Lessons learnt from the SAG (Stakeholder Advisory Group)

Structured Dialogue Follow up Conference Brussels, 9 november 2011

Izabella Toth, Cordaid, Concord Board Member

www.concordeurope.org

CONCORD is the European NGO confederation for Development and Relief. Its members are- 26 National Platforms of NGOs- 18 International Networks and families, and - 1 associateThey represent in total nearly 1.800 NGOs in Europe.

For more info: www.concordeurope.org

SAG – Stakeholders Advisory Group to DG DEV – 2006 to 2008Background and origins

Since the last EC communication on Non State Actors (2002), CSOs and Development NGOs have been repeatedly requesting a ‘global framework for policy/political dialogue

with EU Institutions’ on International Development Policies and Cooperation. The most ‘concrete’ initiative which took place immediately after the creation of CONCORD (2003) has been the so-called ‘Palermo process’ which was very similar (in its objectives and ambitions) to the recent Structured Dialogue. This interesting process was led by EuropeAid and at that time DG DEV didn’t want to engage pro-actively in this initiative arguing that a ‘multi-stakeholders’ dialogue would contradict the existing inter-institutional arrangements like the “committology” with Member States or the formal bilateral relations between the EC and the EP.

SAG Stakeholders Advisory Group to DG DEV – 2006 to 2008

 The creation and mandate of the SAG:

After the end of the Palermo Process (2005), Commissioner Louis Michel launched (as proposed by DG DEV) a new initiative called the Stakeholders Advisory Group-SAG.

The initial idea was to create an informal group of CSO representatives (almost 20 CSO representatives have been invited to join the group – CONCORD was one of them + few members) to advise the Director General of DG DEV.

The SAG was chaired by the Deputy DG of DG DEV. Once a year a wider CSO constituency was supposed to meet with the Commissioner for a more political and open discussion..

But CSOs proposed a slightly different setting and framework:

1. To avoid creating a ‘privileged and closed club’ of CSO experts that would have direct access to DG DEV, CSOs proposed to focus exclusively the SAG’s discussions on ‘participation and consultation of CSOs’ and not on ‘content issues’. In other words, a dialogue on ‘dialogues’, not on policy issues. The aim of this alternative proposal was also to better strategize on consultations at Country level and to incorporate other actors such as EU Delegations and local CSOs.

2. An explicit participation of EuropeAid and DG Relex in the SAG was requested.

3. A co-chairing between the EC and CSOs was from our perspective a pre-condition for a genuine dialogue.

4. The participation of MS and EP representatives to the SAG as a condition for a real engagement with the three EU institutions. 

Proposals 1 & 2 have been accepted by the EC

Proposals 3 & 4 have been rejected by the EC

This negotiation has been clearly reflected in the official Terms of Reference

of the SAG

SAG Stakeholders Advisory Group to DG DEV – 2006 to 2008

Outcomes of the SAG (from a CSO perspective)

Positive

•Regular meetings to discuss openly the participation of CSO in the policy and implementation phases of EU cooperation.

•Increased consultations of CSO for the programming of Programs under DCI during the last MFF/Financial Perspectives

•Interesting Survey/studies undertaken by DG RELEX and EUROPEAID on consultations of CSO at country level

•Building of a more confident relation between CSO and high and middle management of the DG DEV and EUROPEAID

•Strengthening of strategic relations between different sectors of CSO leading to the creation of the “EU CSO Group on International Development Cooperation” (which still exist today)

SAG Stakeholders Advisory Group to DG DEV – 2006 to 2008

Outcomes of the SAG (from a CSO perspective)

Negative

•The Director General of DG DEV (and Commissioner) considered the SAG as a place to discuss ‘content’ issues not ‘dialogue and participation of CSO’ – leading to misunderstanding on the purpose of the group between CSO and the EC;

•No specific initiatives nor resources have been invested by the EC to boost consultations and participation of CSO during this period (at central or country levels);

•The absence of the MS and the EP have limited the outcomes of the process;

•The many restructuration/re-organization of the EC have limited the impact and sustainability of the process;

•The lack of political support from the Commissioner (at the time) to CSO/NGO (in general), has undermined the outcomes and recommendations of the SAG.

Stakeholders Advisory Group to DG DEV – 2006 to 2008

Lessons learnt- no consequent follow up on agreements on form and content- the Institutions should involve a broad group of people with diverse knowledge - people should be able to participate in discussions related to their expertise- hence, including a wide variety of topics )like it was tried with the SAG), it is bound to fail, because one does not bring the expertise at the table- consultation limited to a small group of people is bearing the risk that information will stay with the limited group – due to lack of time or manpower to disseminate further.

CONCORD’s 3 main proposals for dialogue

1.- Need for dialogue at country level, both technical and political.

2.- Need for a policy and political dialogue at central level/EC HQ and other institutions level

3.-Need for a dialogue on the “Structured Dialogue” themes and on the effectiveness on our partnership with the EC

Thank you for your attention

www.concordeurope.org