new affinity group of national associations annual general meeting … · 2016. 11. 15. ·...

Affinity Group of National Associations (AGNA) Annual General Meeting, Montreal, Canada 4 September 2012

1

Affinity Group of National Associations

Annual General Meeting

4 September 2012

Montreal, Canada

Report of the meeting

Annexes included:

Annex 1: Steering committee for 2012/2013 17 Annex 2: Participants present at the 2012 AGM 18 Annex 3: Financial Report for AGNA 2011/ 2012 19 Annex 4: Outcomes and actions from partnership discussions between the IFP, AGNA, CIVICUS, and Coordination Sud 20 Annex 5: AGNA Survey of Government /Civil Society Relations 22 Annex 6: DRAFT Report: Advocacy by National Associations of Civil Society Organisations 28


2

Executive Summary Key actions for follow-up agreed for the various actors within the AGNA network

For CIVICUS:

• Research all AGNA members’ contacts and create an updated members’ list.

• Send out last year’s minutes to all members so that they can go through them. Email any amendments to the Coordinator.

• Share future financial reports and draft budgets with AGNA members.

• Overhaul AGNA pages on its website.

• Work with AGNA members to map their priorities and match these with CIVICUS

priorities to identify partnership opportunities.

• Circulate draft LTA guide with AGNA members for feedback.

• Disseminate new strategic priorities to AGNA members when finalised.

• Share information with AGNA members as it becomes available on the Enabling Environment Index, the State of Civil Society 2012 report and the Civic Space Initiative. Ensure better integration with CIVICUS work.

• Send certificates of appreciation to outgoing steering committee members. Set up

call with new Steering Committee members in next month. For CIVICUS and AGNA steering committee:

• Develop a strategy to reach out to inactive members and encourage them to become more active in AGNA.

• Capture and develop AGNA’s value proposition.

• Explore rebranding of AGNA network.

For AGNA steering committee:

• Re-examine original objectives and articles of AGNA and to propose any revisions.

For AGNA members:

• Share resources, case studies and information and knowledge on LTA issues, via

the Coordinator. Government relations and legal environment working group:

• Decide on whether survey results can be made publicly available.


3

• Work with CIVICUS to develop further case study and toolkit ideas.

• Dialogue more closely with CIVICUS’ PG coordinator on areas of cooperation.

• Put together a peer learning exchange. Advocacy working group:

• Circulate draft report and AGNA members to input their case studies and analyses.

• Develop a policy guide as the next phase of building on the report. Membership and outreach working group:

• Dialogue with CIVICUS on developing benefits packages for members and guidelines on membership recruitment and retention for AGNA members.

• Develop a peer exchange for AGNA members’ membership officers.


4

1. Opening remarks Katsuji Imata, Acting Secretary General, CIVICUS Katsuji presented on the importance of the AGNA network, not just for CIVICUS and its project work, but also for other topical issues and agendas, such as the post 2015 agenda discussions. He spoke of how networks need to respond to changing agendas and developments, both internationally and locally. He emphasised how CIVICUS wishes to deepen its support and engagement with AGNA and all its members, and with their members in turn. He reinforced CIVICUS’ organisational commitment and dedication to AGNA, and was encouraged by the future possibilities. He spoke briefly about how things were changing within CIVICUS, especially given the new strategic priorities that were currently being finalised for 2013 to 2017, and emphasised the important role AGNA should play in helping to implement these priorities. Oli Henman, NCVO and Chair of AGNA View Oli’s full presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/AGNA_network/agna-report-back-from-chair-oliver-henman-agm-2012?from=share_email Oli outlined that it has been a tough year for AGNA and its members; many organisations are facing increased pressures, such as decreased human and financial resources, and increased difficulties in the enabling environments within their countries. In the light of these difficulties, AGNA needs to focus on building a stronger network, both between each partner, and in building stronger connections and linkages with CIVICUS as the secretariat. He posed some questions to the group:

• How do we find the solutions to these challenges? • Do we need new structures? • What are our new understandings of citizenship and borders? • How are AGNA members going to tackle these challenges?

2. Approval of minutes from last year’s AGM These needed to be approved by members present. Unfortunately, it became apparent just before the World Assembly that there is a major problem with the listserv and email communications to the network from the secretariat, as most members had not received emails about the AGM, including the minutes. When the coordinator sent out individual emails to AGNA contacts just ahead of the AGM, it became apparent that many contacts on the members’ list were expired. The contacts list needs to be updated and a new system for emailing out will be established. CIVICUS is currently updating their contacts list and database system, so the AGNA list and email system will be updated and renewed as part of this as soon as possible. Later in the meeting, the group approved and signed off on the minutes.

Actions: • CIVICUS to research all AGNA members’ contacts and create an updated

members’ list. • CIVICUS to send out last year’s minutes to all members so that they can go

through them. Members to email any amendments to the Coordinator.


5

3. Membership issues Participants discussed recruitment of new AGNA members. While CIVICUS has significantly increased its membership through a membership drive, this has not yet led to new members for AGNA or greater understanding of AGNA. There are in effect two layers of understanding to negotiate: understanding CIVICUS and then understanding AGNA. The consensus view was that the priority should be to strengthen the connections and engagements with existing AGNA members, and improving communication and cooperation flows between members, particularly with the aim of turning inactive members into active ones. It was agreed that this internal focus and strengthening needs to be the priority for the next year, and once this has improved, we can then move to focus on recruiting new members to the network.

Action: • CIVICUS and AGNA steering committee to develop a strategy to reach out to

inactive members and encourage them to become more active in AGNA. Discussion led by Oli Henman

• What are the main issues that we, as members of the network, want to be talking about and addressing?

• What are the things we need to strengthen the network and our own organisations?

• How do we adapt and use new technologies to improve our ways of working and connections between members?

• How can AGNA as a whole, and AGNA members, improve connections between what we do and what CIVICUS is doing, both in its general work areas and its specific projects, including new projects?

• What do we need to support wider engagement with national associations and platforms, both within the AGNA network, and with each of our own members and networks?

• How do we improve the peer learning activities, and make these a key area of work for the network and its members? The peer-learning exchanges have offered good opportunities for members to exchange information on a more personal, small-scale level and to learn on-the-ground realities from each other, emerging as a key AGNA methodology. There is a need to link these activities back to the work and function of the working groups, and to improve the outcomes and sharing of learning with the rest of the network. There is also a need to ensure that all members have opportunities to engage, even when they can’t physically attend.

• We need to think about new directions and new projects for AGNA: how can we maximise our potential, within our network and for our own members?

• How can we improve and update our systems, and the tools and resources that the network uses, particularly how we communicate with each other within the network, as well as externally? We need to explore newer technologies, including for steering committee calls.

• How to bring new organisations into the network? Where are the gaps and issues in membership? What are the regionally specific issues?

• How can we use the AGNA network to bring people together from our organisations? We need to broker peer learning and exchange tools to strengthen


6

civil society and make all organisations, and our respective member organisations, stronger and more effective.

Discussion

• After a period of drift and stagnation, there is a sense that the network now has renewed energy, direction and future plans, mainly thanks to great leadership from the chair and new coordination form CIVICUS. The election of a new steering committee will also help bring further new energy.

• Partnership with the IFP (International Forum of National NGO Platforms) is under discussion. As a network of platforms, they have more of an international development focus, and a priority on non-governmental diplomacy, which potentially offers interesting synergies with the work done by AGNA and its partners. There is a need to clarify how connections can be made for joint work, particularly as there is some overlap in membership of the two networks. The case for some sort of partnership seems a strong one, and there have been attempts to formalise this relationship and to identify areas of formal cooperation through an official MoU, but there is still some confusion and suspicion, and reluctance to proceed to such a formalised level at this stage. A meeting is due during the WA, and there will be a further update after this (see Annex 4 for outcomes from disucssions).

• Another issue is that much of the focus of the work of the member organisations of AGNA is domestic; most don’t have resources (both human and financial) for international work. Members present agreed that AGNA’s priority must remain international learning to achieve progress on national level, domestic and internal issues.

• AGNA should also focus on increasing joint and collective advocacy on common issues.

4. Presentation of financial accounts for the previous year: Megan MacGarry, AGNA Coordinator, CIVICUS See brief financial report in Annex 3 below.

• AGNA’s core donor, the C S Mott Foundation, has approved a renewal of its grant for another two years. This means that AGNA is guaranteed US$60,000 per annum, for the next two years.

• It was clarified that the budget line for a consultant was for the legitimacy, transparency and accountability resource guide that is currently almost completed and will be of value to AGNA members.

• It would be useful in future for members to see a provisional budget for AGNA, such that they can we aware of the resources realistically available, which will help in activity planning and additional fundraising.

• Similarly, it was requested that members see a detailed income and expenditure report on the previous year, and an income forecast for the current year, reflecting members’ contributions and any externally sourced funds.

• Planning should however be ambitious and should lead to additional fundraising. For example, there should be additional funding available from countries in the Middle East, and planning needs to be done and new connections made with the aim of accessing such new funding sources in mind.

