| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
The dilemma of having to decide fast
Security understood correctly
Why speed matters
Dilemmas of fighting drugs
Complementing military efforts
02/2005
|
|
Complementing military efforts
The European Agency for Reconstruction is an innovative approach to deal with post-conflict countries. Based in Saloniki, Greece, the Agency is contributing to stabilising the Balkans region. Its focus today is on issues of governance, preparing clients for future EU membership. In our article, the Agency’s director elaborates on how the institution works and what enables it to do its job effectively.
[ By Richard Zink ]
In recent months, the Balkan region has seldom been in the news. The dramatic developments elsewhere in the world have reduced public interest in the area. But in the Balkans, life has gone on. And so has the laborious effort to put this much tried part of Europe back on its feet, strengthen the democratisation process and eventually steer the region towards membership in the European Union.
It was in the Balkans that the European Union launched its pioneering post-conflict recovery initiative when it set up the European Agency for Reconstruction. From the very beginning, our institution’s existence was rooted in crisis and commitment. The decision to establish the Agency was part of the EU’s effort to help stabilise a region marked by ethnic strife and political turmoil. It was linked to the wider EU policy toward the Balkans known as the Stabilisation and Association Process.
Fast response
In mid-1999, European leaders determined to help war-ravaged Kosovo and, no doubt stung by criticism of EU’s slow response to earlier Balkan crises, decided to act quickly to stabilise Kosovo in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. The European Commission became active in the province on the heels of the NATO-led Kosovo intervention. At that time in June 1999, the EU’s Cologne summit asked the European Commission to establish an agency that would deal with post-war reconstruction in Kosovo. In 2000, the collapse of the Milosevic regime prompted the EU to extend our area of activity to Serbia and Montenegro.
At stake was Europe’s ability to respond to the crisis, deliver rapid support and eventually steer the region towards lasting democracy and stability after years of sanctions, two months of NATO-led intervention and a popular upheaval that swept Milosevic from power. The Agency’s job was to help Serbia through its first winter as a democracy. A year later the Agency was asked to deploy in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to help solidify a fragile ethnic peace after an outbreak of violence between the country’s Slav and ethnic Albanian communities.
These three situations that led to the establishment and expansion of the Agency were of course very different. What made them similar, however, was that they all saw the need for a rapid civilian intervention to stabilise a fragile environment, be it a post-conflict situation (as was the case in Kosovo and Macedonia) or a delicate tug-of-war between the government and the opposition that could easily deteriorate into violence and chaos (as was the case in Serbia).
The European leaders understood that new situations called for new responses and decided to give the Agency sufficient flexibility to be able to act quickly and efficiently. We are supervised by a governing board of member states’ representatives and chaired by the European Commission. The Agency takes its decisions in the field and it is involved in all stages of project management cycle, from identification of needs to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. It recruits its own staff and adapts job profiles to changing needs.
Our institution thus enjoys a high level of autonomy. That this is the case serves several functions with the greater scope for speedy decision making probably not even being the most important one. The institutional setting also allows us to act as a mediating institution and an arbiter in cases of controversy. That would not be the case to the same extent if, in our stead, emissaries of member governments were assigned to do the job. They would be unable to intervene without touching upon sensitive questions of sovereignty and undermining the sense of local ownership.
The EU has thus become one of the first major international players to set up a dedicated post-conflict reconstruction body designed to deal with multiple aspects of post-conflict reality, at present limited to the Balkans.
Improving people’s lives
Reconstruction, including of course physical reconstruction and its pace, are closely linked to any success or failure of a post-conflict stabilisation effort. An errant electricity supply, destroyed roads and bridges as well as shortages of clean water are always destabilising factors in such a fragile environment because they undermine the general well-being of the population and its potential for economic development. One cannot expect reconciliation and political goodwill when people lack electric power, shelter and prospects for economic or personal development.
