Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum€¦ · 3. Analysis of the relations among the organisations....

Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum

F r a m e w o r k C o n t r a c t B E N E F 2 0 0 9

L o t 7 - G o v e r n a n c e a n d H o m e A f f a i r s

E u r o p e A i d / 1 2 7 0 5 4 / C / S E R / M u l t i

Specific Contract n°2012/310569 FINAL REPORT – August 2013

Project financed by European Union

Project implemented by Italtrend C&T SpA

Governance~20 Consortium, in association with:

AAM Management Information Consulting - Adam Smith International - Assemblée Nationale - Association Internationale des Maires Francophones -

Centre for European Security Studies - Centre for Public Reform - Democracy Reporting International - France Coopération Internationale - G4S Risk

Management Limited - GRM International - International Human Rights Network - International NGO Training and Research Centre - Internews Europe -

IPS Institute – Italtrend - Prisonniers Sans Frontières - Risk & Co - Servicios Integrales de Contratación e Intermediación Dominus - Utrecht University.

The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the SOFRECO Governance ~ 20 Consortium and can in no way be taken to reflect

the views of the European Union.

The ACP Civil Society Forum

Study

Final Report

Welmoed E. Koekebakker

August, 2013

Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum Final Report

i

Table of contents

Acronyms ii Executive Summary iii 1. Introduction 1

2. Methodology 2

3. The ACP Civil Society Forum, ACP and EU 5

The ACP Civil Society Forum 5

ACP and ACP Civil Society Forum 5

Recognition of the pivotal role of Civil Society Organisations 5

The EU Policy Framework: strengthening support to CSOs 6

Civil Society Forums and EU support 7

4. Findings 8

A. The ACP Civil Society Forum 8

1. Organizational structure 8

2. Governance 9

3. Funding and relation to ACP 10

4. Genuine civil society representation 11

5. Activities 11

6. Modalities of communication and coordination with(in) the member associations 13

7. Representativeness 14

8. Overall Relevance of the Forum for its member organisations 15

B. The Member Organisations 15

1. ACP CSF Member organisations: characteristics 15

2. ACP CSF Member organisations: Governance, Management, Accountability 16

3. Member organisations: Priority areas, activities, impact dimensions 17

4. Analysis of relations among organisations 20

5. Analysis of relations with key national and external stakeholders 21

5. Conclusions 25

Annexes 1

1. Terms of Reference 1

2. Time schedule and Itinerary 5

3. List of Literature and Sources 8

4. List of persons interviewed 14

5. Inception Report, Study on the ACP CSF 16

6. Survey: Member organisations of the ACP CSF - Questionnaire 17

7. Inventory of Factsheets on ACP CSF Member organisations 18

8. Inventory of Best Practices, ACP CSF National Focal Points. Outcome from Survey 19

9. Impact Areas 24

10. Main Regional networks in which ACP CSF members collaborate 26


ii

Map of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) member nations (June, 2013)

Source: Wikimedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/African,_Caribbean_and_Pacific_Group_of_States_member_nations_map.svg


i

ACP Civil Society Forum: 3 Core Identities See Conclusions

ACP Civil Society Forum: main activities of the member organisations see paragraph on ACP CSF member organisations


ii

ACRONYMS AAA Accra Agenda for Action – Agreement, Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2008 ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States ACP CSF Civil Society Forum of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States Busan Agreement, Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2011 CARICOM Caribbean Community CARIFORUM ACP Subgroup of the 15 Caribbean states with the Dominican Republic CEDEAO Communauté Économique des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (ECOWAS) CEMAC Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CONCORD European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development CS Civil Society CSF Civil Society Forum CSI Civil Society Index CSO Civil Society Organisation CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DAC Development Assistance Committee (OECD) DEVCO Development and Cooperation – Europeaid EACSOF East African Civil Society Organizations' Forum EC European Commission ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EDF European Development Fund EEAS European External Action Service EEC European Economic Community EESC European Economic and Social Committee EPA European Partnership Agreements EU European Union FOSCAO Forum des Organisations de la Société Civile de l’Afrique de l’Ouest FTA Free Trade Agreements GCAP Global Call to Action against Poverty GDP Gross domestic product IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative ICT Information communication technology IFP International Forum of national NGO Platforms INGO International non-governmental organisation JPA Joint Parliamentary Assembly MDGs Millennium Development Goals MTR Mid-term review NAO National Authorising Officer NGO Non-governmental organisation NSA Non-State Actor OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Paris Agreement, Paris High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2005 PPP Public-private partnership RAO Regional Authorising Officer REPAOC Réseau des Plates-Formes d’ONG d’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre REPONGAC Réseau des Plates-Formes d’ONG d’Afrique Centrale PIANGO Pacific Islands Association of NGOs PRNGO Pacific Islands Regional Non-governmental Organizations SACU Southern African Customs Union SADC-CNGO Southern African Development Community - Council of Non-Governmental Organisations SDGs Sustainable development goals SME Small and Medium Enterprises ToR Terms of reference UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union WTO World Trade Organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic


iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ACP Civil Society Forum was established in 2001 to give effect to the Cotonou Agreement.

The Cotonou Agreement stipulates that non-State actors including civil society organisations should be informed and consulted on ACP-EU cooperation policies and be involved in the political dialogue. The Cotonou Agreement mentions several specific areas of involvement of civil society organisations.

In 2013 the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission commissioned a study on the ACP Civil Society Forum. The overall objective of this study is to provide the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission with information related to the ACP Civil Society Forum and its member organisations. Its Specific Objectives are:

1. Analysis of the internal structure of the Forum – a qualitative analysis 2. Inventory of the organisations with a fact sheet per member organisation. 3. Analysis of the relations among the organisations. 4. Analysis of the relations with key national and external stakeholders.