• Overall, the budget is very modest when compared to the ambitious plans for the future.


7

Action: • CIVICUS to share future detailed financial reports and draft budgets with AGNA

members. 5. Working group presentations a. Legitimacy, transparency and accountability: led by Sixdon Macasaet, CODE-NGO, Philippines View Sixdon’s presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/AGNA_network/lta-working-group-presentation-agna-agm-sept-2012?from=share_email

• This working group has been very successful in connecting AGNA’s work with the wider CIVICUS agenda, particularly its Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability (LTA) project. This offers an example of how such connections can be made.

• It was agreed that the network needed to continue to work on this issue, as formal accreditation processes are important for CSOs.

• Members discussed some leading case studies: VANI’s experience in India and that of Imagine Canada. Both organisations had to develop accreditation systems, according to the size of organisations and their income. There are many models available, and there is a need to exchange information; the challenge is that the standards that have to be met also vary. Small to medium sized CSOs can struggle because they don’t have the infrastructure or the resources (financial and human) to handle certification systems or standards. Self-certification can also be difficult for smaller organisations to achieve. Government pressure on civil society to become more accountable imposes heavy bureaucracy and has become a way of restricting and limiting CSOs.

• Fulfilling accreditation requirements is increasingly being linked to qualification to access funding, but there need to be other benefits offered to encourage organisations to fulfil requirements. Resourcing also needs to be made available for evaluations and self-regulation mechanisms. Members of AGNA organisations that are struggling to do this need to be supported.

• Another danger is of being too focused on formalised organisational structures, such as NGOs and CSOs, and losing focus on the needs of people at the ground level and the wider array of civil society forms. There is a need to raise awareness amongst donors and funders, about how the reality and demands on the ground may not match their donor requests and requirements.

• AGNA members need to share their resources, case studies, information and knowledge, particularly as they pertain to helping in negotiation with governments and partners. Resources and case studies sent to the coordinator will be shared and published on new AGNA pages on CIVICUS’ website.

Action: • AGNA members to share resources, case studies and information and knowledge

on LTA issues, via the coordinator. b. Legal environment: led by David Robinson, ANGOA, New Zealand The results of the survey carried out by the group, and compiled by David Robinson, are included as Annex 5 below.


8

• The group carried out a survey on the legal environment. It’s important to

acknowledge that AGNA does not have the capacity to carry out in-depth, academic standard research and analysis, and also to understand the difference between attacking governments and having constructive engagements with them.

• If any members did not receive the survey, they can be re-sent it. • There may be issues about making the survey publicly available, as opposed to

sharing within the network. • AGNA has been talking about producing a toolkit on this issue for a while, and it

was agreed there was a need to move beyond the surveys, and to focus on outputs such as case studies, and closer connection with on-going CIVICUS work. AGNA should not provide a toolkit similar to those already offered by ICNL, but should rather focus on practical tools on such issues as:

o How to connect with governments; o How to engage with institutions and other sectors; o How to develop positive and practical ways to make progress.

Actions: • Government relations and legal environment working group to decide on whether

survey results can be made publicly available. • Government relations and legal environment working group and CIVICUS to

develop further case study and toolkit ideas. c. Civil society / government relations: led by Oli Henman, NCVO, England. View Oli’s full presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/AGNA_network/agna-agm-civil-society-gov-relations-and-enabling-environ-2012?from=share_email

• How do we take this work forward? There is a need to have a stronger link to CIVICUS’s Participatory Governance (PG) project, as this working group is talking about the structures and links with governance issues, which also clearly links with the discussion of legal environments.

• The working group’s future plans are to create toolkits and resource guides, such as on advocacy approaches, and on how to establish a national association in a country that doesn’t have one. This offers a clear focus for the next year.

• There was a discussion about the differences between umbrella bodies and platform groups of various types, and the need for these groups and networks to offer common viewpoints towards governments to engage effectively as a sector. For this to happen, there has to be space for dialogue between organisations, in order to establish norms and then engage with governments. ICNL will share their toolkits and resources with the network, as there is a lot of overlap with what they do and the issues covered by the working group. This offers an opportunity to work more closely with ICNL in the future.

• There is a need to look at issues of international best practice versus what works in specific country contexts.

• CSOs often lose their original connections with grassroots people and their initial impetus for coming together as movements, and there is a need to retain this as a reality check.

• In most countries, relationships between civil society and governments are complex, with issues including those of the space for advocacy, corruption


9

concerns, and questions of who works for who and contractual relationships, particularly involving those organisations providing service delivery.

• There are many initiatives CIVICUS has here that AGNA can connect with. Amy Miller-Taylor, the Resource Mobilisation Manager at CIVICUS, is including the idea of peer-learning exchanges for AGNA partners in many of the proposals that CIVICUS submits, as part of a desire to mainstream AGNA partners.

Action: • Government relations and legal environment working group to dialogue more

closely with CIVICUS’ PG coordinator on areas of cooperation. d. Advocacy: led by Tim Delaney, National Council for Nonprofits, United States of America See Tim’s draft advocacy paper as Annex 6 below.

• Tim has created a detailed report that examines the various tools and circumstances for advocacy, as well as case studies for organisations to learn from.

• There is also a need to create learning for national associations on how to retain members and how to make them more sustainable; there is clear potential to develop a resource guide on this. Organisations working on the ground are facing tough realities, and so need to help each other on how to survive and be sustainable.

• While there are several overarching advocacy trends, there is also variation according to whether concerns are international, federal/national or local level. Therefore organisations need to have a variety of tools to address issues at different levels.

• There are many tools that can be used for advocacy and for strengthening organisations’ positions, including protests and forming coalitions. There is a need to have a suite of universal tactics and tools, to be adapted to context specific needs and in the light of examples of success.

• Research and analysis are vital tools that need to be engaged in to underpin lobbying and advocacy.

• While there is now a comprehensive report, there is a need for AGNA members to populate it with case studies and their analysis and lessons learned. This should be a priority for the network. Once completed, this is then something that can be taken to donors to seek resources to derive better tools and advocacy systems.

• Once there is a good collection of tools and case studies, there is a need to think about how to connect with other CIVICUS activities in order to broaden the work and grow the exchanges as a result.

• A key question is how to make the case back home and push for better advocacy. Networks can’t do much international work because in tough economic times most simply don’t have the resources for it; the value still needs to proved. There has to be some value added from networks and international connections, for example, for improving policy messaging and policy advice. AGNA needs to take into account the time members put into the network versus what members are getting out of it; there is a need to show value as members have to be accountable to their own networks and donors about their time usage. What here is AGNA’s value proposition?

• People within a network like to be asked for their inputs and will share things if given the opportunity. There is a need to ensure that AGNA genuinely offers


10

exchanges and the sharing of information. Networks have a particular use in sharing lobbying and advocacy techniques, and particularly for sharing things that have worked successfully in other countries.

• CSOs are good at policies but poor at politics, and this is an area for learning and improvement. One idea is to distil ten key asks or lessons learnt.

• Tim will prepare a cover memo for sharing the finalised advocacy report with AGNA. Members will be encouraged to share case studies and analysis. Diane from Imagine Canada offered to share their case studies and experiences.

Action: • Advocacy working group to circulate draft report and AGNA members to input

their case studies and analyses. e. Membership group

• During the year it was felt that this group was no longer necessary, and so it was suspended. However, it was clear that most AGNA members have challenges in sustaining membership and improving their services to members. There is a clear need from AGNA to have guidelines on membership recruitment and retention, and even on membership fees.

• One difficulty is competition between organisations, especially when it affects smaller CSOs. Often, it is very difficult for smaller organisations to get funding from donors ahead of larger, more prominent organisations.

• There is a tendency for organisations to describe themselves as umbrella bodies in countries, without there being clarity on which is a legitimate organisation is, or what national roles are. Most national platforms do not run programmes or have projects themselves, as this would bring them into competition with their members; rather they focus on being platforms, sharing information and promoting civil society as a whole. The corresponding need to develop compelling benefit packages for members is one for both CIVICUS and AGNA members, suggesting potential to work together on this.

• There is a need to create a checklist or a list of questions about membership, including what they want from membership, and how by combining their skills, they can strengthen membership within their networks.

• A resource mobilisation / fundraising working group was also proposed. This would be a working area to gather information on fundraising skills and how AGNA members can fundraise better.

• There is also a need to be aware of the sensitivities involved in trying to set up a new network in a country that doesn’t have one, including political and ownership battles.

• It was suggested that as a peer exchange possibility in future, AGNA could bring together membership officers from different AGNA members to exchange strategies and expertise. This could offer a good new model for the peer exchanges in bringing together people from AGNA networks with similar roles.

Actions: • CIVICUS and membership and outreach working group to dialogue on developing

benefits packages for members and guidelines on membership recruitment and retention for AGNA members.

• CIVICUS and membership and outreach working group to develop a peer exchange for AGNA members’ membership officers.


