To assess the quantitative and qualitative performance of integration organisations and integration processes as a whole, we collected statistical data on the key performance characteristics of the largest regional organisations, and conducted an expert survey.
Over almost two decades following the breakdown of the Soviet Union, a host of integration organisations has been set up in the post-Soviet space. Some quantitative data is available for the CIS, EurAsEC and CSTO. This data serves as background and supplements the findings of the expert survey.
Figure 5.2 shows the countries that are members of the respective integration groupings. For
Aspects of Institutional
Cooperation
Figure 5.1.
Structure of the CIS
The countries’ overlapping membership in the existing regional organisations suggests that integration in the post-Soviet space is not an integral process but rather a multitude of various processes which have different goals, underlying integration ideology and development agenda.
The CIS is the oldest organisation; the agreement on establishment was signed on December 8, 1991. The Commonwealth is built on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members. The member states are independent and equal subjects under international law. The CIS does not have supranational powers. Interstate interaction between the CIS countries is effected through its coordinating institutions: Council of Heads of State (CHS), Council of Heads of Government (CHG), an interparliamentary assembly, and Executive Committee. From 2000 to 2008, the CIS established 71 bodies, including 8 sectoral cooperation bodies that facilitate sector-based cooperation in the post-Soviet space.
Council of Heads of Government
(CHG)
Council of Foreign Ministers
CDM CBTC
Interparliamentary Assembly Economic Court
Economic Council
Executive Committee
Other sectoral councils
Council of Heads of State
(CHS)
CDM – Council of Defence Ministers
CBTC – Council of Border Troops Commanders
From 2000 to 2008, the CIS held 22 meetings of the Council of Heads of State and 20 meetings of the Council of Heads of Government.
CIS
EurAsEC-3
GUAM
EurAsEC-5
SCo Ukraine CAC
Moldova Belarus
Armenia
Georgia Azerbaijan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan
China
EurAsEC 3
EurAsEC 5
SCo
CSTo
CAC
GUAM
Eurasian Economic Community. The agreement on the establishment of the EurAsEC was signed on October 10, 2000 in Astana by the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Institutionally, EurAsEC is a well structured system with a decision-making and implementation mechanism, the mechanism of checks and balances, and an elaborate proportionality of voting and financing. In addition to this, the Community has significant opportunities for the coordination of authority in the area of international relations, which includes the right and possibility of representing the interests of the member states in international organisations. In other words, EurAsEC has a status of an international legal entity.
Interstate interaction of the EurAsEC member countries is effected through the Interstate Council, Integration Committee, Interparliamentary Assembly, Community’s Court of Justice, and the Customs Union Commission.
From 2000 to 2008, 11 meetings of the Interstate Council at the level of Heads of State and 14 meetings at the level of Heads of Government were held.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 total
ChS CIS 4 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 22
Generally, the structure of major post-Soviet integration organisations, the CIS and EurAsEC, allows us to draw the following conclusions:
• both of them are well-structured systems with established mechanisms of decision-making and interstate interaction;
• interstate interaction within these two organisations is exercised through similar specialised entities at the level of head-of-state, head-of-government, interparliamentary assembly, executive body, or court levels;
• these organisations are not vested with supranational powers, and relations between member countries are pursued through interstate councils. However, the creation of a Customs Union within EurAsEC will lead to the transfer of customs administration authority to the Union’s Commission on July 1, 2010 – a huge step towards the establishment of supranational bodies and legislative framework.
The above observations suggest that institutional and political integration in the post-Soviet space progresses towards a new qualitative level. Low-level integration, which is characterised by bilateral contacts, joint consultations, top-level meetings and other measures being taken by two countries, gradually shifts towards multilateral cooperation and common policies aimed at shared priority goals and areas of interest (e.g., the energy sector, the plans to create a Grain Pool, and the Customs Union). However, a level of integration implying the existence of supranational institutions and legislative framework is yet to be achieved.
Below are some quantitative indicators of the performance of integration organisations.
Figure 5.4.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200 200 2007 2008
117.1129.
The dynamics of implementing budget obligations by member countries was uneven between 2000 and 2008. In the case of the CIS, there is a tendency towards an improvement in its budgeting. If in 2000 and 2002, the budgeting obligations were fulfilled by less than half, over 2003-200 the percentage of set contributions made by the member states grew at a stable rate.
