ECDPM Preparatory Note for the Joint Workshop on the Africa-EU Platform for Dialogue on Governance, 13-14 September 2010
Context
1. The previous Note Nr 2 concluded that there seem to be two basic models to operationalise the Platform: an ‘open forum’ model and an ‘institutional model’. These different approaches are related to diverging choices made with regard to the actors involved and the institutional relations between the Platform and the other JAES structures (Ministerial level, iJEG).
2. The current Note deepens the analysis with regard to these two models based on the proposals put forward in the respective positions. To this end it:
• identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each model
• presents each model in a visual form so as to clarify the respective choices made in terms of division of roles and responsibilities as well as reporting lines
• proposes a set of key questions to be addressed in each of the respective scenario’s.
3. In thinking through and deciding upon the optimal format for the Platform, participants may consider applying a ‘consistency check’. It means subjecting their possible preferences (e.g. concerning the role of the various actors) to the test a set of ‘consistency criteria’ that are drawn from what official parties themselves seek to achieve with this Platform (see Note nr 1, as well as Note nr 2). These criteria include, amongst others:
• Are your choices consistent with the nature, role and added value of the Platform as defined and agreed upon by the two parties?
• In what ways will your choices allow the Platform to function as an innovative mechanism for a more efficient and effective dialogue on governance between the two Unions than the current mechanisms?
• How will your choices facilitate the work of the Platform to produce shared governance agendas and recommendations?
• Will your preferred format allow the Platform to stimulate interaction with the decision-making level on governance and human rights issues?