11

6. Presentation on the CIVICUS legitimacy, transparency and accountability guide: Amy Miller-Taylor, Resource Mobilisation Manager, CIVICUS View Amy’s full presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/AGNA_network/lta-sri-guide-presentation?from=share_email

• By the end of September, it is expected that a draft guide will be ready for piloting

in at least 10 countries. Once the pilot phase is completed, the aim is to revise in the light of feedback and then disseminate to all members.

• There are numerous national associations that have interests in joint fundraising partnerships, and the aim is to work with these to grow the initiative. CIVICUS aims to work in different regions and sectors.

• CIVICUS will be seeking feedback from members on what the next steps should be. The extent to which this will be done in a systematic rather than opportunistic way will depend on the success of resource mobilisation approaches, and may depend on connecting with the priorities of other projects. For example, Tunisia is carrying out the Civil Society Index Rapid Assessment (CSI-RA) project, so there may be demand for self-regulation work in that context.

• CIVICUS will share the draft guide with AGNA, and seek feedback particularly from the working group to develop the resource further. AGNA may want to identify regional resource people or experts to focus particularly on this work and provide the necessary support.

• Potential donor interest includes CIDA and Oxfam • CIVICUS hopes to identify a new LTA coordinator soon to drive this work further. • National level expressions of interest will be important in deciding where to take

the resource.

Action: • CIVICUS to circulate draft LTA guide with AGNA members for feedback.

7.Presentation by Mae Chao, United Nations Volunteers (UNV) UNV is currently strengthening its relationships with civil society, in order to foster greater understanding of the various forms of volunteering and voluntary action, and collaboration and partnerships at national, regional, global levels. They have partnered with CIVICUS recently to research and analyse new forms of volunteering and the connections between volunteering and activism. They are also placing priority on the post-2015 agenda that is currently being shaped, and the role of volunteers in this new agenda. This includes bringing both volunteer and CSO voices to the national consultations that will be led by UNDP. As such they are interested in collaborating more closely with AGNA as a network and AGNA members. 8. AGNA strengths and challenges: presentation by Megan MacGarry, AGNA coordinator, CIVICUS View her presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/AGNA_network/agna-agm-megan-presentation-2012?from=share_email • Active membership: there is better engagement evident with the already active

AGNA members. Growing the network by gaining more members should be a longer term priority, with the immediate priority to ensure better, sustained engagement and


12

interaction with those who are already part of the network, particularly those who are not currently active, which are the majority of AGNA’s 60 members.

• Engagement with members: there is a need to ensure that the agenda of AGNA is relevant, important and pertinent to members. We need to clarify why people should engage with AGNA and develop a strong and clear proposition to attract and retain organisations.

• Communications and emails: it became clear immediately before the WA that there are problems with the current communications systems. Members have apparently have not been receiving mails sent to the group address. When emails were sent to in individual addresses, many were revealed to be incorrect or out of date. CIVICUS is currently implementing a new client relationship management system (CRM) database, and so the AGNA list will be rebuilt and then exported to this, which will make regular communication easier. Following the WA, CIVICUS will prioritise the rebuilding of the list, and will be asking to receive and will research contact details, including organisational and person-specific email addresses, physical addresses and web and social media URLs. There is also an issue of email fatigue, and corresponding inability to respond to emails.

• Website: the AGNA webpages on the CIVICUS website are messy and out of date, and do not adequately showcase AGNA members and their work. CIVICUS will work on fixing this during the rest of the 2012. Yoshi from JACO has offered to help. In the longer term, there is also a need to offer an AGNA intranet, which could be developed from the CIVICUS intranet that is currently being put in place, but this will take some time as the intranet is still being finalised.

• Mainstreaming: CIVICUS plays the role of linking AGNA working groups with different networks, partners and work ideas. For example, in Tunisia, AGNA is helping to grow a local national association in low cost ways. CIVICUS wishes to mainstream AGNA in such key projects as CSI-RA, LTA and PG. This involvement works best when it is demand driven and when there are clear asks and overlapping objectives. CIVICUS should map all the priorities that AGNA members deal with and match these with CIVICUS priorities in order to identify opportunities.

• Regional work: regional work is going well, including outreach to engage with organisations outside the network. This is being led by specific members, and could be extended to the network as a whole. Regional engagement and coalition building can be seen as a key CSO response to shared challenges they face.

• An idea from the floor: AGNA could offer assistance to emerging democracies, particularly focusing on those countries with newly emerging civil society, and no national platforms, such as Libya. This would combine CIVICUS’ reputation as a reliable and trustworthy network with AGNA’s ability to function as a key peer group and play a significant advisory and skills exchange role.

• Overall, the group is meeting its current objectives, as set and agreed upon by the group and the donor, and the donor has expressed satisfaction with progress. The network is growing stronger and more focused. The need now is to have a high level of functioning of the working groups, achieve outputs, bring in more active members, improve internal systems and promote the network better.

Actions: • CIVICUS to overhaul AGNA pages of its website.

• CIVICUS to work with AGNA members to map their priorities and match these

with CIVICUS priorities to identify partnership opportunities.


13

9. Priorities for the next activity year for each working group a. Government relations and legal environment

It was decided to merge the legal environment and civil society / government relations working groups. Key participants include Addys (Alianza ONG), David (ANGOA), Lewis (ZCSD), Alam (Afghan NGO Coordination Bureau), Yoshi (JACO) and Oli (NCVO).

• Need to focus on more practical issues, such as how to create the structures for participatory governance. The workshop at the WA and the formulation of a toolkit will help disseminate case studies and information to broader networks.

• The group needs to continue having peer-learning exchanges: arrange one in the next few months.

• Need to continue to link with the CIVICUS PG project.

Action: • Government relations and legal environment working group to put together a peer

learning exchange. b. Legitimacy, transparency and accountability Lead: Sixdon (CODE-NGO). Potential participant: Imagine Canada, but as Diane is representing the organisation, she will check with Marcel about this and will confirm with the Coordinator.

• This is a well-established working group and is linked well to core CIVICUS work. • A particular focus will be review and application of the new LTA guide.

c. Advocacy Leads: Tim Delaney (National Council of Nonprofits) and Birgitte Brekke (Association of NGOs in Norway). Potential participant: Imagine Canada, but as Diane is representing the organisation, she will check with Marcel about this and will confirm with the Coordinator.

• Need to finalise the working draft of the report, but focus on the policy draft as the most important tool for the network.

• Other members of the network need to contribute to this, to make it as comprehensive as possible.

Action: • Advocacy working group to develop a policy guide as the next phase of building

on the report. d. Membership and outreach It was agreed to reconstitute this working group and give it a broader focus. Leads: Harsh Jaitli (VANI) and Timo Lappalainen (KEPA).

• Need to take forward the suggestion of bringing together membership officers from AGNA members to discuss their strategies and exchange information.


14

10. The future of CIVICUS and its new strategic priorities: Andrew Firmin, Convening and Communications Manager, CIVICUS CIVICUS’ current strategic priorities are coming to an end, and so new ones have been developed through an extensive consultation process, which has involved many AGNA members, both as meeting organisers and participants. They will be discussed at the CIVICUS members’ AGM as part of the WA. CIVICUS’ basic thrust is to expand its alliance and become more driven by the alliance, and to work in partnership with as wide a range of civil society actors as possible. CIVICUS’s core strengths are knowledge generation and analysis, convening and networking, communication and campaigning, and advocacy and influencing, and these will be applied in the three broad areas of the new strategic priorities: connecting civil society, promoting an enabling environment for civil society and seeking to increase civil society’s influence. It is also a time of change and transition for CIVICUS, as the next Secretary General will be announced soon. As part of this transition, CIVICUS will be looking to prioritise and mainstream AGNA, which is recognised now as one of CIVICUS’ core networks, and an important source of expertise, information and connection to on-the-ground networks and partners. AGNA and its members are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the new strategic priorities when these are published after the WA and to look for new opportunities in these.

Action: • CIVICUS to disseminate new strategic priorities to AGNA members when

finalised. Discussion from the floor Discussion centred around the question of defining the value proposition of becoming involved in AGNA, of what the network contributes to its members and what the opportunities for involvement are. After discussion it was agreed that the key offer of AGNA is to provide the sharing of global knowledge and connections for its members. It was agreed that the Steering Committee work with CIVICUS to capture, shape and expand upon these strengths in order to improve engagement with members and potential members. Discussion then investigated the question of whether AGNA is an individual, independent entity for which CIVICUS provides the secretariat, or an integral part of CIVICUS. It was agreed that the Steering Committee go back to the original objectives and articles of the network and revise where appropriate the core focus and ideas. At the same time this would provide an opportunity to review membership criteria. The question of the branding and name of AGNA was also raised. The words that make up the AGNA acronym say little about what the network actually is and does, and relate to a time when CIVICUS had a policy of setting up several affinity groups, of which only AGNA remains. A more descriptive name may help with membership engagement and recruitment. It may be time for a rebranding exercise, including examining the question of the name and developing a distinct logo.


15

Actions: • CIVICUS and steering committee to capture and develop AGNA’s value

proposition.

• Steering committee to re-examine original objectives and articles of AGNA and to propose any revisions.

