GA November ENGLISH version

Document Sample
GA November ENGLISH version Powered By Docstoc
					                      General Assembly Report
                     _______________________
                      Brussels, 26 - 27 November 2008

The second CONCORD General Assembly (GA) for 2008 took place in Brussels on 26 and 27 November.

The main item on the agenda was the strategic framework produced in the various consultations on the CONCORD
multi-annual strategic plan. The major points in the next CONCORD plan for 2009-2015 were detailed further in the
workshops organised as thinktanks on the first day of the General Assembly – a result, the strategic framework was
approved on the second day of the General Assembly. The final strategic plan will be approved in June 2009.

Other important subjects of this meeting included the public presentation of the CONCORD manifesto for the
European elections and mobilisation of CONCORD members at a session on the 2nd day, plus approval of
CONCORD‟s action plan and annual budget for 2009.

Information to members on the processes engaged to reach a joint declaration on aid effectiveness of civil society
organisations stressed the importance of contributing, from an European perspective, to this international process
that has been promoted since 2008 by CONCORD among others.

The projection of the film "Dead Mums Don‟t Cry‟" heightened members‟ awareness of the importance of defending
sexual and reproductive health and rights of women in developing countries. On this occaion, the importance of
gender issues within CONCORD was reaffirmed.

The General Assembly finished with the presentation of the programme of activities under the Czech Presidency,
en explanation of the impact of the army‟s humanitarian role on Development NGOs and live video testimony of
Andrea Maksimovicz participating on the Civil Society Forum on Financing for Development in Doha.
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Agenda                                                                                              3

A.   Opening and statutory oligations                                                               4
     A.1. Address by CONCORD President Justin Kilcullen                                             4
     A.2. Statutory questions                                                                       4

B.   Draft 3 of the CONCORD strategic framework                                                     5
     B.1. Presentation of draft 3 of the strategic framework                                        5
     B.2. First series of workshops                                                                 6
              Nature of CONCORD
              Nature of civil society organisations                                                6
              CONCORD‟s alliances; Role of the EU in the world governance arena                    7
              Strategy for resources                                                               7

     B.3. Second series of workshops                                                                8
            Development & Aid Programmes                                                           8
            Policy Coherence                                                                       9
            Dialogue with the Institutions                                                         9

C.   Cocktail to launch the CONCORD manifesto on European Union Elections                           10

D.   Draft 4 of the CONCORD strategic framework                                                     11

E.   CONCORD 2009 Action plan and budget                                                            11

F.   Effectiveness of civil society organisations                                                   14

G.   Improving gender awareness                                                                     16

H.   Mobilisation for the European elections                                                        17

I.   Open subjects
     H.1. Programme of the Czech platform on the occasion of the Presidency of the European Union   18
     H.2. Impact of the army‟s humanitarian role on development NGOs                                19
     H.3. Live from the Civil Society Forum of financing of aid in Doha.                            20

J.   Closing address by Justin Kilcullen                                                            20


Annexes

A.   List of participants                                                                           22
B.   Summary on workshops for draft 3 of the strategic plan                                         25
C.   Summary on workshops for draft 4 of the strategic plan                                         29
D.   Programme of the Czech platform’s activities during the Czech Presidency of the EU             35



                                                                                                    2
                                                           AGENDA
                                                 WEDNESDAY 26TH NOVEMBER 2008

9.30 – 10.00: WELCOME!
                 - Verification of the quorum
                 - For Approval: June 2008 CONCORD General Assembly report

10.00 – 12.30: CONCORD STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
                  - Presentation of Draft 3 of the Strategic Framework
                  - Political context surround the Strategic Framework
                  - Discussion
                  - 1st set of workshops :
                         Nature of CONCORD Nature of CSOs/NGOs
                         EU role in global governance arena - what this means for CONCORD‟s participation in global alliances
                         Resources Strategy


14.00 – 17.00: CONCORD STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK CONT…
                  - Feedback from 1st set of workshops & discussion
                  - 2nd set of workshops: First brainstorming on CONCORD‟s 3 year priorities
                         Development & Aid Programmes
                         Policy Coherence for Development
                         Dialogue with Institutions

   18.00 – 19.30: COCKTAIL: presentation and cocktail launch of the CONCORD EU Elections Manifesto (Espace Jacqmotte)
                                                  THURSDAY 27TH NOVEMBER 2008

9.00:        OPENING OF DAY 2 : Justin Kilcullen, President of CONCORD

9.15 – 10.00: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK DRAFT 4
                - For Endorsement: Draft 4 (as a working document)

10.00 – 11.00: 2009 CONCORD ACTION PLAN & BUDGET
                  - For presentation and endorsement

11.15 – 12.30: CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
                  Chair: Andreas Vogt, CONCORD Secretariat
                  - General introduction to the CSO development effectiveness process and context
                  - Feedback from the Exploratory Meeting on CSO Development Effectiveness
                  - Information on the Czech NP Presidency project on CSO development effectiveness
                  - Presentation of www.cso-effectiveness.org
                  - Discussion (question & answers)


13.15 – 14.30: GENDER AWARENESS RAISING
                  - Special showing of the BBC Panorama Documentary „Dead Mums Don‟t Cry‟ (30‟) & debate - Eva Christina Nilsson,
                  Vice-President, Eef Wuyts, IPPF & Maaike Van Min Eurostep/Marie Stopes International

14.30 – 15.30: EU ELECTIONS MOBILISATION
                   - For discussion: Building capacities and synergies around this key event – Mike Mathias, Chair of the Policy Forum &
                   Ester Asin Martinez, CONCORD Secretariat

15.30 – 16.30: OPEN TOPICS
                  - Life from Doha's CSO forum – Andrea Maksimovic, Solidar
                  - Czech Presidency events, Jana Krczmarova, Czech NP
                  - Role of the Military in development – Liisa Laakso, Chair of the Advisory Group

16.30: Closing of the General Assembly – Justin Kilcullen, President




                                                                                                                                       3
                 WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2008

A. OPENING AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

A.1. Welcoming address
Justin Kilcullen, President of CONCORD, began by paying tribute to the Slovenian and
French national platforms that held the two Presidencies in 2008. He primarily focused
on the international conference on „intercultural dialogue in development education” in
Ljubljana and the international Forum of national NGO platforms from 82 different
countries, organised by Coordination Sud, the French NP, in Paris. This marked the rise
of new alliances between NGOs. Kilcullen also congratulated Jean-Louis Vielajus for his
recent nomination as President of Coordination Sud.

Since the last General Assembly in June, CONCORD went to represent European NGOs at the Accra forum on Aid effectiveness.
CONCORD was amongst a strong participation of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) from across the world. Members expect changes in
the relationships between Northern and Southern Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) regarding representation and accountability.
Northern NGOs need to open up to the South and be held accountable to Southern organisations. Current models of partnerships with the
South will shift as power relations change. CONCORD members need to keep this in mind while discussing alliances throughout the
strategic plan. It is also necessary to remember the impact of the economic crisis threatening the aid budget. As national budgets scale
down, the drought and food crisis are deepening poverty. Currently, almost one billion people have insufficient food.

The strategic plan consultation has changed since June‟s General Assembly. On 27 November, CONCORD members will approve a
strategic framework, rather than a strategic plan. This working document will point out key objectives to reach and ways to achieve them.
Justin Kilcullen also reminded the General Assembly of the highly-involved consultative process leading to the third draft, which will be
presented on the first day of this November General Assembly. He emphasised the need for consensus and common understanding,
explaining that after two discussion-based workshops, a fourth draft of framework will be presented. Once this framework is approved,
Kilcullen and his colleagues will put together a three-year plan. They will set progress benchmarks and consider the outcomes of
November‟s General Assembly. During the June 2009 General Assembly, the final strategic plan will be signed off.

On the second day, the 2009 budget and action plan will also be approved.



A.2. Statutory questions
The Secretary General, Ad Ooms, observed that the quorum had been reached: as 23 members were present; the decisions of the
General Assembly could be validly adopted.

He submitted the report of the General Assembly of June 2008 for a vote of approval, and asked if the members had comments to make.
There were no comments.

Decision: The report of the General Assembly of June 2008 was approved by 25 votes in favour.




B. CONCORD’S STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
B.1. Presentation of Draft 3 for the strategic framework
Richard Bennett, consultant, presented draft 3 of CONCORD‟S strategic framework for 2009-2015 and recalled the consultation and
drafting process. He specified that the annexes with the indicators did not have to be approved the next day. The 2 objectives and 5
approaches are the same in draft 3 as in draft 2. The main changes in draft n° 3 are as follows:

   Introduction of the more general term of ¨Sustainable development”. In particular in point 1.1.3 of “Sustainable development and
    democracy”: this means that CONCORD should reflect on the balance between the way it expresses itself politically and how
    democracy is perceived in the West and the East of Europe, as exposed by the Prague's conference on the paradigm of Development

                                                                                                                                       4
    in May 2008. A future debate on this topic is needed. Point 1.2.1, now refers to "Sustainable development and international solidarity
    between citizens and civil organisations".
   The word “NGOs¨ has been chosen to define Development NGO community rather than civil society organisations (point 1.2).
     Point A.2: refets to "Members" rather than "European NGOs".
    “Organisational development” is not present as a key element to enable members to deliver their work effectively and should be part
    of aim 1.2 on "citizens, NGOs and civil society", not just in “approaches”.
   Introduction of the term ¨Enabling environment” meaning "to bring together influencing of funding and regulation (point 1.2.4) and
    clarify the relations between NGOs and the European Commission when it comes to regulation".
   A few changes on “alliances”. Some members do work with partners who are not civil society organisations. The changes allow the
    incorporation of such alliances. Clarification on engaging with global alliances.
   In 2.3.3: some changes: precision on the convening role of CONCORD by supporting members bilateral and collective relationships; it
    allows the members of members to engage better at European level.
   Synergies between types of members, secretariat and associated projects (2.4.2).
   Resources: a phrase on reducing the percentage dependence on European Commission (EC) was replaced by ¨independency will not
    be undermined and sufficient resources need to be raised to reach the objectives." Some more information about the other sources of
    funding (income generation, other grant makers) has been added.
   Specificities of the mandate and appropriateness of secretariat role need to be addressed.

Questions of clarification
   Nick Roesevaere from BOND (UK platform) congratulated for the work. BOND sent a lot of comments and wanted that the core
    identity of CONCORD, its resources, relations and alliances to be clarified.
   Sander Laban (Dutch platform) asked for clarification on which document is to be adopted at this General assembly.

Replies
-   Justin Kilcullen explained that only the framework document is to be approved the next day and that the final plan and benchmarks
    will only be adopted at CONCORD June 2009 general assembly.

Address of Paul Adamson, President of the think tank "The Centre" and editor of the magazine E-Sharp. He put the political context in
perspective for the CONCORD 2009-2013 strategic framework, in order to stimulate subsequent thinking by the members:
The economic climate is affecting everyone. It is a threat for development aid and philanthropy. In terms of opportunities, development
NGOs should try to stress the importance of human values and the need for solidarity in time of crisis. A new administration in the White
House will shift relationships between the USA and the European Union, opening up new possibilities for NGOs. It is imperative to educate
businessmen and politicians about the rights of non-Westerners to have decent lives. The European Union doubts itself; there is a lack of
legitimacy and confidence. There lies an opportunity for NGOs to challenge Europe on its short and long-term objectives and the budget to
reach these objectives. The CONCORD manifesto can be used to question the aims of the European Parliament and reflect upon the
relations between MEPs and civil society organisations. Who needs who?
How can NGOs do better? Their work is based on the defense of good causes, but NGOs should not forget that they are not the only ones
worrying about development. If every person started fighting against poverty, what would be the specificity of NGDOs? How would they
reposition themselves? It is important to keep objectives mainstream without compromising them. People need to consider what other
parties want; try to reach consensus with other actors, work with different political families or businesses, encouraging corporate
responsibilities and finding new partners.

Questions
   Joanna Maycock (Action Aid) stressed the importance of reflecting on NGOs‟ role and added a few comments on the coming
    changes. The financial crisis and election of the new President of the United States are opportunities to raise awareness on the role
    of citizens, the market and of the politicians in these crises. Reflecting upon solutions can provide room for changes.
   Ruth Picker (Austrian platform) asked M. Adamson to identify specific occasions that NGOs should focus on to bring forward their
    issues.
   Per Bo (Danish platform): These crises allow questioning of the states‟ budgets and creating changes. NGOs should stress the
    importance to invest on global issues (development and poverty). It is time to increase the investment on poor people to stimulate the
    economy and the employment market, as the Marshall plan did after World War II.
   Nerea Craviato from CONCORD secretariat: Financial, climate and food crises are an opportunity to restructure the global system but
    she fears that international summits on these issues will only address short-term problems. NGOs have an opportunity to ask for a
    long-term structural change otherwise, once the crisis passed, nothing will have improved. Massive mobilisation is needed.
   Richard Bennett asked if this crisis is a possibility of structural changes or temporary changes.
   Oxfam International asked where is the European Union going and what it means for NGOs. Does CONCORD alliances strategy
    need to reach Think Tanks?

                                                                                                                                        5
    Nick Roesevaere from BOND (UK platform): Politicians will not carry messages on the final resources of economic growth addressing
     development and the needed redistribution at world wide level. Should international actors from civil society carry on this issue?
    Jack Bharier (BOND, UK platform): There is a need to challenge the neo-liberal consensus to push solidarity. But which model of
     solidarity? How do NGOs make significant changes and how can they be integrated into CONCORD‟s strategic plan?
    Olivier Consolo (CONCORD director): The window opportunity is limited to steer fundamental changes of patterns. But are NGOs
     ready for changes in the ways we set up priorities and the means of actions?