This report presents the outcome of the study. It contains an in-depth analysis of the ACP Civil Society Forum – its structure, internal functioning, its strengths and weaknesses, communication, achievements, external and internal constraints. It contains a detailed analysis of the member organisations that form the constituencies of the Forum. Their interventions are highlighted, and successful examples of their interventions are compiled and documented in a separate ‘inventory of case studies of best practices’.

Three research tools were the main sources of data collection: 1. a web based Survey; 2. Skype interviews with 43 member organisations, and 3. the production of the Inventory of Fact Sheets. These sources provided a wealth of information on the National Focal Points who, as is evidenced in the study, each in their respective national contexts play a pivotal role in strengthening Civil Society.

METHODOLOGY

This study made use of established methods for evaluation of Civil Society Forums.

The tool and methods included:

1. Desk study 2. Interviews with ACP CSF management, 3. Field visits to member organisations in the 6 core regions, 4. Interviews / telephone discussions with 43 member organisations, 5. Interviews with 12 external stakeholders (Skype, email, field visits), 6. an in-depth web-based Survey, 7. Preparation of an Inventory of Fact Sheets for each member organisation.

Triangulation of methods of data collection has been sought throughout the study. The study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment methods.

SURVEY

The Survey covered 52 questions pertaining to the ACP CSF as well as to member organisations; they cover facts as well as perceptions; multiple-choice and open questions; quantitative as well as qualitative indicators.

The questionnaire was made available in French and English. The Survey was distributed through the ACP CSF internet network.

There were several obstacles impeding response to the Survey, mostly related to access to internet. It was particularly difficult to reach member organisations in the Pacific. Alternate ways were found to contact


iv

organisations that did not respond. In spite of obstacles, most organisations successfully submitted the survey.

Out of a potential response of 57 organisations, 49 responded to the survey. The response exceeds expectations (a minimum of 20 had been anticipated) and may be seen as an indicator for the level of motivation of the member organisations.

FACT SHEETS

One component of the Study is an Inventory of Fact sheets on all members organisations of the Forum, providing factual information on main characteristics of the organisations (internal structure, activities, communication, governance, accountability, and for each organization a case study of Best Practices).

Fact sheets were prepared in English and French, depending on the preference of the member organisation. All communication took place in two languages. The Inventory is made available in two versions: one in English and one in French. 54 organisations have validated the factsheets.

The Inventory of Fact Sheets on the ACP CSF Member organisations is an Annex to the main Report.

KEY FINDINGS

The ACP CSF and ‘Cotonou’ - The ACP Civil Society Forum reflects and embodies the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement. - Cotonou, The Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda and the Busan Declaration explicitly refer to Civil

Society Organisations as independent development actors in their own right.

The ACP CSF and ACP - The ACP established the ACP Civil Society Forum as the official platform of the African, Caribbean and

Pacific Civil Society Organisations and NGO Networks for the ACP-EU Cooperation since 2001, confirming the formal status of the ACP CSF as an “all-ACP Civil Society Forum”.

- The ACP Secretariat presented the Plan of Action, Declaration and the Report of the first Forum to the ACP Council of Ministers through the Committee of Ambassadors and these documents were endorsed by the 27th ACP-EU Council of Ministers Meeting in June, 2002.

- The ACP has taken charge of the ACP Civil Society Forum from the start. ACP Secretariat authorized, funded and (co-)organized the 3 Forum meetings that have taken place: 2001, 2006, 2009. The Forum meetings were funded through intra-ACP EDF funds.

ACP Civil Society Forum - The performance of the ACP CSF shows a mixed picture, with, in terms of performance indicators,

strength and progress in some areas (organizational structure, realizing genuine Civil Society membership, representativeness, communication network) and stagnation under-utilized potential in other areas (activities in relation to objectives, implementation of Forum meetings).

Internal structure and management - Its internal structure is appropriate to its identity as an international network and to its objectives. - ACP Civil Society Forum member organisations are formally designated as the National Focal Points for

the ACP CSF in their respective countries. - Since 2001, the ACP CSF has gradually developed its governance structure. This included, apart from

an effective management structure, transparent guidelines on decision-making and democratic procedures for election of the chairperson and regional focal points.

- The ACP CSF Bureau consists of a core team of highly qualified civil society leaders, knowledgeable in their particular sector of expertise, as confirmed by external stakeholders.

- ACP CSF does not have a formal mechanism for exercising accountability. Online consultations are seen as a major channel for informing and consulting members, and this functions well.

Lack of an enabling environment


v

- Though the ACP CSF was established with a clear mandate, right from the start the ACP CSF lacked a proper implementation mechanism.

- Crucial in understanding the internal governance of the ACP CSF is its relation to the ACP. The ACP Secretariat authorizes the organization and funding of Forum meetings and decides on modalities of the meetings, not the ACP CSF. This has created a structure of dependency, the pros and cons of which have never been validated in an open manner between ACP, ACP CSF and EU.

- Key informants identify this situation as a major external disincentive for the ACP CSF and they regard the ‘unbalanced ACP-ACP CSF relationship’ as not conducive to a vibrant ACP CSF. “The two should be given the opportunity to function as two independent entities in their own right”.

- The ACP CSF management at present is not taking leadership. A major factor is that they are deprived of the resources and the environment enabling them to act. Other factors are: lack of a clear action plan that is endorsed by the ACP CSF constituency and on a more general level lack of a strategy on how to deal with the present impasse.