• CIVICUS and steering committee to explore rebranding of AGNA. 11. Presentation on the CIVICUS Participatory Governance (PG) programme: David Kode, PG coordinator, CIVICUS

• The focus of the programme is currently on the Pacific, supported by AusAid, and entails bringing together CSOs, traditional leaders and government representatives to broker agreement on measures for more participatory and improved governance.

• The project would then seek to work in West Africa on citizen participation in elections and election monitoring and in the Middle East and North Africa on citizens’ contribution to constitution-making processes.

• There are clear opportunities for AGNA members to become involved in these projects. David has so far identified seven AGNA members who will be involved. As David knows AGNA well as a former coordinator, he will continue to bear AGNA in mind when developing PG, and in his other policy work. However, there also needs to be some demand push from AGNA members; there remains a need for AGNA to come to PG, and other CIVICUS projects, with their demands and their needs, including resource mobilisation ideas.

• This will need to happen for CIVICUS’ new work on the enabling environment for civil society, which includes a global enabling environment index, and work with ICNL and other partners at the national level as part of the soon to be launched Civic Space Initiative project. There needs to be two-way information exchange and AGNA members are encouraged to identify opportunities to be involved in this new work streams.

Action: • CIVICUS to share information with AGNA members as it becomes available on

the Enabling Environment Index, the State of Civil Society 2012 report and the Civic Space Initiative.

Discussion points

• The enabling environment question is a key one for many AGNA members – for example, it is VANI’s core work – and so they should participate in this work. The workshop at the WA aimed to continue the work of the working group on enabling environment issues, and so all present were encouraged to attend.

• New technologies and forms of communication also need to be explored to enable more rapid engagement and mobilisation, particularly focusing on the website. The network needs to take increased advantage of the CIVICUS websites and resources that currently exist or that are being developed.


16

12. New steering committee elections

• Nominations were collected before the AGM from members, both those present and not present. All members present at the AGM agreed on these nominations, by consensus, and thus the new steering committee was elected. See Annex 1 for a list of the steering committee members.

• It was agreed that CIVICUS will issue a certificate of appreciation to all outgoing members of the committee for their contribution to AGNA.

Action: • CIVICUS to send certificates of appreciation to outgoing steering committee

members.


17

Annex 1: Steering committee for 2012/2013 Chair: Oli Henman, NCVO, England Deputy chair: Addys Then-Marte, Alianza ONG, Dominican Republic Asia: Gopal Lamsal, NGO Federation of Nepal, Nepal Yoshiharu Shiraishi, JACO, Japan Africa: Cephas Zinhumwe, NANGO, Zimbabwe Siaka Coulibaly, RESOCIDE, Burkina Faso Europe: Oli Henman, NCVO, England Latin America: Addys Then-Marte, Alianza ONG, Dominican Republic North America: Tim Delaney, National Council of Nonprofits, USA Pacific/ Oceania: David Lidimani, Development Services Exchange, Solomon Islands


18

Annex 2: Participants present at the 2012 AGM AGNA members (14) Organisation Oliver Henman National Council of Voluntary

Organisations (NCVO) England

David Robinson Association of NGOs of Aotearoa (ANGOA)

New Zealand

Addys Then-Marte Alianza ONG Dominican Republic Yoshi Shiraishi The Japan Association of

Charitable Organisations (JACO)

Japan

Harsh Jaitli Voluntary Action Network India (VANI)

India

Lewis Mwape Zambian Council for Social Development (ZCSD)

Zambia

Tim Delaney National Council of Nonprofits USA Başak Ersen Third Sector Foundation of

Turkey (TUSEV) Turkey

Birgitte Brekke Association of NGOs in Norway

Norway

Gopal Lamsal NGO Federation of Nepal Nepal Sixdon Donato C Macasaet

Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO)

Philippines

Amsale Maryam Association of Development Agencies (ADA)

Jamaica

Alam Mohammed Afghan NGO Coordination Bureau

Afghanistan

Faliciano Reyna Synergia: por la excelencia de la sociedad civil

Venezuela

Observers Nick Deychakiwsky CS Mott Foundation USA Megan MacGarry CIVICUS South Africa Andrew Firmin CIVICUS UK Katsuji Imata CIVICUS Japan Amy Miller-Taylor CIVICUS USA David Kode CIVICUS Cameroon Samir Abi Independent Cameroon Fiona Talcott Independent Scotland Timo Lappalainen KEPA (Service Centre for

Development Cooperation) Finland

Baquer Namazi Independent Iran Diane Ellison Imagine Canada Canada Nilda Bullian International Center for Not-for-

Profit Law (ICNL) Belarus


19

Annex 3: Financial Report for AGNA 2011/ 2012 Brief financial summary report presented by the Coordinator. The full financial report submitted to AGNA core donor, the C S Mott Foundation, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, has been sent out to all members as a separate report.

!

Activity'! Costs'!

7!peer!learning!exchange!visits! $!13!500!

WA!bursaries!! $!22!000!

Bursaries!from!CIVICUS! $!9!000!

Human!resources!! $!25!057.18!

Professional!(consultants)! $!6!061.17!

!

Shared'CIVICUS'costs' $'1'953.71'

Miscellaneous' $'2'812.04'

Indirect'expenses' $'1'953.71'

Planning'and'learning' $'1'486.77'

Members'contributions' $'18'000'

Total'expenses'including'contributions'from'members'and'CIVICUS'

$'101'824.58'

Total'expenses'excluding'contributions'from'members'and'CIVICUS'

$'74'824.58'


20

Annex 4: Outcomes from partnership discussions: the IFP, AGNA, CIVICUS, and Coordination Sud

1. AGNA/ IFP discussion: side meeting at the CIVICUS World Assembly. 5 September 2012: Montreal, Canada

In attendance:

-‐ Charlotte Allan, CIVICUS -‐ Mariano De Donatis, CIVICUS -‐ Andrew Firmin, CIVICUS -‐ Oliver Henman, National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) -‐ Harsh Jaitli, Voluntary Action Network India (VANI) -‐ Megan MacGarry, CIVICUS -‐ Addys Then Marte, Alianza ONG -‐ Henri Valot, CIVICUS -‐ Daniel Verger, Coordination Sud -‐ Sam Worthington, InterAction

Key action points:

• The main focus of future engagement and collaboration between the two networks should be to share information, find points of commonality and interaction and identify joint projects for collaboration.

• CIVICUS and Coordination Sud, and particularly the AGNA and IFP coordinators based in those organisations, should help to facilitate this.

• One representative each of AGNA, IFP, CIVICUS and Coordination Sud should take part in occasional discussions to share information and plan next steps and opportunities as they emerge.

• It was agreed to put on hold any attempts to agree a memorandum of understanding (MoU). As relationships develop, the question of the MoU could be returned to.

• AGNA and IFP will share contacts list of their members. • AGNA and IFP Coordinators will then map out which organisations overlap in

membership between the two networks, focusing on who is and isn’t in each network and what some of the reasons behind this may be, and which countries are not represented in either network.

• Part of the mapping will be to find countries that don’t currently have structured national CSO associations of any kind. This offers opportunity for collaboration in growing new networks and making emergent networks stronger.

• AGNA and IFP, and the two secretariats, will work on establishing what areas of commonality and differences the networks have. This will show where there are clear areas for complementarity.

• Both networks have a shared need and challenge to deepen their engagement with the members and to stimulate more passive members to transition to more active members, and can share ideas on ways of doing this.

• A focus then could be on growing the membership of the two networks, with the aim to have 100 members shared between the two organisations within three years.

• Potential areas for joint activities include on the enabling environment for civil society, and post-Rio and post-MDGs. AGNA and IFP networks, together with CIVICUS and Coordination Sud, should identify potential priority areas and upcoming opportunities, including opportunities for AGNA, IFP, CIVICUS and Coordination Sud representatives to meet further.


21

2. Follow up discussion between CIVICUS, AGNA, IFP and Coordination Sud. 23 October 2012: London, England

In attendance: Lindsay Coates, InterAction Mark Nowottny, CIVICUS Madga Toma, Coodination Sud/ IFP Daniel Verger, Coordination Sud/ IFP Practical next steps decided for the following areas:

1. CIVICUS State of Civil Society Report: CIVICUS will connect about the possibilities for IFP members to contribute to either CIVICUS' 2012 State of Civil Society Report or the following 2013 State of Civil Society Report. Once the 2012 report structure and process has been confirmed, CIVICUS will engage with IFP members for contributions and participation, either through case studies analysis or country profiles.

2. Post-MDGs agenda: There is clear potential for collaboration between the 2 networks around these agendas. As the process is so fast moving, this cannot be clearly defined or established as yet, but the dialogue over positions and needs to set for these discussions will begin between the networks and their members. The coordinators of both networks will take responsibility for sharing all post-2015 information with all members of each network.

3. Information sharing: The coordinators will follow up to ensure that increased quality information, from members and the secretariat organisations is shared between the two networks.

4. Mapping the networks: Summarised what was agreed on in Montreal, and re-affirmed commitment to this process. The coordinators will lead on this together.