Answers
M. Adamson explained that identifying the problems is not enough; solutions must be proposed. At the Brussels level, there is the
possibility to question Barroso's second term and try to have a center-left president of the European Commission with the support of the
European Parliament. In broader terms, a paradigm shift is possible since the effects of the crisis will last for long in terms of employment,
fighting climate changes and international solidarity. There is a need to convince the right wings that fundamental changes are needed,
rather than engaging with the leftists.

The French presidency will leave a legacy of dialogue but has defended its national interest. The idea of new alliances is to work with other
organisations that NGOs are not used to. The new President of the United States made very clear that efforts would be needed. Solidarity
is a vague word and there are lots of different ways to show it. Changes are possible but NGOs need to be practical: CONCORD could
give its EU election manifesto to the new European Commission to influence it from the start and for five years.



B.2. First set of workshops
Four workshops, based on the results of the meeting held prior to the CONCORD General Assembly on 1 October and on prior
consultations, studied four themes for reflection. The main ideas, consensus and differences of opinion are set down here. (See annex B
for the report from each workshop).

Eva-Cristina Nilsson, vice-president of CONCORD Board facilitated the reporting of the four morning workshops. She explained that the
drafting committee will consider the outcomes of the morning and the afternoon workshops to write draft four of the strategic framework.

Workshop 1: Nature of CONCORD
Rilli Lappalainen facilited the workshop. Ad Ooms gave a summary report of the workshop in plenary.
CONCORD is speaking as the confederation of 40 members representing 1600 NGOs of Europe. Membership of CONCORD includes
NGOs from all over Europe and there is no distinction made between geographic of historical origin of NGOs. CONCORD is a centre of
cooperation. The campaigning is not to be done by CONCORD, but by the members of the members.

Six articles are relevant to the nature of CONCORD. Overall the wording can stay as it is for the highlighted paragraphs, though nuances
need to be made here and there, mostly on the rights and responsibilities of the members (be it NWs or NPs): in particular the point 2.3.1:
national platforms have the ability to influence their national government and members of parliament and engage their citizens. There is
criticism that this article should mention the networks which can play a role at national level too. In the draft, the notion of “active
membership” and "equal access" to participate or lead processes of the members should be incorporated in the framework (point 2.4).
It would be good to add a part ¨on active participation and enlargement of the membership".


Workshop 2: Nature of civil society organisations and NGOs
Annamaria Kekesi facilited the workshop. Eduard Soler (Spanish platform) gave a summary report of
the workshop in plenary.

There was considerable debate as to whether CONCORD should defend the interests of non-
governmental organisations only or of civil society organisations in general and how this could be
reflected in the strategic framework. The bigger part of the discussion revolved around issues of
terminology, and many participants pointed the need to engage in an in-depth discussion on the nuances
between the different concepts.

Non-governmental organisations: This term was considered to be too exclusive. In particular in
Southern or Eastern contexts, the concept doesn‟t always make sense. When accompanied by the
attribute “development”, the term is even more restrictive - some organisations, though working on
development, do not consider themselves as development NGOs. Participants were therefore rather
hesitant to accept the notion that CONCORD only works with and for NGOs.

Civil society organisations: There was an agreement that, without a clear definition, this term is too vague. However, when it comes to
political dialogue with the European Institutions, the term is considered to be more appropriate than the term “NGO”, as it is closer to the
concept “non-state actor” which is used by the European Commission. The term also has the benefit of showing that CONCORD, though

                                                                                                                                               6
working primarily for the benefit of its membership, is open to collaborate with non-NGOs. For the purpose of the strategic framework, it
was agreed to include a definition of the term as an annex.

Leadership for other sectors: CONCORD should accept a leadership role on development issues for other sectors of civil society whern
it is given a mandate and has the legitimacy to do so.


Workshop 3: CONCORD’s alliances
Gérard Karlshausen facilited the workshop. Rob Van Drimmelen/Aprodev gave a summary report of the workshop in plenary.
CONCORD needs to articulate the goal of why it is seeking and building these new alliances by using the strategic plan to identify those
actors and the nature of those relationships. There is a need to keep the proposed text broad and to elucidate in the 3 year plan which of
those actors we prioritise for the coming three years. A shopping list of actors will not allow CONCORD to prioritise about how it increases
the impact of its engagement. Warning that CONCORD has limited resources: evaluate the alliances, their relevance and formulate some
criteria to choose strategic alliances.

There are many global and regional networks covering all kinds of fields – CONCORD needs to identify what makes the European
confederation unique, where are the gaps it can address and what is CONCORD added value. This will help reflecting on what
CONCORD's role should be, who CONCORD should build its alliances. Many of the calls for CONCORD alliances go well beyond its
capacity to engage and be strategic so therefore it must prioritise strategic alliances – and this is different from one time partnership
engagements, but longer term alliances with structural engagement and this needs proper resources – we need to look for maybe one or
two in the first two years – not six. CONCORD has limited resources – members and secretariat and need to prioritise with which actors it
works.

Participants identified scenario 3 as the closest to current reality, but agreed on the need to be more political and strategic in CONCORD‟s
engagement on those issues:
                        Define a clear vision of development;
                        Bring Southern partners on these discussions;
                        Bring other sectors on board; synergies;

Recommendation: to identify criteria for assessing the alliances in light – otherwise CONCORD will continue to work on an ad hoc basis
to ensure that it has a grid of criteria to help assess whether we engage; and build on experiences in the past and evaluation regularly.
There are already certain criteria on which CONCORD can draw for the type of alliance it wants: if there is a clear gap where there are
certain policies CONCORD has difficulty impacting on then we must prioritise these (e.g. influencing finance Ministers; public awareness
needs to increase a lot more quickly than it already has). If there is a need for more pressure from the public for governments to be held to
commitments national NP should see global alliances to join together for very concrete impact on specific issues e.g. ISG an alliance for
very specific change – this is another criteria – not just getting involved with other national platforms but seeking to engage with pan-
organisation alliances.

Regarding the proposed draft text, some amendments are requested: the multi dimension of poverty need to be represented: "to influence
the EU policies and practices so that the European Union and its Member States enhance social justice, human rights in the world".
On strategic alliance.2.2.: this text should be reformulated to reflect a more proactive approach of CONCORD and be more specific about
alliances in the three years action plan. For the first dot in that section, it is proposed to add regional and geographical alliances. The
second dot: instead of building alliances replace by to active seek and build multi actor alliances which civil society organisations and other
appropriated actors sharing the same objectives in order to promote the vision and mission of CONCORD; Point 3. Add to participate in the
world of global alliances.


Workshop 4: Strategy for resources
Joanna Maycock facilited the workshop. Jake Bharier gave a summary report of the workshop in plenary.
The framework part on finance is considered as quite good but change is needed in 2.5.2: put membership first in the list and then the
European Commission. Need to check that there are adequate cross references between the chapter of the draft in regard particularly of
sustainability linked with finance and human resources: sustainability of CONCORD depends of the one of the members.

Accountability: if CONCORD asks for more fees from the members, will their expectations and requests raised as well? There is a need for
a balance and redistribution between core activities and activities led by the members and the strain on CONCORD secretariat
Need clarity on what is the use of core incomes and consistency of resources and actions are key (should a fund be set up and having a
financial strategy is key). Which activities are core should be defined. Reflections on how to build sustainability of CONCORD and ethic are
needed. Financial experts from membership could help the secretariat as well (task-force). There is a need for a strategic financial task-
force to have a financial strategy for 5 to 10 years thanks to the expertise of the members.
New members insist on sustainability.

                                                                                                                                             7
Questions and answers on the subject of the workshops
 Ester Asin (secrétariat de CONCORD): Definitions on the subject of civil society do exist. Karine Sohet (Aprodev) asked to have a
   definition added at the beginning of the project and to have us talk about citizens in general, rather than organised civil society.
   Rob van Drimmelen (Aprodev): is it the Board‟s job to decide on the budget and finances, or that of a task force as proposed in
    workshop 4? Jake Bharier proposed to have the Board take a decision on this idea, but the support of experts would be very helpful.
    Deepali Sood (Plan International) felt that this kind of task force is useful but with a representative of the Board as a member.
   Nick Roesevaere (BOND) suggested not to change the text too much.
   Justin Kilcullen proposed that the drafting group reflects on the inputs and propose another draft on the next day of the General
    assembly. Eva-Christina promises to report on the final changes and to justify the changes.



B.2. Second set of workshops
Mike Mathias (Luxembourg NP), chair of the Policy Forum, introduced the three workshops.
He explained that the Policy Forum was assigned the job of defining CONCORD‟s main priorities for the next 3 years. He convened a
meeting to consult the facilitators of the various groups in CONCORD. The process was discussed and it was proposed that on Thursday
26 November, 3 discussions would be held to get a first orientation of the scope and direction of CONCORD‟s priorities; Then a first
proposal of strategic objectives would be drafted and a questionnaire sent to the working groups asking them for input or reactions, or to
complete or specify these objectives up to the third week of February 2009. The proposal is to be readjusted at the end of February 2009
and discussed on 2 and 3 March in Stockholm where the next Policy Forum will be held. All the members and working groups must think
about it and make their contributions to the Policy Forum. The goal is to define working priorities for 2009-2011 for CONCORD and to be
clearer about the results to be achieved for each priority in 3 years. Two things must be kept in mind:
    -    The issue is to set the priorites for CONCORD, but not everything need be done within CONCORD. Members can work on other
         priorities together. What counts is the value added of CONCORD on these priorities.
    -    The financial and human resources of CONCORD must be kept in mind, to be realistic in setting priorities.


Workshop 1: Development & aid programmes
Workshop facilitated by Ester Asin from the CONCORD secretariat.
Development aid is CONCORD‟s core business and AidWatch is the visible face of CONCORD work, but it is still much broader than
AidWatch. We need to continue working on aid; we must recognise that we cannot work on everything; but we must broaden the context to
ensure our work on aid (and our aid messages) is political and effective – and this has resource implications. By April, this issue and the
relevant process will need to clarify the division of labour on policy priorities between the Policy Forum and the Working groups (WG).
Three possible scenarios for CONCORD Policy priorities on development cooperation and aid:

1. CONCORD keeps on doing what it is good at
 ODA focus on keeping to commitments will need more resources e.g. from the French perspective – AidWatch has been very useful
    in doing this but we need to maintain this momentum and possibly step it up with big mobilisation – this would imply more exchanges
    with all EU MS plus partners in the South to maintain pressure / bilateral streams is also a problem for some countries – conclusion:
    ensuring scenario 1 is successful will mean more resources and activity
 Monitoring EU ODA quantity commitments – keep at same level/keep predictable
 Quality – keep focus on existing quality issues
 Current and future aid instruments focus on monitoring and influencing
 Aid through Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
 Development education
 Implies more resources because requires more capacity development and coordination with Working groups.

2. CONCORD expands the focus of the issues and work to match political priorities
 Climate change – developing new policy positions / alliance building - implications
 Security – developing new policy positions - implications
 Preparation of the post-MDG agenda
 These topics needs to be linked to the AidWatch work

3. CONCORD goes beyond aid
 After Doha summit the annual Monterrey reporting will expand to cover more than aid and CONCORD will have to engage with this
    (innovative finance; tax; debt) from a pan-European perspective – this is the added value of CONCORD. Reframing work within
    broader context of FFD / resources for development
 This will have implications of the way members hold their governments to account and it is much broader than aid.


                                                                                                                                         8
Workshop 2: Policy coherence
Mike Mathias (Luxembourg NP) and Romina Vegro (BOND) introduced the concept note of the session and different possible scenarios,
plus the plan of activities of the different CONCORD WGs. The highlights of the discussion were:

1.   “New” issues are arising: climate change; energy; HIV / AIDS; migration (most of them already identified at the workshop on PCD in
     July 2008);

2.   There is quite a shared vision that the scenario for PCD work within CONCORD should be go beyond the official process of working
     groups and have its own way, but CONCORD needs to:
     o Decide on priority areas (at least for the next three years), identify where if it has the capacity or needs to bring other actors on
         board. It is also crucial not to overlap with other spaces / actors but to build synergies.
     o Define a strategy that includes available resources (human and financial);
     o Mapping upcoming political opportunities (summits, international conferences, etc).
     o Show evidence cases.
3.   There is a need for CONCORD to be proactive around issues related to “policy coherence for development”, so that CONCORD sets
     the agenda, by:
4.   Identifying the key policies that impact most by opening the scope of work on PCD within CONCORD. An entry point for CONCORD‟s
     work on PCD could be “aid dependency” (which would link aid, trade, agriculture agendas, among others);
     o Bringing voices from the South since at the end of the day, our work should have an impact on people‟s livelihoods in the South;
     o CONCORD shouldn‟t be just reacting to the European agenda (by challenging the 12 sectors identified), but be an actor in
          development in the European scene (and challenge the process itself); PCD should be a political issue, and not technical (which
          is the case of the European Commission (EC) agenda on PCD);
     o What is its own concept for PCD rather than adopting the one of the EC.
5.   Should not miss the political opportunities that the EC process offers (i.e. shadow reports to the official reports); as well at national
     level, screening how PCD is being incorporated;
6.   What are the synergies with the EVF project on “EU coherence”?
7.   Approach:
     o Human-Rights based approach (HRBA) within CONCORD: is now agreed in the CONCORD strategy framework, but how is
         going to translate into practice? HRBA is a methodology on how you do things, but you need to effectively integrate it in your
         work.
     o Need to define CONCORD‟s political understanding of development (new vision of development), which should help us to define
         the priority areas. How?
          Build from the current context (crisis: financial, food, climate): Which are the policy opportunities? Which are the social
           structures needed in order to ensure rights for everybody?
          Be political: by wording our values, where do we want to go;
          A CONCORD working group on alternatives? This group could start from the outcomes of the Prague conference and build on;



Workshop 3: Dialogue with the institutions
Facilitated by Olivier Consolo, Director of CONCORD.
The general comments were that CONCORD had previously an ad hoc approach of its relations with the institutions and has now a more
structured one. But dialoguing with the institutions is not an aim in itself, but a transversal tool to achieve a certain impact and that setting
up priorities is needed.
The workshop proposed 3 scenario's of relations:

     1.   Keeping them as CONCORD strict core business: CONCORD only deals with development bodies of the 3 main European
          institutions: Parliament, Commission and Council.

