Brussels Notetaking WG1 – first session 27 April 2010

1. Brussels Notetaking WG1 – firstsession 27 April 2010

2. 1. Added-value and complementarity of CSO families and amongst CSOs & LAs?

3. Comments to possible CSO roles • Pay attention to the fact that individuals are to make decisions that impact one’s own life • Cross-cutting approach • Proactive promotion of roles of CSO (even media) – eg fragile states • Representativity can be demonstrated (eg number of members of an organization) • Danger of instrumentalisation of CSOs (noted by Parliament) – example of community building in Congo • Role of Northern CSOs to develop Southern CSOs ? • Categorization of the table to be revised (trade unions, cooperatives, chambers....all professional associations?)

4. Challenges faced by actors • European Commission • Addressing a global community of organisations (without division North/South) • Substitution effects • CSOs in field of service delivery (eggovernmental versus NGO healthcenters) • Donors in doingtasks local governmentshould do • Member States • Short decision deadlines (difficulty of integratingadvocacydone by CSOs; evensmallspecializedorganizationscan have authority vis-à-vis government) • Legalsecurity: egquality of organisation receivinggrants (in case of direct access to Southernpartners: difficult to assesswhoyou enter in a fundingrelationship/partnershipwith) • Management capacity (not toosmallprojects)

5. Challenges of actors • CSOs • Access to EU funding (especially for Southern actors)  access: strict restrictions make it impossible? (need for diversification of funding sources) • With whom to work in partnership? • Is aid reaching the right people/organizations?

6. Democratic participation? • Freedom of expression • CSO: by definition a representation of certain interests • Parliament: different setting, for which CSOs bring in expertise/information

7. Development CSOs

8. 3 main roles of Development CSOs • Promotedemocraticownership • Developmenteducation • Support civil society (worldwide) • Support development programs • Post crisis: quid? • Evolution took place: from service provision to … (to bedefined) • One group representing civil society as a whole? (dialogues with multitude of CSOs to capture diversity) • CSOsperceiveneeds

9. 3 main roles of Human Rights CSOs Note: Distinction of EU versus partnerCSOsisneeded, givendifferentrealities • Create synergies (mobilisation) • Example: police training on children’srights (note: substitution?) • Capacity-building, whichincludesraisingawareness, holding governmentsaccountable • Build on existing structures (politicalwillneeded) • Proximity and protection • Autonomy and independence: act in groups/alternative priorities (inclusiveness) • Presence in the international arena (fora, debates)

10. 3 main roles of environmentalCSOs Note: no North/South division in environmentalcontext Now or future? (« the ideal » situation) • Advocacy • Awarenessraising (not justcitizens, alsogovernments and privatesector) • Promotion of environmentalgovernanceatdifferentlevels EXAMPLE: East Africa – WWF organised a dialogue with EC/MS (and other donors) in Kenya  donors asked assessment on credibility of local actors

11. 3 main roles of humanitariansector From the perspective of Red Cross • Link betweenhumanitarian and development issues • Neutrality and independence (« Red Cross mandate ») • In-country presence • Alsoatcommunitylevel (incl infrastructure) • Rapidreactionmechanisms possible (local RC coordinating in case of conflict/disaster) • VOICE is a platformworking on thistoo • Why do Southernactors do not play all rolesthatNorthernplay in thisdomain? (sometimesyes/no) Eg tsunami, haïti: international organisations ‘embark’

12. 3 main roles of Youth in development • Youthcancontribute to all types of activities • EYF is part of Global Coordination Committee in whichregionalyouthplatforms are represented (no national but inter-regionallinking) • Empowerment of young people • leadership, genderequality, employment • Representation of specificneeds / advocacy & lobby • workwith international institutions (eg EYF – not just EU, also Council of Europe etc) • long-term perspective of development: investment in youthisinvestment in future

13. 4 main roles of trade unions Framework: social and economicrights protection of rights of workers (from basic rights to living conditions: healthetc); Legal assistance mechanisms • Mobilisingmembers/workers (outreach) • SOCIAL DIALOGUE Eg clean clothescampaign (collaboration withdevelopmentCSOs) • Capacity building : inclstrengtheningorganisationalcapacity • Common decision-making fora, up to global level (linkNorth/South) Eg setting developmenteffectivenessprinciples • Advocacy and lobby • Service delivery • Egfoodsecurity (collaboration withcooperatives)