5. Moderation team: It was agreed that it would be important for any "moderation team" to include two IFP representatives, alongside 1 AGNA and 1 CIVICUS representative. It was agreed that it would be preferable for any structure or formalisation of the emerging partnership to flow out of a future joint meeting of the IFP Global Council and AGNA Steering Committee; so finalising the format of this will be on hold for the moment, until further details can be clarified.

6. Joint meeting of IFP Global Council and AGNA Steering Committee: The upcoming Asian meeting in January will provide a good opportunity to bring together the two constituencies; this will remain partial for the meantime. Both networks agreed to fundraise for a joint, formal meeting of the IFP Global Council and the AGNA Steering Committee, which would enable a more structured conversation.

7. WSF 2013: Explore holding a joint meeting of the 2 constituencies during the forthcoming World Social Forum 2013 in Tunisia, held at the end of March, as there is much overlap in participation of members. This will depend on the extent of all parties’ engagement at the event (CIVICUS, Coordination Sud, and AGNA and IFP members). All members need to inform coordinators about their upcoming plans, so that the two networks can begin to plan this.

8. Discussion document / draft work plan on AGNA-IFP cooperation: It was agreed that it would be useful for both AGNA and IFP to have a clear and concise note on the concrete activities which the two networks are suggested to undertake together; agree and finalise all steps by mid-January, ahead of the IFP Global Council meeting. It would also go to the AGNA Steering Committee, and for both networks to agree. The coordinators will follow up and develop this concept note, capturing activities and timelines agreed on.


22

Annex 5: AGNA Survey of Government /Civil Society Relations Compiled by David Robinson, ANGOA, New Zealand 26 June 2012 There were 18 completed responses from the national CSO/NGO associations in the following countries: Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Nigeria, China, Japan, Poland, Estonia, Turkey, Pakistan, Nepal, India, Kyrgyzstan. Key themes that emerge from the responses include: • There is an urgent need to educate governments (especially officials) about the nature of civil society and the positive role that CSOs can play as partners in development and not just as critics of government. • Only three countries have formal agreements or compacts between the government and civil society in place, although two others (India and Solomon Islands have draft compacts that have not yet been ratified). Several responses suggested that such an agreement would be useful and overall the responses indicated that the focus should be on the process used in creating an agreement and its implementation, rather than just on the content. • Even where the government appears to have a negative or disinterested attitude towards civil society examples were given of positive engagement in terms of either supporting the introduction of progressive legislation or preventing the passage of negative of repressive laws (such as preventing the International Cooperation Law and constitutional reform restricting human rights in Venezuela and the successful campaign opposing the re-arming of the Police in Solomon Islands). The lack of formal recognition and support does not prevent the existence of vibrant civil society. • On the other hand, the existence of an active and vocal civil society does not automatically lead to its acceptance by government. Several responses stated that civil society and CSOs are seen as potential (or actual) opponents of government; the extreme example being Venezuela which saw the relationship between government and civil society being one of conflict. The responses from Solomon Islands, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Nigeria, Pakistan, China and Turkey mentioned examples of officials seeing CSOs as a challenge, as part of the political opposition, or there being a culture of mutual suspicion. • Almost all responses (16 out of 18) said that they are currently involved with their governments in reviewing the laws and legislation covering the operation of CSOs even when the laws were considered to be inappropriate, inadequate or over complex. This involvement includes monitoring, raising awareness, mobilising stakeholders, and engaging directly with the government over law reform. A summary of the responses from each country follows. In each case, these were provided by national umbrella or coordinating bodies for civil society organisations (CSOs) that are members of AGNA. 1. Do your Government elected members and officials adequately understand the nature and potential role of civil society?


23

The responses suggest the importance of action to educate government, especially the officials responsible for implementation of policies, about the role of CSOs. Alongside this, there needs to be a focus by CSOs on showing positive aspects of their work.

-‐ Yes (5 responses): Jamaica, New Zealand, Japan, Poland, and The Gambia. -‐ No (six responses): Solomon Islands, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey, and

China (some officials see CSOs as a challenge to them). -‐ Sometimes or limited understanding (six responses): Dominican Republic,

Estonia, Mexico (improving), Burkina Faso (yes among politicians, no among officials), Nepal and India (limited understanding of complexity of sector).

-‐ Yes, but understanding is used by government to restrict the operations of CSOs (one response): Venezuela.

1.1 If not – how could this situation be improved? -‐ Burkina Faso: officials are afraid of losing their power. Need to put into practice the

existing rules for dialogue between state and CSOs. -‐ China: CSOs need to improve their professional capacities. -‐ Mexico: Better coordination of government agencies and more transparent

distribution of funding. -‐ Kyrgyzstan: NGOs need to show positive examples of their work. -‐ Nepal: more interaction and dialogue between Civil Society and government. -‐ Nigeria: CSOs need to inform government of challenges and opportunities for

complementary roles. -‐ Pakistan: need to promote rule of law and constitutionalism. -‐ Venezuela: needs political change

2. How do relations in your country between government and civil society rate on

a scale of five with one being the lowest (non-existent) and five the highest (engagement and partnership)?

As could be expected, the majority of responses (nine in total) clustered around the mid-point with three being lower and five higher. The response from Pakistan was interesting as they placed relations with human rights groups at 1 and foreign aid NGOs at 5, reflecting government priorities. 1 Pakistan human rights groups (5 for foreign aid NGOs) 2 Turkey 2.5 China 3 Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Gambia, Nigeria, Poland (varies as

some officials do not understand CSOs), Solomon Islands, and India. 3.5 Mexico and Estonia. 4 New Zealand, Burkina Faso and Japan. 3. Do you consider your government’s attitude towards civil society is based on:

(select an option) • Conflict • Indifference • Tolerance • Engagement • Partnership • Other: please define.

The responses showed generally favourable attitudes by governments; nine responses considered the attitude as either engagement or partnership, and seven considered it to be tolerance, indifference or conflict. Solomon Islands gave a more specific definition of


24

indifference with the relationship being described as non-interference and apathy. For the seven countries in the “lower” half of the range, an education campaign for government politicians and officials would be useful, in order to initiate change in the relationship and improvements.

-‐ Partnership: Jamaica. -‐ Between engagement and partnership: Japan. -‐ Engagement: New Zealand, Burkina Faso, Nepal, Gambia, Poland, Estonia, Mexico

(but at some municipal levels there is tolerance and indifference). -‐ China: between tolerance and engagement. -‐ Tolerance: Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria. -‐ Between indifference and tolerance: Turkey. -‐ Non-interference and apathy: Solomon Islands. -‐ Indifference: Pakistan. -‐ Conflict: Venezuela.

4. Is there a formal statement or policy document setting out the terms of your

government’s relationship with civil society? These could be in the form of a MOU, statement of intent or code of good practice.

The majority of responses stated that there is no formal MOU or compact covering government’s relationship with civil society; only three countries currently having such an agreement. India and Solomon Islands have comprehensive draft MOUs which have not been ratified by the government, while in Nigeria there is a compact at the Lagos State level. A number of responses referred to agreements with government on specific issues such as the Dominican Republic’s law for not-for-profit organisations and the Law on Freedom of Association in Burkina Faso.

-‐ No: Jamaica, China, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan, Venezuela, Gambia, Turkey, Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, Mexico, and Nigeria.

-‐ Solomon Islands: a draft MOU prepared in 2008 has not been ratified. -‐ India: statement of intent that has not been ratified. -‐ No (but there is one at the state level): Nigeria -‐ Yes: New Zealand, Estonia, and Poland.

4.1 If so, could you send us a copy, or provide the link if it is available online? AGNA is currently building a collection both of “compacts”, and of MOUs or agreements on specific issues or legislation. However, we do not have the resources to carry out any analysis of them. What is clear from the accompanying comments is that there is often a gap between the intent specified in these agreements and the implementation in practice.

5. If there is such an official policy document, has it been useful in practice?

If so, why and how? If not, why not? As noted above, with the exception of Estonia and New Zealand, these comments refer to specific agreements or legislation rather than to general “compacts”. -‐ New Zealand: this is a new document which has still to be tested in practice. -‐ Estonia: it has set out clear terms of engagement for government agencies. -‐ Nigeria: meaningful partnerships formed between CSOs and Lagos State. -‐ Mexico: the law has stimulated government to evaluate agencies with relationships with

CSOs and has improved the transparency of funding. -‐ Dominican Republic: although the law about not-for-profit organisations is useful for

legal status, classification, and access to public funding, there is a gap between writing and practice; parts on tax exemption or participation aren´t successfully implemented.

-‐ Burkina Faso: Law on Freedom of Association brought about the formation of many associations.


25

-‐ China: central policies are too general to be useful for local authorities. -‐ The Gambia: the monitoring function of the NGO Affairs Agency has not been effective. 6. What are the major challenges to improving government/ civil society relations? There is a need to improve the level of interaction and dialogue between civil society and governments, particularly to educate officials on the role and relevance of civil society and CSOs. The response from Solomon Islands highlights a dilemma that is often present but not usually expressed by CSOs. That is the “need to compromise some watch-dog roles by NGOs” in order to engage in a meaningful dialogue about potential partnership relationships. The response from Nigeria also mentioned the problem of “excessive criticism of government”. Simply focussing on the watch-dog and advocacy roles can help to strengthen government apathy, intolerance or opposition.