     2.   CONCORD does what it is good at: CONCORD confirms its role and mandate in multi-stakeholders and international CSO
          processes. It helps improving the dialogue at EU and national level and in the South and supports Southern Civil Society
          Organisations in engaging in a dialogue with European Union.

     3.   CONCORD goes beyond Development bodies: For example, CONCORD confirms its role and mandate in the Contact Group
          of DG Trade and other international organisations (UN, WB, IMF, …).

When it comes to writing about the institutional relations within the framework, some pre-conditions should be mentioned:
                                                                                                                                                9
    -    Get a mandate from the CONCORD General Assembly and establish rules for feedback.
    -    Defined a toolbox: overview of the strategic, tactical and specific types of dialogue which can be used by individual Working
         Groups.
    -    How to withdraw from a dialogue?
    -    Can CONCORD accept requests from EU institutions to perform certain tasks?
    -    To what extent should CONCORD opens EU policy spaces for Southern Civil Society?



C. Cocktail to launch the CONCORD manifesto for the European Union elections
CONCORD organised a cocktail launch at the Espace Jacqmotte to introduce CONCORD
manifesto for the European elections to journalists and to the representatives from the
European institutions and the civil society. About 60 persons attended the event.

Annamaria Kekesi from the Hungarian platform and CONCORD board member welcomed
the guests and highlighted: “The global crisis on finance, climate and food show us that we
can not wait to share our views and mobilise politicians at European and national level
before and after the elections.” In order to promote a responsible Europe, CONCORD calls
for a partnership between the civil society and the European Parliament that supports the
right to sustainable development and accountability to citizens. Up to CONCORD, the 3
main objectives that the European Union should reach are: sustainable development,
improvement of development aid and democratic responsibility. CONCORD urges the
candidates to vote in favour of these issues once they are elected.
As explained Mike Mathias from the national association of Luxembourg and chair of the Policy forum of CONCORD: “we need elections
that bring a change in Europe to achieve a real sustainable development with more and better aid and democratic accountability. “

Mike Mathias delegate of the Luxembourg platform and Chair of CONCORD Policy Forum presented the CONCORD manifesto:
In CONCORD‟s view, the 3 essential objectives for the European Union are: sustainable development, improving development aid and
democratic responsibility. CONCORD encourages candidates who are elected to the European Parliament to act in favour of these policies
when they are in office.
Trade, agriculture, the environment, migration and many other policies have an impact on sustainable development. Current policies have
not sufficiently contributed to the elimination of poverty at European and world levels. In addition, the implementation of these policies
exacerbates the situation of persons outside the European Union, which is very often ignored.
To promote responsible Europe, CONCORD uses a partnership between civil society and the European Parliament to support the right to
sustainable development and to increase responsibility of citizens. CONCORD believes that particular attention must be paid to the
climate, justice and gender problems.

For more information: Ester Asin Martinez, CONCORD policy officer: Tel: +32 (0)2 743 87 81 – easin@concordeurope.org. The
manifesto is available by clicking here.




                                                                                                                                         10
                    THURSDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2008
Justin Kilcullen, President of CONCORD opened the 2nd day by emphasising the need to approve the budget and the action plan for 2009
and announced the subject of the programme of the 2nd day.


D. PROJECT/DRAFT 4 OF THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Eva Christina, Vice President of CONCORD explained that a limited team made up of members of the Board and members of CONCORD
reworded the third draft of the strategic plan on the basis of the contributions of the workshops of Wednesday 26 November, and
presented a fourth version. At the next general assembly (June 2009), a three-document package will be presented in June:
    The strategic framework
    The three-year priorities for each Strategic aim and approach
    The performance indicators

Only small adjustments have been done. The consultant, Richard Bennett, explained the main changes are in the sections:

    “Our aims”: a sentence has been canceled about the influence of EU policies and practices and a new one specify more strongly the
     aim of CONCORD: “To influence the EU‟s policies and practices so that the Union and its Member States enhance
    “Our approaches: “civil society networks” has been cancelled
    “Strategic aims”: 1.1. wording has been changes to emphasise equality and justice – 1.2. the notion of civil society engaged in
     Development has been added to be more inclusive.
    2.1. equality has been added to gender.
    2.2 “Strategic alliances”: wording about “active seek and consolidate” has been added and the description of potential allied has been
     specified in terms of shared values and principles. 2.2.3 word “participate” has been inserted. 2.3. stressed that CONCORD is
     sustainable because members are sustainable and in 2.3.1 about the work at national level, “networks” and not only national
     platforms has been mentioned and an explanation of why networks work at national level is important. IN “Leadership and
     participation”: 2.4.1 is a new insert on “the active participation of members n all CONCORD activities”.
    2.5. In 2.5.1 “membership” was put before the mention of European Commission to highlight that members contribution is more
     important. 2.5.3. “account to our members for effective use of these resources” has been added.

Questions
    Deepali Sood (Plan): about 3.2.1: the second part of the phrase is about citizens' engagement but platforms influence not only
     decision-makers but make also development education. Why has been this deleted?

Answers
-    Richard explained that the text there was simplified because the notion is already present in point 1.2.1.

Justin Kilcullen thanked the members and the consultant for their participatory consultations and efforts and asked the audience to vote the
4th draft strategic framework.

Decision: the draft 4 of the Strategic framework 2009-2015 was approved by 29 votes in favour, 0 abstentions, 0 votes against.




E. CONCORD ACTION PLAN & BUDGET 2009
The Director, Olivier Consolo, explained that, now that the draft for the strategic framework 2009-2015 has been approved, the CONCORD
action plan and budget 2009 can be presented.

The European Commission has asked CONCORD to present its application for financing earlier than usual (December) – this year it has
been submitted in October-November. Therefore the annual action plan 2009 includes consultation of the facilitators of the working groups
who met mid-November, but it was not possible to send this plan to the members well before the General Assembly.


                                                                                                                                        11
Firt of all, it is important to come back quickly on CONCORD‟s results as compared to the objectives set for the period 2005-2008. On the
whole, the objectives have been reached, but not fully for 3 specific objectives: Policy Coherence for Development, reinforcement of
capacities of members and alliances with the South (started in 2007). In addition, other objectives/processes that were not included in the
2003-2006 plan, but that the members wanted, were integrated and achieved, such as the process of monitoring aid (Aid Watch) or the
process of civil society organisations‟ development effectiveness.

2009 is a year of transition between the former CONCORD plan and the final adoption of the 2009-2015 plan foreseen mid-2009 (next
CONCORD GA), and also because the European elections will bring changes in the members of Parliament and the European
Commission, which means building relations with our new partners and this takes a lot of time.

As concerns resources, the core budget 2009 does not cover all activities. It has been increased, but other processes and activities must
be financed independently by outside resources that are still to be found (part of monitoring of aid, European elections, policy coherence
(trade groups, food safety, climate change, migration), the European secretariat of the Global Call for Action against Poverty).

For the first 3 years of CONCORD (2003-2005), there was no outside fundraising. In 2008, 70% of requests for extra funding were
obtained, showing that CONCORD is recognised as a valid player, but fundraising for 2009 has been delayed and has not yet brought
results.

CONCORD has asked explicitly for support from the European Parliament on the question of sustainable multiannual financing of
CONCORD by the European Commission for the next few years. A letter of support from the European Parliament should be sent to Louis
Michel, the Commissioner for Development.

In 2009, the operating budget should cover 2 GA, 5 Board meetings, about 50 meetings of working groups and sub-groups, and
CONCORD attendance of about thirty official meetings (representation) and 2 or 3 major seminars per year.

For CONCORD objective n°1: “influencing the European institutions”, 8 processes have been identified: Aid Watch, which is a priority, is
partially financed ; policy coherence is not financed; the policy forum is financed 100%; follow-up of the Prague conference on the
paradigms of Development in a partnership with Trialog and the Czech NP is not currently financed ; the Cotonou group and the
Enlargement and Neighbouring policy group are financed; the EU-Africa group is not financed; the work of the 2 presidencies is financed
by the European Commission; the work on the European elections is not financed, but applications for financing have been submitted. If
they are not accepted, will the members accept to be asked, for example, for € 500 per member?

CONCORD‟s second objective is to promote rights and responsibilities of citizens and civil society organisations : the FDR working group
and the Development Education Forum are financed; the European process on the effectiveness of civil society is covered to a small
extent by the CONCORD budget for the European part, but not for the international dimension (a new CONCORD working group will be
created on this subject : the “European group on CSO effectiveness”), financing of the dialogue with the European institutions is generally
covered.

CONCORD‟s 4 strategic approaches are: maintaining its commitment within the EU Civil Society Contact Group, running the informal
group with other civil society sectors on development issues, coordination of various initiatives to reinforce the capacities of CONCORD
members, consolidation of strategic alliances.

Questions:
 Francesco Petrelli (Italian NP): the multi-stakeholders' process (such as the one that achieved the Development education
   consensus) is a successful methodology that should be mentioned and reproduced.
   Per Bo (Danish NP): The presentation was clear and interesting. Some activities or processes were not foreseen in the past.
    CONCORD members should take this into consideration since they have proved to be very relevant processes. CONCORD members
    must keep in mind that additional resources for new processes or activities might be needed in the future. CONCORD has been very
    successful in finding new funding. CONCORD should reflect upon which activities are more “sellable” and ask for funding for them.
    This could be the case for Climate change. Temporary funding might be needed to take over an existing strategy while waiting for the
    answer from the donors. Members should be active in that perspective. CONCORD should put pressure on the European
    Commission to give money to support citizens dialogue of African citizens is excellent and should be done.
   Mike Mathias (Luxembourg NP): How are the tasks broken down among the members of the secretariat so that an evaluation can be
    done of whether there are enough human resources?
   Florent Sebban (French platform): for the Aid Watch process, what is covered by the CONCORD budget, given that this process
    should grow, and what are the possibilities for additional financing? Alliances with the South are being constructed more and more
    actively. Additional financing would be needed to reinforce relations with these alliances and to meet applications for structural
    partnerships. Greater emphasis should be put on national capacity building in the 2009 action plan. Is additional financing needed?
   Bernd Nilles (CIDSE): Financing for Development has a huge agenda. What is CONCORD plan related to this? How is the strategic
    involvement with other NGOs on strategic topics implemented?
   Ana-Maria Braga Da Cruz (Portuguese NP): the wording on the gender question in the action plan is too vague. Mainstreaming,
    analysis and evaluation of gender questions must be ensured in European Union policies.

                                                                                                                                       12
   Sander Laban (Partos, Dutch NP): if South involvement is strategic, how will this be implemented with which funding? Capacity
    building is also a priority of the strategic plan which is good since the crisis increase the pressure on the national platforms. How this
    capacity building will be implemented?
   Deepali Sood (Plan): Members have committed to the Coherence for Policies which is of major importance. Extra financing is a
    burden which is only on the shoulders of CONCORD secretariat and Deepali Sood proposed to convene a meeting with facilitators of
    the groups and secretariat to brainstorm on how to fulfill our objectives by finding extra funding.

Answers by Olivier Consolo, CONCORD Director
-   Aid watch extra funding: at the moment only the cost of one staff member is cover by CONCORD budget. Activities and media work
    has to be funded by other sources. The Gate Foundation has been approached and is interested in engaging but it is not sure it will
    be for 2009. If not, CONCORD will ask the Open Society Institute to breach the 2009 budget.
-   Relations with the South: the groups could receive a mandate to look for funding since they know their issues and have contacts
    related to their issues.
-   Clarity on funding for development (FFD) and coherence. The current plan is vague on this issue. Based on yesterday workshops,
    it can be refined. On FFD, members want a collective work on a common agenda via the Aid Watch process but politically speaking
    aid is not the first issue on the international stage. It is rather about the reform of international institutions and how could developing
    countries develop themselves counting on their own resources which are often „evaded‟ by international and global business firms
    through tax heavens. The FFD task-force should keep leading the work of CONCORD on FFD while keeping it simple. On policy
    coherence, members have identified some major topics (migrants, climate change, and agriculture) but CONCORD will not be leading
    on process dealt by other NGOs sectors. CONCORD will rather contribute to the process of others.
-   Gender: the point on gender will be improved in the 2009 plan.
-   EU-Africa: Per Bo idea to put pressure on the European Commission to give money to support citizens' dialogue of African citizens is
    excellent and should be done.
-   Staff secretariat: CONCORD needs to adapt secretariat capacities to the new objectives. The consultant Richard Bennett is
    assessing the secretariat in order to review the secretariat way to deliver better the next strategic plan. In June, concrete proposals
    will be made.

Answers by Justin Kilcullen, CONCORD President and Jake Bharier, CONCORD Treasurer
-   On 8th December, CONCORD board will reflect on the leadership of the Board in the implementation of the objectives. The Board
    would like to propose an approach for an effective working plan that allows seeing concrete results to increase member capacities
    and other objectives. By June General assembly, concrete proposals will be made.
-   Jake Bharier, Board member and Treasurer of CONCORD presented the budget 2009. The starting point of the budget is the action
    plan. He is confident that funding will flow in regard of the quality of CONCORD work and welcomed the proposal of Deepali Sood to
    look for funding but coordination of efforts will be needed to avoid addressing several times the same donors.
-   Jake Bharier recalls how effectively CONCORD members work together and pull their resources together. It is higher than what could
    be achieved with the same amount of money individually.
-   The financial strategy will be reshaped in the coming years based on the strategic framework.
-   In 2008, the budget was managed quite well but there are overspending in some lines and a slight deficit is to be foreseen at the end
    of this year. Oil prices have increased and therefore the costs of travel have been unexpectively high. By law, the indexation of
    salaries in Belgium has been 6% rather than the usual 2% this year.
-   The membership fee for 2009 is what was proposed three years ago. For one member, there is a slight change. The overhaul amount
    foreseen 3 years ago is actually smaller because of 3 members leaving which is a lost of 18.000 euros.
-   In the next 6 months, starting in December 2008, new sources of funding must be reflected upon.