Overall performance - While no funding has been available right from the start, the Forum achieved to implement activities. The

ACP Civil Society Forum implemented 3 Forum meetings (2001, 2006, 2009) in collaboration with the ACO Secretariat. Discontinuity in Forum meetings is in the first place due to external factors – lack of an operational mechanism enabling ACP CSF to act.

- Assessing the activities of the ACP CSF vis-à-vis planned activities is problematic because a framework for planning and reporting is lacking. This affects effectiveness and impact of the ACP CSF and points to a substantial management and performance problem of the Forum.

- An assessment of activities in view of objectives demonstrates that the Forum has delivered on about half of its 5 objectives. There are obvious performance gaps.

- The two main activities by 2013 are: - Participation in (ACP – EU) policy meetings and keeping the members informed on relevant ACP-EU

activities through the online network. - Communication on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation from a civil

society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise, with ACP CSF providing inputs and facilitating sharing of expertise.

- The 2009 Forum endorsed the ACP CSF as a Forum of genuine civil society representatives. This is a major step towards realization of a genuine ACP Civil Society Forum. This study did not find a single evidence of a member organisation that does not qualify as a genuine Civil Society organisation.

- Overall, how should the number, range and effectiveness of the activities implemented by the ACP CSF be qualified? In view of its lack of resources they are considerable. In view of ACP CSF’s mandate and potential its performance is weak.

Modalities of communication and coordination - The ACP CSF yahoo network is the major communication mechanism for the ACP CS; it meant a

qualitative leap forward in internal communication in the Forum. - The Legal Advisor and other Forum representatives participate in policy meetings and keep the

members informed on relevant ACP-EU activities through the online network. Members regard this information as useful, and a majority has practically used it in their own activities.

Representativeness - This study confirms the representativeness of the Forum, formally and substantially, in view of major

indicators: 1. its support base, 2. qualitative indicators.

Relevance - Overall, most members confirm that ACP Civil Society Forum is a relevant platform for its member

organisations.

The ACP CSF member organisations - The National Focal Points are prominent organisations in their own field of expertise. Many of them are

playing a crucial role in strengthening democracy or they have played a role in the transition to democracy. A strong feature of the national focal points is their representativeness and their diversity. They are all (except one) officially registered in their own country. They are networks, umbrellas, and often membership organisations; representing ten to several hundreds of civil society organisations in their countries.


vi

- They generally have a social-economic focus, and they engage in three clusters of priority activities: Poverty Alleviation, Rights, and Peace Building.

- There are dozens of ‘Good Practices’, successful interventions, and these are documented in an inventory: See Annex.

- There is synergy between the priorities addressed by the National Focal Points, their local member organisations, the regional networks and those addressed by the Forum on a global level.

- Members confirm the added value of the ACP CSF for their work. Relations with key national or external stakeholders - The report describes and analyses the relations of the member organisations with key national and

international stakeholders, with special reference to modalities of communication and collaboration. - Some 25 member organisations are actively engaged in coordination mechanisms between EU, national

government and civil society organisation on development issues. The region with the strongest coordination mechanism is the Caribbean.

ACP CSF: 3 Core identities From the research data on the ACP Civil Society Forum, 3 ‘Core Identities’ are derived.

1. Core identity 1: The ACP Civil Society Forum is the legitimate network of Civil Society organisations in the ACP countries that gives effect to the principles of the Cotonou Agreement on the role of Civil Society.

2. Core identity 2: ACP CSF keeps the members informed on ACP-EU activities through the online network. Most member organisations regard this information as useful; they use it in their own activities, and they see this as a key activity of the Forum.

3. Core Identity 3: Communication and collaboration on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation from a civil society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise and experience.

Challenges and future potential - The ACP Forum members are Civil Society platforms of thousands of organisations in ACP countries

representing an invaluable source of expertise and experience, as has been documented in this study. - As such, the ACP CSF Forum is in a unique position, or ‘best placed’ to coordinate exchange of

experiences and create joint positions or strategies, both in view of pressing development issues, as well as in view of joint internal Civil Society sector concerns.

- With the yahoo network one main condition for a coordinating role is in place. The ACP Civil Society Forum has a huge potential, that is presently under-utilized, but the potential is still there.

- ACP CSF member organisations see the fact that meetings are not taking place as prescribed as a major challenge for the ACP CSF that need to be solved. They also see “lack of a clear mandate” and “lack of funding” as major challenges.

- A far majority of the immediate constituency of the Forum has confidence in the future potential of the ACP CSF. According to them, to realize this potential in order for the Forum to be able to play its role to the fullest in the spirit of ‘Cotonou, Paris, Accra and Busan’, as an independent development actor in its own right, a concerted effort of internal and external stakeholders is required. “ACP CSF has to be revived”. The Forum needs to catch the momentum and take ownership. It needs to reconsider its core identity, objectives and deliverables. Appropriate planning and accountability structures must be in place.

- It is recommended that a clear and transparent mechanism be worked out by the main stakeholders - the ACP Civil Society Forum, the ACP and EU - for a realistic operational structure conducive to the optimal functioning of the ACP Civil Society Forum, with due attention for accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. Without th7is, it is not anticipated that the ACP CSF will overcome its present impasse.


1

1. INTRODUCTION

The ACP Civil Society Forum was established in 2001 to give effect to the Cotonou Agreement.

The Cotonou Agreement acknowledges that non-State actors including civil society organisations should be informed and consulted on ACP-EU cooperation policies and be involved in the political dialogue. The Cotonou Agreement mentions several specific areas of involvement of civil society organisations.