-‐ Dominican Republic: have more high-level government officials aware about the role of CSOs; have implemented the national law for CSO (122-05); need for more knowledge in CSO sector about the law and its benefits and rules; and there is a clear need to improve dialogue about priorities for development, practices, resources.

-‐ Jamaica: there is a greater degree of recognition of the work of CSOs in enhancing governance at the local level; provision of technical and financial support to CSOs; institutionalise collaboration of government and CSOs; enact legalisation to protect CSOs.

-‐ New Zealand: there is a need to improve level of collaboration among CSO agencies and continue to educate government about CSOs and their various roles, beyond simple service delivery.

-‐ Burkina Faso: there is a gap between the law and the actions of officials; counter the move by government to introduce restrictive legislation.

-‐ China: improve NGO capacity and raise Government awareness about role of civil society; political, economic and social regimes are biggest challenge.

-‐ Mexico: strengthen transparency and accountability. -‐ Estonia: improve access to government plans and processes. -‐ Kyrgyzstan: improve government and civil society understanding of value of

cooperation. -‐ Nepal: fragmentation and politicisation of civil society movement; inadequate capacity

of CSOs; lack of public space for civil society; government perception of civil society – need new NGO governance act.

-‐ The Gambia: government has the perception of NGOs as a negative element, as part of the opposition.

-‐ Nigeria: culture of mutual suspicion; corruption; lack of understanding by government; unprofessional CSO sector and excessive criticism of government.

-‐ Solomon Islands: there is a lack of understanding by government; need to compromise some watchdog roles by NGOs.

-‐ Poland: less bureaucracy and greater involvement of NGOs in developing legislation. -‐ Pakistan: corrupt practices; lack of openness and transparency; strong anti-NGO

sanctions have emerged. -‐ Venezuela: government restricts participation in public life to “People’s Power

Organisations”. -‐ Turkey: lack of political will, lack of good legislation; lack of relationship agreement;

action against CSOs by government. -‐ India: lack of flexible funding; focus on regulatory changes rather than promoting

enabling environment. 7. If relations between governments and civil society in your country are positive,

please explain how that was achieved.


26

The prominent way in which positive relationships have been created is through on-going engagements with government by civil society through a range of networks. The key appears to be building successful networks which enable CSOs to act collectively.

-‐ Dominican Republic: the most important element is that we have a frame for the relationship, in the form of the national law for CSOs. This frame reduces the possibility for discretion.

-‐ Jamaica: continued advocacy, negotiation, engagements, partnership and dialogue. -‐ New Zealand: existence of several CSO coordinating bodies and on-going dialogue

with government politicians and officials. -‐ Burkina Faso: Poverty reduction strategy helped change the relationships: civil

society is represented on the National Steering Committee for Growth and Sustainable Development.

-‐ Mexico: government realised it needs CSOs to collaborate in social development. -‐ Nepal: networking by CSOs and consequent activity has increased recognition by

government of its importance. -‐ Estonia: improved engagement and understanding of who should be consulted -‐ Japan: the earthquake in 1995 gave the chance to change civil society and how it

operates in Japan. -‐ Poland: persistent lobbying by CSOs. -‐ The Gambia: some NGOs have a favoured position with government. More

relationships are being formed. -‐ India: research, innovation and outreach by sector.

8. Can you give an example of a successful campaign for legislative change in

your country? There were thirteen examples provided; it is clear that even where there is little understanding of, or support for civil society, there has been effective engagement over specific issues. In Nepal, there was successful action to prevent international NGO being registered as national NGOs which highlights the issue (which is also present in Solomon Islands) of the importance of supporting local, indigenous associations.

-‐ Dominican Republic: increase of national budget for education to 4% of the GNI although not yet achieved; mobilisation and public support campaign were very successful.

-‐ Jamaica: Access to Information Act, advocacy and awareness campaign on Alternative Energy, Energy Conservation and Energy Audit of NGOs and Public entities.

-‐ Burkina Faso: Law on political promotion of women, petition to prevent change to limitation of Presidential term.

-‐ China: environmental campaign to regulate the temperature of air conditioners. -‐ Mexico: reform of tax legislation; the current formation of citizen movements opposed

to drug trafficking have challenged public policies and the judiciary system. -‐ Estonia: consumer action and boycott of grocery chain. -‐ Japan: involvement in PIC law. -‐ Kyrgyzstan: constitutional reform -‐ Nepal: preventing international NGOs registering as national NGOs. -‐ Nigeria: Freedom of Information Act. -‐ India: foreign funding regulation and Direct Taxes Code. -‐ Venezuela: prevention of International Cooperation Law and Constitutional reform

restricting human rights. -‐ Solomon Islands: civil society action prevented the re-arming of the police in 2006. -‐ The Gambia: improved education.


27

9. Are the laws and legislation in your country appropriate and adequate to enable CSO involvement in current issues such as advocacy, environmental protection, employment creation and social assistance?

The majority of responses, twelve in total, stated that the current legislation is adequate and appropriate with provisos over specific limitations in four cases. Four responses stated that the legislation is not appropriate or adequate, while in Venezuela, the legislation is only considered to be adequate on paper.

-‐ Yes: Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Estonia, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Pakistan.

-‐ China: yes, at a national level, but this not always effective at local level. -‐ Japan: yes, but legislation is too complicated especially for small organisations. -‐ Nepal: yes to some extent – needs updating. -‐ The Gambia: yes, but there is room for improvement. For example, lack of

implementation of existing laws. -‐ Only on paper: Venezuela. -‐ No: Solomon Islands, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and India.

9.1 If not, what are your key concerns? Concerns with their current legislation were varied with three mentioning inadequate treatment of taxation issues and two (Venezuela and Burkina Faso mentioned political interference). The Solomon Islands response raised the clash between Western law and their traditional culture or customary law. This is an issue that is also likely to be present in many Middle East and African countries.

-‐ New Zealand: definition of what is charitable needs to be brought up to date. -‐ Burkina Faso: control of civic space by political/state forces limits expressing citizen

voice. -‐ Mexico: administration needs to be simplified, excess red tape limits growth of the

sector. -‐ Estonia: officials interpret tax benefits very conservatively. -‐ Japan: complexity of application procedures and administration. -‐ Kyrgyzstan: is in a transitional period of government. -‐ Venezuela: Government smear campaigns and attacks on NGOs. -‐ India: tax act restricts raising funds through business activity, foreign funding is

restricted through advocacy being deemed political. -‐ Solomon Islands: there is a mismatch between Western law and Pacific culture; as

well as inadequate tax provisions. 10. Are you currently involved with your government in reviewing legislation? Almost all responses (sixteen out of eighteen) indicated that they are involved to some degree with their government in reviewing legislation affection the civil society sector. Yes: Jamaica, Dominican Republic, New Zealand, Burkina Faso, China, Mexico, Estonia, Japan, Nepal, Nigeria, Poland, Pakistan, Venezuela, Solomon Islands, Turkey, and India. No: Kyrgyzstan, and the Gambia. 10.1 If so, what is the role of civil society in this process? Although multiple forms of engagement in reviewing legislation were mentioned, the key activities were around monitoring, informing and mobilising stakeholders and engaging directly with government agencies. One case study, India, mentioned their involvement in research-based advocacy.

-‐ Jamaica: engage with government agencies to review, draft policy and make recommendations.


28

-‐ Dominican Republic: monitor the legislation for NGOs as part of a government/CSO committee.

-‐ New Zealand: monitoring situation and engaging with government review agencies. -‐ China: mobilise stakeholders and make recommendations to government. -‐ Mexico: lobbying and monitoring Presidential candidates. -‐ Estonia: ensuring stakeholders are heard. -‐ Japan: provide input on CSO reality. -‐ Nepal: raising awareness and advocacy. -‐ Nigeria: submissions to public hearings. -‐ Pakistan: coordinating CSO responses. -‐ Venezuela: preparing submission and draft laws. -‐ India: research-based advocacy.

11. Can you give an example of a successful campaign for legislative change in

your country? Regardless of the level of recognition and support from government, the majority of responses (ten in total) stated that they had been involved in successful campaigns for legislative change. Yes:

-‐ Jamaica: Access to Information Act. -‐ Dominican Republic: national law for CSOs. -‐ Burkina Faso: government is trying to change the Law on Freedom of Association to

be more constraining. -‐ Mexico: campaign for law on promotion of activities accomplished by CSOs. -‐ Estonia: drawing up the Estonian Civil Society Plan. -‐ Japan: PIC Law. -‐ Poland: new law on foundations. -‐ Venezuela: preventing restrictive legislation. -‐ Solomon Islands: protection of community rights to environmental and resource

governance. -‐ India: changes in tax code, income tax act and Foreign Contribution regulation.

No: Pakistan, Nigeria, and Nepal.