Questions:
 Eric Lichen (VENRO): what is the line “additional contribution”.
   Marta Pejda (Polish NP): the 5000 €? Is it was CONCORD has already received or is it still to be expected?
   Marjan Caucik (Slovakian platform): some New Member States NP think that the fee is too high for them because it is almost what
    they get from their own members. There is a problem of sustainability of their platform if they have to stay in CONCORD but they are
    working to find a solution in the future. For this reason the Slovak NP will abstain when it comes to voting.
   Christine Bedoya from Trialog questioned the need for French – English translation (in order to save budget resources). And would
    like to know why German translation has not been foreseen rather than the French translation.
   BOND: Beth Marshal asked about future increase in membership fees.
   Second column on financial strategy: what is the percentage in comparison with the total budget?
   Barbara Eros (Hungary NP): clarification for the fees is needed. Why is CONCORD staff cost representing 50%? If you are looking
    for funding, you will have to defend this.

                                                                                                                                           13
Answers
-   Renting costs: Stéphane Pégart from the secretariat explains that there is something that might appears has a mistake in the table:
    75,000 euros only were supposed to be spent for the renting budget line but it is more because CONCORD could not move out of the
    building and rent something cheaper for legally binding reasons. Additional fundraising costs that Ruth mentioned are actually the
    renting payment of other NGOs present in CONCORD building (sub-tenants).
-   Fees: 3 years ago, parameters to set up fees were established. Nowadays, the structure is still the same. CONCORD understands
    the problem of sustainability of the new platforms and that it is vital that members protect their own core activities but contribution to
    the whole is also important. This will be reflected upon again. That‟s also why capacity building needs to be improved to reinforce the
    sustainability of the members. Jake Bharier thanked the Slovakia NPs for supporting the process by abstaining from voting. About
    the future fee, a first draft will be proposed in June 2009.
-   Staff costs: CONCORD is not an NGOs delivering projects. Staff is at the core of the process of facilitating the engagement of
    members.
-   Translation: point is noted and it will be rethought but translation and communication is key to CONCORD work with the institutions
    and especially with the partners from the South. For them the main five working languages are: English, French, Spanish, Arab and
    Portuguese.

Separate votes were taken on the 2009 CONCORD action plan, the 2009 budget and the 2009 members‟ fees.

Decision:
The action plan was approved by 28 votes for and 1 abstention.
The budget 2009 was approved by 28 votes for and 1 abstention.
The fees were approved by 23 votes for and 6 abstentions.




F. EFFECTIVENESS OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS (CSOs)
Andreas Vogt from CONCORD secretariat facilitated this session. Jana Krczmarova (Czech NP), Jean Reynaert (Belgium NP), Blandine
Bouniol (Caritas), Liz Steele (Care international) presented the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and other on-going work
relevant to defining and promoting the development effectiveness of civil society organisations.

Andreas Vogt recalled that the effectiveness of civil society organisations is part of CONCORD‟s strategic framework and that CSOs,
through their pro-active attitude, contribute to setting the official donor agenda. He also stressed that the Open Forum process and
CONCORD‟s leadership in it contributes to the credibility of CONCORD at the international level. He explained that the CONCORD
secretariat created and has maintained the international website on the effectiveness of civil society development organisations:
http://www.cso-effectiveness.org.
He recalls the Paris declaration and the historical background that led to the creation of the Open Forum process.

It was highlighted that donors have been pushing NGOs to sign up to the principles of the Paris Declaration which is perceived as being
too technical and not adequately capturing the work of CSOs and the real debate needed on „development effectiveness‟. Therefore, CSO
have embarked upon a process towards defining their own effectiveness framework. NGOs should make their governments aware that
this process of CSO effectiveness has now been officially recognised by the international community and donors in the Accra
Agenda for Action.

F.1. Introduction to the global process of development effectiveness
Blandine Bouniol from Caritas presented the international process on development effectiveness of civil society organisations (CSO).
(See the session "General Assembly on the CONCORD extranet » for the entire presentation”. The presentation of the Forum goes from
International level to national level, but sub-regional level exists as well in Spain.

The Open Forum on CSO Development Effectiveness (2009-2011) is:
   An independent, inclusive CSO-led process, engaging in political dialogue with donors and governments
   Based on the principle of subsidiarity: country-level, regional and thematic consultations (key role for platforms and networks)
   Building consensus on shared principles and guidelines and promoting the implementation of these principles
   A learning space at local, national + regional levels (NOT “one-size-fits-all”)
   Aiming at agreeing upon a multi-stakeholder declaration at the next High Level Forum in 2011 on development effectiveness

                                                                                                                                          14
There is a Global Facilitation Group (GFG) whose role is:
   to provide overview, coordination, leadership and visibility to the Open Forum
   to oversee the different dynamics and aspects of the global process and its work plan
   to foster coherence and inclusiveness
   Transparency and accountability to civil society as a whole

It operates in three languages: English, French and Spanish.

The GFG will build a consortium of Supporting Organisation (SO) in charge of practical aspects: internal communication flow, website,
logistical and administrative support, outreach, fundraising and fund management. CONCORD has expressed interest to participate in this
consortium (alongside All African Conference of Churches, Asia Pacific Research Network, CIVICUS, InterAction and ALOP).


F.2. Report on the exploratory discussion on development effectiveness of CSO
Jean Reynaert, from Coprogram, presented the way CONCORD participes in the global process at Continental European level.
CONCORD has created a working group to follow and contribute to this process. CONCORD members contribute their experience from
the various countries and networks, learning from each other by their comments in the Open Forum. The Czech platform decided to make
development effectiveness a key theme during the Czech Republic Presidency of the European Union.


F.3. Information on the Czech Presidency project for effectiveness of CSO
Jana Krczmarova from the Czech platform presented the process at national level. She explained that this theme is the main subject of
their activities while their country is President of the European Union.
Discussions amongst Czech NGOs are focused on the methodology of assessing the effectiveness of CSOs. Czech NGOs are interested
in defining effectiveness principles and their impact, the assessment of the CSO effectiveness and in sharing experiences, including not
only their success stories but also their failures. Given that in the Czech Republic the development NGO sector is quite young, sharing
failures is a difficult question.
The Czech NP project will test the effectiveness principles of their CSOs in the context of migration, good governance, sustainable
technology, food security, inclusive development, etc.

An introductive seminar took place in Prague to build the understanding of the international process and to define objectives for the Czech
platform. Good partnership and democratic ownership were also tackled. Tangible outcomes of the Czech process will be thematic
activities that demonstrate and show experiences and concrete evidence, including case studies. All these will be put in a common paper
to be presented at the final event in June: the conference on CSO Development effectiveness. CONCORD members are invited to
contribute to these activities.

Questions
   Beth Marshall (BOND): set of principles are developed at international level. What is the input of the sub-level and the expected
    outputs?
   Joanna Maycock (ActionAid and CONCORD board member): thanks the people involved in that process. Who should be in charge
    and take responsibility for this process? Within NGOs, there is not yet a European agenda. It is an issue of accountability and of
    impact of the field work. Therefore it is difficult to understand who should engage and take leadership (the field officer, senior
    management?)
   Francesco Petrelli (Italian NP) emphasises the importance of addressing the quantity issue as part of the work on the quality of aid
    and on the post-2010 steps in Development aid. The governments will want to involve the NGOs to set up the future agenda but they
    are cutting aid budgets at the same moment.
   Deepali Sood (Plan) explained that the Kenyan platform in November shared its experience, showing different levels of contribution.
    She pointed out that some NGOs use parts of the Paris declaration. At Plan, monitoring, evaluation and learning are based on the 5
    principles of the Paris declaration. She stressed that NGOs should not sign the Paris declaration, but should be aware that some parts
    of it are relevant for NGOs. A task-force has been set up within Plan, involving people from around the world (programming people,
    monitoring people, and field persons) in order to reflect together and ask for input.
   A representative from Senegal asked how effectiveness will be assessed: by themes (education, health, promotion of women, etc). It
    is important to present arguments for refusing to sign the Paris Declaration by using examples in the field and citizen evaluations to
    show why it does not suffice. An alternative report on the quantity and quality of aid is needed. How can the level of NGOs in the field
    in the South be articulated with the European level to make these evaluations? In Dakar, an assessment mechanism with NGOs and
    MPs has begun.
   Bernd Nilles (CIDSE): assessing and having different departments to contribute to the CSO development effectiveness process is
    challenging. Some NGOs lack capacities for that. The diversity of NGOs (fund-raiser, advocacy office, field projects) makes it more
                                                                                                                                        15
     difficult. He is concerned about the final aim of the process. When effectiveness principles are agreed by CSOs, governments will
     hold CSOs accountable to them. CSOs must be cautious that the principles will not become a weapon directed against themselves.


Answers
-    Jana Krczmarova (Czech NP): Depending on their specific interest, the level of representation and involvement in the process is to be
     taken by each organisation independently. However, all levels of work need to be included, from the field level to advocacy and media
     work.
-    Jean Reynaert (Coprogram) explained that, thanks to the on-going process, the Belgian government was encouraged not to give into
     pressure to sign the Paris Declaration by giving an alternative position at international level. The Belgian minister wants Belgian
     NGOs to sign a pact corresponding to the work going forward for the CSO – it could complete what has been forgotten in the Paris
     Declaration and ask the government what it plans to do one its side to improve effectiveness of aid. In March, the two parties of the
     Belgian platform will meet tosee that this process becomes the only one at Belgian level.
-    Blandine Bouniol (Caritas): the process is multi dimensional which is challenging. Different dimensions include the political dialogue,
     the internal assessment and reflection on CSO development effectiveness, relationships between NGOs from North and South,
     relationships between the NGOs and their government and donors. The framework has to be flexible. Democratic ownership, respect
     of the diversity of NGOs and good governance must be respected. CSO should be cautious against giving a tool to governments to
     rate NGOs..
-    Liz Steele (Care international): the process needs to take place on multiple levels. It is not a top-down approach. This process is at
     the heart of CSO work and will question how CSO work with partners and enable CSOs to be recognised as development actors in
     their own right and to get the credibility which will allow CSOs, in turn, to get funding.
-    Andrea Vogt (CONCORD secretariat): The North-South dialogue conference in Nairobi in 2007 and the work of the Czech NGDO
     platform contribute to deepen the reflections and links. The CONCORD secretariat would like to have one person of contact in each
     country to report country-level work. The CONCORD working group on CSO development effectiveness - to be approved by the
     Board of CONCORD soon - is open to all and will work in coherence with other working groups of CONCORD such as Aid watch or
     the FDR group & the DE Forum.




G. GENDER AWARENESS
Eva-Cristina Nilsson introduced the session stressing that gender is about men and women, boys and girls and reaffirming that women and
girls are still bearing the brunt of the consequences of poverty. That is why gender is clearly reflected in the CONCORD Strategic
Framework and why it is being highlighted today through a concrete example from the field.

Eef Wuyts, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), briefly presented the work of IPPF highlighting the crucial link between
gender and sexual and reproductive health rights (SRSH), before introducing the BBC documentary “Dead Mums Don‟t cry". This
documentary shows the shocking reality of the dangers of childbirth in Sub-Saharan Africa including the lack of basic materials and
supplies. Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, „Improving Maternal Mortality‟, has made the least progress of all whereas most
maternal deaths are easily preventable. This 2005 BBC Panorama documentary presents the work of Dr. Grace Kodindo in the N‟Djamena
Public Hospital in Chad and her fight to avoid deaths and disability in a deprived health environment.

Maaike Van Min, Marie Stopes International/Eurostep, informed the GA that this documentary had already been shown to the G8 and
European institutions to raise awareness on this crucial issue and to stress that gender equality cannot be achieved without the respect
and protection of sexual and reproductive health and rights. There are very simple reasons why maternal mortality is still a critical issue,
such as the lack of basic supplies, and these must be addressed. Currently 1/11 women in Chad will die in childbirth as opposed to 1/5000
women in the UK, for example.


Reactions / Questions
 Olivier Consolo, CONCORD Secretariat, proposed that the CONCORD Aid Watch group commit to maintaining the gender focus in its
    report and that CONCORD should put pressure on and challenge the EU institutions to increase funding for health and social
    development.
    Tobias Troll (DEEEP), highlighted that lots of advocacy still needs to be done to raise awareness on this issue within the European
     Parliament and in Europe.
    Catherine Naughton, CBM, asked how to better pin down aid for health to ensure access to basic supplies for preventing maternal
     mortality. She has also been working in Darfur and asked if it was possible for NGOs to find out what the situation is there regarding
     sexual and reproductive health and rights.
    Bernd Nilles, CIDSE, asked about the approaches and tools (material, service) to support women‟s rights to health as well as the role
     of Development education in supporting them.

                                                                                                                                        16
   Pieter Bangma, DG Development, informed the GA that he has proposed to show the documentary in DG Development and in the
    Development cabinet. He also added that budget support is increasing and advised NGOs to analyse the impact of this budget
    support for poor people with their partners in the South.

