European Commission

Mr. P. Nielson, Commissioner for Development
Mr. C. Sørensen (Head of Cabinet) - Mr Nielsonâ€™s Cabinet

Ms. J. Pedersen - Mr Nielsonâ€™s Cabinet
Mr. K. Richelle (Director General), DG Development

Mr. J. Houtman (Director), DG Development
Ms. C. Mandouze (Acting Head of Unit of Civil Society Participation), DG Development

Ms. C. O'Brien - DG Development
Mr. F. de Angelis (Director), EuropeAid

Ms. F. Marion - EuropeAid
Mr. F. Buda - ECHO
Mr. N. Hutchinson - DG Relex
Mr. M. Kroeger - Secretariat General

Mr. H. Siemers - DG Trade

NGDO Networks

James Mackie - (Executive Secretary) - Liaison Committee of EU NGDOs (CLONG)

Simon Stocker (Director) - Eurostep

Guggi Laryea - Eurostep

Jef Felix (General Secretary) - CIDSE

Bob van Dillen - CIDSE

Rob van Drimmelen (General Secretary) - Aprodev

Giampi Alhadeff (General Secretary) - SOLIDAR

Kathrin Schick - SOLIDAR

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE MEETING

The NGDO networksâ€™ objective for the meeting was to:

· Express the need for an open and transparent mechanism for a structured dialogue in which the representation from the European NGOs involved would be chosen by ourselves

· Identify an approach that provided for the necessary preparations for such a dialogue

· confirm the need for and commitment to an overall co-ordinating structure for NGDOs at the European level.

3. INTRODUCTION

Commissioner Nielson on behalf of the Commission welcomed the discussion with the NGDOs and expressed his wish to have some kind of rhythm or sequencing to meetings with the NGDO networks. He stated his openness to discuss the format of such meetings with NGDOs and also pointed out that such regular meetings could be of good value to the members of the NGDO networks.

Rob van Drimmelen, on behalf of the NGDO networks, expressed his appreciation of the Commission initiative for the meeting. But he also explained why there had been some unease amongst the EU NGDO community regarding the Commission initiative. This was because:

The NGDOS had not been given enough time to secure participation of the governing bodies of their various networks. As secretariats of networks we are more facilitators in dialogue between our members and EU institutions than merely representatives of members views;
The situation regarding Brussels based EU NGDO networks is in a flux, as a result of the serious problems faced by the Liaison Committee of EU NGDOs, which has been an important instrument for inter-network coordination amongst the NGDO networks and individual NGDOs. Thus there remains a need for such a co-ordinating body.
The NGDOs would have liked to have a preparatory meeting with Commission staff prior to the ‘Brainstormingâ€™ meeting to allow the meeting to focus on more specific issues.
It was felt that several important EU NGDO networks, who could make a useful contribution to the debate and with which close working relations exist, should have been invited to the brainstorming meeting

4. DISCUSSION ON KEY DEVELOPMENT POLICY ISSUES

- Poverty reduction as the central objective of the EU Development Policy.

- Other Sector/thematic priorities of the EU Development Policy

Among the points the Commission raised were:

There is a commitment on the part of the Commission to improve its effectiveness in using the substantial aid resources with which it has been entrusted. The re-organisation of the Commission is a key part of this, together with the process of deconcentration;
the increased agreement in the donor community that the sector wide approach is the better way to do things as opposed to the project approach. This has consequnces for NGDOs which have traditionally been involved with relatively small scale projects. NGDOs will have to see how to ‘scale-upâ€™ their work beyond little projects. However there is sensitivity within governmental agencies that while looking for the role that NGOs can play in sectoral programmes NGOs should not limit their work to activities within the framework of governmental donor programmes. NGOs should be free to do their own work.
As implementors of EU development policy NGOs are better and cheaper than consultants.
EU NGDOâ€™s input on policy is useful, but it is not up to the EC to organise or fund this. However it is important for EU NGDOs to be actually involved in implementation work on the policies they espouse e.g. not just lobby on removal of landmines but actually clearing mines in the field, etc. Their policy input thus needs to be solidly anchored in programme work and needs to focus on EU as well as national levels.
The Commission is going to spend a lot of money on health and education in the next years. It will be provided through macro economic support. On health in particular there is a good case to involve NGOs, but some order is necessary. The main reasons why the Commission has spent so little on health, education and population is that policy in these areas is not developed.
The international community's recognition that poverty eradication is possible needs to be remembered. This needs to remain the long term objective towards which development co-operation policy should be oriented.

