An Opinion by Panagiota Manoli [1]
On 5 June 1998, a Charter was signed in Yalta by the heads of the then eleven founding states of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) transforming this regional initiative into a regional economic organisation. The BSEC is an organisation that brings together a controversial group of states whose bilateral relations are marked by competition and rivalry rather than cooperation (i.e. four major protracted conflicts are harboured in the region). The difficult socio-economic conditions within which the Organisation is embedded do not provide a solid ground for regional interaction.
Some progress
Any performance assessment is conducted vis-à-vis aims and objectives. The main objective of the BSEC organisation has been to serve regional stability through economic development. We cannot however, easily assess the contribution of the BSEC to the political stability of the region as there have been no political or security agreements or initiatives reached within its framework. At the same time there is no solid ground to measure the impact of the BSEC in terms of the integration of the region’s markets as the Organisation has not devised any trade-related policy nor has it taken any decisions on trade facilitation issues.
The impact of the organisation on the region may be assessed only in an indirect way. The BSEC has been instrumental in two broad aspects:
- Enhancing the international actorness of the Black Sea as a region (regional actor), fostering a regional identity, institutions and collective action;
- Providing a forum for interaction, diffusion of ideas and exchange of information. The organs of the BSEC have in some respect performed according to the logic of confidence-building measures.
The list of successes would include, however, less than a handful of actual achievements:
- The establishment of the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB), a region-wide financial institution.
- Generating project development mechanisms (i.e. the BSEC Project Development Fund), though their resources are very limited.
- Concluding two multilateral agreements, one on Fighting Organized Crime and one on Emergency Situations; three Memoranda of Understanding on Facilitation of Road Transport of Goods in the BSEC region (2002), Development of the Motorways of the Sea at the BSEC region (2007) and Coordinated Development of the Black Sea Ring Highway (2007). The latter two MoU are of particular importance since they have provided the foundation for the first two BSEC-initiated projects of wide regional impact.
A longer list of shortcomings
However, there has been much frustration and many unmet expectations with regard to Black Sea regionalism and the functioning of the BSEC:
- Slowness in concluding agreements, identifying and implementing regional projects. Only two intergovernmental agreements have been reached so far (both in 1998). Almost ten years later (2007) the BSEC concluded two important MoU on the Black Sea Ring Highway and the Motorways of the Sea.
- Absence of inter-sectoral coordination. The ‘’vertical’ communication of the member states (i.e. all communication is conducted through the ministries of foreign affairs and then forwarded to sectoral ministries) has completely prevented the active engagement of other ministries (e.g. economy, transport, etc.) in the work of the BSEC. It has also obstructed any inter-sectoral collaboration among sectoral ministries of the member states.
- The lack of ‘flagship’ projects symbolising progress toward regional cooperation. There is not a single success story or a ‘flagship’ project with which the BSEC is identified (with the possible exception of the BSTDB, which actually confirms the rule).
- Research and information limitation, especially in support of decision-making.
- Insufficient resource mobilisation. Neither the BSEC nor any of its institutions (including the BSTDB) have successfully mobilised resources.
- Limited participation of the private sector and civil society. Despite the emergence of a number of civil society organisations in the Black Sea region, and the provision of the right to obtain sectoral dialogue partnership with the BSEC, civil society, particularly business interests, have not lobbied the Organisation.
- Lack of visibility, coordination and cooperation with other regional initiatives.
- Organisational inefficiency. The BSEC has developed an overly institutionalised bureaucratic structure (having approximately seventeen working groups and various groups of experts), consisting of a web of organs and a decision making process that delays actions and obstructs the performance of the Organisation. The Committee of Senior Officials has been the most problematic organ of all (especially in terms of its slow decision making process).
- Inefficient Permanent Secretariat. The organisation is based on a secretariat of no executive or expert capacity, being staffed purely by diplomats. The transformation of the organisation into a project oriented mechanism is not possible with the current human resources and technical capacities of the Permanent Secretariat.
