IN THE midst of the financial squeeze, is the EU getting its money’s worth for the host of Cyprus reconciliation and development programmes it is funding?
The findings of a project titled ‘Reconciliation and Peace Economics in Cyprus’, funded by EuropeAid, would suggest not.
The project’s aim was to promote “a conducive environment for the further development of trust, dialogue, cooperation and closer relationship between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities...”
But “From the start of the project, it was apparent that there was little hope for a settlement and the project concluded as the UN-sponsored talks again failed,” concluded British-based academics, Dr Kate Flynn and Dr Tony King.
They had been contracted by the EU’s EuropeAid organisation to run a two-year project exploring “reconciliation and peace economics” on Cyprus.
After extensive study, the researchers found that given fundamental disagreements between the two communities on the root cause of the Cyprus problem, it is “highly problematic from the outset to effectively apply reconciliation initiatives”.
Their findings were out-and-out depressing. Some highlights: “The two communities do not agree on what the Cyprus problem is and there is little agreement about arrangements for a post-solution state. There is marked reluctance to recognise the other side, as well as interact even with the checkpoints open. Most Cypriots do not cross the Green Line or have only done so once or twice, so bi-communal contact is limited to a small percentage of the population. There is notable societal mistrust both within as well as between communities. There is suspicion about political leadership and the direction of the talks.”
No doubt the report stands out for it no-nonsense take on efforts to bring the two communities closer in a bid to help reunification efforts.
And whereas the analysts are not stating that reconciliation is dead in the water, they do question the effectiveness of the projects and call for a rethink on their running.
Their report states that “the number of projects and events funded by the EU and others suggests that project fatigue detracts from significant interest in individual events.”
It goes on to say: “With no apparent programme coordination among the Cypriot Civil Society in Action projects, the EU is not making best use of its EuropeAid investment.”
The two researchers, whose own project cost €210,000, delivered their report to EU Aid in February, almost eight months ago, but decided to go public after getting zero feedback, with an item appearing in the Daily Telegraph on October 13 (“European aid: sleepy island in an aid cash row”).
The wording of their report might be read as suggesting that Cyprus reunification and reconciliation projects are self-perpetuating cash guzzlers with no clear sense of direction.
“My concern is that donors are providing what is supposed to be aid money, but the money is given for things not related to aid and development,” said project manager Flynn.
Flynn speaks of an uncoordinated “donor economy”, where funding applicants and recipients end up competing with one another rather than working together.
She’s quick to point out that she’s not singling out any individual organisation - she says there is a lot of good work going on - but is rather worried about the “way generally that money is poured into this. After all, it’s an investment, isn’t it?”
In 2006, the EU approved aid regulation 389/2006 to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to help prepare for reunification. A total of €259 million was allocated for a five-year programme to be implemented by the Commission (DG Enlargement).
From 2011 on, EU assistance has continued in the form of annual allocations of €28 million, to build on the results achieved and support the ongoing UN process.
Figures seen by the Sunday Mail show that the EU budgeted €5.4 million for the “Cypriot Civil Society in Action” grant programme for the period October 2007 through October 2010.
“You’ve got all these projects but no coordination. There’s no clearing house, so to speak, where you could share the information and draw a conclusion as to where the peace process is headed. It’s not clear what EU aid aims to achieve with these funds,” Flynn told the Mail.
In October 2011, Flynn hosted a collaborative event for two EuropeAid projects in Nicosia.
But to her knowledge, no one from EuropeAid bothered to attend, although EuropeAid personnel were directly invited.
“No one [from EuropeAid] actually came up to talk to me, which was weird if one of their number did attend,” she said.
In late January of this year, Flynn emailed EuropeAid’s Nicosia office to request a meeting.
“I just wanted to discuss our project, do a follow-up. An appointment was made but then cancelled. I was told ‘we don’t have time’.”
She returned to Cyprus in September, again asking for a meeting. Emails sent went unanswered.
Flynn is reluctant to speculate that this lack of interest might stem from her project’s findings.
“I honestly don’t have a clue what’s going on. There’s been no feedback whatsoever on our project, so I don’t know whether the folks in Nicosia or in Brussels even read our report,” she offers.
Yet Flynn is hesitant to brand aid activities related to the Cyprus problem as a “gravy train”:
“But I do wonder whether EU aid money is a substitute for fruitful engagement in a constructive situation. Does it really help the peace process, or does it merely serve to incentivise a never-ending process?”
And for the most part it’s the same consultants and analysts who get the grants.
“The same folks are going back and forth. Like in any other industry, one becomes versed in the code and uses the right language and rhetoric to appeal to donors to give you the money,” Flynn says.
In addition to the EU, a host of other donors are supporting the Cyprus peace process. These include the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), supported by funds from USAID (United States Agency for International Development); and PRIO (Peace Research Institute Oslo), funded by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry and the British High Commission.
Fiona Mullen, who was worked with various bi-communal projects, says it “sometimes feels that you're banging your head on a brick wall. The effort is not echoed by political and business leaders on both sides.”
In this respect, she says, the findings by Flynn and King are nothing new. For example, research funded by the UNDP-ACT (UN Development Programme - Action for Cooperation and Trust in Cyprus) had come up with similar results. The programme in question consisted of two parts: how much money is being spent by members of each community on the other side, and how a post-settlement economy might look like.
That programme's full report has yet to be published.
Mullen suggests the report by Flynn and King was particularly poignant precisely because the researchers were unaware of earlier findings.
Flynn herself has told the Mail that she was a newcomer to the Cyprus peace process when she took up the project.
Part of the problem, which appears to be systemic, is the long lead-time between EU calls for grant applications and the actual implementation of projects. This can often lead to duplication. It can happen that by the time one project is completed, another programme - funded by a different organisation - may have already reached similar conclusions.
“So it's not so much a question whether these programmes are useful, but it certainly does highlight the need for coordination, which Flynn and King pointed out,” says Mullen.
And she thinks the Telegraph article may have misrepresented certain aspects of what is going on in Cyprus, for example the article's sardonic reference to a golf course inside the UN buffer zone.
Asked why, in spite of some findings pointing to little or no progress in reconciliation, such projects continue being funded, Mullen has this take:
“Money keeps being poured into Cyprus probably because it's a volatile region. People don't want to walk away from it in case something else happens.”
Most Cypriots have crossed the buffer zone no more than once or twice if at all