In 2013 the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission commissioned a study on the ACP Civil Society Forum. The overall objective of this study is to provide the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission with information related to the ACP Civil Society Forum and its member organisations.

The Specific Objectives are (see Terms of Reference):

- Analysis of the internal structure of the Forum with a qualitative analysis of the established processes (internal governance, sources of financing, the modalities of communication and coordination within the associations, its representativeness and accountability).

- Inventory of the organisations with a fact sheet per member organisation. - Analysis of the relations among the organisations. - Analysis of the relations with key national and external stakeholders.

This report presents the outcome of the study. It contains an in-depth analysis of the ACP Civil Society Forum – its structure, internal functioning, its strengths and weaknesses, communication, achievements, external and internal constraints. It contains a detailed analysis of the member organisations that form the constituencies of the Forum. Their interventions are highlighted, and successful examples of their interventions are compiled and documented in a separate ‘inventory of case studies of best practices’.

Three research tools were the main sources of data collection: a web based Survey with 52 questions -multiple-choice and open questions including quantitative as well as qualitative indicators; Skype interviews with 43 member organisations, and the production of the Inventory of Fact Sheets itself (validated by 54 organisations). These three sources provided a wealth of information on the ACP CSF National Focal Points who, as is evidenced in the study, each in their respective national contexts play a pivotal role in strengthening Civil Society. This is documented in the Inventory of Fact Sheets on the member organisations and Annexes.

The report includes graphs and figures most of which are based on the data generated by the Survey. Also, the report includes quotations from interviews with internal and external stakeholders as ‘their voices count’.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Ms. Dominique Raymond, ACP Assistant Secretary General, and Dr. Natallie Corrie-Kordas, ACP Secretariat, for their support in making this study successful.

I would like to thank Mr. Marco Sioli, European Commission, for his overall support.

My special thanks goes to the ACP Civil Society Forum for their cooperation to this study. In the first place, to Mr. Lawman Lynch, Chairman, to Ms. Joyce van Genderen-Naar, Legal advisor, and to Mr. Roosevelt O. King, Network coordinator. Also, I wish to thank the members of the ACP CSF Bureau and the National Focal Points. They were very supportive in organizing the field visits and arranging contacts with national stakeholders.

Finally, I wish to express my thanks to all Forum member organisations for their patience in answering my questions even if I came back to them several times.

I hope that this study will be of use for all those involved in the Civil Society Forum of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.

Welmoed Elizabeth Koekebakker

Amsterdam, August, 2013


2

2. METHODOLOGY Methodological approaches Network evaluation requires hybrid, flexible approaches that are appropriate for the particular network to be analyzed. There is a vast body of methodological approaches to network analysis. This study made use of some of the ‘next generation’ as well as more established methods for assessment of Civil Society Forums and Network Analysis1.

Tools and methods The tool and methods included2:

1. Desk study (study of documents, including web-based documents), 2. Interviews with ACP CSF management, 3. Field visits to 7 member organisations in the 6 core regions, 4. Interviews / telephone discussions with 42 member organisations, 5. Interviews with 12 external stakeholders (Skype, email, field visits), 6. An in-depth web-based Survey, 7. Observations as a participant in the ACP CSF yahoo network discourse (4 months), 8. Preparation of an Inventory of Fact Sheets for each member organisation.

Triangulation of methods of data collection has been sought throughout the study. The study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment methods.

Phasing - Phase I included a briefing in Brussels – Ms. Michèle Dominique Raymond, ASG ACP and Mr. Sioli, EC;

Desk study; Initial telephone calls with stakeholders; Decision on criteria for choice of field visits; Choice of member organisations to be visited during the field visit phase; preparations for the field visits; Writing the inception report,

- Phase II included: Meeting in Brussels with the Legal Advisor of the ACP CSF; Design of semi-structured interviews based on central evaluation questions in the ToR; study of documents; telephone interviews with ACP CSF Regional Bureaus and a selected number of member organisations,

- III: Field visit to the Chairman of the ACP CSF; Field visit to member organisations in the Caribbean, East, West, Central and Southern Africa; and the Pacific; Analysis of interviews,

- IV: Design of Inventory of fact sheets; research on 79 member organisations; producing draft fact sheets; emails to member organisations; validating the fact sheets; data analysis,

- V: Design of the online Survey; Translations; distribution of the Survey; Reminders on the Survey and telephone round in case of non-response, follow up; Analysis of responses; graphic presentations

- VI: Report Writing: final draft. Inventory of Fact-sheets, final.

Field visits The study included field visits to the ACP CSF Management and 7 ACP CSF member organisations.

Field visits to the ACP CSF Management included a visit to the Chairman, one to the Legal Advisor and one to the Network coordinator.

Field visits were made to each region covered by the ACP CSF - Caribbean, East, West, Central and Southern Africa, and Pacific – and followed the criteria formulated in the inception report3.

1 The major sources on Network Analysis that were found useful in the context of this study are:

- IDRC: Next Generation Network Evaluation, http://www.scalingimpact.net/files/IDRC_Network_IPARL_Paper_Final_0.pdf, 2012

- Ricardo Wilson Grau: Notes on the Challenges of Performance Evaluation in an International Network, web publication; - Ricardo Wilson Grau and Martha Nuñez: Evaluating International Social Change Networks: A Conceptual Framework for a

Participatory Approach, in: Development in Practice, 1364-9213, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 258 – 271; - Annelise Riles, Michigan, The Network Inside Out. Univ. of Michigan Press, 2000; - Rick Davies: MandE news Rick Davies, http://mande.co.uk/, http://www.mande.co.uk/networks.htm.