The nature of the BSEC’s performance, whose flaws are due in part to its working methods, has led to a lack of interest in submitting regional projects from the relevant national and international actors dealing with economic issues. The absence of a policy or priorities of the member states towards the BSEC has produced a structure which is unable to generate regional projects of importance for the development and stability of the region (the projects that have been submitted to the Project Development Fund of the BSEC are of no regional impact ord visibility). It has also led to a complicated bureaucratic structure (and not one of technocrats-experts) that blocks any effort for change and has nothing to do with the original concept of a flexible, efficient structure.
Member states are aware of the increased demands for a more active and efficient BSEC, realising that it is now time for the BSEC to find its place in the European scene or it will be marginalised. Alert to the calls for renovation, the Organisation has recently embarked on a process of reform. However, it is once more heading in the wrong direction, focusing on minor issues such as the Coordination Meetings, the role of the observers, and the evaluation reports of the Working Groups.
Time to Renovate
The BSEC needs to renovate if it wants to become relevant to developments in the region and in Europe. There is no doubt that earning the political support of the member states will be the starting point for any progress.
For the renovation of the BSEC a few local anchors of cooperation need to be cast. If the local states do not become pro-actively involved in the BSEC then regionalism will find another way (as is already happening). Some proposals to be considered include to:
- Clarify its developmental mission;
- Focus, limit and prioritise the agenda on two-three issues;
- Change working methods;
- Dismantle or reform the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) as it operates today and improve the role of the Council;
- Form a professional, efficient Secretariat;
- Attract funding and transform the Project Development Fund into a project generator muscle.
=======================
[1] Panagiota Manoli is Lecturer at the Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the Aegean; Director of Studies and Research at the International Centre for Black Sea Studies. The views expressed here are personal and do not reflect any institution with which the author is affiliated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBSEC really needs to be improved to play a bigger role as a key subregion in Europe. Most important thing to consider is that it doesn't really affect the lives of it's member-states' citizens. It should offer more economic integration for its member-states and one of the important things in it could be the development of strategic land infrastructure that would link these states with each other.
ReplyDelete1st part
ReplyDeleteStudying the shortcomings, someone could note that these seem to be exogenous. They do not appear to be stemming from factors that are controlled by the BSEC. Take as an example the slowness in concluding agreements or the absence of inter-sectoral coordination. Why would a member exclude itself from it? For what reason would it choose not to accelerate agreements, or make new ones? Why not take the feedback from its previous experience in cooperation and use it for new projects and plans? Is there something that hinders cooperation? Is there a broken link? Or is it simply something that attracts attention and shadows any other initiatives?
Challenges in the Black Sea Area have changed since the foundation of BSEC. Those have been affected by European enlargement, coloured revolutions, tensions among members, frozen conflicts, ambition certain countries, and a recent war. Those are only some reasons and they have been affecting the targets and scope of member states. The war was mainly a result of the existing tensions and came as an outcome. There are not many actions that BSEC could have taken to prevent it, because it was not designed to do so. The reason could be identified by some as European Union and insecurity. How can a country plan if there is fear and instability? Wouldn’t it choose to stay close to a big union?
The EU shadows the efforts of many organisations, including the BSEC. It is not done on purpose; it is mainly an effect that European integration has at countries and accession members. It is a tension that increases by conflicting (or not well addressed) interests of local stakeholders. Economic cooperation is a link that strongly connects members and can tear down many walls without using guns. The fact in this case is that the members have turned their attention to the EU and the ongoing issues with Russian Federation. It appears that every member wants to get under the umbrella of EU, that supposedly would solve or alleviate their problems.
This is exactly where the BSEC needs to act. It is an already set up and functioning organisation. Maybe the structure of it needs reforming, but it is a ready platform. Convincing the EU to focus more on the BSEC would be probably beneficial for both. The EU would manage to unload itself from new planning and efforts to persuade any potential members that EU is not the solution to any problem. BSEC would benefit since it would use economy and reinforce the steam engine which is unique for each member state. In this way, members would finally benefit from local cooperation, rather than hanging out from the overloaded vehicle of EU.
