In the presence of the representative of DG NEAR stakeholders of 6 countries established the Košice Platform on 3rd April in Hotel Bankov, Košice. The platform is committed to facilitate cross-border cooperation along the eastern borders of the EU. The Platform now issues its position on the future of Eastern Partnership.
The Košice Platform Initiative is based on a conference on EaP (“European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership – Beyond 2020”) organized in Košice (Slovakia) in November 2016 by the AEBR, CESCI and CESCI-Carpathia with the support of the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Košice Region. The main conclusion of the conference was that the expertise and the comprehensive knowledge of the participants should be exploited for fine-tuning the EU policies related to the eastern borders and, for this purpose, a permanent platform of exchanges should be created.
In the year of the 10th anniversary of EaP, with the support of the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade CESCI and the Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association (RC SFPA) co-organised the first and funding meeting of the platform named after the location of the first conference.
Košice Platform is open for Central and Eastern European experts and practitioners of Eastern Partnership and is designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas and knowledge on EaP, to support EU level decision makers and national governments with experiences and knowledge gained from the ground and to raise awareness about the importance of cross-border (people-to-people) cooperation in the association process of the Eastern Partnership countries. Alexander Duleba (head of the RC SFPA) and Oleh Luksha (head of Development Agancy „Europolis”) have been elected as coordinators.
The initiative was first welcomed via Skype by Martín Guillermo Ramírez, secretary general of AEBR and Viktor Bojkov (DG NEAR) who invited the platform members to take part in the shaping of the new EaP policy of the EU – beyond 2020. The experts of the Platform formed their evaluation and recommendations on the future of EaP as it follows below.
Ten years of the Eastern Partnership: evaluation of main achievements and challenges
Tangible results
The first decade of the implementation of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) brought tangible results in achieving its original goal: economic integration and political association of the Eastern partner countries with the EU. The three of the six partner countries (Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) concluded and started to implement Association Agreements with the EU as well as met criteria for the introduction of the visa-free regime with the Schengen zone. The EU together with partner countries managed to create robust multilateral and bilateral institutional framework, which helps to support reforms in the partner countries, including their approximation with the EU acquis communaitaire and institutions. In addition to national governments of the partner countries, the EU Member States and the EU institutions, EaP is an inclusive program, which facilitates participation of various stakeholders, including civil societies, businesses, representatives of regional and local authorities, and youth. The EaP at the present does represent the most developed and comprehensive framework for the EU relations with third countries.
Contribution to the implementation of reforms
The EaP significantly contributed to the implementation of reforms in the partner countries and first of all post-Soviet transformation of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. All the three associated countries and thanks to the EaP implemented more reforms in the course of recent years than they did during the first two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, they still suffer from weak political institutions, high level of corruption, ineffective judiciary, and underdeveloped self-governing institutions. The EaP in the years to come should concentrate more on strengthening political institutions and the rule of law in the partner countries in order to strengthen their capacities to implement reforms and bring tangible benefits of EaP to their citizens.
Russian relations
However, the implementation of the EaP suffers from dramatic deterioration of the EU relations with Russia because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014, including its military presence and support it provides to separatist enclaves on the territories of the all three associated partner countries (Georgia – South Ossetia and Abkhazia; Moldova – Transnistria; and Ukraine – Crimea and part of Donbas). In addition, Russia is confronting the implementation of EaP by supporting anti-EU political forces and public mood in the EaP countries. This creates a new geopolitical momentum for the present and future EaP, which has not been expected neither by the EU nor the partner countries ten years ago when the EaP was launched.
The priorities of the new EU period
The EU at time of Brexit, still not yet completed reform of the Eurozone, migration crisis and growing Eurosceptic mood in the Member States on the eve of the new elections to the European Parliament and formation of the new European Commission, loses the EaP on the radar screen of its policy priorities. There is a lack of political will on side of some EU Member States to address the call coming from the partner countries to open prospects for their political membership. However, in order to keep the momentum and dynamics of the Eastern Partnership in the next decade, there is a need in deepening the association process of the three partner countries. The EaP should be able to restore its political momentum and attractiveness; otherwise, it will go to the lost.