Annex 6: DRAFT Report: Advocacy by National Associations of Civil Society Organisations

Compiled by Tim Delaney: National Council of Nonprofits, United States of America

September 2012

The following DRAFT Report focuses on advocacy by national associations of civil society organisations. The report contents comes from work done in 2011-2012 by several members of the Affinity Group of National Associations (AGNA) who – recognising the importance of having an enabling environment for civil society – examined how national associations of civil society organisations interact with government for the purpose of improving public policies. As a result of their activities, including a July 2012 consultation in London by eight AGNA members, this report, and another separate one regarding good practices on government-civil society relations have been prepared.


29

This report provides a description of what various national associations do regarding advocacy; it is not intended to be a set of requirements on what a national association of civil society organisations should do. Also, this report is labelled “DRAFT” because it represents an initial working draft, ready for insertion of case studies and further insights to help the field. AGNA members are encouraged to forward clarifications and edits, as well as proposed examples, case studies, and other materials, to [email protected] (Tim Delaney of the National Council of Nonprofits in the United States) by October 15, 2012, so this report can be finalized.

Background National associations of civil society organisations (whatever their name, be it charities, non-governmental organisations, non-profits, voluntary associations, or countless others) serve the needs of charitable organisations in their particular countries. With the needs in each country differing, the specific work done by national associations differ as well. Nonetheless, generally all national associations find a way to be a collective voice to civil society in their countries. Among other things, they “advocate on behalf of the sector on specific industry-wide issues. As representatives of the civil society community at a national level, national associations serve as vehicles for a constructive and coordinated voice for civil society. They are well placed to play the role of interlocutor between governments and civil society, and are in a position of strength to influence public policy.” Resource Guide for National Associations: How to Establish a National Association (2006 CIVICUS Affinity Group of National Associations (AGNA) at page 6) (hereinafter referred to as “Resource Guide”). The following Report offers an overview, as well as some practical insights from case studies, regarding the range of advocacy activities undertaken and coordinated by national associations. There is no universal, required set of advocacy activities. With AGNA having representational members in almost 60 nations, it stands to reason that the activities of those national associations differ as they take actions to represent their members and the sector in their countries. It is important to recognize and emphasize that national associations do not exist solely for their members, however. They also benefit non-member organizations and the general public. Additionally, as the Resource Guide notes (at page 9), national associations benefit governments in multiple ways:

A robust country requires a strong state and civil society, each holding the other accountable and balancing power to prevent any abuse. National associations have an important role to play in helping to strengthen the civil society component. For example:

• National associations coordinate the sector demands and create a joint platform for engagement and negotiations, thus making interaction easier for government.

• National associations are a vehicle for sharing the experience and expertise of civil society organisations, without which the public debate will never be fully informed.

• National associations provide a single platform for communicating with civil society enabling effective information dissemination.

Moreover, “keeping civil servants abreast of developments in civil society helps them to do their work within government more effectively. By staying in touch with elected officials, would-be-legislators and in communication with staff on governmental committees, national


30

associations are able to offer insights, materials and tools that may be helpful and influential in deliberations.” A. Advocacy by National Associations At their fundamental core, national associations exist to foster a strong and vibrant civil society. Within the advocacy arena, national associations do so by taking both direct and indirect actions to empower their member organisations and other civil society organisations.

1. Direct Actions National associations often take direct action as the primary actor interfacing with government. Sometimes these actions are purely defensive to stop harmful proposals. Other times, they involve proactive efforts to improve the status quo. And other times, they are corrective actions that involve both defensive and proactive elements to correct societal problems.

a. Lead Lobbyist Many national associations take direct action as the lead lobbyist engaging directly with government officials on certain issues in their countries.

Canada: In the public policy arena, Imagine Canada conducts “research to develop shared positions on public policy matters for the sector … [and then applies those policy positions by] engaging with public officials, including one-on-one interaction and more formal group presentations and submissions.” Imagine Canada has championed a number of policy issues, including “tax incentives for giving, the restrictions on advocacy by charities, and the reform of accountability procedures.”

Case Study – Defensive: In 2011, Imagine Canada successfully led an advocacy campaign that defeated proposed federal legislation that would have placed artificial caps on the compensation paid to those employed by the charitable sector. Having a national association that represented all subsectors across the country enabled the entire sector to come together and speak with one strong and unified voice to defeat the dangerous proposal. Case Study – Proactive: Since 2009, Imagine Canada has advocated for a new way to increase charitable giving: a “Stretch Tax Credit” that would increase the federal charitable tax credit for individuals by 10% on all new donations that exceed their previous donations. England: The National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) “champions and strengthens the voluntary sector” by working “to positively influence the external environment on behalf of the voluntary sector … through our policy and research work; by developing a strong evidence base on voluntary sector issues; by working with our members to influence government and other decision makers” and “by making sure government knows the true value of the voluntary sector.”

Case Study – Defensive: In March 2012, after Chancellor George Osborne released the government’s proposed budget that would have severely limited charitable giving of large amounts, NCVO immediately took a strong leadership role opposing that harmful portion of the budget. Among other tools, an innovative (and personal) “Give It Back, George” campaign was launched on the internet that fed opposition into the media. Ultimately, the Chancellor withdrew the proposal in late May, noting that he had “listened to charities.” Japan: The Japanese Association of Charitable Organizations (JACO) “works with, and for, the charity and community sector in Japan by providing information, advice and support and


31

by representing the views of the sector to government and policy-makers.” In performing advocacy activities, JACO “represents the common concerns and a shared voice of the charitable sector, including Public Interest Corporations, Charitable Trusts, NPOs Incorporated or Unincorporated, against the government, the media, and the general public.” Case Study – Proactive: Since 2001, JACO has been involved in a “radical reform” of Japan’s Public Interest Corporation system, including testifying before YYY. Additionally, JACO has been an advocate on several changes to the taxation system, including securing special tax relief in 2011 related to charitable contributions for the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

b. Public Advocate National associations also take direct action as prominent public advocates for civil society organisations in their countries. As the Resource Guide documents (at pages 8-9), national associations provide numerous advocacy-related benefits to the non-profit sector, including:

• Strengthening the message of CSOs by providing a collective voice which is more likely to be heard and acknowledged as legitimate by others, particularly decision makers;

• Providing a platform to consider and develop viable alternatives for policy makers, and to create greater opportunities to influence government and public policy;

• Helping to raise and maintain the profile and legitimacy of the non-profit sector; • Acting as interlocutors between civil society and other sectors, and helping to link the

non-profit sector with key institutions; • Defending the interests of civil society against oppressive regulations, coordinating a

more effective response to external threats; • Serving the sector by undertaking action research that aims to improve civil society

organisations’ individual and collective impacts; • Protecting and strengthening the rights and independence of NGOs.

Canada: Case Study – Defensive: In 2012, Imagine Canada responded quickly and forcefully when certain Canadian officials questioned the legitimacy of non-profits to engage in public policy debates. Often, when a give NGO or a subsector is under intense and unfair scrutiny, being accused by the government or media, having a national association step in to provide a more balanced voice can prove powerful to stop a potential avalanche of bad proposals. India: The Voluntary Action Network India (VANI) “is an apex body of Indian NGOs” that “strives to be a platform for: national level advocacy on issues and policies confronting the development sector; coordination and action to support and promote voluntary action in the country. VANI has been working as a catalyst between central and state governments and their machineries on the one hand and Indian NGOs on the other. It represents NGOs' concerns and issues through policy advocacy, networking and sensitizing the government and other stakeholders.” Case Study – Corrective (both proactive and defensive): In 2010, India passed the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) that “indicates a change in the intention of the government from reforming and enabling the voluntary sector to controlling and commanding it. … VANI adopted a two-fold strategy - first, to inform all FCRA certificate-holding organisations about the change and, second, advocating with the Ministry of Home Affairs for better rules.”