Answers
-   Eef Wuyts from IPPF briefly presented the „Countdown 2015 Europe‟ report (www.countdown2015europe.org) which shows how
    much funding each Member State is giving to reproductive health supplies which could be useful for the Aidwatch work. She also
    stated that new aid modalities such as budget support and a mix of aid support are needed but are not easy to deal with and a lot of
    effort at local level is needed to reach the MDGs especially to ensure funding for specific issues. It is also important to ensure the link
    between gender, the MDGs and poverty.
    Furthermore, in the North, it is difficult to get support from political parties on SHRH and so she asked CONCORD members to help
    identify MEPS that could be interested in supporting this area of work. She also stated that the effectiveness of NGO work on this
    matter is questioned by budget support as only 4% is going to health - it would be interesting to have a report from the European
    Commission and from the NGOs on this. She also insisted of the involvement of woman and girls at all stages of program planning as
    well as the engagement of men in gender issues. She also mentioned the need for other approaches, for example, education around
    issues such as sexuality. Finally, she reminded the GA that all CONCORD members are welcome to join the CONCORD Gender
    working group.

-   Maaike Van Min informed the GA that some MEPs have voted against a resolution on reducing maternal mortality because certain
    people feel uncomfortable about this issue, this will also be a challenge during the European Elections. Regarding Darfur, Marie
    Stopes is assessing the situation as the needs are huge in this area. However, the recent „Raise initiative‟ (www.raiseinitiative.org)
    demonstrates the difficulties of raising gender linked issues such as rape as a weapon of war. Marie Stopes is currently working with
    the International Rescue Committee and the American Refugee Council to raise awareness on these issues. Marie Stopes also works
    to provide advocacy tools to influence the budget at national level, especially as the chain of medical care from stock to delivery of
    service is needed with the support of a specific budget line.



H. MOBILISATION FOR EU ELECTIONS
Ester Asin from CONCORD secretariat recalled that a region of almost 500 Millions persons will be able to express their views in the next
European elections for the first time. She asked for inputs from CONCORD members.

   In Malta, they will have detailed discussions about what is the most strategic for their country in the CONCORD manifesto and how
    present it in a new way to be relevant for Maltese candidates.
   In Czech Republic, because of the Presidency of the European Union, it will be linked to the presidency activities: a campaign pick
    up from the topic of the manifesto. Sustainability development and climate change, migration will be key topics. Politicians are not
    putting efforts on the European elections and it is difficult to assume which topics will be discussed.
   In Luxembourg, the main subject of the campaign will be purchasing power. In the CONCORD manifesto, the level of consumption is
    questioned along with the export model in economic and aid policies. How will politicians react to the CONCORD manifesto ? Which
    parties are more sensitive to this kind of proposal? Is a change in European policy possible by mobilising small parties like the
    ecologists?
   In Spain, the government requests the citizens to consume more. It believes that consuming is a solution to the current crisis. There
    is no one or another party more in favour of such proposal. Parties do not speak about principles and values but more on performance
    and practical measures.
    Joanna Maycock (ActionAid) contested the link between consumption and growth since people are deep into debt. Individual are
    more then consumers. Other models are possible. Tous les partis politiques ont accepté le modèle neo-liberal. Le parti et Verts et
    des communistes sont marginaux et pas très bien organisés au niveau européen. Il importe de pousser des vues progressives au
    sein de tous les partis et de mouvements sociaux ou même du monde économique.
   The financial crisis has changed the acceptance of the neo-liberal model. Civil society should use this opportunities to put pressure for
    a change. Hans Zomer from Dóchas recalled the success of the CONCORD campaign during the elections in 2004. Connecting with
    candidates and MEPs went well but having development on the agenda was less successful.
   Bernd Nilles (CIDSE): in 2009, to be more effective CIDSE will put its efforts on the MEPs only once they are elected.
   Ester Asin (CONCORD secretariat): In view of the social, financial and justice crisis, should CONCORD seek aliances with new
    partners?
   Mike Mathias (Luxembourg NP): in Luxembourg, 13 associations in various sectors and of different kinds created an alliance to
    analyse programmes, and act as a pressure group. In 2009, 3 large NGOs (social, environmental and development) have come
    together around a project called 180° to change the approach to economic development, climate change and social equality. In
    Luxembourg, there will be national, as well as European, elections. A group of some 50 people from Luxembourg representing the
    country‟s population will go to Greenland and to Bangladesh to address the politicians and the public at large during the campaign.
                                                                                                                                           17
   In Poland, alliances with other sectors of the civil society are difficult because the platform has limited capacities but has some
    interesting partners as business firms interested to support development projects and NGOs. So far no action has been discussed; it
    is still at the level of being discussed in the Board.
   In France, alliances are not simple. Attempts have been made with other sectors with varying success, at the time of the adoption of
    the Lisbon Treaty among others. Actions have been put in place, but not long-term strategies, because of divergences on principles.
    For Doha, Coordination Sud worked with the trade unions. Coordination Sud will work on citizen awareness from now to the elections
    on problems of democracy in Europe and how it intervenes in the South.
   How can citizens be mobilised? CONCORD is working with Global Action Against Poverty (GAAP).
   Annamaria Kekesi (Hungarian NP): it is difficult to mobilise citizens in campaigning. Being creative and having a good methodology
    are needed.
   Anders Dahlbeck (BOND): cooperation between GCAP and BOND are closed because it overlaps. 2 weeks ago, GCAP Europe
    discussed the mobilisation around the European elections. CONCORD members can focus on advocacy and GCAP on campaigning.
    To have a national contact for each European country would be important. Development NGO should take advantage of existing
    events and ask to have a space to talk. Other actors will be working on social issues (age, health), try to have join events to reach a
    larger audience.
   Julien Vaissier (Europe GCAP secretariat): There are potential synergies between political work and campaigning to further publicise
    the European elections.
   Rilli Lappalainen (Finnish NP) underlines that in Sweden and Estonia, there are analyses on the activities of the MEPS on external
    issues to put pressure on the candidates. AZ coalition has been built amongst NGOs for the European elections and is building
    common messages and an elections' machine on the web with questions to the candidates with answers.

A video message from Andrea Maksimovic, a CONCORD Board member, emphasises the need for CONCORD members to pool their
efforts at the occasion of the European Parliament elections in 2009.

Ester Asin facilitates discussions between CONCORD members on capacities, activities and synergies to be put in place at the time of the
2009 European elections.



I. OPEN SUBJECTS
Justin Kilcullen wants to invite 100 senior people of our NGO sector. Please national platforms in order to foster partnership. He asked
CONCORD members to send names to the secretariat for further invitation.
He mentions the funding problem. Many Development organisations have money and it could be possible to have them pay for seminar as
he and Olivier Consolo witnessed at the American Forum in October. If it works it could be possible to organise a seminar once a year on a
specific topic.


I.1. Czech Presidency
Jana Krczmarova from the Czech platform presented the programme and the international activities organised by his association during his
country‟s Presidency of the European Union. At the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priorities include: Having sustainable technologies
for sustainable development; immigration and how to facilitate remittances of money to the countries of immigrant workers; food security
and effectiveness of agricultural projects.

The main theme of the Czech Presidency is NGO effectiveness and good governance. For the Swedish Presidency, it is “Human Rights
and Democracy”. The Czech Platform Manifesto will be published early January 2009, before the main conference, to lay downtheir
position and point of view on CSO effectiveness.

Main priority: CSO Development Effectiveness: FoRS will contribute to the global CSO Development Effectiveness process which is
concentrated in the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness. In the Open Forum, FoRS represents the EU Presidency countries
and contributes to the process through reflecting on its own experience.

Second priority: Good Governance: FoRS would like to provide a forum for bringing together two dimensions of good governance: good
governance and development on the one hand, and pro-democracy and the political dimension of good governance on the other hand.

Other priority topics, from a development effectiveness perspective:
   Development Education: Critical discussions on the effectiveness of awareness raising and development education can lead to
    recommendations on how to enhance their relevance in the protection of human rights and the fight against poverty.



                                                                                                                                       18
      Sustainable Technologies for Sustainable Development: Reflection on experiences in the field of sustainable technologies and
       their implementation and on partnerships with local communities can indicate necessary conditions for effective and sustainable
       development.
      Migration and Development: The relationship between international migration and development issues needs to be analysed on
       several levels, such as the coherence of development and migration policies or the effectiveness of specific projects focused on
       migration.
      Agriculture and Food Security: Reviewing the understanding of food security and the role of small farmers can help to design tools
       for improving the efficiency of the Czech agricultural aid projects.

Time schedule of FoRS EU Presidency project

Date             Event                                            Contents
                                                                      Introducing CSO Development Effectiveness process and defining the
18.
                 Initial Seminar on                                    Czech contribution to this process
November
                 CSO Development Effectiveness                        Elaborating the methodology to assess the effectiveness of the Czech
2008
                                                                       development actions

                 3 expert seminars on:
                                                                      Knowledge and experience sharing
                  Migration and Development
February -                                                            Putting the issues higher on the agenda in Czech and European
                  Sustainable Technologies for
March 2009                                                             development context
                     Sustainable Development
                                                                      Good practices and tools from Czech and international experience
                  Agriculture and Food Security

                 Roundtable on development cooperation,               Discussion of key NGO players on their different views and
9. – 11.
                 good governance and mainstreaming of                  approaches
March 2009
                 human rights and democracy conditionality            Searching for certain common understandings

                                                                      Critical discussions on impact of awareness raising and development
26.-29. May      International Conference on Development
                                                                       education in Czech and European context
2009             Education
                 (sub theme: human rights and democracy)              Experience sharing and comparison of different approaches in
                                                                       development education
                                                                      Main FoRS EU Presidency event organised as part of global CSO
23. – 25.        International Conference on
                                                                       Development Effectiveness process
June 2009        CSO Development Effectiveness
                                                                      Presentation of CSO development effectiveness principles

For further information about the events, please contact Marie Zázvorková: presidency@fors.cz



I.2. The impact of the army’s humanitarian role on development NGOs
Liisa Laakso, President of the CONCORD Advisory Group presented the main analyses of the Advisory Group on the impact of the army‟s
humanitarian role on development NGOs.

One of the new themes is the army‟s role in Development cooperation. Soldiers are increasingly active in the field and the frequency of
crisis situations and questions of development aid are growing. The subject does not concern all CONCORD members but only certain
NGOs in certain situations.

The approaches are different from one player to another: coordinating, cooperating or counting on one‟s self. Thinking must be in terms of
general policy or action in the field. In the field, the miliary talks about cooperation. The NGOS prefer to talk about coordination, or, in other
words, exchanging information whatever the objectives. Certain NGOs prefer to maintain the neutrality needed for independence.
Everything depends on whether the NGOs have access to conflict zones and whether military activity is necessary, for example for Peace-
Keeping Operations.

The military have short-term objectives, whereas those of the NGOs are long term.
Sometimes NGOs are exploited for military purposes. They demand greater involvement of women, whereas the military tend to fragilise
women. On the other hand, the military want to cooperate more than NGOs.

Perspectives: New guidelines should be envisaged for relations between development NGOs and the military and a dialogue be carried out
with donors, including the European Union on this subject.


                                                                                                                                              19
The Advisory group is considering meeting with the French army to finalise its research and to produce an analytical document. VOICE is
very active in this field as well and has created a group on army and civl society relations. Liisa Laakso proposed the establishment of a
collaboration agreement so the discussion can be put under the auspices of VOICE.

Comments

    Ruth Picker (NP Austria): “This is a current subject, our platform represents humanitarian NGOs. The Austrian Army has an
     agreement for any action in a foreign country. This is the “Foreign Affairs Military Doctrine”. The army also intervened in Chad and
     applied for cost-sharing. The millitary is very active, and the NGOs need to wake up.”
    Per Bo (NP Danemark): “We had a seminar last Friday on security and development. The 3 Scandinavian platforms and 3 Baltic
     platforms took part.”
    NP Sweden: experience in Pakistan: the Pakistani army takes a close interest in humanitarian and development NGOs. Its men were
     surprised by the NGO conduct code. They need to be informed of what we are doing, of our policy lines. They question our
     professionalism. Same problem when the Swedish forces went to Chad.
    Liz Steele (Care International): We need to work with colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic so that the American Army can work
     with the NGOs. CONCORD, VOICE and others are active in the field. Common guidelines must be set.
    Marta Pejda (NP Polish-The Zagranica Group): The budget will be approved in January, but we already know that 40% will be
     devoted to development aid. The money will go to financing military projects, allegedly for long-term development projects, (Foreign
     Affairs‟ argument for giving money to development cooperation) and for using military aircraft to get supplies to the populations. In
     Iraq, the situation is different depending on whether you are military or not. We need to agree on common principles and bases on
     what is happening in the field.
    Jasmine Burnley (CONCORD Secretariat): Countries want to put the military budget in the aid budget. This is a difficult subject
     because it is political. We have tackled it with the AidWatch group.
    Justin Kilcullen: The miliary plan long-term; they have a scenario for all the fragilised States. It would be naïve to think that this only
     concerns humanitarian NGOs. We are asking for an intervention in the Congo to protect women and children. This is a question of
     Human Rights. The military are anxious to talk to the NGOs, but the NGOs are not enthusiastic about talking to them. But the budget
     is increasingly allocated to the military. A common approach should be defined.
    Liisa Laakso (Chair of the Advisory Group): “NGOs treat the subject from the standpont of the field. A high-level political debate
     between NGOs is lacking. There are differences between NGOs from the different Member States. CONCORD should do a survey on
     these questions, particularly in the new Member States. In Lithuania, for example, the aid budget is entrusted to the army.
    Giuseppe Crippa (Advisory Group): In the future, there should be more cooperation between NATO and the UN and more
     participation in the field (military aspect). There are new international players: China and India. Consequently, thinking needs to be
     deeper and the behaviour of each party in the field should be better analysed. NGO members of CONCORD could play a key role.
     Humanitarian and political crises do not occur abruptly – there are forewarnings. There should be preventive actions, communication
     and action in conflict zones. Development cooperation can play a role particularly in exit stragegies when goverments and NGOS
     want to leave a country.