Policy recommendations on post-2020 Eastern Partnership
Considering the above evaluation of both main achievements and challenges the EaP is confronted with ten years after its launch in 2009, participants of the first meeting of the Košice Platform raised the following policy recommendations on further upgrade of the Eastern Partnership after 2020.
Strategic framework
Priorities
The priority for the next decade of the EaP should remain the implementation of the EU Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Successful economic integration and deepening of political association of the above three associated countries is the litmus test for the vitality of EaP. Differentiated approach of the EU towards the partner countries along with principle “more for more” should remain the guiding rule for EaP in the years to come.
Strong relation to the EU
In order to deepen association process of the three associated countries the EU should not resign on thinking about their stronger political affiliation with the EU institutions. Still under the ambit of non-membership integration into the common space of four freedoms there is a room for further upgrade of their institutional involvement into policy shaping of the EU following the models and practices of the EU relations with the EEA countries (Norway, Island and Lichtenstein) and Switzerland. For example, unlike EEA countries and Switzerland the EaP associated countries do not have access to the Comitology Committees, which represent the first preparatory level of the legislating process within the EU. Involvement of experts from the associated countries with the status of observers to the Comitology Committees can strengthen the co-ownership of reforms implemented under Association Agreements as well as improve legislative capacities of partner countries to approximate their national legislation with the EU acquis.
Schengen Association Agreements
The EU should consider an engagement with the EaP countries on talks on the Schengen Association Agreements, another inspiration which can be drawn from the EU model of relations with the EEA countries and Switzerland. The three associated EaP countries –Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – met provisions for the introduction of the visa-free regime with the EU and thus made the first major step towards accession to the Schengen area. Deepening of political association of the partner countries should include their further association with the Schengen zone.
Ensuring visibility
Visibility remains a challenge for the EaP since its very launch ten years ago. The problem is not only that after ten years of EaP implementation the EU citizens know little about the EaP, the problem is that also citizens of the EaP countries know only a bit more about it. The EaP should be strengthened by a comprehensive Communication strategy, which should aim at, first, bringing EaP closer to citizens of the EU Member States; second, improving understanding of the EaP policy by citizens of the beneficiary countries, and, finally, eliminate Russia’s disinformation campaign, which aims at discriminating the EU in the eyes of citizens of EaP countries.
Institutional design
The audit of the existing institutional design
After ten years of implementation of the EaP is a right time to organize an audit of its existing institutional design with the aim to identify how and for what costs the multilateral institutions contribute to achieving main goal of the EaP, i.e. economic integration and political association of the EaP countries. On one hand, there is a robust multilateral framework developed under the EaP (summits, platforms, panels, working groups, flagship initiatives, additional institutional structures: Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, Civil Society Forum, Business Forum, Youth Forum, etc.) and, on the other one, it is clear that the EaP goal to achieve a meaningful regional cooperation among the EaP countries has not been met since as yet they prefer to be treated individually.
Meaningful regional cooperation
In order to step up towards achieving a meaningful regional cooperation among the EaP countries, Regional Cooperation Council established by the EU and the Western Balkan countries might serve as a good inspiration also for the EaP policy.
Strengthening of the bilateral frameworks
Against the robust institutional multilateral framework the bilateral one established with the three associated countries (summits, Association Council, Association Committee, working groups) seems to be rather modest, although it is clear that the reforms can and should be implemented first and foremost on national level of the partner countries. There is a need to rethink a balance between the multilateral and bilateral institutional frameworks established within the EaP in favour of the latter.
Support focus and tools
Visibility
The 2020 Deliverables include implementation of more than 100 projects and measures (within four priority areas: economic development, good governance, connectivity, mobility together with cross/cutting deliverables – support for civil society, gender equality and media) aimed at supporting reforms, bringing tangible results and benefits to the citizens of EaP countries. Nevertheless, the implementation of the 2020 Deliverables has not been changing a poor visibility of the EaP in the beneficiary countries.
