Mutual Engagement between EU

delegations and civil society

Lessons from the field

About the report and its purpose

The report is based on a survey: sample at a given moment, qualitative more than quantitative, no statistics but reflecting shared and individual perceptions, experience and expectations from a broad range of CSOs worldwide, allowing to identify good practice and recommendations

It is not the first time CONCORD organises a survey on EU delegations: previous surveys on financing, EDF programming, 1st phase of porgramming, needs assessment by Danish platform

What is new with this report and why: Looks at all dimensions of mutual engagement beyond funding and consultation in line with new approach through country roadmaps. Report is a tool for awareness raising and identifying good practice not a blaming and shaming exercise

About the survey

How many respondents, how it was analysed: 229 responses from 70 countries (138 EN, 41 FR, 50 SP). Responses processed by EUD group with help of consultant. Report drafted by EUD group.

Limitations: 46.8% INGOs, 87.1% NGOs – less than 3 responses in majority of countries. Only 4 EUD interviewed. Reflects lower capacities, interest and knowledge at local, community based CS level. Reflects general outreach problem.

How it could be improved in future: involving partner platforms and networks and EU institutions from the onset, simplifying survey, engaging more delegations, roadmap as a basis.

The 4 chapters of the survey

CS involvement in the EUD

programming cycle and

budget planning

CS involvement

in the development

of broader national and EU policies

EU roadmaps

for engagement

with CS

CSOs as beneficiaries

of EU cooperation

funds

Countries where respondents are based

Who are the respondents?

Findings: CS consultation on the country MIP

• Only 23.3% said they were invited. INGOs more often present than local ones. Need to reach out to more local CSOs outside the capital, to go beyond CSOs already in contact with EUD through funding.

Not open and inclusive enough

• Priority sectors were main issue discussed. Variety in assessment of the process from mere information session to well organised open and participative process in several stages. HoD present in 44.6%.

Content: information or real consultation?

• Some level of coordination in 52% of cases through existing NW or platforms or ad hoc groups, 73% in FR speaking. In some cases, effort done to involve and consult smaller local CSOs.

CS coordination in 52% of cases

• Main weaknesses: information arriving too late, no follow-up (74%) still 63% consider it was part of on-going dialogue and 21% feel their views were taken into account.

Weak in preparation and feedback

• Need to learn from practice on both sides and to spread good examples at both EUD and CS levels. Reaching out effort necessary on both sides.

Need to Promote good practice

Findings: broader national and EU policies

• 30% of respondents are in dialogue with EUD on a wide range of policy issues - often initiated by CSOs Dialogue EUD-CSOs

• 22% invited by EUD to discuss HR and fundamental freedoms - 26.8% receive EU funding for human rights or gender actions - 45% are not aware of the existence of an EU Human Rights strategy for the country

Dialogue on Human Rights

• only 14.6% were invited by EUD to exchange on restriction of the CS space – the issue is a sensitive one

Dialogue on enabling environment

• Only 15% (37 CSOs) get support from EUD to facilitate their participation in policy making or political dialogue – different forms of support exist

Supporting Political role of CS

• Good examples exist but EUD could do more to support the CS enabling environment and political space through dialogue with the government

Promoting CS space

Findings: CS consultation on the roadmaps

• Compared to MIP, more CSOs invited by EUD to take part in consultation (43.2% against 23.3%). Broader group and range of actors, including PS but still judged not inclusive enough by 65% .

Outreach and inclusiveness

• Head of EUD present in 32% of cases and MS in only 25.5%. New models of consultation used (decentralised meetings, E-tools, consultancy) to reach out requiring additional resources.

Tools and mechanisms

• Not systematic (35% only) but good examples exist and could lead to better structuration of CS and more structured dialogue with EUD.

CS coordination

• Content judged relevant by 71%: political and legal context, dialogue CSOs – EUD, priority actions to strengthen CS role, capacity building and operational support to CSOs. Not enough time to prepare and coordinate; lack of follow-up but process is on-going.

Content and quality

• Positive exercise that could become a framework for on-going structured and inclusive dialogue between CS, EUD and MS embassies. More CSOs involved than in programming but less coordinated. Cross –learning between the 2 processes would be good.

Way forward

Findings: CS0s as beneficiaries of EU funding

• 68% of respondents applied for EU funding in last 3 years and half of them were successful, 91% through calls for proposals

CSOs are active fundraisers

• EU funding is too complex for local and small NGOs to compete in the bidding processes. Efforts to simplify made in HR area could be improved and generalised

INGOs are the main recipients

• 76% considered that the process was transparent and sufficiently predictable but improvements are needed on feedback on rejected proposals and management of timing and information before the call

Quality of granting process

• Only 22% claimed that EUD offers capacity-building activities on grant management and presented good practice but these sessions are aimed at grants recipients and small local CSOs feel excluded

Capacity building for grant management

Recommendations to EU institutions and CSOs

Coherent engagement

strategy

Link the RBA tool-box, EU action plan on human rights and

democracy, HR country strategies and EU country roadmaps

Improve coordination between EUDs at regional level

MS to participate more actively, or play a leading role in the

roadmap

Engage constructively and consistently in the development,

implementation and regular review of EU country roadmaps

and human rights strategies

Permanent and structured dialogue

Establish permanent and holistic EUD-CS dialogue

Strengthen multistakeholder dialogue

Create more targeted dialogue spaces with specialised CSOs

Proactively share your analyses and concerns with EUDs and invite them to the events you organise in relation to

the political situation, or particular policy issues that are important in your

country

CS Enabling environment

Participate in and promote both tripartite (EUD-CS-GOV) and bilateral (CS-GOV) dialogue

Where needed, act as a liaison or facilitator between civil society

and government

Through the EU country roadmap process, share your

analysis and concerns regarding an enabling environment with

EUD and together with them see how they can represent these

concerns in their political dialogue with governments

Supporting CS political role

Map the mechanisms for dialogue between CSOs and their

government and see how the EUD could support or participate

Support dialogue and cooperation between civil society and local

authorities

Strengthen CSOs’ engagement in multi-actor dialogue on national development strategies and sectoral policies, including

through the dialogue with EUDs on programming

INGOs have a role to play is spreading information and knowledge about the

EU’s policies and programmes and strengthening local civil society's

capacity for advocacy and policy work

Effective consultation

processes

Reach out to the wider civil society outside the capitals (e-tools,

decentralised meetings)

Share documents well in advance of a consultation meeting

increase transparency and improve feedback mechanisms

Platforms of CSOs could take the lead and report back to the EUD afterwards. In such cases, the EU and INGOs should also provide

financial and/or logistical support for the organisers

Supporting CS structuration and

networking

Strengthen multi-stakeholder dialogue by including academia,

parliamentarians, local authorities and other CSO actors

Dialogue with an EUD can play a role in structuring and strengthening civil

society.

Strengthen horizontal networking and coordination between civil society actors at all levels, from local grassroots movements to

INGOs.

Effective granting process

Consult CSOs and organise information sessions ahead of calls for proposals

Provide more qualitative feedback on why a proposal was rejected

Apply more flexibility in calls for proposals, tailored to the needs and

capacities of smaller, local organisations

Spread good practice in capacity building

Develop a civil society strategy for notifying CSOs in-country of EU funding

opportunities and consultations

INGOs and national platforms to provide advice and information to local CSOs

Flexible & long-term funding

Support long-term projects, provide more seed funding, support

knowledge-sharing and cross-project learning as well as

networking and sector approaches

INGOs have an important role to play in building capacities and disseminating information on

funding trends and grant management.

Thank You!