- For more sources on Network Analysis used for this study see List of sources, Annex. 2 See: Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum - Inception report, Annex, for details about methodological approaches. 3 See Inception report, Annex

http://www.scalingimpact.net/files/IDRC_Network_IPARL_Paper_Final_0.pdf

http://mande.co.uk/

http://www.mande.co.uk/networks.htm


3

The following national focal points were visited: BANGO, Barbados; NANTS, Nigeria; ADIR, Burundi; RCSP, Rwanda; TANGO, Tanzania; NANGOF, Namibia; SUNGO, Samoa.

Web-based Survey The Survey covered a broad spectrum of questions specifically designed in view of the Terms of Reference of the Study. The 52 questions pertain to the ACP Civil Society Forum as well as to the Member Organisations; they cover facts as well as perceptions; 40 multiple-choice and 12 open questions; they include quantitative as well as qualitative indicators. Questions were asked in different ways so as to triangulate data.

The questionnaire was field tested with three organisations. The questionnaire was made available in French and English. The Survey was distributed through the ACP CSF internet network. The total period involved in design, field testing, implementation, data analysis and production of diagrams/infographics was 14 weeks (April – August 2013).

There were several obstacles impeding response to the Survey. Not all member organisations have access to the yahoo network. Contact details needed updated for various reasons including ‘natural dynamics’ within organisations (turnover of management and staff) and ‘technical’ factors. Some organisations reported problems with internet connections affecting their communication. It was particularly difficult to reach the member organisations from the Pacific. To solve these obstacles, alternative ways were found to contact the organisations that did not respond. Reminders were sent through email, telephone and Skype. The Regional Focal Points in Africa wrote a supporting letter encouraging their partners to respond and so did some of the members in the Caribbean. In spite of the obstacles, most organisations successfully submitted the survey.

The point of departure for the survey was the member list of the ACP Civil Society Forum. This list contains member organisations - national focal points - in 79 ACP countries. For seven of these, no national focal point is available. This brings the total of organisations to 72. 15 organisations have no confirmed email address or there are technical problems with their email address; no contact is possible. This brings the potential response to 57. From these, 49 have responded to the survey (84% of potential response).

The regional distribution of response vis-à–vis the total number of ACP countries is: Africa 69%, Caribbean 67% and Pacific 31%. The response exceeds the expectations4 and may be seen as an indicator for the level of motivation of the member organisations.

Language: of 49 member organisations responding to the survey, 14 responded to the French questionnaire and 35 to the English questionnaire. A hypothesis was that ‘language is an issue’. For that reason the study disaggregated the English and French submissions. Evidently, some responses demonstrated significant variations between the two language groups.

The questionnaire has provided a valuable source of information on the key questions related to the Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum.

Fact Sheets One component of the Study is an Inventory of Fact sheets on all members organisations of the Forum, providing factual information on main characteristics of the organisations (internal structure, activities, communication and coordination, governance, accountability, and for each organization an example of a case study of Best Practices).

The procedure was as follows: The research started with an analysis of information available on the internet. For 41 organisations, basic information could be collected in draft factsheets. A message was sent through the Yahoo Group of the ACP CSF requesting cooperation on further information. A considerable number of organisations confirmed their willingness to cooperate. To find out the e-mail addresses of other organisations the member list was used. Draft factsheets were then sent to all organisations.

Two weeks later, half of the CSO representatives had validated their fact sheets. It was from that point that the organisations were contacted by telephone (Skype). In the end, there were 15 organisations that could not be contacted. From the ones that could be contacted, the response was highly satisfactory: 54 of these 57 organisations have validated the factsheets. Fact sheets were prepared in English and French, depending on the preference of the member organisation: 22 in French and 50 in English. All communication took place in two languages. The Inventory is made available in two versions: one in English and one in French.

The Inventory of Fact Sheets on the ACP CSF Member organisations is an Annex to the main Report.

4 A response of ‘a minimum of 20’ had been anticipated, see: Inception Report, Annex


4

Challenges One assumption was mentioned in the Inception report: The effective and successful implementation of the study is based on the assumption of good cooperation with all stakeholders, including ACP CSF member organisations and external stakeholders. This risk factor was sufficiently controlled as cooperation by stakeholders was satisfactory. The study was undertaken in joint cooperation with all stakeholders: ACP secretariat, EU and the ACP CSF5. The assessment approach took into account the objective of providing added value for all stakeholders.

Problems encountered in the context of the Survey and the Factsheets, most related to accessibility, are mentioned above.

Another challenge encountered was logistics, as travel arrangements were complicated and took a considerable amount of time.

Interviews The inception report made a proviso regarding the number of telephone interviews anticipated to be feasible6 and it proposed a sample of 20 interviews with member organisations. The actual number of interviews with member organisations realized was 43, considerably higher than planned7

5 The study was planned and conceptualised without participation of the ACP CSF, which from a methodological point of view is not conducive to their participation in the implementation phase. The initial response from the side of ACP CSF was skeptical but once the study took off ACP CSF gave full cooperation to the implementation of the research. 6 See Inception report, Annex. 7 In sum, the data collection included response from 57 organisations: Survey 49; Skype interviews 43; Fact Sheets 54 - not fully overlapping.


5

3. THE ACP CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM, ACP AND EU

The ACP Civil Society Forum The ACP established the ACP Civil Society Forum in 2001 to give effect to the Cotonou Agreement8. The Cotonou Agreement stipulates that non-State actors including civil society organisations should be informed and involved in consultation on cooperation policies and strategies and on the political dialogue.

The Cotonou Agreement emphasizes the pertinent role of Civil Society and Civil Society Organisations in every single Article in the chapter on Objectives, Principles and Actors, and in the majority of the Articles referring to the Political Dimension 9 . Civil Society participation is a core component of the Cotonou Agreement.