Concentration of the EU’s support
Participants of the Košice Platform from the partner countries raised an argument that the EU does not support systemic reforms in their countries; rather its support (with reference on the 2020 Deliverables) is dispersed into number of smaller projects implemented in too many areas. They would prefer a concentration of the EU’s support on 2-3 areas, which do have a principal importance for the overall reform process in their countries, i.e. fighting against corruption, implementation of public administration reform and enhancing the rule of law. Building strong and transparent self-governmental institutions on regional and local level is a key to transformation of the whole political system in the partner countries. The above areas are not given sufficient priority in the projects included into the 2020 Deliverables.
Audit of the assistance tools
Another assessment presented by participants of the Košice Platform from partner countries says that the EU should rethink its assistance tools applied in their countries since they do not work the same way they did in the Visegrad and/or Baltic states due to a different mentality of bureaucrats and citizens of post-Soviet countries. They see a gap in the EU approach within the EaP when it comes to reform support as the EU prefers to engage with central authorities, however, it does not pay enough attention to engaging with regional and local stakeholders. Should the EU plan to implement concrete projects that are expected to bring tangible benefits to citizens of EaP countries (e.g. the 2020 Deliverables) it should first communicate them with regional and local stakeholders in the EaP countries. By doing this, the EU could in parallel improve the visibility of the EaP at local level and the effectiveness of funding as well as enhance local democracy and the realisation of public administration reforms.
Capacity building
For the above purposes, there is a clear need for capacity building of the public institutions in the partner countries; sharing best practices in the field of good governance, including digitalization of services provided by public administration bodies; and support for SMEs. The conditions and administration of funding should be simplified.
Amendment of legislation
In parallel, partner countries (in particular Ukraine) should amend legislation regulating functioning of their state treasury since the existing rules do not allow for smooth implementation of projects by public institutions (universities, regional and local administrations) from partner countries with their counter-partners from the EU Member States. The existing rules are rigid and bind hands of representatives of public institutions from partner countries to engage into cooperation with the public institutions from the EU.
Development of basic infrastructure
In order to bring the EU closer to the local citizens, the EU should support the development of currently missing basic infrastructure which (especially in shared border regions) would have positive impact also on the environmental conditions of the easternmost regions of the EU.
Flexible cross-border cooperation programmes
Cross-border cooperation programmes in the European Neighbourhood area (current European Neighbourhood Instrument) should be set up and managed in a more flexible way compared to previous and current programming periods. Considering different rules and procedures within neighbouring countries compared to the EU legislation, more specific (simplified) approach should be applied to these countries in order not to delay and endanger implementation of ENI CBC Programmes.
Regional and local cooperation
Cross-border cooperation between regional and local stakeholders on both sides of the external border of the EU with the EaP countries should be given higher priority within the EaP program, including more robust funding. Western border areas of the affected EaP countries could be considered and developed as kind of ‘EU PILOT regions’ providing the possibility for further development of bilateral relationships. Cross-border multi-level governance should be supported in order to ease cross-border mobility, cohesion and to improve the visibility of the EU support. In addition, there is a need in developing a tailor-made communication strategy that will explain opportunities and benefits brought by the implementation of Association Agreements by Ukraine and Moldova to regional and local actors of CBC in border regions of the above two countries as well as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.
Priorities of the NDICI programmes
In the field of cross-border cooperation the NDICI CBC programmes should support projects aimed at improving border management, easing people-to-people contacts and cross-border cooperation, cross-border crisis management, joint territorial planning on the region-to-region level as well as coordinated development of transport infrastructure connecting border regions.
Knowledge transfer
The best practices of cross-border cooperation developed at the Western border of Ukraine and Moldova with the EU Member States should be transferred and applied also on border of Ukraine with Belarus (and eventually in the future also on border with Russia) as well as on Moldova’s border with Ukraine. The EU should consider a support program that would facilitate the transfer of best CBC practices from the EU border with the partner countries to other (i.e. the easternmost ones and those in-between the EaP countries) border regions within the EaP.