Figure 5.6 shows averaged data on the fulfillment of budgeting obligations by each country, in per cent, in the period of 2000-2008. With the exception of Russia, implementation by the member states of their contributions ranged between % and 80%. It should be noted that the issue of the methodology of determining the amount of contributions to the consolidated CIS budget was addressed repeatedly, but the different positions and approaches of the member states make it difficult to find a decision which would be acceptable to all. Russia’s performance at more than 100% is a direct result of its role of a financial donor of the CIS budget, and it closes the periodic deficit. the member states and is approved by the Interstate Council at the level of the heads of state.
The share of the member states’ contributions to the EurAsEC budget is set as following: Russia
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200 200 2007 2008
%
40%, Belarus and Kazakhstan 1% each, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan 7.% each. Russia and Kazakhstan are the most reliable contributors. Beginning 2004, after a recession in 2001 and 2002, Belarus and Tajikistan also performed their financial obligations regularly and fully.
Kyrgyzstan’s payment of contributions fluctuates, but from 200 it has also been covering its share of the budget in full. Having joined the Community in 200 with a 1% contribution, Uzbekistan suspended its membership in November 2008.
If seen against consolidated index of the countries’ integration with CIS-12, the data on fulfilment of budget obligations by the member states it shows that Tajikistan, a leader of integration, was fulfilling its obligations to a reduced volume, as did Kyrgyzstan which ranks second (maximum percentage in 2000-2008 was only 3%). Armenia fulfilled its obligations fully in 200 and 2007-2008. Belarus was fulfilling its obligations fully starting from 2003,
Figure 5.7.
EurAsEC: members’ contributions to the budget by year
Source: EurAsEC Integration Committee
Figure 5.8.
EurAsEC: Members’ contributions to the budget by country;
average for 2000–2008
.3
100.
8.3
100.0
91.4
18.3
%
Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Russia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Russia Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
%
100.0 80.0 0.0
40.0 20.0 0.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200 200 2007 2008
The data on the number of the functioning structural divisions in the CIS and EurAsEC show that in CIS the number of divisions financed from the consolidated budget increased in the period from 2001 to 2003. However in 2008, it fell to 7, the same as it was in 2000. The number of EurAsEC’s structural divisions grew from 4 in 2000 to 21 in 2008.
Following on from this is the data on the number of permanent employees of the CIS and EurAsEC executive bodies. The number of CIS executive bodies’ employees decreased in 200 by 3%. In EurAsEC, the number of personnel of the Secretariat for the Integration Committee grew by 31%
in 2008 (compared to 2001).
* CIS bodies financed from the consolidated budget (Regulations of the Consolidated Budget of the CIS Bodies approved by the Resolution of the Council of Heads of Government on May 31, 2001). The table does not include the sector-based councils of the CIS (there are up to 70 of these).
Table 5.3.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
EurAsEC 4 7 12 16 16 17 18 21 21
CIS* 7 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 7
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
EurAsEC
Committee 310 310 310 220 220 220 220 220 220
CIS bodies, total 770 770 770 549 549 549 499 499 499
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200 200 2007 2008
EurAsEC
The information on the number of documents adopted and on the proportion of them coming into force could be considered as performance assessment indicator and/or meter of favourability of the political environment. Table 5.4 shows the statistics on the EurAsEC, CSTO and CIS documents that have been adopted and taken effect.
EurAsEC
(2000–2008) CSTo (2000–2008) CIS (1991–2008)
Total adopted 90 100% 27 100% 1850 100%
Taken effect 58 64% 22 81% 1831 99%
including:
from the date of signature 11 12% 1517 83%
after ratification 30 2%
after fulfilment of
intrastate procedures 47 52% 18 67% 284 15%
Did not take effect 32 36% 5 19% 19 1%
including:
not ratified 7 37%
intrastate procedures
not fulfilled 32 36% 4 15% 12 63%
Cancelled 493 27%
in effect 1357 73%
Table 5.4.
Document statistics
Source: EurAsEC, CSTo and the CIS Note:
* Data on CIS for the period from 1991 to 2009 Collective security is an important characteristic of the level of integration. The “collective
security umbrella” provides the opportunity to gradually reconcile the varying economic interests and prevent political disagreements. In many cases, military and political integration preceded economic integration.
The issues of security are in the mandate of the CIS and CSTO. CSTO is primarily a military and political organisation. Its charter reads that one of its main objectives and activities is coordination and joining efforts in counteracting international terrorism and other non-traditional security threats. The interaction of member states is also being built at the interstate level.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008