Among the points the NGDO representatives raised were:

Poverty eradication should be at the centre of EU Development policy. EU development policy should be made coherent with other EU policies that impact on developing countries, such as trade, fisheries and agricultural policies.
The poverty focus should be based on the International Development Targetsâ€™ (IDT) approach adopted by the international community. The EU as a global player has a responsibility in making sure the IDTâ€™s will be achieved within the timeframe set.
The General Conditions of Co-financing should be made more user friendly to European NGDO consortia

In ‘scaling upâ€™ NGDO should not be subjected to too many rules and regulations

5. DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE OF THE VARIOUS ACTORS IN DEVELOPMENT

- The new strategy of non-state actors

- The role of EU NGDOs in the enlarged partnership with decentralised actors in the south

Among the points the Commission raised were:

The changing role of NGDOs should be looked at in relation to the changing role of Southern local government actors in development co-operation
There must be space for B7-6000 funding of projects that fall outside EU framework for national or sectoral assistance (‘free birdsâ€™). Meso-level dialogue is needed for bringing both together. European NGDOs need to support their southern counterparts. ‘Free birdsâ€™ could also be funded by EU Delegation managed micro-projects.
B7-6000 represents only 20% of funding to NGOs - dialogue should look at all budget lines and instruments. There should be consistency among NGO activities funded and the EU development priorities.
As a side event to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, meetings between ACP and EU civil society could be held. Such events should become real policy discussions.
NGOs could work in countries other than the priority countries with which their governments have chosen pursue co-operation. They could be encouraged by governments to do this.
Northern NGOs could advise Southern NGOs on how to structure themselves at the national level, ensuring their independence
NGOs could advise the Commission on which business actors should be engaged in the new Investment Facility of Euro 2.2 billion, which will be administered by the European Investment Bank. The Commission is to set up the parameters for the use of this facility. The Commission is also looking for individuals outside the business world who have considerable experience in developing countries, and who could be formally involved with the Facility.
EU Delegations have been instructed to be more proactive in relation to NGOs. To this end the capacity of the EU Delegations will be strengthened.
A steering committee of identified Northern and Southern civil society actors and Commission staff could be set up to work on the Commissionâ€™s proposed Communication on a strategy for civil society participation (to be adopted in November 2001)

Among the points the EU NGDOs raised were:

EU NGDOs see two crucial landmarks coming up this year in the definition of the role of civil society, i.e. the Commission White Paper on Governance and Democracy and the Communication on Best Practices in Civil Society Consultation
EU NGDOs role could be, among other things to facilitate and to generate public debate
The legitimacy of northern NGO is increasingly being based on the quality of their relationships with southern NGOs
EU delegations should have a greater role in co-operation with NGOs but need training in order to effectively play this role
Southern governments do not create local civil society but should allow it to happen. What is needed is a legitimate international civil society structure which would allow Northern and Southern civil society groups to meet as equals. This would need continous support.
Direct funding is not always helpful for southern groups, they should be able to challenge local government structures.

6. DISCUSSION ON ARRANGEMENTS FOR A STRUCTURED DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE EUROPEAN NGDOs

EU NGDO Proposals and comments:

All major EU NGDO networks should be involved in the structured dialogue with the Commission. Specialist networks have important expertise in the areas in which they are actively involved. There also needs to be an involvement of non-Brussels based groups.

General dialogue meetings could be held twice a year
The agendas could be worked out between the Commission and the NGDOs beforehand in order to allow members of NGDO networks to prepare for this dialogue
Chairing could be shared between the NGDOs and the Commission
The NGDOs would submit a paper to the Commission detailing the above proposals
Topics for future dialogue could include:
- The changing roles of Northern NGOs, Southern NGOs, local authorities and the Commission (including the role of the EU delegations and the issue of direct funding).
- Civil society participation, especially in the context of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.
- The Cotonou trade chapter.
- The sectoral approach of the Commission regarding health and education, and the role of NGOs (but not limited to a discussion about budget lines).
- EU Policy coherence
- Human rights
- Food security
- 'Scaling-up'
Dialogue with EuropeAid on more ‘implementationâ€™ issues could be useful

Among the comments from the Commission were:

It welcomed and committed itself to the system of dialogue proposed orally by the NGDOs, in advance of receiving the proposals in writing
Discussions in this dialogue should give a big focus to substance rather than just process
Agendas should be prepared long beforehand
EuropeAid is willing to participate in the dialogue if NGDOs find it useful

7. CONCLUSIONS

It was agreed that:

A formal meeting between the Commission and the NGDO networks should take place twice a year. The role of these meetings would be to look at the issues that both sides feel need some attention at that time. The participants would be high-level officials

The first NGDO-Commission dialogue meeting should take place before the Summer recess

The agenda would be established in mutual discussion between a representative of the Commission and a representative of the NGOs. For those issues that the Commission put on the table it would be expected that they would provide the input. Likewise for the NGOs.
In addition to these bi-annual meetings, other more ad hoc meetings would be arranged around specific issues as the need arises. These would be seen as more "expert" meetings.
It would be hoped that the Commissioner would be present, at least for part of the bi-annual meetings.

8. GENERAL IMPRESSION

The meeting was a constructive meeting in an atmosphere of positive engagement. There was no substantive in depth debate on issues, but the meeting did identify a number of areas in which there was a need for consultation and debate.

20 February 2001