ACP and ACP Civil Society Forum The ACP in collaboration with other actors established the ACP Civil Society Forum as a mechanism of Government – Civil Society cooperation, in response to the Cotonou Agreement. “As soon as the Cotonou Agreement was signed, (...) an ACP Civil Society Forum and a Private Sector Forum were set up by the ACP Group. These sectors now serve as mechanisms for implementing cooperation” (ACP website).10

The ACP confirms the official status of the ACP CSF as an “all-ACP Civil Society Forum”: “ACP Civil Society Forum is the official platform of African, Caribbean and Pacific Civil Society organisations and NGO Networks for the ACP-EU Cooperation since 2001”11.

The ACP Secretariat presented the Plan of Action, Declaration and the Report of the 1st Forum to the ACP Council of Ministers through the Committee of Ambassadors12 and these documents were subsequently endorsed by the 27th ACP-EU Council of Ministers in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, in June 2002.

Since 2001 till to date, ACP acknowledges the importance of the ACP Civil Society Forum as the official ACP CS platform13 in ACP documents, on its website and as confirmed by ACP Secretariat14. Since 2001, ACP has taken charge of a major part of ACP CSF’s core activities (see below).15

Recognition of the pivotal role of Civil Society Organisations Further to Cotonou, the pivotal role of civil society and CSOs 16 has been recognized in international landmark agreements such as the Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action on Aid Effectiveness, and 8 The Cotonou Agreement is the partnership agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the European Union. It was signed in 2000 in Cotonou, Benin, and revised in 2005 and 2010. The ACP includes 80 (originally 79) countries. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/overview/cotonou-agreement/ 9 In particular, Article 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Cotonou Agreement explicitly stipulate the role of Civil Society and CSOs. The role of Civil Society is furthermore defined in other articles such as Article 33 (on Institutional development and Capacity Building), Article 81, Annex IV, Article 2 and 5. Most frequently quoted are Article 4 and 8. 10 ACP website: http://www.acp.int/node/7 Also: ACP: ACP CSF Declaration 2006, and ACP: An Overview, 2006, p. 2. 11 ACP Secretariat: ACP Secretariat Overview of the ACP Civil Society Forum 2001-2011. ACP Secretariat, 2011, page 2, heading II. Also, page 1: “In 2001, The Belgian Presidency of the European Union in collaboration with the ACP Secretariat organized the first meeting of the ACP Civil Society Forum. The meeting (..) established the ACP Civil Society Forum as the official Platform of African, Caribbean and Pacific civil society networks”. “Since the first all-ACP Meeting of Civil Society in 2001, NSAs have been involved in a intra-ACP dialogue process that aims to create a single and all-ACP Civil Society Forum”. “ACP Non-State Actors are currently involved in an intra-ACP dialogue process that will result in the creation of a single and all-ACP Civil Society Forum”. In: ACP Secretariat: The Role of Non-State Actors (NSAs) in the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement. ACP/81/009/09 Rev.2, Brussels dated 7 March 2008, page 2 and 5; and ACP Secretariat: Outcome of the Meeting of the ACP and ACP-EU Civil Society Forum from 2nd- 7th July 2001, 2001, p.1 and 6; 12 ACP: Outcome of the meetings of the ACP and ACP-EU Civil Society Forum from 2nd-7th July 2001 ACP/82/008/01 dated 11 July 2001; also ACP Secretariat: 2011, page 2. 13 E.g., ACP Secretariat: Outcome of the Meetings of the ACP and ACP_EU Civil Society Forum from 2nd-7th July 2001, Brussels, ACP/82/008/01, Brussels, 11 July 2001; ACP Secretariat: An Overview of ACP Civil Society Participation under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP/29/024/06, Brussels, 10 April, 2006; ACP Secretariat: An Overview of Civil Society Participation under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP/28/017/09 2.12.2009; ACP Secretariat: 3ème Forum de la Sociéte civile ACP – Déclaration 2009, Bruxelles, le 11 décembre 2009, ACP/28/020/09 Rév 1; ACP Secretariat: ACP Secretariat Overview of the ACP Civil Society Forum 2001-2011, 2011. 14 Interview with Dr. N. Corrie-Kordas, Expert, Humanitarian Matters and Civil Society, ACP Secretariat, 21.6.2013 15 The ACP website also acknowledges the importance of CS participation on a general level: “the main innovations of the Cotonou Agreement derive from the fact that it incorporates civil society (..) as new actor(s) on the political level. They will (..) feature among the managers.” The site mentions examples in education, trade, peace building. 16 Working definition of Civil Society: 'The arena, outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance common interests'. See CIVICUS: 2013 State of Civil Society Report, p.12. On the inherent difficulties in conceptualising and operationalising the Civil Society concept see CIVICUS 2004. There are many typologies of Civil Society organisations. See EU, UNDP, WB, CS networks. This study maintains a simple typology used by World Bank which serves the requirements of this study: 1)

http://www.acp.int/node/7


6

the Busan Declaration17. The international community acknowledges CSO participation as a fundamental principle for all its development interventions.

The Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda and the Busan Declaration explicitly refer to Civil Society Organisations as independent development actors in their own right, whose efforts complement those of public authorities and the private sector, on the basis of their manifold potential roles as actors of social change and their specific expertise and capacities. Alongside democratic institutions such as Parliaments and Local Authorities, CSOs are acknowledged as important determinants of democratisation, good governance and overall development. They can play a vital role in enabling people to claim their rights, promoting rights-based approaches to social and economic policies, and promoting partnerships with State and private sector in service delivery.