In parallel, insecurity has to be resolved. It refers to political and economic instability, and in some cases to other aspects that can threaten every day's life. Such examples are cutting of the energy supply in critical circumstances, conflicts and war. It is rational that states facing such issues will turn themselves to a wide and soft-power institution, such as the EU. This fact hinders BSEC from functioning, since it is not a conflict prevention organisation. It also gives no ground for further development of the BSEC, since states with weak economies instead of fostering regional cooperation, start looking further away.
continued....
2nd part
ReplyDeleteFor that reason, BSEC needs to reinforce relations with the EU in order to achieve its goals. This means that it could become a tool of the EU and work as an extension arm. What happens now in many cases is duplication of institutions that creates confusion and derails BSEC since EU carries more weight. If EU could continue and develop what started as BS Synergy, it will probably be fruitful. At least in the economic field, EU should use the experience of the BSEC which is designed to function with the peculiarities of its member states. For that reason, the focus should be in the reinforcement of the EU-BSEC interaction.
In conclusion, BSEC shall grow stronger links with the EU and upgrade its role. In addition, measures have to be taken against the insecurity that lies between the BSEC members in order to unhinge them from the european obsession. In this part what BSEC can do is prove to be a dependable organisation that fulfils its projects and proceeds more quickly in actions. It is an organisation that is able to make a difference in this region. It is important to prove that it materialises its declarations. It works on increasing its credibility. In this way, members would proceed in fulfilling their commitments and projects. It has been proven that the EU is not very effective at this part. At least not for the particular region.
Ashaviria and Georgios Stratakis
ReplyDeleteYou are right on pointing out to two key issues: the developmental mission of the BSEC and its relation with the EU. For both the BSEC needs a strategy and actually both issues complement each other.
Panagiota Manoli
The BSEC as a Regional Organization: A view
ReplyDeleteAs the performance assessment of any structure whatsoever the nature is strictly related to the purpose of its raison d’être, it is essential to grasp upon objectives set up afore. The main goal of BSEC as stipulated in the Charter is to develop economic cooperation among member states. When it comes to the enumeration of the economic scope, it should be underscore that through-out the course of time, the portfolio has been widened up and includes areas related to soft security, or economy related fields such as environmental issues or health care. Unfortunately, creating a regional market in BSEC remained short of any achievement. The question of trade within the framework of the BSEC was not made a priority although a Declaration on the intention of creating a free zone was presented at a special meeting of ministers of external trade in 1997. Since then, the trade flows among member states have increased considerably, as well as investments.
Actually BSEC is relying on three basic pillars of cooperation: interstate cooperation in different sectors (energy, transport, banking, culture, education, good governance, etc) with the longest background although with no substantive achievements, rudimentary joint project portfolio in diverse economic fields and cooperation with international organizations – UN and EU, still at early stages. For a young organization which is BSEC, out-sheet although modest still may provide prospective. But some concerns are arising and could be worrisome to the future activities of the organization.
For some analysts of the member states BSEC is “exclusively economic organization and has no legal right to adopt and enforce strictly political issues” (Armenia) or “reluctant to expand the Agenda of the BSEC to hard security issues on the basis that the Organization does not have ap-propriate tools or the mandate to undertake steps on conflict prevention and resolution” (Hellenic Republic) ; others would like BSEC to be open to discussions pertaining to security issues: “The way forward requires a clear revised strategy, which would give a new impulse for strengthening stability and security in BSEC region within the framework of a united Europe” (Azerbaijan), and “The conceptual design of the BSEC future involvement in matters pertaining to security and sta-bility has to proceed from a realistic assessment of the current developments in the Black sea re-gion, its emerging regional identity, and the potential role of its institutions in an evolving interna-tional environment” (Georgia) . The said positions were reflected in similar way at the last meet-ing of the BSEC Working Group on Organizational Matters (Report, WGOM, Istanbul, 29-30 June 2009). ….
