BrusselsNotetaking WG1 – first session

27 April 2010

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

ISSUES RAISED-Add advocacy to CSO role 2 or 3 (it is different from dev.educ.),

- Roles 5 & 6 are not roles but tools (fundraising is still an important activity)-Link between role 1 and role 4 to be revised (2x)

- Role 1 wider scope : include economic sectors + working conditions-Role 4: CSOs are filling a gap that is left open by government absence – is this to be

avoided?-Role 1: local economic development & social development (check against role 3)

not just focus on marginalised- Principle/approach: reactive and proactive roles

CONSENSUS-Assessing legitimacy is necessary-Development is complex (global challenges); therefore flexibility should be in place (e.g. Country analysis)-- Need for expertise-- Roles are changeing

CONTROVERSY-Too much idealised roles(CSOs can also have other interests)- Table not

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?)

Challenges faced by actors • European Commission

– Addressing a global community of organisations (without division North/South)

– Substitution effects• CSOs in field of service delivery (eg governmental versus NGO health centers)• Donors in doing tasks local government should do

• Member States– Short decision deadlines (difficulty of integrating advocacy done by

CSOs; even small specialized organizations can have authority vis-à-vis government)

– Legal security: eg quality of organisation receiving grants (in case of direct access to Southern partners: difficult to assess who you enter in a funding relationship/partnership with)

– Management capacity (not too small projects)

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?

Democratic participation?

• Freedom of expression– CSO: by definition a representation of certain

interests– Parliament: different setting, for which CSOs bring

in expertise/information

Development CSOsFocus on parts of the population (eg children, disabled, ...)

North South

collaboration

1. Mobilise grass-root communities

2. Raise awareness

3. Monitor government /donor

4. Deliver services and development programming Filling gaps indeed

5. Build coalitions & networks – tool/mean, but also role

6. Mobilise leverage EU resources in partnerships

7. Involvement Governance agenda

8 Advocacy – “actors of (social) change, make choices” – promotion of democratic ownership: involve citizens, not annoy governments

9 Human rights based approach

10 Humanitarian aid also (post crisis)

3 main roles of Development CSOs

• Promote democratic ownership – Development education

• Support civil society (worldwide)• Support development programs

Post crisis: quid? Evolution took place: from service provision to … (to be defined) One group representing civil society as a whole? (dialogues with multitude of CSOs to capture diversity) CSOs perceive needs

3 main roles of Human Rights CSOs Note: Distinction of EU versus partner CSOs is needed, given different realities

• Create synergies (mobilisation)– Example: police training on children’s rights (note: substitution?)

• Capacity-building, which includes raising awareness, holding governments accountable

• Build on existing structures (political will needed)

Proximity and protection Autonomy and independence: act in groups/alternative priorities

(inclusiveness) Presence in the international arena (fora, debates)

3 main roles of environmental CSOs

Note: no North/South division in environmental context

Now or future? (« the ideal » situation)

• Advocacy• Awareness raising (not just citizens, also governments and

private sector)• Promotion of environmental governance at different levels

EXAMPLE: East Africa – WWF organised a dialogue with EC/MS (and other donors) in Kenya donors asked assessment on credibility of local actors

3 main roles of humanitarian sectorFrom the perspective of Red Cross

• Link between humanitarian and development issues• Neutrality and independence (« Red Cross mandate »)• In-country presence– Also at community level (incl infrastructure)– Rapid reaction mechanisms possible (local RC coordinating

in case of conflict/disaster)

VOICE is a platform working on this too Why do Southern actors do not play all roles that

Northern play in this domain? (sometimes yes/no)Eg tsunami, haïti: international organisations ‘embark’

3 main roles of Youth in development

• Youth can contribute to all types of activities– EYF is part of Global Coordination Committee in which

regional youth platforms are represented (no national but inter-regional linking)

• Empowerment of young people– leadership, gender equality, employment

• Representation of specific needs / advocacy & lobby– work with international institutions (eg EYF – not just EU,

also Council of Europe etc)

long-term perspective of development: investment in youth is investment in future

4 main roles of trade unionsFramework: social and economic rights protection of rights of workers (from basic

rights to living conditions: health etc); Legal assistance mechanisms

• Mobilising members/workers (outreach)– SOCIAL DIALOGUE

Eg clean clothes campaign (collaboration with development CSOs)

• Capacity building : incl strengthening organisational capacity– Common decision-making fora, up to global level (link North/South)

Eg setting development effectiveness principles

• Advocacy and lobby• Service delivery

– Eg food security (collaboration with cooperatives)

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

Political foundationsNorth South

1. Mobilise grass-root communities

2. Raise awareness

3. Monitor government /donor - no main issue

4. Deliver services and development programming

5. Build coalitions & networks

6. Mobilise leverage EU resources in partnerships

7. Involvement Governance agenda

Reflection on role of donor = extremely difficult (inclusion of one, is exclusion of another)

Eurochambres (« corporate initiatives »)

Note: specific sectors, EU focus within the membership but globally active (peer-to-peer working)

• Reinforce an enabling economic environment (focus on SMEs, local economic development)

• Improve social cohesion• Link to local and regional authorities (build coalitions,

regional territorial development)• Share experiences (entrepreneurial skills)

link between policy and programs

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 » )