Needless to say, efforts to improve people’s lives in a tangible way bring the additional benefit of stabilising the overall political situation. One good example has been the Agency’s role in Kosovo – our initial area of operation – where our work has had an impact on virtually every aspect of life from housing, roads, electricity and water supply to medical facilities, schools, public administration and legislation. Despite all the problems that Kosovo faces today and the uncertainty that still surround its final status, the Agency’s work has complemented the military and political effort and contributed to overall stability on the ground.
In Serbia, the stabilisation drive initially focused on restoring electricity and heat supply before the first winter without Milosevic. This included imports of power and fuel as well as spare parts for coalmines. Emergency support was given to schools and municipalities, the health sector received medical drugs while farmers were given agricultural supplies.
What made it particularly challenging at the time was the need to act quickly since any delay imperilled the entire effort to stabilise the situation. The Agency worked together with the local partners as well as the UN and the United States in what was a veritable race against time. Programme and tender management had to be speedy and at the same time stay within the EU’s demanding procurement rules that were not really tailored to fast-changing emergency situations. Simultaneous support for civil society and independent media was also an important element of the overall strategy.
Of course, the focus of our work has since shifted to other projects with the emphasis being not so much on physical reconstruction but on improving governance, public administration and legislation. This includes not only helping countries draft key legislation and create proper foundations for the rule of law but also assisting then in actually implementing the laws. Such matters of governance issues are, by their very nature, sensitive and it is precisely here that the supranational mandate of the Agency proves particularly useful because it enables us to legitimately demand compliance with international standards.
In the wake of the 2003 Saloniki summit, which cemented EU’s relations with the Balkan nations and opened the door for their eventual EU membership, the Agency stepped up the shift of emphasis from reconstruction to pre-accession activities. It is now focused on supporting the Balkan countries in their efforts to join the EU. This task is different in nature and perhaps less visible then the physical reconstruction of a country after war. But it is of vital importance in ensuring that the countries meet the key standards for accession such as functioning parliamentary democracy, rule of law and market economy.
When I look back at the nearly five years of the Agency’s involvement in the Balkans, I am convinced that the Euro 2 billion that we have spent so far has been well spent. It went into rehabilitation of entire energy systems, reconstruction of houses, roads and bridges, revamping of health services and reform and support of the key elements of public administration, including justice, police, border control as well as financial management, fiscal and economic reform.
The effectiveness of the international assistance work in the Balkans has always been linked to coordination among the main players. We have worked with international financial institutions like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank or Germany’s KfW. Their financial support has been vital for infrastructure projects. We have also worked with the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe on institution-building projects.
We have done important groundwork but there is much more to do not just in terms of improving governance. The region’s economies are in poor shape, plagued by unemployment, lack of investment, weak infrastructure, under-developed agricultural sectors and a sluggish pace of privatisation. It will take many more years of investment and effort to bring the region close to what most Europeans see as acceptable standards. We will continue to help, but our involvement alone will not suffice without the participation and support of the societies we serve. It is ultimately up to them to ensure the long-term development of their countries.
European future
The fact that the Balkans is part of Europe with a realistic perspective of joining the Union has certainly been a catalyst for reform and has reinforced efforts to help the region. Other parts of the world are in a less favourable situation. We have also benefited from the reasonably stable security situation in the areas where we have worked. The presence of NATO-led forces and the European police presence on the ground have given the region a level of security that other parts of the world lack.
Up to here, I have dealt with the Agency’s past and its present – but what about its future? Last month, the European Council extended the Agency’s mandate through 2006. What comes after that is uncertain. Whether the Agency continues to exist – and, if so, in which form – will depend on how the Union wants to organise its pre-enlargement assistance in the Balkans and its post-conflict and emergency response tools elsewhere.
Under the new Commission, the European Agency for Reconstruction reports to the Directorate General for Enlargement, which is responsible for the Balkans today. But at the same time, it is worth remembering that the unique expertise, which the European Union has acquired in the Balkans’ post-conflict environments, could be used in similar situations elsewhere in the world, regardless of the European enlargement agenda.
Richard Zink
is director of the European Agency for Reconstruction.
http://www.ear.eu.int
|