I.3. Live from the Civil Society Forum in Doha
Via webcam, Andrea Maksimovic, member of the CONCORD Board explained the results of the civil society meeting in Doha and what is
at stake at the Summit on Development Financing organised under the auspices of the United Nations.



J. JUSTIN KILCULLEN’S CLOSING ADDRESS
The President thanked the persons who took part in preparing the General Assemblly and the CONCORD members for their involvement
and invited the participants to think about the film that was presented.




                                                                                                                                            20
                                 ANNEXES




A. List of participants

B. Summary of workshops for draft 3 of the strategic plan

C. Summary of workshops for draft 4 of the strategic plan

D. Programme of the Czech platform activities during the Czech Presidency of the EU




                                  Nota Bene:
All the PowerPoint documents and files presented at the General Assembly are
    available on the pages for the November 2008 General Assembly and the
          CONCORD extranet at the address: www.concordeurope.org




                                                                                  21
                                                                     List of participants
                                                                                                                                          ANNEXE A

Lastname       Firstname    Function                            Represent                        Email
CONCORD MEMBERS
Adelmar        Elin         Policy and Advocacy Officer         NP Sweden CONCORD Sweden         elin.adelmar@svenskakyrkan.se
Anders         Dahlbeck     European Campaigns Officer          NP UK BOND                       adahlbeck@bond.org.uk
Arfai          Mojgan       Communication                       World Vision                     mojgan_arfai@wvi.org
Barreiros      Lidia        membre                              Advisory Group                   lbarreiros@sapo.pt
Benhamou       Cecile       EU Funding and Compliance Officer   CARE International               Malliaritsi@careinternational.org

Bennet          Richard                                         CONCORD consultant
Bharier         Jake        Strategic Adviser                   NP UK BOND                       jake.bharier@skillshare.org
Blahó           Györgyi     deputy coordinator                  NP Hungary HAND                  office@hand.org.hu
Bo              Per         Coordinator                         NP Denmark                       pb@eu-ngo.dk
Bosselmann      Lars        Policy Officer                      CBM                              lars.bosselmann@cbm.org
Bouniol         Blandine    Policy Officer                      Caritas Europa                   bbouniol@caritas-europa.org
Braga da Cruz   Ana         delegate                            NP Portuguese NGDO Platform
Caracciolo      Barbara     Project Officer                     SOLIDAR                          barbara@solidar.org
Caruana         Vincent     Board Member                        NP Malta SKOP                    censu.caruana@um.edu.mt
Cooper          Stephen     Director                            ADRA                             scooper@adra-te.org
Corbalan        Angela      Media & Advocacy Officer            Oxfam International              angela.corbalan@oxfaminternational.org
Crippa          Giuseppe    Conseil National                    Advisory Group Concord           giucrippa@hotmail.com
Cruz            Pedro       Executive Director                  NP Portuguese NGDO Platform      pedro.cruz@plataformaongd.pt
Eduard          Soler       VICE PRESIDENT                      NP Spanish CONGDE                esoler@farmamundi.org
Englezos        Petros      Treasurer                           NP Greece                        englezos@gmail.com
Eros            Barbara     program manager                     HAND Platform                    erosb@demnet.org.hu
Grigoriou       Yannis      Vice President                      NP Greece                        grigoriou@doyk.gr
Haaranen        Anne        Programme Director                  NP Finnish NGDO platform Kehys   anne.haaranen@savethechildren.fi
Hald            Birte       Directeur International             NP Denmark                       Borgergade 14, DK-1300 Copenhague
Havelkova       Eva         EXECUTIVE SECRETARY                 NP Slovak                        eva.havelkova@mvro.sk
huybrechts      An          Advocacy project coordinator        IPPF EN                          ahuybrechts@ippfen.org
                            European Development Policy
Jult            wiske       Advisor                             NP Belgian platform              wiske.jult@11.be
Karlshausen     Gérard      resp. politiques européennes        Board de Concord                 gerard.karlshausen@cncd.be
Kekesi          Annamaria   Member of the Board                 Board of CONCORD.HAND            kekesia@demnet.org.hu
Kilcullen       Justin      Director                            Board - President                jkilcullen@trocaire.ie
Krczmarova      Jana        Director                            NP Czech FoRS                    sekretariat@fors.cz
Kroeker         caroline    Senior Policy Advisor               World Vision                     Caroline_Kroeker@wvi.org
Kurat           Anke        Co-ordinator                        NP Germany VENRO                 a.kurat@venro.org
Laakso        Liisa           Chair of the Advisory Group           Advisory Group                                              liisa.laakso@helsinki.fi
Laban         Sander          Platform Europe Officer               NP NL Partos                                                sdl@partos.nl
Lappalainen   Rilli           Secretary General                     NP Finnish NGDO platform Kehys                              rilli.lappalainen@kehys.fi
Lebeda        Petr            Director                              NP Czech FoRS                                               lebeda@glopolis.org
Lischek       Erich           Executive Director                    NP Germany VENRO                                            heidrun.paul@adra.de
Marelli       Sergio          President                             NP Italiane Associazione ONG Italiane                       ong@ong.it
Marian        Caucik          CHAIR                                 NP Slovak                                                   maros@erko.sk
                              Government and Aid Agencies
Marshall      Beth            Officer                               BOND                                                        bmarshall@wwf.org.uk
Mathias       Mike            secrétaire                            NP Luxembourg Cercle de Coopération                         info@cercle.lu
Maycock       Joanna          Europe and New Countries Manager      ActionAid International                                     joanna.maycock@actionaid.org
Meereboer     Marie-Trees     Director                              NP NL Partos                                                mtm@partos.nl
Naughton      Catherine       EU liaison officer                    CBM                                                         catherine.naughton@cbm.org
Naughton      catherine                                             CBM                                                         catherine.naughton@cbm.org
Nilsson       Eva Christina   Secretary General                     Aprodev                                                     evachristina.nilsson@missioncouncil.se
Oliveira      Mario           EU Representative                     ADRA                                                        mario.oliveira@adra.eu
                              Boardmember/chairperson Platform
Ooms          Ad              Europe                                NP NL Partos                                                ad.ooms@icco.nl
Ortiz         David           Board member                          NP Spanish CONGDE                                           educacion2@acsur.org
Parata        Salvatore                                             Terre des Hommes IF                                         brussels@iftdh.org
Pejda         Marta           Executive Secretary                   NP Polish The Zagranica Group                               marta@zagranica.org.pl
Petrelli      Francesco       President                             NP Italiane Associazione ONG Italiane                       ong@ong.it
Philipe       Romain          Policy Assistant                      ActionAid                                                   romain.philippe@actionaid.org
Picker        Ruth            Director                              NP Austria Global Responsibility/AG Globale Verantwortung   ruth.picker@globaleverantwortung.at
                              Europe Policy and Campaigns
Polack        Alexandre       Manager                               ActionAid                                                   alexandre.polack@actionaid.org
Polman        Frans           Concord's ex President

Pouppez       Astrid          Eurostep/Marie Stopes International
Quesnay       Anne            Eurostep/Marie Stopes International
                              gestionnaire politiques
Reynaert      Jean            gouvernementales                      NP Belgian platform                                         jean.reynaert@coprogram.be
Roseveare     Nick            Chief Executive                       NP UK BOND                                                  simona@bond.org.uk
Sebban        Florent         Responsable du programme Europe       NP France Coordination SUD                                  sebban@coordinationsud.org
Simane        Mara            Director                              NP Latvia LAPAS                                             simane@lapas.lv
Sladkova      Zuzana          Policy Officer                        NP Czech FoRS                                               policy@fors.cz
Sood          Deepali         Head of Office                        Plan Europe                                                 deepali.sood@plan-international.org
Sörbom        Peter           Policy Officer                        NP Sweden CONCORD Sweden                                    peter.sorbom@concord.se
Steeb         Michael         Director                              NP Germany VENRO                                            michael.steeb@ageh.org

                                                                                                                                                                         23
van Drimmelen  Rob           General Secretary     APRODEV                               r.van.drimmelen@aprodev.net
Van Min        Maaike                              Eurostep/Marie Stopes International
Vegro          Romina        EU Policy Officer     NP UK BOND                            rvegro@bond.org.uk
Vielajus       Jean Louis                          NP France Coordination SUD
WHITE          Diana         COORDINATOR           EU-CORD                               diana.white@eu-cord.org
wibisono       Vicky agung   child labor officer   Plan                                  vawibisono@yahoo.com
wuyts          Eef           Advocacy officer      IPPF EN                               ewuyts@ippfen.org
Zelmene        Laima Arija   director              NP Latvia LAPAS                       cac@apollo.lv
Zomer          Hans          Director              NP Ireland - Dóchas                   hans@dochas.ie
PROGRAMMES
DEEEEP
Caserta        Angelo        Coordinator           DEEEP                                 a.caserta@deeep.org
TRIALOG
Bedoya         Christine     Director              TRIALOG                               c.bedoya@trialog.or.at
Steel          Rebecca       Policy Officer        TRIALOG                               trialog@concordeurope.org
CONCORD SECRETARIAT
Asin           Ester                                                                     easin@concordeurope.org
Berger         Franz                                                                     fberger@concordeurope.org
Burnley        Jasmine                                                                   Jburley@concordeurope.org
Consolo        Olivier                                                                   Oconsolo@concordeurope.org
Cranenbrouck   Véronique
Ewing          Nathalie                                                                  Newing@concordeurope.org
Henry          Guenola                                                                   assistant@concordeurope.org
Kaïdi          Fati                                                                      Fkaidi@concordeurope.org
Miege          Mireille                                                                  Mmiege@concordeurope.org
Pegart         Stéphane                                                                  Spegart@concordeurope.org
Philippart     Agnès                                                                     Aphilippart@concordeurope.org

Van Goey        An                                                                       avangoey@concordeurope.org
Vogt            Andreas                                                                  avogt@concordeurope.org




                                                                                                                         24
                                                                                                                           ANNEX B



          Summary on the workshops for draft 3 of the strategic plan

Nature de CONCORD

Workshop on the nature of CONCORD at the GA
General comments:               - CONCORD as a center of cooperation
                                - no campaigning done by CONCORD but by the members of the members
                                - overall the wording can stay as it is for the highlighted paragraphs, though nuances need to be made
                                here and there, mostly on the rights and responsibilities of the members (be it NWs or NPs)
Comments on 1.2.1
Conclusion: keep the language as it is, though there was quite a long discussion on what it stands for precisely. This paragraph
seems to be interpreted in two ways:
One interprets it as a question: ”Should CONCORD become a training center?” (in which capacity building gets higher priority than
what is the case now)
          According to VENRO definitely not. TRIALOG argues that CONCORD should speed up the capacity building efforts (e.g.
          how to advocate, how to write EC projects, how to engage in CONCORD WGs,…), as this will be a guarantee for active
          membership.
          A third opinion argues that the WGs in itself are learning experiences (as views are exchanged throughout WG meetings)
          and therefore they already strengthen capacities as such.
A second interpretation relates to the work of the DEF
          In this vision, the paragraph is to be seen as mobilisation much more than an article on training
Comments on 2.3.1.
Conclusion : make the article more inclusive
On the difference between NP and NW following things were said
     -    They are different but complementary, also in terms of capacities
     -    Preference for NPs (and therefore invite them explicitly) to lobby at national level rather than NW (though no exclusive
          right: e.g. Oxfam UK writing to FR politicians)
     -    NW are convinced to have added value when lobbying MEPs as well
     -    We should strengthen the national platforms (e.g. Rumania: a strong NW has taken over once, in the absence of national
          lobby, which is detrimental)
     -    There should be overall network involvement in the national platforms (this should be promoted/encouraged by
          CONCORD) as a means to increase capacities in the various countries
     -    Maybe we can include some categorisation like direct and indirect target groups
     -    Sometimes credibility is at stake : it is important to manage expectations at both sides, NWs versus NPs (two directions)

Question 1: 40 members
Question 2: it depends on the national context and is a decision that should be taken at the member level, no overall strategy
Question 3: this can be done through various actions (peer learning in WGs, specific training sessions,…)
Question 4: gender equality/human rights => for 40 members when they come together as CONCORD
Question 5 : the strategic plan is neutral from a regional point of view, but maybe it could be included that membership is active
(some kind of “contract”

GAP
See article 2.4 on leadership etc.:
Add a part on active participation and enlargement of the membership
    -     We want to engage with more national platforms
    -     No need to express regional diversity in the strategic framework
    -     How can CONCORD guarantee that there is active participation of all of its members. (on an equal basis) => it is about
          rights and responsibilities; give and take; input and output

     In short, on organisational development:
     -    We want to be everywhere: broaden to the Balkans, to Norway, to Switzerland… etc
     -    We are proactive in creating involvement
     -    Better communicate : accessible information for all (also outside Brussels)


OTHER INPUT
   -   GAERC letters
           o Some issues do not apply to the national context (e.g. lobby letters that are not sent to national governments as
               they deal with issues that seem not to be relevant for the NP)
                o It‟s an individual choice whether CONCORD positions are sent at national level
                o Only one letter per year for some NPs
                o It is necessary to improve the feedback and to monitor lobby actions and get more effective lobby in future
     -    How to make CONCORD attractive for people that do not have a huge knowledge about development in the strict sense
          (in some NMS it is still only about technical assistance and regionally limited)


Nature of CSOs /NGOs
There was considerable debate on whether CONCORD should defend the interests of civil society organisations or of non-
governmental organisations and how this could be reflected in the strategic framework. The bigger part of the discussion revolved
around issues of terminology, and many participants pointed to the need to engage in an in-depth discussion on the nuances
between the different concepts.

Non-governmental organisations: This term was considered to be too exclusive. In particular in Southern or Eastern contexts, the
concept doesn‟t always make sense. When accompanied by the attribute “development”, the term is even more restrictive - some
organisations, though working on development, do not consider themselves as development NGOs. Participants were therefore
rather hesitant to accept the notion that CONCORD only works with and for NGOs.