14. 3 main roles of (political) foundations Note: small and big; all are to promote democracy building • Promotion of participation and transparency (governance building) • Eg set up local media, research institutes

15. Political foundations

16. Eurochambres (« corporate initiatives ») Note: specificsectors, EU focus within the membership but globally active (peer-to-peerworking) • Reinforce an enablingeconomicenvironment (focus on SMEs, local economicdevelopment) • Improve social cohesion • Link to local and regionalauthorities (build coalitions, regional territorial development) • Shareexperiences (entrepreneurial skills)  linkbetweenpolicy and programs 

17. Cooperatives Economic actors, responding to locally identified need; an international cooperative alliance exists (to which CoopsEurope belongs) • Delivering services (economic empowerment) • Mobilisation of communities • Engage citizens (« take decisions on one’s own destiny » )

18. LA

19. 4 main roles of local authorities • Formaldemocraticgovernment and politicalaccountability–(« democratic mandate ») • Local/regional and multilevelgovernance (subsidiarityprinciple) • Coordination with local actors Eg Barcelona: out of 4 million EUR, 1 million EUR to CSOs • Service Delivery & capacity building of LA in South (through national platforms – thatrepresent local governments)

20. Comments on LA roles • Is the physicallevel of democracyat local level? LA are exposedactors (à proximité) • Competence/role of LA canbevery diverse (in EU itself a widevariety: only administrative role versus more) • LA are big in numbers – separatespaces for LA • « Globalisation » creating challenges (eg migration, urbanisation) – which are big changes for all stakeholders in the Str.Dial. • Certain conditions need to be in place (eg for dialogue between LA and CSOs) – timing, infrastructure… • General characteristics of LA (quid North/South differences?) • What if the LA is not a reliablepartner in a specific country? (« clientelistic » approach) – either ignore or empowerthem • Right of initiative of CSOs ? (some local CSOswant to workdirectlywith the EC, thereby by-passing the local –possiblycorrupted- authority) • Coordination islinked to « territorial management » : inventory of actions by variousactorsdone by LA • Can CSOsempower LA (eg if lacking/weak)? • Indigenous people

21. Complementarity between CSO/LA • LA need to provideconducive/enablingenvironment (politicalstability, law, infrastructure…) for CSOs • Egfunctioninglegalframework & trained staff • Territory as entry level for action (CSO/LA/politicians to participatealtogether) • Overlappingsometimes: persons active in CSOs and LA (two-way instrumentalisation) • Challenges: • Relevant contacts/trust-building  ittakes time • No one strategy for collaboration (equallychallenging if collaboration with public organisations, otherCSOs, …)

22. Concrete cases of CSO/LA collaboration • Brasil: woodprocurement/forest management – LA as owner of forestand consumer in dialogue withCSOs • India: depoliticised bodies withoutresources PANCHAYATI RAJ (CSOstrying to buildcapacity) • Lessonlearnt: mapping of priorities/planning • Paris: LA as donor of CSOs • Intercultural exchange

23. Multistakeholder (MSH) Group on Development Education • When? Since May 2005 first contacts after conference– DE consensus; 2 to 3 meetings per year • What? Informal group Some MS; EC (DEV/EuropeAid); CONCORD (def working group); DEEEP (project funded by EuropeAid running the MSH secretariat); EYF; EP representative; OECD; Council of Europe; Platforma • How? • Collaboration and exchange of information

24. What coordination mechanismsexist? (someexamples) – 1/4 • MSH group on DE – multistakeholder - seeseparateslide • SAG (stakeholderadvisory group) – DG DEV • Goal also to broaden dialogue (not justNGOs) • Topicstreated: eg local governance charter • Open Forum on Developmenteffectiveness – group of various types of CSOs • CONCORD – development CSO driven • Challenge: internalconsulationcanbecumbersome

25. What coordination mechanismsexist? (someexamples) 2/4 • Belgium: federation(s) of NGOs and government setting up joint working groups, which proved helpful when preparing for the EU Presidency (apart from informal contacts) • The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs closely cooperates with the CSOs and other relevant stakeholders through informal and formal channels. A good example of this is the fact, that when the parliamentary committees were briefed on the Hungarian International Development Cooperation this has been done in concert with HAND (Umbrella organization of Hungarian NGOs). Further on there is an advisory committee on development cooperation where all relevant stakeholders are represented and their findings are implemented in the Hungarian development policy and strategy. Also in the MFA there is a civil action plan that serves as a base for cooperation with NGOs. Regarding the NGOs, the MFA - according to its financial possibilities - gives grants to their activities as well as assists them in tendering procedures.

