support to civil society dialogue
• The Enlargement package 2007:
development of civil society and civil
society dialogue a key priority
EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society
• Since Enlargement Strategy 20072008, civil society development and
civil dialogue one of the key reform
(Political) priorities for accession of
Western Balkans countries
• No clear definition of what is civil
society development and civil (society)
dialogue
EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society
• Civil society dialogue = supporting
better communication of enlargement
and mutual understanding between MS
and candidate countries’ societies,
improved culture of civil society
consultations
• Civil society development (CSDev)=
strengthening the role of civil society in
the democratization and reconciliation
process
EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society
• The benchmarks and Progress Report on
CSDev and civil dialogue incl. assessments of:
respect for freedom of assembly
and legal framework regulating it; participation of
civil society to policy-making and decisionmaking
(national and local level) – both existing
legislation and institutional mechanisms and
practice;
allocation of state funding for civil society; and
access to public information.
EU Enlargement Policy & Civil Society
• From general regional to individual countries’
benchmarks and assessments: Serbia, Kosovo
& Macedonia (2007), Albania (2008), Montenegro
(2010);
• Not yet a strategic or coherent benchmarking
(Acquis) across countries;
• Assessments are neither longer, tougher
language is used, although in some countries no
significant progress is being made (political
document);
• Enlargement Strategy 2010/2011 focus on “new
legislation being consulted and properly
implemented”, focus on “tough” reform areas, e.g.
rule of law, anticorruption  CSDev and civil
dialogue as horizontal policy measure
IPA Civil Society Facility – Definition
Civil Society Facility = set of actions to
implement above commitment through
technical assistance, study trips
(TAIEX) and grants, tripling the
financial support in period 2008-2010
to that in 2005-2007
EU as the main supporter and driver of
civil society development in the
Western Balkans
IPA Civil Society Facility – allocations
IPA Civil Society Facility (allocations)
Pre-IPA CSF
Country (in mil EUR)
2007 IPA CSF 2008
Albania
0
0
Bosnia & Herzegovina
3
3.5
Croatia
0
3
Kosovo
0
1.7
Macedonia
0.4
1.2
Montenegro
1
0
Serbia
2
2.5
Turkey
3.2
0
Multi-Beneficiary
Programme
0
17
Total
9.6
28.9
Total
0
6.5
3
1.7
1.6
1
4.5
3.2
17
38.5
Objective
Overall objective:
To contribute to anchoring democratic values and
structures, human rights, social inclusion and the rule
of law, thereby supporting the EU integration process.
Programme purpose:
A more dynamic civil society actively participating in
public debate on democracy, human rights, social
inclusion and the rule of law and with capacity to
influence policy and decision-making processes.
Expected outcomes
1. Greater benefit of civil society from national
and financial frameworks and improved
dialogue with state institutions;
2. Greater commitment and capacity of CSO
networks to give citizens a voice and
influence public sector reform processes
through analysis, monitoring and advocacy
etc; and
3. Increased access of grass-root
organisations and civic initiatives to financial
resources, in-kind contributions or expertise
from established CSOs and CSO networks.
P2P
(2mil €)
Partnership
Actions
(6,7 mil €)
TACSO
Structure
EIDHR
EfC
Financing
• Enlargement Strategy 2008 ~ 2x
CARDS financing
• IPA 2007-2010: 73,7 million EUR
(EIDHR approx. 8 million EUR
annually, 2% of all IPA)
• IPA 2011-2013: 60 million EUR
2x rise not achieved
Changes?
2008-2010 “Complaints” by CSOs on
design, consultation process and
methods of implementation
End of 2010-2011
announced/presented new or revised
approach
IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion
1. The tripling of allocations for 2008
realized (28.9 mil Euros), but on
average and per country level
allocations comparable to
PHARE/CARDS support. It is also not
clear whether this is additional or
regular support;
IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion
2. The approach is accession, not demand
driven; introduction due to internal (slow
progress in key reform areas such as JHA,
consolidation of democratic institutions) and
external pressure (enlargement fatigue,
institutional crisis, global economic crisis);
3. Local CSOs are not involved in original
design. CSF is presented at the Commission
conference in April 2008;
4. Lack of clear definition of civil society
dialogue and civil society development. This
renders the effectiveness of implemented
activities and clear indicators of success;
IPA Civil Society Facility – 6 conclusion
5. 2/3 activities are to be implemented on behalf and
not by civil society. The predominant mode of
implementation are service, not grant, which enable
ownership and sustainability the two main lessonslearned from PHARE period
6. In design of 2009 and 2010 CSF, further issues and
modes of implementation are envisaged.
Diversification in first will further erode the focus and
the possible impact and in second, move away from
ownerships as local civil society actors will only be
indirect beneficiary of the assistance.
New/revised approach to IPA CSF
•Thematic focus
 small and grass-root organizations (big help
small);
 Support to networking and partnershipbuilding in key (Acquis) areas;
 Support to strategic networks/organizations for
activities in support of sustainability of the
sector
New/revised approach to IPA CSF
• One unified Commission decision for
regional
and national funds for the period 2011-2012 
depoliticization of funding
• Increased budget: 60 million EUR, of which
30 million EUR for regional activities . TACSO
phase 2 (August 2011-August 2013) and P2P
outside of this funding, as well as some of the
national projects (e.g. IPA Macedonia 2011).
New/revised approach to IPA CSF
Added-value of the approach:
• Improved coordination between regional
and national activities;
• Shorter timeframe between CfP , decision
and funding for CSOs;
• Flexibility in spending for EUD and DG
Enlargement;
• Re-granting allowed (max. 100,000 EUR
with max. grant of 10,000 EUR)
New/revised approach to IPA CSF
Conclusions:
• Positive answer on complaints by local
CSOs;
• Limited in timeframe and size: first call in
2012 and only Partnership Action;
• More flexible and smaller funding only for
national level;
• Around, 2/3 of financing distributed through
grants.
EU Enlargement Process & Involvement of
CSOs
• Little or ad-hoc consultation on regional
level;
• Mixed practices on national level:
 Monitoring progress & accession negotiation
e.g. Rep in WG/TF for negotiations, NCEI,
parliamentary committees, NPAA
consultations;
 IPA design, implementation & monitoring
e.g. sectoral committees, project fiche/
MIPD consultations
What local CSO can offer to
the EC
• Improved monitoring of Acquis areas &
IPA programming
why? ownership, sustainability, policy
coherence, cost-effectiveness, impact
how? structured dialogue through existing
mechanism (EC Min Standards of Consultation &
RCC structures)
What local CSO can offer to
the EC
• Communication & dissemination partner
why? realistic expectations by citizens,
accountability by the Gov for structure reforms
how? Inclusion in advisory bodies such as the
IPA CSF/TACO Programming Committee, IPA sector
monitoring committees etc.