Civil society organisations: There was agreement that, without a clear definition, this term is too vague. However, when it comes
to political dialogue with the European Institutions, the term is considered to be more appropriate than the term “NGO”, as it is closer
to the concept of non-state actor which is used by the European Commission. The term also has the benefit of showing that
CONCORD, though working primarily for the benefit of its membership, is open to collaborate with non-NGOs. For the purpose of the
strategic framework, it was agreed to include a definition of the term as an annex.

Leadership for other sectors: CONCORD should accept a leadership role on development issues for other sectors of civil society
where being given the mandate and where having the legitimacy to do so.




CONCORD’s alliances
Role of the EU in the world governance arena – and what that means for the participation of CONCORD in worldwide alliances
 Poverty is only one part of the picture – inequality is a serious component and this is still a missing dimension in the text –
     WIDE
 Agreement that there is a need to constantly reference poverty and inequalities and this should be reflected throughout the
     strategic framework – particularly those that breed poverty – Coordination SUD
 There is a need to include something more concrete on inequalities– contributing to the human development of people – this is
     paternalistic coming from Northern NGOs and we need to be talking more about access to rights – Plan
 Agreement (1.1.2 is the section that needs altering) that this needs to be developed – concrete proposals? The notion of rights
     and poverty in the strategic framework is limited and linked to MDGs. It would be important to suggest something on a rights
     based approach – less focus on “the poor” – rights and development for all? – Belgian platform
 To replace “to serve the interests and protect the rights of people living in poverty” (1.1.2) with: To “work towards the elimination
     of poverty and to promote a rights based approach to development”
 There also needs to be language added on a rights based approach for all
 We need to expand on the notion that overcoming poverty means more than money – it also means equal access to rights and
     influence – Danish NP
 It is essential to enlarge poverty to access to rights: suggestion to include language on enhancing social cohesion (lack of
     capacity; access; opportunities – and social exclusion and cohesion - be aware of social cohesion language (minimal safety net)
     – Italian National platform
 Need also to add the role of EU policies in undermining people‟s rights etc. – a detrimental role – Ruth Austria
 Need a wider definition of poverty – and this must then apply to the rest of the text – Lars
 Suggestion to keep the wording on poverty – add the equality wording and add a footnote detailing our definition of poverty to
     apply to all of the text of the strategic framework
 Suggestion to invert the text on the first page so that it says: want to influence so that the EU respects and promotes

Proposal:
 Make a link between the vision language and the strategic outcome 1.1.2 – Jean-Louis; Nerea (to reflect the fact that our
    definition of poverty should be broadened to include access to rights and equality)
 These are tools to achieve what we want - Gerard
 The strategic framework is not precise enough in describing the actors we will be working with in these alliances: e.g.
    businesses; EU institutions; local authorities; state actors; TUs – concern that we straight jacket ourselves to civil society – Plan
 Need to look beyond regional and continental groups but also others in the US e.g. Interaction to influence governments on a
    global level – Danish NP
 Coalitions with Civil society and where possible other actors – actively seek those multi actor alliances in order to strategically
    promote the aims of the strategy / and with organisation that share objectives
                                                                                                                                      26
   To actively seek multi-actor alliances with civil society and other appropriate alliances to strategically promote the aims of the
    strategy (with organisations that share our interests) more proactive – DEEEP
   What is the first layer of alliance building – through us as members – (mapping?); then we can address with whom else – the
    starting point should therefore be our own counterparts – setting the alliances with other NGOs e.g. starting from international
    NP meeting which decided they would work together on the basis of the six topics. CONCORD should play a role in this new
    relationship – CS

Practical suggestions:
 Weakest point of the paragraph in the absence of specific mention of actors
 Must also reference specific methodology – multi-stakeholder approach means building alliance capacity
 Cancel 2.2.2 – building alliances with CS and other actors where appropriate – this is too weak and we must articulate who we
    mean when we say alliances
 The relationship with local authorities is missing – we must pay particular attention to this - Italian NP
 Building alliances is too weak – we need to seek alliances – Gerard
 The need to name stakeholders – this is difficult because it is difficult to name partners and work with them productively – may
    be endless debates
 Should we name stakeholders? Is this feasible? It would be very exciting to name working local authorities – the same for
    private enterprises? – and articulate for what reason we need to build these alliances
 Build on our existing strategic alliances (map out)

Practical suggestions:
 Reference the need to build on existing external alliances
 Articulate chosen strategic alliances in three year strategic plan
 To seek external alliances with actors that share our objectives -
 Add this within the political momentum – context – WIDE
 Too strong institutional language – need more on our aim to build a European citizenship and what we need to do to achieve
    this and within this how to work within the platforms – ActionAid
 Emphasis to build upon existing alliances – BOND
 “and where appropriate other actors” – leaves more space in the future - BOND
 There is a need to keep this text broad and to elucidate in the 3 year plan which of those actors we prioritise for the coming
    three years – despite our different objectives because we have ad hoc approach and success to engaging with South – a
    shopping list of actors therefore will not allow us to prioritise about how we increase the impact of our engagement – we
    therefore need to reflect particular actor priorities in the action plan – World Vision
 Crucial to bear in mind that this is the framework – not the plan which needs to be much more defined and detailed therefore do
    you agree with: - Gerard

Practical suggestions:
 Seek new alliances; to build new alliances and build on existing alliances
   Articulate the goal of why we are seeking and building these new alliances
   Putting flesh on the bones – using the strategic plan to identify those actors and the nature of those relationships
   2.2.3 – representing constituency in global civil alliances – suggestion to replace with participating in global alliances; also
    prioritising issues where the EU is influential may also limit us


Recommendations:
   We need to be more specific about articulating alliances in action plan
   “To actively seek, build and consolidate multi-actor alliances with civil society organisations and other appropriate actors that
    share our objectives in order to strategically promote the vision, objectives and aims of CONCORD.”



Strategy for resources
   CONCORD has limited resources – members and secretariat and we need to prioritise which actors we work – Gerard
   There are many global and regional networks covering all kinds of fields – we need to identify what makes CC unique, where
    are the gaps it can address and what is CC‟s added value – Hungarian NP
   This accurately taps into the need to address WHAT CONCORD‟S ROLE SHOULD BE; WHO WE SHOULD BUILD THOSE
    ALLIANCES WITH AND WHO IN CONCORD SHOULD BUILD THOSE ALLIANCES - BOND
   Many of the calls for CONCORD alliances go well beyond our capacity to engage and be strategic so therefore we must
    prioritise strategic alliances – and this is different from one time partnership engagements, but longer term alliances with
    structural engagement and this needs proper resources – we need to look for maybe one or two in the first two years – not six –
    Gerard
   Objectives we want to achieve; looking at what is working well; where we can build on existing relationships e.g. multi-
    stakeholder process for development education; open forum; AidWatch – there is a need to map out and analyse what already
                                                                                                                                        27
    exists – DEEEP
   There are already certain criteria on which we can draw for the type of alliance we want: if there is a clear gap where there are
    certain policies we have difficulty impacting on then we must prioritise these (e.g. influencing finance Ministers; public
    awareness needs to increase a lot more quickly than it already has). We are always being told we need more pressure from the
    public for governments to be held to commitments; national contexts see global alliances joining together for very concrete
    impact on specific issues e.g. ISG an alliance for very specific change – this is another criteria – not just getting involved with
    other national platforms / platforms but seeking to engage with pan-organisation alliances
   Recommendation – identify criteria for assessing the alliances in light – otherwise we will continue to work on an ad hoc basis
    to ensure that we have a grid of criteria to help assess whether we engage; and build on experiences in the past and evaluation
    regularly




                                                                                                                                    28
                                                                                                                        ANNEX C

       Summary of the workshops for draft 4 of the strategic plan on
                       priorities for the next 3 years

Development and Aid Programmes
Context
 Strategic framework is very broad and there is a need for more specific policy priorities over the coming 3 years
 This process is building on past activities on looking at gaps and future challenges in these areas of our work – two specific
    workshops: February and July; and 13 November WG convenors‟
 Feedback from WG that aid is CONCORD‟s core business
 AidWatch is the visible face of our work but is much broader than AidWatch

What? – three areas
 Work on specific aid instruments: Cotonou; Gender; External aid instruments
 Aid through civil society organisations – monitoring financial streams available to CS and creating the context for development
   education
 EU ODA quantity and quality commitments

Impact
 AidWatch = visibility
 Cotonou + others = geographical coverage

Cotonou WG feedback
 Key challenges: Legitimacy issue: linking in with Southern issues allows us to be more legitimate and not only of aid
    commitments and Northern driven issues
 Success: Work on C group has increased pressure on southern governments, commission to open up the 10th EDF – by
    empowering the actors in the South – good advantages to aid ability to improve democratic processes in North and South
 Complexity of dialogue between EC and civil society means sometimes it is difficult to know where to direct dialogue in this
    process – e.g. Mediterranean Union; ACP; - and how to make it more understandable to citizens
 Main work of C group is to enhance transparency to allow civil society to look into
 Key question: what may be the new role of Northern institutions in development aid distribution (particularly in terms of value
    added of NGOs)

FDR
 Political level – Recognised that FDR must be strategic – if we want an enabling environment we must make sure that the role
    of NGOs as actors is recognised
 Practical level – this recognition must then be translated into programmes
 Procedural level – procedures, regulations and funding must then be there to support
 If the CONCORD strategy is to be implemented then the WGs must work together to achieve this across the EU institutions:
    DEEEP; FDR; Open Forum

   Are we lobbying for ourselves or for the broader development agenda? WG linkages
   CONCORD needs to actively deliver positions on this debate (local authorities role)

AidWatch
 Core business of CONCORD
 Increases visibility of CONCORD members
 Is an area where we can really hold our own governments to account
 Policy priorities – to continue working on aid; to work more with all CONCORD aid groups and to keep a watching brief on the
    wider resources for development picture
 Slovakian government has been misleading about development cooperation
 AidWatch is a good tool for holding governments to account
 There needs to be a stronger focus on EC aid and national aid – in the build up for 2010
 We have challenges in getting governments to honour commitments when they are backing off them – we need another to
    tackle the commitments which does not encourage aid fatigue

Three scenarios for CONCORD Policy priorities on development cooperation and aid

1. We keep on doing what we are good at
 Monitoring EU ODA quantity commitments – keep at same level/keep predictable
                                                                                                                                    29
   Quality – keep focus on existing quality issues
   Current and future aid instruments focus on monitoring and influencing
   Aid through CSOs
   Development education
   Implies more resources because requires more capacity development and coordination with WGs

2. We expand the focus of the issues and work to match political priorities
 Climate change – developing new policy positions / alliance building - implications
 Security – developing new policy positions - implications
 Preparation of the post-MDG agenda

3. We go beyond aid
 Reframing work within broader context of FFD / resources for development
 This will have implications on the way we hold our governments to account – much broader than aid

Questions: What is missing? What should we drop? / Comments
 Do we need a focus on other thematic programmes?
 How to work together in the build up to Copenhagen?
 Scenario 1 – ODA focus on keeping to commitments will need more resources e.g. from the French perspective – AidWatch
   has been very useful in doing this but we need to maintain this momentum and maybe need to step it up with big mobilisation –
   this would imply more exchanges with all EU MS plus partners in the South to maintain pressure / bilateral streams is also
   problem for some countries – conclusion: ensuring scenario 1 is successful will mean more resources and activity
 Scenario 2 – we need to be doing this work and link it into AidWatch work
 Scenario 3 – we have no choice but to work on this – after Doha the annual Monterrey reporting will expand to cover more than
   aid and we will have to engage with this (innovative finance; tax; debt) – we have not been doing this from a pan-European
   perspective – this is the added value of CONCORD
 CONCORD should keep to its core business – and allow other “specialist” organisations to deal with those issues – we also
   need to state our priorities according to the increasing financial instability
 We need to be clear about what we can achieve in the next 3 years – and we need to think about putting more resources into
   monitoring ODA commitments – maybe we need to be thinking in terms of either / or
 Climate change – we will have to focus on this because it is fundamental development business
 WHAT IS CONCORD‟S CORE BUSINESS – IF IT CAN‟T WORK ON ITS CORE ISSUES WITHOUT WORKING ON THE
   OTHERS – WHAT IMPLICATIONS DOES THIS HAVE?
 We must be careful about discussing the PCD agenda and confusing it with our other work – including the aid here
 We must make choices: all of the issues are all interrelated and all are important but there must be a choice over whether
   CONCORD wants to be the best at today‟s game or getting ahead of the agenda and identifying the issues of future importance
   – is there an ambition for the future about thinking ahead?
 Strength of CONCORD is in its membership and structure – 1600 NGOs doesn‟t represent the best arrangement for forward
   thinking – the way CONCORD will have most impact is in engaging with the issues of today
 CONCORD membership has different strengths – we must support each other to do this through CONCORD
 Scenario 1 is the most feasible coupled with the recognition of the need for increased resources for more mobilisation, plus a
   broader agenda which ensures we can stay political (+ a watching brief on wider issues)
 Engaging European citizens means working on issues which are important to the public – this will impact on our policy priorities

Summary of discussion
 Keeping the current focus on ODA means more resources
 Contextualising our core aid work within broader political issues is necessary for our core work to be effective (climate change;
   FFD e.g.) – this will also have resource implications
 These conclusions are about making choices
 We are not questioning S1 – may be we can extend to S2 (particularly with AidWatch e.g. where it has already started); the
   process now is until April to decide on policy priorities with the Policy Forum and the WGs
 We need to continue working on aid; we cannot work on everything; but we must broaden the context to ensure our work on aid
   (and our aid messages) is political and effective – and this has resource implications


Policy coherence with Development

What policy changes we would like to achieve regarding other policies affecting developing countries?