26. What coordination mechanismsexist? (someexamples) – 3/4 • France: some new aspects/innovations • « highstrategiccouncil of CSOs» withMinister, assisting in policydevelopment • Directorate General with 2 specific services in charge of coordination with LA/CSO • Coordination atregionallevel (‘networks’) – model thatissuccessful and expanding • Civic service: crossroads CSO/LA and State (interministeriallevel) • Ongoingreform of interministerial Council for DecentralisedCooperation • UK: 12 CSOsworking in Latin America LAPA - Lat Am Partnership Arrangement  joint agenda developed; learningevents; bring in parliamentarians and LatAmembassies, planned over a 3 yearperiod, with a steeringcommittee

27. What coordination mechanismsexist? (someexamples) 4/4 • Italy: « Observatoire » (regions, provinces, municipalities) – also, recognition of NGO as a prerogative for funding (250 NGOs have such recognition) • Ireland: social partnershipistraditionallyquitestrong (employers/agricultural sector )  challenging in times of scarceresources • HumanRightsNGOs dialogue islessresourcefocused (HumanRights Defenders guidelines)

28. Successfactors for coordination mechanisms • A need has been identified • Interestshown by stakeholders • Politicalwill and support • Funding (voluntarymechanisms are hard to keep in place) • Secretariat for operational issues • Co-chairing (eg MSH group on DE) / steeringcommittee • Joint agenda-fixing

29. Challenges for coordination mechanisms • Expectations on joint decision making • Bureaucracy in government might make participation in coordination mechanisms difficult • Knowledge management (a lot of activities going on at the same time)

30. “CONTROVERSIES” RELATED TO LAs • Territorial approach is linked to different governance traditions: would it be accepted everywhere?  coordination to increase effectiveness • Coordination at the level of cities/municipalities is more easily to capture than at regional level (big diversity) • (Flanders/Catalunia: political considerations of having “own” development policy)

31. 2. What mechanisms to ensure more complementarity & coordination in EU?

32. Preliminary conclusions/issues

33. Recommendations • EUDs: give space to local CSOs ? • Charter of good conduct for LA (good governance) – more transparency and inclusion of CSOs • Precise regional and local planning  can improve development as a whole (role of DG Trade) – « aid and trade »

34. Recommendations To all actors Sharing of good practices  need to optimize information flows (exchange!) Role of CSOs in promotion of democraticownership Consistent approach of this concept EU aspirations in thisfield? Recognition of dialogue (small groups perceiveduseful) Coherence to beensuredat all levels International leveltranslatedintocommunitylevel Resourcesrequired Understanding of eachother’sroles Thematic consultations (eg DCI strategypaper) Sectoral and geographicapproach Exercise of existing coordination mechanisms: to bedevelopedfurther More cross-fertilizationbetween the bignumber of processesthat are ongoing Formal versus informal : both are relevant (still move to more formaltoo

35. Recommendations • European Parliament • (Budgetary authority, role towards citizens) • Adapt funding to actors • Member States • Check whether budget support reaches local level (EC/MS joint work) • Consultations on EU matters in development context should « tripple down » to national and local level (and vice versa) – good practices to be • Better develop understanding of actors (specificities and needs) & how to support them in their different roles (EC/MS joint work) • European Commission • Evaluations recently done to be incorporated • Keep on funding European networks (how, is to be discussed) • Open up to networks in the South • Creation of a unit responsible for dialogue with civil society inside EEAS • Mapping of future organizations receiving grants (eg practically in PADOR: tick box if a organization agrees to become visible) – quid legitimacy? • Facilitate exchange of information – share info on SD in a broader way

36. Information flowCISOCH – civil society helpdeskwebsiteis « rich »Need for more direct exchange on the methodology (whatisexpectedfrom the participants – in order to prepare)Some changes on CISOCH on local governance to be made