ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
Weekly meetings of the National Commission for European Integration — an early assessment
|
|
At the 13 September meeting of the National Commission for European Integration (NCEI) Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev reiterated the irreversible nature of Moldova’s European integration objective and demanded the full implementation of the provisions of the European Union — Moldova Action Plan (AP) by 17 November 2007. The prime minister requested all public authorities involved in the implementation of the AP to prepare activity reports, as per their work plans, and to present them to the NCEI, which is to meet on a weekly basis. The reports are to identify the deficiencies and problems encountered and suggest ways to overcome them. Thus, although the EU-Moldova AP is to expire officially at the end of February 2008, the 17 November 2007 deadline set by the Moldova “internally” seems to be a final and non-negotiable one, and the top leaders of the public authorities that will fail observing it will be held to “personal account”.
Several weeks on since the said meeting, one may note that the NCEI has held its weekly meetings regularly, and a number of public authorities have presented activity reports within them. As promised, Prime Minister Tarlev also had a meeting with the EU Member States Ambassadors accredited to Moldova to discuss the honouring of obligations assumed by Moldova with the AP. Moreover, reports on implementation of relevant PA provisions by a series of public institutions have been posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI), a development civil society organisations monitoring the implementation of the AP have long requested and expected.
It is worth noting that the assessments presented by the Moldovan authorities within these meetings and reports have been predominantly positive. At the NCEI of 28 September Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev even said that most of the AP provisions have been fulfilled, and what we need to improve now is the quality of reporting and of cooperation with European experts[1].
After this marathon of weekly NCEI meetings, and in light of the latest developments in the EU-Moldova relations, one could draw some conclusions regarding the efficiency and timeliness of this unprecedented enthusiasm displayed by the Moldovan authorities:
The last weeks’ events make one believe that the Moldovan authorities have finally realised the importance of a rigorous and transparent monitoring of the EU-Moldova AP implementation. It is regrettable, however, that this happens only now, half a year before the official term of the AP is to expire. Without a clear, rigorous and coherent monitoring mechanism it is literally impossible to know the degree to which one makes progress on such a complex political document, check the adopted approaches, identify major problems and apply feasible mitigation measures. Unfortunately, such an internal monitoring mechanism has basically lacked from the beginning in the case of Moldova, as has been noted earlier by Association ADEPT. Last minute efforts could probably help make up for this important omission to some degree, but only if they are well structured, open to critical assessment and followed through.
The lack of a clear and rigorous internal monitoring may explain, at least partially, the differences in perception between the official Chisinau and Brussels regarding the fulfilment of the AP commitments by Moldova. If in Chisinau the assessments are generally optimistic ones, Brussels has expressed not once its reservations with regard to a series of AP priorities, notably in terms of democratic institutions, the freedom of the media, the independence of the judiciary, the fight against corruption, etc. One needs only compare and contrast the press releases issued by the Press Service of the Moldovan President and the Council of the European Union on the 19 June meeting of the EU-Moldova Cooperation Council to see this major difference of tone and perception. Having consulted the reports of various public institutions posted on the site of the MFAEI, one notes that these too are mostly positive assessments, referring only to accomplishments and rarely mentioning problems or deficiencies[2]. However, these rosy assessments are contradicted by a series of well know facts and indicators, which show clearly that apart from the progress registered, there is also a wide range of problematic areas. Our credibility in Brussels now hinges on our ability to acknowledge and properly address these shortcomings.
The main question that comes to mind, however, is how realistic is this 17 November deadline for the fulfilment of all provisions of the EU-Moldova PA. Presumably, in two months one can adopt a series of laws, undertake some institutional restructuring, sign and ratify some international conventions. Yet, it is a well known fact that the main issues raised by the EU with regard to Moldova’s performance within the ENP refer more to quality than quantity. What we are lagging behind with is the practical enforcement of adopted legislation and conventions and the degree to which these actually change the day to day life of ordinary citizens. For instance, although we have had a Strategy for Fighting and Preventing Corruption and an Action Plan in place for several years, it seems corruption is soaring rather than decreasing[3], which is symptomatic of a deficient functioning of instructions and incomplete application of legislation and government measures. Given that a lion’s share of EU-Moldova AP provisions refer to qualitative indicators that can only be achieved in time as a result of consistent and sustained efforts, we believe that the “internal” deadline of 17 November is little likely to be met. Thus, it seems we risk missing on a deadline that we’ve set for ourselves on our own.
To conclude, we salute the attempt by the Moldovan authorities to speed up the process of implementation of the EU-Moldova AP and to monitor closely, by sector, the progress achieved and problems registered. Unfortunately this effort comes much too late and is deployed in a form that reminds of the practice already established in Moldovan authorities’ approaches to Brussels, i.e. that of turning a blind eye on problematic areas and setting unrealistic objectives and deadlines. This may serve some political goals at home, but will not look as serious and well-thought intentions of actually meeting our commitments towards our European partners. The latter gave us a number of occasions for self-reflection and critical analysis of our own performance, the European Commission’s progress report of 4 December 2007 being probably the best such occasion[4]. It seems, though, that we’ve missed on these opportunities that would have given us more time for making some meaningful and feasible improvements. Now, a few months before the official end of the EU-Moldova AP and the publication of the EC final report on its implementation, we can only impress Brussels with more coherence and more realism in our actions, as well as in our discourse.
- ↑ Moldpress, 28 September 2007.
- ↑ See the website of the MFAEI. The 21 reports by public authorities a) do not have a clear or a single structure, b) cover varying periods, c) with small exceptions, do not mention current risks and problems, and d) rarely suggest ways to overcome them. Thus, the use of these reports as monitoring instruments is rather limited, they can only serve some general information purposes.
- ↑ According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 Moldova registered the 2.8 score, four points less than in 2006, when Moldova scored 3.2.
- ↑ Although the report adopted a generally positive tone, it also takes note of a series of problematic areas in Moldova’s performance within the AP, such as deficient application of reform strategies, limitations in the freedom of the media, widespread corruption and Government interference in business, etc.