Continues
Guebre MARIAM
… continuation
ReplyDeleteThe BSEC as a Regional Organization: A view
Before commenting afore mentioned views, let me introduce a very precise acknowledgement of what the Organization looks to many pundits, especially to those familiar with the organization: “BSEC represents an effort to transplant the functional approach of building political stability through economic cooperation” 1. And I will fully agree with the opinion that “broadly speaking there are three types in forging regional arrangements: geopolitical interests, political economy considerations and domestic rooted interests. Geopolitical considerations and broader security concerns have conditioned the membership of the BSEC … a forum of state-to-state bargaining with the political elites setting the regional agenda. Thus the BSEC as a regional body has been the result of geo-strategic considerations to which an economic dimension was added” 2 . That opinion is also shared by some other member states analysts (Moldova, see ICBSS, Xenophan Paper 2, bp.92 and 107).
Following up the premises underscored in previous paragraphs, the main issue to be questioned should be strategic challenges that BSEC is facing. It is natural that as an economic organization BSEC should try to boost its economic performance, with finding appropriate means to take advantage of the challenges. If the objective is set up than a common understanding should be met by improving readiness compromises; the aim is to overcome the differences and bridge up misunderstandings while hampering a temptation of tackling political and hard security issues. It would be difficult for an Organization to set a political agenda while it has not settled the economic issues on which the compromise is easier to attain. BSEC, although a full-fledged organization encompassing various levels of governance, is not initially aimed and not matured enough to set up such an agenda: more monolithic and congregious and less divergent and diverse in development, cultural heritage, and political pragmatism, EU took more than three decades after inception to start concerted deliberations on security issues, let alone to set up a political agenda.
To conclude: ”Thus up until today, the real potential of economic cooperation in the Black sea region has not been unleashed due to the persisting contention between promising economic prospects from the region and the traditionally confrontational political agendas of individual states and the many lingering security problems”) 3. This means that further economic integration within BSEC should be a basic objective while at same time advancing cooperation capabilities in the region.
BSEC as a living structure should adapt itself to 21st century trends. Transition period for much of it member states is nearing to the end, efficiency and bold responses to challenges should take over the old approaches of waiting and watching. In order to enhance its capabilities, BSEC should devote itself to promoting its huge potential in human and natural resources (hydro-carbons, agriculture, tourism), get a better use of its vital geopolitical location, and thus become an outstanding partner to its neighborhood. But it is not the case for shortcomings are still prevailing. “The criticism is directed also to several aspects of the Organization’s functioning: decision-making, capacity, policy implementation, visibility and coordination with other institutions and among its related bodies 4”.
...continues
Guebre MARIAM
…continuation
ReplyDeleteThe BSEC as a Regional Organization: A view
I will say nothing new if I repeat what has been already clearly pointed out on several occasions by many and what is at the very end very clearly underlined in BSEC strategic nature document Economic Agenda for the future (2001): ”as for the difficulties with which they (member states) are confronted at the present time, i.e.:
• Shortage of financial resources and failure to attract significant investments;
• A lack of coherent definition of aims, priorities and long term issues;
• A discrepancy between the proclaimed objectives and the degree of implementation of projects;
• Low efficiency in implementing adopted resolutions and decisions although monitoring mechanism has been established but with no adequate feed-back actions;
• Much bureaucracy;
• Insufficient coordination in important parts of the Organization.
One can easily discern that the reasons behind the shortcomings of BSEC performance haven’t changed in the course of (eight) years, although the overall performance is better when it comes to mutual understanding, institutional novelties in decision-making and execution, and especially in its openness towards third parties.