LANorth South

1. Linking decision-making more closely to local priorities

2. implementing local/regional development strategies

3. delivering basic services

4. implementing local democracy and local governance

5. urban and regional planning

6: Raise citizens’ awareness

4 main roles of local authorities

• Formal democratic government and political accountability –(« democratic mandate »)

• Local/regional and multilevel governance (subsidiarity principle)

• Coordination with local actorsEg Barcelona: out of 4 million EUR, 1 million EUR to

CSOs• Service Delivery & capacity building of LA in South (through

national platforms – that represent local governments)

Comments on LA roles Is the physical level of democracy at local level? LA are exposed actors (à

proximité) Competence/role of LA can be very diverse (in EU itself a wide variety: only

administrative role versus more) LA are big in numbers – separate spaces 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 reliable partner in a specific country? (« clientelistic »

approach) – either ignore or empower them Right of initiative of CSOs ?

(some local CSOs want to work directly with the EC, thereby by-passing the local –possibly corrupted- authority)

Coordination is linked to « territorial management » : inventory of actions by various actors done by LA

Can CSOs empower LA (eg if lacking/weak)? Indigenous people

Complementarity between CSO/LA

• LA need to provide conducive/enabling environment (political stability, law, infrastructure…) for CSOs– Eg functioning legal framework & trained staff

• Territory as entry level for action (CSO/LA/politicians to participate altogether)

• Overlapping sometimes: persons active in CSOs and LA (two-way instrumentalisation)

• Challenges:– Relevant contacts/trust-building it takes time– No one strategy for collaboration (equally challenging if

collaboration with public organisations, other CSOs, …)

Concrete cases of CSO/LA collaboration

• Brasil: wood procurement/forest management – LA as owner of forest and consumer in dialogue with CSOs

• India: depoliticised bodies without resources PANCHAYATI RAJ (CSOs trying to build capacity)– Lesson learnt: mapping of priorities/planning

• Paris: LA as donor of CSOs• Intercultural exchange

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

What coordination mechanisms exist? (some examples) – 1/4

• MSH group on DE – multistakeholder- see separate slide

• SAG (stakeholder advisory group) – DG DEV– Goal also to broaden dialogue (not just NGOs)– Topics treated: eg local governance charter

• Open Forum on Development effectiveness – group of various types of CSOs

• CONCORD – development CSO driven– Challenge: internal consulation can be cumbersome

What coordination mechanisms exist? (some examples) 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.

What coordination mechanisms exist? (some examples) – 3/4

• France: some new aspects/innovations– « high strategic council of CSOs» with Minister, assisting in policy

development– Directorate General with 2 specific services in charge of coordination with

LA/CSO– Coordination at regional level (‘networks’) – model that is successful and

expanding– Civic service: crossroads CSO/LA and State (interministerial level)– Ongoing reform of interministerial Council for Decentralised Cooperation

• UK: 12 CSOs working in Latin America LAPA - Lat Am Partnership Arrangement joint agenda developed; learning events; bring in parliamentarians and LatAm embassies, planned over a 3 year period, with a steering committee

What coordination mechanisms exist? (some examples) 4/4

• Italy: « Observatoire » (regions, provinces, municipalities) – also, recognition of NGO as a prerogative for funding (250 NGOs have such recognition)

• Ireland: social partnership is traditionally quite strong (employers/agricultural sector ) challenging in times of scarce resources– Human Rights NGOs dialogue is less resource focused(Human Rights Defenders guidelines)

Success factors for coordination mechanisms

• A need has been identified• Interest shown by stakeholders• Political will and support • Funding (voluntary mechanisms are hard to keep

in place)• Secretariat for operational issues• Co-chairing (eg MSH group on DE) / steering

committee• Joint agenda-fixing

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)

“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)

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

ISSUES RAISED•How to benefit from the various mechanisms/systems in place ?

(lessons learnt, what next?)• Be also attentive for dialogue in EU policies impacting

development (trade, climate change)• Stakeholder dialogue does not exist in all MS

•Structured dialogue could serve as an example to improve the quality of dialogue at various levels

•EC is funding strategic projects at European level (money coming from the MS) expression of political will and

recognition of the actor

Preliminary conclusions/issues

ISSUES RAISED

CONSENSUS CONTROVERSY

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 »

Recommendations• To all actors

– Sharing of good practices need to optimize information flows (exchange!)

– Role of CSOs in promotion of democratic ownership• Consistent approach of this concept• EU aspirations in this field?

– Recognition of dialogue (small groups perceived useful)

• Coherence to be ensured at all levels• International level translated into community level• Resources required• Understanding of each other’s roles• Thematic consultations (eg DCI strategy paper)

– Sectoral and geographic approach– Exercise of existing coordination mechanisms: to be developed further

• More cross-fertilization between the big number of processes that are ongoing

• Formal versus informal : both are relevant (still move to more formal too

RecommendationsEuropean 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 CommissionEvaluations recently done to be incorporatedKeep on funding European networks (how, is to be discussed)Open up to networks in the SouthCreation of a unit responsible for dialogue with civil society inside EEASMapping 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

Information flowCISOCH – civil society helpdesk

website is « rich »Need for more direct exchange on

the methodology (what is expected from the participants – in order to

prepare)Some changes on CISOCH on local

governance to be made