Mike and Romina introduced the concept note of the session and different possible scenarios, plus the plan of activities of the
different CONCORD WGs.

Highlights of the discussion:
     8. “New” issues arising: climate change; energy; HIV / AIDS; migration (most of them already identified at the workshop on
          PCD in July 2008);

                                                                                                                                30
       9.    Quite shared vision that the scenario for PCD work within CONCORD should be the 3 rd one “go beyond the official
             process”, but as CONCORD we need to:
                   o Decide on priority areas (at least for the next three years): Identify where do we have capacity?(mapping within
                        CONCORD at the different levels European / national); Where do we need to bring other actors on board?
                        (external mapping) Is also crucial not to overlap with other spaces / actors; but build synergies (without stilling
                        capacities);
                   o Define a strategy, that includes resources available (human and financial);
                   o Mapping upcoming political opportunities (summits, international conferences, etc)
                   o Need to show evidence cases;
       10.   Participants at the workshop also identified the need for CONCORD to be proactive around issues related with “policy
             coherence for development”, so CONCORD sets the agenda, by:
                   o Bringing voices from the South, what they consider European CSOs should mobilise on 1? (what is priority?); at
                        the end of the day, our work should have an impact on people‟s livelihoods in the South;
                   o CONCORD shouldn‟t be just reacting to the EC agenda (by challenging the 12 sectors identified), but be an actor
                        in development in the European scene (and challenge the process itself); PCD should be a political issue, and
                        not technical (which is the case of the EC agenda on PCD);
                   o What would be our own concept for PCD (which is EC jargon)? i.e. do not harm?
       11.   An entry point for CONCORD‟s work on PCD could be “aid dependency” (which would link aid, trade, agriculture agendas,
             among others);
       12.   Members agree with opening the scope of work on PCD within CONCORD, nevertheless CONCORD should not miss the
             political opportunities that the EC process offers (i.e. shadow reports to the official reports); as well at national level,
             screening how PCD is being incorporated;
       13.   What are the synergies with the EVF project on “EU coherence”?

       14. Approach:
               o Human-Rights based approach (HRBA) within CONCORD: is now agreed in the CONCORD strategy framework,
                   but how is it going to translate into practice? HRBA is a methodology on how you do things, but you need to
                   effectively integrate it in your work.
               o Need to define CONCORD‟s political understanding of development (new vision of development), which should
                   help us to define the priority areas. How?
                         Build from the current context (crisis: financial, food, climate): Which are the policy opportunities?
                              Which are the social structures needed in order to ensure rights for everybody?
                         Be political: by wording our values, where do we want to go;
                         A CONCORD working group on alternatives? This group could start from the outcomes of the Prague
                              conference and build on;

Summary from Chair of the session:
   1. Participants identified scenario 3 as the closest to current reality, but agreed on the need to be more political and strategic
       in CONCORD‟s engagement on those issues:
                         Define a clear vision of development;
       2.    Criteria: build them from the current political context and build strategic alliances:
                           Bring Southern partners on these discussions;
                           Bring other sectors on board; synergies;




Dialogue with the institutions

       -     It is not an aim in itself, but a transversal tool which is set up to reach a certain impact.
       -     Priorities need to be defined.
       -     Policy Forum will broaden our input afterwards and use it also for guidance at WG level within CONCORD
       -     History: from an ad hoc approach to a more structured one.


We engage at three levels:
       1. Towards the three main institutions



1   Some of the issues mentioned: international finances, migration, global governance architecture, food sovereignty.
                                                                                                                                       31
EP (DEVE + political coordinators)
Council (Perm Rep, CODEV, presidencies, Council Working Parties …)
EC (DG DEV and the SAG)
          2. With other actors

CSCG (8 other sectors of the civil society) - CESC
CSO Contact Group
        3. At international level

Accra
          4.   Towards other sectors of the civil society

Does CONCORD want to keep the leadership role vis-à-vis other sectors?
EU CSO Group on International Development



3 SCENARIOs

     4.   Our strict core business

          We only deal with development bodies at EU level. (3 institutions strictu sensu)

     5.   We do what we are good at

          We confirm our role and mandate in multi-stakeholders and international CSO processes.
          Better complementarities between dialogue at EU and national level & in the South.
          (also support Southern CSOs engaging in a dialogue with EU)

     6.   Let’s go beyond

          We confirm our role and mandate in the Contact Group of DG Trade
          Other international organisations (UN, WB, IMF, …)

OPEN QUESTIONS
   -   How to withdraw from a dialogue?
   -   Can CONCORD accept requests from EU institutions to perform certain tasks?
   -   To what extent should we open EU policy spaces for Southern Civil Society?

PRECONDITION
   -  Get a mandate from the CONCORD GA & establish rules for feedback
   -  Get the toolbox defined : we need an overview of strategic, tactical and specific types of dialogue => which can be used by
      individual WGs

EXAMPLES

          DE – MSH process

What is it?
What are the commitments at national level for D.E. (monitoring existing strategies, and push for the creation of them if they lack)
                     Advantages
    -      Various approaches and a lot of stakeholders present (depends on the type of actor : Ministry, civil society, EU institution,
           trade unions, local authorities …)
    -      DE consensus is a visible result

                    Disadvantages
     -    Leadership comes from CONCORD/DEEEP (logistics, HR, …. ) : push needed, but solutions to share the responsibility :
          the introduction of co-chairs (after Germany now Portugal)

          EC Regional Seminar in Porto Alegre

What is it?
 Unit F in EuropeAid invited 3 times 2 CONCORD representatives to local seminars in Latin America (Porto Alegre), Africa
(Yaounde) and Asia (Manila). Each seminar had about 90 participants (MP, trade unions, EC staff from HQ and delegations). First
                                                                                                                                      32
two days for everyone, last day exclusively for EC staff.
Above all, technical presentations on financing instruments took place, and the CONCORD participants regretted this content of the
dialogue (technical rather than political). The CSOs present tried to counteract that, however. There was no dialogue on the agenda
setting prior to the meeting: CONCORD was asked to « perform ».
A positive side is that CONCORD has notoriety at the EC delegation level as well. CONCORD does not always realise that to the full
extent. Certain tools developed by the FDR WG are used by delegation staff.
The format changed after the first and second regional seminar: gradually less space for CONCORD (e.g. in the plenary, in terms of
distributing own documents, organising…)
Was there a clear mandate? What was the strategic approach? What limits and supports any strategic approach in dialoguing.
COMPARISON OF THE TWO EXAMPLES
      a) Initiated by DEF
      b) Response to EC demand by FDR


An evaluation is planned for both types of dialogue.
Overall questions:
How can we make it better? Should CONCORD play a role? What resources would be needed?
What is the overall benefit for CONCORD? = a main criterion
Issues rose:
    -    How about the willingness to be passionate versus to be active?
    -    How fixed are we versus how opportunist?
    -    How far are we thinking in terms of presence and outcome/contribution?
    -    Do we give credibility together with our engagement?
    -    To what extent are the meetings formal or informal (and should they become that way)?
    -    We cannot miss opportunities, so we have to engage and jump on the train sometimes and see where it drives us to
    -    CONCORD should look where the strategic space is in terms of dialogue (focus!)
    -    It is more necessary to speak to people who are not convinced yet (e.g. BUDG and not only DEV)
    -    We need to ask for minimum consultation periods from the EC and other institutions
    -    Downgrading is an option; withdrawal is not (we cannot close the door of dialogue)


Criteria to determine whether we engage or not:
For example, we could make a checklist with criteria like:
     -    Is it urgent?
     -    It should be related to EU development (Doha only in terms of the role of the EU in this)
     -    It should be in the action plan
     -    It should be within the expertise and the capacity
     -    CONCORD should have an added value (equity dimension)
     -    What is the chance of success?
     -    Presence (versus contribution): do we need to be there for credibility reasons?
     -    Coalitions
     -    Who sets the agenda? (Are we happy with that and with the content?)
     -    What happens to our contribution afterwards – do we get guarantees that we are heard and also given enough time to give
          a relevant input?
     -    The kinds of dialogue are important: not every single interaction is a strategic dialogue (some require representativeness
          and timing, others not); there are also tactical dialogues (meeting with Ombudsman, mandate in the North South Center)
     -    There is a lack of culture of dialogue in the EU : they are not set up to dialogue with the citizens – outside views are by
          nature not taken up easily in the EU decision making process
     -    A side-effect from contacts with the institutions is that you get input and other viewpoints
     -    Mandates to individuals works sometimes best
     -    Let‟s write out the strategies that WGs, Board members, … have with regards to dialogue (but also on Dialogue - Alliances
          – Capacity)
     -    It is not only about capacity, but also about efficiency

What do we want (which scenario?):
A prior comment - CONCORD has changed: better prepared, better documents, more engagement… so we can step up in theory.
We want more involvement/dialogue, also with the Southern partners, so scenario 1 is excluded. (no CONCORD « bruxelloise ») On
the content: the message should be « more than aid ».
Scenario 2 + a little bit of scenario 3 for the French platform: EU, national and regional engagement, multi stakeholders, Southern,
Ideally scenario 3 for the Austrian platform: it makes sense to engage in a mix of dialogues and should be linked to the content that
we work on (In other words: the amount of dialogue depends on the number of priority issues that we define for ourselves).
The choice is between the scenario‟s needs to be quantified in terms of cost and output.

Restrictions and/or challenges :
                                                                                                                                  33
    -    Hard to foresee the outcome in a couple of years from now (e.g. EU-Africa Strategy…)
    -    Ressources (Human and financial)
    -    Define approaches and means on HOW to engage the Southern partners
    -    Challenge to keep track of the individual meetings taking place


What priorities do we propose for the next 3 years?

                         Questions raised           Possible actions         Priority actions         Comments
Content of the           How can we assure
dialogue                 that it is coherent with
                         other actions?
New actors               EIB ? WB ? UNDP ?                                                            CONCORD can tell
                                                                                                      them we can only
                                                                                                      participate if they
                                                                                                      finance our
                                                                                                      participation.
Quality/structure of
the dialogue
Assessment of the        We can not map out all     IT tools that set up
dialogue                 types of dialogues         database
                         easily. This is a
                         challenge.
Internal organisation    Who? (Individual           Members (NWs or          Evaluation of each       Members should lead
and preparation          members of the WG or       NPs), Board,             type of dialogue         through the WG mainly
                         some other bodies?)        Secretariat…                                      (principle of
                         What expertise do we                                                         CONCORD)
                         have?                      Advocacy toolkit of
                         How do we engage in        DEEEP
                         terms of time?
                                                    Mapping

                                                    Training (« peer » but
                                                    also on presentation
                                                    skills etc)

Note: People involved in CONCORD have different levels of professional skills when in Brussels and when at home.


ACTION PLAN – THE ROAD FORWARD
Set of criteria for engagement
Develop a toolbox of lessons learnt
Reinforce the mapping across the federation (Policy Forum is starting, can we support this better)
Ask WG to have more concrete action plans around their dialogue
Better assess the resources needed for various scenarios
Engage efficiently => capacity-building




                                                                                                                              34
                                                                                                                  ANNEX D



       Programme of the Czech platform’s activities during the CZECH
                            Presidency of the EU
General objective
Formulating principles of development effectiveness of CSOs as development actors, and promoting these
towards public and political stakeholders.

Thematic priorities
   Main priority: CSO Development Effectiveness
       FoRS will contribute to the global CSO Development Effectiveness process which is concentrated in
       the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness. In the Open Forum, FoRS represents the EU
       Presidency countries and contributes to the process through reflecting on its own experience.
   Second priority: Good Governance
       FoRS would like to provide a forum for bringing together two dimensions of good governance: good
       governance and development on the one hand, and pro-democracy and the political dimension of
       good governance on the other hand.

Other priority topics, from a development effectiveness perspective
 Development Education
       Critical discussions on the effectiveness of awareness raising and development education can lead
       to recommendations on how to enhance their relevance in the protection of human rights and the
       fight against poverty.
 Sustainable Technologies for Sustainable Development
       Reflection on experiences in the field of sustainable technologies and their implementation and on
       partnerships with local communities can indicate necessary conditions for effective and sustainable
       development.
 Migration and Development
       The relationship between international migration and development issues needs to be analysed on
       several levels, such as the coherence of development and migration policies or the effectiveness of
       specific projects focused on migration.
 Agriculture and Food Security
       Reviewing the understanding of food security and the role of small farmers can help to design tools
       for improving the efficiency of the Czech agricultural aid projects.

Time schedule of FoRS EU Presidency project
Date          Event                                    Contents
                                                           Introducing CSO Development Effectiveness process and defining
18.
              Initial Seminar on                            the Czech contribution to this process
November
              CSO Development Effectiveness                Elaborating the methodology to assess the effectiveness of the
2008
                                                            Czech development actions

              3 expert seminars on:
                                                           Knowledge and experience sharing
               Migration and Development
February -                                                 Putting the issues higher on the agenda in Czech and European
               Sustainable Technologies for
March 2009                                                  development context
                  Sustainable Development
                                                           Good practices and tools from Czech and international experience
               Agriculture and Food Security

              Roundtable on development cooperation,       Discussion of key NGO players on their different views and
9. – 11.
              good governance and mainstreaming of          approaches
March 2009
              human rights and democracy conditionality    Searching for certain common understandings

                                                           Critical discussions on impact of awareness raising and
26.-29. May   International Conference on
                                                            development education in Czech and European context
2009          Development Education
                                                           Experience sharing and comparison of different approaches in
              (sub theme: human rights and democracy)
                                                            development education
                                                           Main FoRS EU Presidency event organised as part of global CSO
23. – 25.     International Conference on
                                                            Development Effectiveness process
June 2009     CSO Development Effectiveness
                                                           Presentation of CSO development effectiveness principles

For further information about the events, please contact Marie Zázvorková: presidency@fors.cz
                                                                                                                          35

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:8/3/2011
language:English
pages:35