As for the deficiencies, let us start with the shortage of financial resources and failure to attract investments: it goes in line with the credibility of those who are ready to invest (public or private sector). At the exception of limited size donations from the member states for Project Development Fund which is used for feasibility studies of BSEC projects and recently established Hellenic Development Fund with relatively promising financial potential of ca. 2 billions of Euro, there are no other investments to replenish the BSEC, even when it comes to networking of infrastructure which at the long run can bring benefits (ring highway around Black Sea, motorways, etc). Thus, the readiness and willingness of governments to invest in BSEC projects is lacking and that is a stumbling block to a better performance of BSEC. The International organizations and financial institutions are not yet considering investing in BSEC, although it may change in future… continues
A lack of coherent aims and priorities has also proven to be of detriment to the organization. The lack of interest followed by the deficiency in advancing its objectives, is not favoring the organization. On the contrary it reproduces redundant content. Thus we come to the inactivity or rather to still formal approaches to the Organization objectives with principle aim of safeguarding the proclaimed national interests; looking a step forward may reverse the trend and enhance cooperation. Too much of inflexibility would rather tame out the vision and usually will leave the door closed. Unless an appropriate approach of member states, more engagement and more coherency and long term vision replaces a short term particularities and selfish interests, the future for the organization could not be clearly envisaged. But this also can change if the willingness of member states would be persistent to boost the Organization. New circumstances on global stage, outside the organization could influence the functioning and future performances. Also, regional better understanding and awareness of what BSEC can bring to its member states can certainly add new dimensions and positive comportment.
... continues
Guebre MARIAM
...continuation
ReplyDeleteThe BSEC as a Regional Organization: A view
The question of low efficiency in implementing adopted resolutions and decisions of Ministerial Council or Sector Ministerial Conferences is of importance to the functioning and efficiency of BSEC. One may say that strictly speaking the monitoring mechanism ensuring the implementation of the resolutions and decisions is observed although with no proven efficacy. Feed-back information although available has proven to be de facto operational. A stronger mechanism would strike a better performance.
The lack of coordination could be best perceived when it comes to rather long span time between the meetings of BSEC subsidiary organs, changing of country coordinators and discontinuity it may produce, or even changing of chairmanship-in-office. The lack of continuity has proved to be a huge obstacle. Should it be for a better coordination at all levels and in different fields there would be more sustainability in BSEC. It is a task that is not easy to achieve. Much should be done: raising awareness of common better off, more indulgency and observing commitments, and much more of preparedness afore the meetings.
Now, let us envisage a crucial question to which the answer would certainly provide explanation about how best BSEC could perform to match up with future challenges, increase its efficiency and take a step forward to a better off cooperation.
First, a transformation of the Organization into a dynamic regional organization requires a refreshed sense of partnership, based on trust and a higher level of political economic collaboration.
Second, BSEC should be concentrated on areas of cooperation where the decision-making would be smooth and fast.
Third, BSEC requires a structural reform. Changes are necessary to address the issue of the Organization’s profile, identity, management and particularly it functioning. The BSEC needs to enhance its operational capabilities and to make a breakthrough on project conceptualization and implementation. It is lacking mechanisms of speedy coordination and communication although recently improvements have been introduced.
Finally, BSEC could do better and this task is feasible once the common sense prevailed and sharing of similar values and heritage takes over dissention and misunderstandings.
Guebre MARIAM
Notes
1. Panagiota MANOLI:”Introduction to “Unfolding the Black Sea the BSEC as a Regional Organization: views from the region. ICBSS, Xenophon Paper 2, July 2007, p.8.
2. Panagiota MANOLI: Ibiden, p. 9,
3. Mustafa AYDIN & Omer FAZIOGLU:”The Turkish Policy towards the wider Black sea Region and its Chairmanship of the BSEC (May-October 2007), ICBSS, Xenophon Paper, July 2007, p. 132.
4. Panagiota MANOLI” Reflecting on the BSEC: Achievements, Limitations, and the Way Forward. ICBSS, Policy Brief No.1, July 2006, pp. 3-5
As I said before how important this project and others who have been together there was agreement to move forward and realization of projects. Of course, with time resolberan some problems have more to do with the organization to another thing. The important thing is that the project is standing
ReplyDelete