32

United States: “The National Council of Nonprofits (Council of Nonprofits) is a trusted resource and advocate for America’s charitable non-profits. By working through its network of State Associations of nonprofits and 25,000+ individual non-profit organizational members – the nation’s largest non-profit network – we serve as a central coordinator and mobilizer to help non-profits achieve greater collective impact in local communities across the country. We identify emerging trends, share proven practices, and promote solutions that benefit charitable nonprofits and, most importantly, the communities they serve.” Case Study – Corrective (both proactive and defensive): When the global economy collapsed in 2007-2010, it exposed a longstanding serious problem: the broken “system” through which government contract with non-profits to deliver needed human services. In particular, during the Great Recession governments too often stopped making obligated payments or paid very late. So as part of a unique collaboration, the National Council of Nonprofits and Urban Institute conducted the nation’s first comprehensive study of the impact of government contracting policies and procedures on non-profit human service providers. The Urban Institute surveyed human services non-profits to document their government contracting experience. It then issued a report, Human Service Nonprofits and Government Collaboration: Findings from the 2010 National Survey of Nonprofit Government Contracting and Grants, documenting that, more than 50% of the time, governments at the local, state, and federal levels contracting with human service non-profits imposed unnecessarily complex (i) bidding burdens and (ii) reporting requirements, (iii) failed to pay the full costs of the services for which they contract, (iv) changed contract terms mid-stream, and (v) paid late on their legally-binding contracts. The National Council of Nonprofits also issued a report, Costs, Complexification and Crisis: Government’s Human Services Contracting “System” Hurts Everyone. It provided additional context by (i) explaining how the contracting problems affect everyone in America, not just human services non-profits, (ii) identifying specific practices that contribute to the problems non-profits are experiencing, and (iii) proposing three dozen solutions that non-profits, government officials, funders, and citizens can adopt to improve services, restore value for taxpayers, and benefit communities. This special project advocating for change has produced positive policy changes in more than a quarter of the states, set the stage for on-going reforms in multiple jurisdictions, opened vital channels of dialogue between governments and non-profits, strengthened the policy capacity of state non-profit associations, and raised the overall profile of the non-profit community with policymakers. For further information, visit the special government-nonprofit contracting website. 2. Indirect Actions That Empower Their Members and the Sector “Indirect” advocacy actions occur when the national association works primarily behind the scenes, often as a coordinator encouraging/supporting/empowering its members’ actions or by expanding the reach of sector-related information. It is impossible to list the countless number of ways in which national associations do this important work. Here is a small sampling of categories and examples: a. Internal – within the Sector National associations play an invaluable role in helping their members and the sector:

i. Connect to information. ii. Identify and track trends. By operating as a robust network that gathers

intelligence about what is happening both in the field and in the chambers of government, national associations can connect the dots to identify trends that individual


33

civil society organisations would not be able to spot, let alone take action on by themselves.

iii. Give voice with a common framing. If each civil society organisation has a slightly different message, then the core message gets diluted to the point that government officials hear competing views and not a common, unified message. By developing a common framing to policy issues, national associations can help the sector speak with one voice to increase the understanding of policymakers and the general public about civil society.

iv. With advocacy training. National associations can help non-profits understand the importance of engaging in public policy matters and then learning how to do so.

v. Provide safe space for dialogue. National associations can encourage civil society organisations to recognize the special and unique role they play in society: creating a safe space for people in local communities to come together to develop a shared vision of the future toward which they all can work – a space for the collective expression of citizen aspiration.

Mexico: CEMEFI, Centro Mexicano para la Filantropia, (the Mexican Centre for Philanthropy), has a “mission “to foster and enhance the culture of philanthropy and social responsibility in Mexico and to strengthen the organized and active participation of society.” Among many other activities, CEMEFI “maintains open communication with the government to improve the legal and fiscal conditions of non-profit institutions, and facilitates their participation in designing public policies.” Case Study – CEMEFI’s website presents a wide variety of information about a range of topics that keeps those within and otherwise interested in the non-profit sector – non-profits, corporate supporters, and the general public – informed about relevant data, research, and other trends.

b. External – Information National associations also indirectly educate government policy makers, the media, grantmakers, and the general public about public policy issues that impact civil society. During the AGNA consultation in London, a common refrain from every national association representative was a seemingly universal perception by civil society organisations in their countries – local and national, small and large: no one understands civil society organisations. That perception is most commonly felt and most pronounced when interacting with government policymakers, but it also is true that the general public and even those employed by, volunteering for, and receiving services from civil society organisations have little knowledge about the sector as a whole and the common features shared. National associations can endeavour to fill this information vacuum and the sense of “invisibility” of the sector through a variety of activities and devices, including the following:

i. Websites. ii. Reports, special reports, white papers, and other collections of reliable information

and analysis. iii. Media resource. Proactive engagement with press/social media iv. Social media.

B. Overarching Advocacy Trends 1. Levels of Advocacy National associations engage in advocacy to improve public policy at multiple levels:

-‐ with international governing bodies; -‐ the lead government of their nation (federal or central government);


34

-‐ regional governments within their nation (state, province, prefectures); -‐ and local governments (county, municipal, other).

The following sampling illustrates the various levels of involvement:

a. International: Some AGNA members engage with international governments. Ireland: “The Wheel is Ireland’s support and representative umbrella network for community, voluntary and charitable organisations. We help them get things done, we represent their shared interests to government and other decision-makers and we promote a better understanding by the public of them and their work. In one line – “we are a one-stop shop for and about the charity sector in Ireland.” Currently, the Wheel’s top “priority is assisting our members and the people and communities they serve to cope with the economic and social crisis.” Case Study – In addition to representing the interests of Ireland’s civil society organizations within Ireland, the Wheel provides leadership to the European Network of National Civil Society Associations (ENNA), which – among other things – works to develop “a common policy platform on issues affecting the sector at European level” with the European Union.

b. Federal/Central: Most AGNA members seem to focus most of their advocacy attention on activities with their central or federal government.

c. State/Region: Although not as common, some national associations also engage in

policy matters at the regional level. United States: Case Study – While maintaining its vigilance on policy developments at the federal level that threaten local charitable non-profits, their tax-exempt status, and their ability to accomplish their missions, the National Council of Nonprofits concentrates its efforts at the state and local levels because that is where most policy threats arise (e.g., in 2011, Congress passed fewer than 100 bills, while states passed 40,000 bills). This focus is especially vital now as revenue-starved governments devise new ways to try to extract resources from, or shift responsibilities to, non-profits and thereby foundations. As state and local government officials confront their fiscal battles, they turn to dozens of taxpayer- and industry-funded government infrastructure groups – from the National Governors Association and National League of Cities to the American Legislative Exchange Council – to compare notes about different schemes to get revenues and shift responsibilities from government budgets. In contrast, until 2009 when the Council of Nonprofits reframed its policy work, the non-profit community did not have a similar sector-wide group tracking non-profit policy developments across state boundaries to protect charitable non-profits at the state and local levels. The non-profit community is playing catch-up now, because historically too many non-profits isolated themselves within their narrow subsector (e.g., arts, education, health, and social justice), not recognizing their common economic interests or their collective power when united and speaking with one voice. Specific issues addressed include legislative and regulatory threats at the federal, state, and local levels to non-profits’ tax-exempt status, resources, and ability to pursue their missions.

d. Local: Even more rare, but not unheard of, some national associations engage in policy matters at the local level on issues that can spread problems to multiple other jurisdictions and thus harm civil society organizations.

New Zealand: “ANGOA, the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa, is a unique network of organisations from across the range of NGOs in Aotearoa New Zealand


35

including national, regional and local groups. … ANGOA facilitates NGO networking around issues of common concern with a particular emphasis on strengthening relationships across the sector and between the sector and government. … ANGOA encourages central and local government to work positively with NGOs.” Case Study – [to be inserted by ANGOA] United States: Case Study – With the economy hurting local governments, many elected officials – ignorant about the important benefits that charitable non-profits provide – try to solve their own budget problems by taking resources from the missions of tax-exempt non-profits. Because many states have constitutions and statutes preventing direct taxation, some local jurisdictions try to impose demands for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). The National Council of Nonprofits, both directly and through its State Association members, has taken a hardline stance against these attempts to evade the law and hurt the communities that non-profits serve by taking money away from non-profit missions. 2. Targets of Advocacy Traditionally, many people unfamiliar with public policymaking focus their activities almost exclusively on the legislative branch of government. As advanced policy practitioners, however, national associations scan much more broadly to include review of other actors, both within government (legislative, executive, and judicial branches) as well as beyond government (such as the media and the general public).

a. Legislative Branch

b. Executive Branch

1. Executives 2. Regulators

i. Charity regulators ii. Other regulators (such as tax assessors, lobbyist regulations)

3. Administrators

c. Judicial Branch

d. Other: non-government targets 1. Media 2. Public

• Public • Electionsà ballot measure elections • Protests

3. Tools of Advocacy a. Research and analysis: to document problem exists (e.g. contract abuses). Philippines: The Caucus of Development-NGO (CODE-NGO) is committed “to taking civil society leadership in policy advocacy and partnership building in the public arena, as well as developing the capacity and accountability of our member networks towards realizations of a peaceful, just and sustainable Philippine society.” The CODE-NGO website shares many valuable insights, including: “We should continuously analyse the local and national situation,


36

and strive to ensure an effective balance between holding government accountable and partnering with government in the pursuit of our development agenda.” Case Study – CODE-NGO has been developing plans for the restructure of its nation’s government through a Civil Society Advocacy on Constitutional Reform Project.

b. Education of members (and public) • Policy options • Engagement options (tools)

§ Tool à Nonprofit Public Policy Agenda (free at www.councilofnonprofits.org for non-profits to adopt or amend); e.g. appoint a cabinet-level non-profit liaison.

§ Tool à friendly competition: shining the light on the victories to inspire spread.

c. Consultation • Tool à Task Forces

d. Confrontation

• Tool à lobbying • Tool à protests • Tool à elections • Tool à public will • Tool à Building coalitions, networks & alliances • Clarity on shared objectives & core partner base • Agree on strategies for campaign, rules for partnership • Importance to clarify decision-making structures (formal or informal) & roles of

partners • Developing consensus of message • Communication strategy (internal and external)

new affinity group of national associations annual general meeting … · 2016. 11. 15. ·...

Documents