As civil society is an ‘arena’, part of the strength of civil society is in its diversity, in representing different social groups, and in ‘agreeing to disagree’; it is inherently dynamic and changing.

Crucial in understanding civil society is an analysis of the particular context. Actors and factors determining the wider context set the theatre where CSOs can or can’t play the roles they claim.

Cotonou owes its spirit (at least partly) to a wave of democratisation in formerly authoritarian regimes in ACP countries18. Since the last ‘wave of democratisation” (the Arab spring) the tide for CSOs, perhaps worldwide, has turned. What followed was a range of counter-events that made the work of civil society harder.19

‘Busan’ acknowledged the link between the standards set out in international agreements and the conditions enabling CSOs to contribute to development (external indicators). Busan also acknowledged a framework for CSO accountability as a key internal indicator for effectiveness of CSOs as development actors.

The Busan Agreement implies that a vibrant civil society is in itself a development end, not only a tool for helping to advance development. This confirms the intrinsic value of civil society, rather than, or in addition to, its instrumental value.20

The EU Policy Framework: strengthening support to CSOs In September 2012, the EU issued a new Communication on support to civil society: "The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations".21 This policy document announces that the EC is determined to strengthen its support to Civil Society organisations (CSOs) in partner countries.

The EC recognizes CSOs as effective independent development actors. The EC commits itself to promote a more conducive environment for CSOs, and to lead by example, creating ‘peer pressure through political dialogue with governments’, with ‘EU Roadmaps’ for stronger engagement with CSOs. The Communication is seen as particularly timely, as it responds to a clampdown on CSOs in many countries.22

The new policy lines are the outcome of an in-depth and multi-annual trajectory of evaluations and consultations, including:

1. A two-year consultation: “Structured Dialogue” (2010-2012)23, 2. The Structured Dialogue was a response to the critical conclusions of two major reports: The “Special

Report of the Court of Auditors”24 , and the “Evaluation of EC-aid channelled through civil society organizations”25; and to the request of civil society organizations and the European Parliament.

Operational NGOs – design and implement development-related projects; 2) Advocacy NGOs – promoting a specific cause (trade policies, governance, human rights, consumer interests e.a.). 17 Agreement, Paris High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2005; Accra Agenda for Action, Agreement, Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2008; Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, South Korea 2011. 18 See the ACP website on the Cotonou Agreement, http://www.acp.int/node/7. 19 CIVICUS: 2013 State of Civil Society Report, quoted above. 20 See Jacqueline Wood and Karin Fällman in: CIVICUS, the State of Civil Society, 2013 21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0492:FIN:EN:PDF 22 Enhancing democracy and fighting poverty: European Commission commits to further support civil society in partner countries – European Commission, September 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-963_en.htm 23 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/who/partners/civil-society/structured-dialogue_en.htm 24 The Court of Auditors, Special Report “The Commission’s management of non-state actors’ involvement in EC development cooperation” (2009/C 152/04). Both the Evaluation of EC Aid and the Court of Auditors Report emphasized the need for the Commission to be more strategic in involving Civil Society. See: Communication on the engagement with civil society and local authorities in development, Roadmap, DEVCO.D2, 18.10.2011. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2012_devco_003_civil_society_communication_en.pdf 25 Evaluation of the EC aid channelled through civil society organisations (CSOs) – ref. 1259. In the period 2002-2006, the total amount channelled through CSOs amounts to 5.3 billion €; 76% through Northern CSOs, 24% through Southern CSOs. The evaluation concludes that the EC has not yet developed a consistent strategy on how to use the CSO channel in line with its stated policy

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2008/1259_docs_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2008/1259_docs_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0492:FIN:EN:PDF

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-963_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/who/partners/civil-society/structured-dialogue_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2012_devco_003_civil_society_communication_en.pdf


7

3. The Structured Dialogue included an online consultation with global Civil Society organisations26.

The new policy guidelines built on a long-standing partnership with Civil Society organisations with around 1 billion € per year channeled through Civil Society organisations during the current EU budget 2007-2013.

For EU, the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement had been a milestone. After Cotonou, EU had actually affirmed its cooperation with civil society in a progressive range of policy instruments, including27:

- the EC Communication on the Participation of Non-State Actors in EC Development Policy – 200228 where it confirmed the need to involve CSOs systematically in programming and decision-making,

- the European Consensus on Development - 200529, that recognized CSOs diversity and vital role, - In 2011, in response to the 'Arab Spring', the EC co-issued a Communication on the changing

Neighbourhood30, affirming support to CSOs in situations where governments violate human rights. A similar approach, applying to all regions, was formulated in the Agenda for Change.31

- The Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF, 2014-2020) commits the EU to the promotion of values of democracy and human rights, including through participation of CSOs,

- CSOs benefit from Geographical and Thematic Instruments such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR),

- the Development Cooperation Instrument32 (2007) made it possible to fund partner countries' CSOs, - Finally, bilateral EU aid programmes are channeling support to CSOs; and some European CSOs

play a role in humanitarian operations managed by ECHO, the European Community Humanitarian Office.

Civil Society Forums and EU support Post-2000, several Civil Society Forums were called to life. A brief comparison of Civil Society Forums may shed some light on strengths and weaknesses; the strength of one CSF may be the weakness of another one33.

While the context for every Civil Society Forum is specific, the context for the ACP Civil Society Forum is in so far unique that no other CSF covers so many countries and civil societies34. Relative strengths and weaknesses of the ACP CSF as compared to the Eastern Partnership CSF (EaP CSF) and the Russia CSF:

- EaP CSF: structure clearly in place, (short term) funding ensured, role of the secretariat clear, management clear, formally recognized with full support by EU. Challenge: EaP CSF may be perceived as too much ‘EU driven’, jeopardizing the ‘independent civil society spirit’,

- Russia CSF: emerged from, and continues to represent, civil society at the grass-roots level, including charismatic civil society leaders. Funding in place for short and medium-term. Structure, clarity of roles and strategies a clearly identified challenge, with a risk that momentum may get lost35,

- ACP CSF: participants originally partly appointed by governments; now genuine civil society membership36. Implementation of 3 Forum meetings supported by ACP-EU – after 2009 no Forum meetings supported; no funding beyond Forum meetings. Challenge that momentum may get lost.

Some answers to the challenges to a well-functioning ACP CSF may be identified in the institutional features of other CSFs: secured funding for Forum meetings, modest institutional support structure, and clear implementation mechanisms37.

objectives. “The prevailing culture within EC is not conducive to cooperation with CSOs”. The report identifies various factors discouraging civil society participation in EC development cooperation. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/evinfo/2008/1259_ev_en.pdf; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civil-society/index_en.htm 26 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/6405_en.htm Themes include: CSOs and development effectiveness; shrinking legal space; CSO participation in public policy and domestic accountability; CSO internal governance and accountability. The need for EU to continue promoting an Enabling Environment for CSOs in development emerged as one of the most important foci (p.5). 27 The following is based on: full report of the consultations, by B. Sanz Corella and A. van Goey; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/documents/20121025-full-report_en.pdf 28 URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0598en01.pdf 29 URL: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf 30 URL: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf 31 Agenda for Change, section 2. 32 URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:378:0041:0071:EN:PDF 33 A comparison of the various CSFs merits a study in its own right, and the remarks below are but cursory observations. 34 The Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP) covers 6 countries; the Russia Civil Society Forum covers 114 organisations, over half of which in the Russian Federation, with the others spread across EU member states. 35 Vera Devine: The Russia CSF: Evaluation report (2013). 36 These qualifications are clarified in detail below, in the paragraph on ‘genuine civil society representation’.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/evinfo/2008/1259_ev_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civil-society/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civil-society/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/6405_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/documents/20121025-full-report_en.pdf


8

4. FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum. The findings are based on:

the Survey; the data collected for the Inventory of Factsheets on member organisations; Fields visits; Telephone/Skype interviews with over 40 member organisations; Interviews with external key informants (APC Secretariat, EU, national stakeholders); Participation in the internal yahoo network; and Documents.

A. The ACP Civil Society Forum 1. Organizational structure The 2009 ACP CSF Forum meeting established an effective management structure38, with a Chairman, a Bureau consisting of 11 persons39, a Legal Advisor, 6 Regions with each two Regional Focal Points, and National Focal Points representing an varying number of Civil Society Organisations. See the figure, below.

Organogram

The ACP CSF internal structure is consistent with characteristics identified as conducive for effective networks. As principal actors in networks are autonomous organisations, networks operate more through facilitation and co-operation than by executing projects. Commonly, the structure of a network is not hierarchical.40

Membership: National Focal Points The ACP Civil Society Forum member organisations are formally designated as the National Focal Points for the ACP CSF in their respective countries: the List of Members of the ACP CSF is published on the website.

This study prepared an Inventory of Fact Sheets with detailed information on each National Focal Point.

37 http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/index_en.htm. Established in 2009. Modalities were elaborated by the EC, see http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/docs/concept_en.pdf: objectives, criteria for participation of CSOs (expression of interest followed by a selection on transparent criteria); the structure of the Forum; role of the EC (increasing responsibility of CSOs, EU financial and technical support). EU provides the budget for working groups and annual Forum; the budget for the secretariat is secured until the end of 2013 (Sida, EU). Role, structure, functioning: http://www.eap-csf.eu/en/about-eap-csf/ Funding for “Strengthening capacities” is provided by the EU Civil Society Facility. http://www.eap-csf.eu/en/about-eap-csf/projects/project-on-the-strengthening-of-national-platforms/. Source: Interview with Lucas Maurer, EaP CSF Secretariat, 21.6.2013; Interview, Ms. Vera Devine, consultant, 21.6.2013. 38 Declaration, 3rd Civil Society Forum, ACP-EU partnership, Brussels, 2009 39 Interview with Chairperson Mr. Lawman Lynch: “The choice of members of the SC was based on response to an invitation letter written by me to all members; those who responded were willing to actively commit themselves to the ACP CSF”. Members are Lawman Lynch (Chair), Joyce van Genderen-Naar, Roosevelt King, Ken Ukaoha, Godefroid Manirankunda, Renwick Rose, Grant Percival, Michael Gaweseb, Marie Shaba, Bernard Elizabeth, and Lisa Soares. There is no formal division of tasks and responsibilities. In 2013, 7 of these are active members”. 40 The management body of a network generally consists of a general assembly, board of directors, and secretariat. Commonly, the secretariat assumes responsibilities for communication, co-ordination to catalyse activities. In a network the scope of authority is restricted. Procedures for command and control common to NGOs, corporations, government bodies, rarely work in a network. Consequently, a network requires different processes for evaluation. See R.Wilson-Grau and Martha Nuñez, 2007.

http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/index_en.htm

http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/docs/concept_en.pdf

http://www.eap-csf.eu/en/about-eap-csf/

http://www.eap-csf.eu/en/about-eap-csf/projects/project-on-the-strengthening-of-national-platforms/

http://www.eap-csf.eu/en/about-eap-csf/projects/project-on-the-strengthening-of-national-platforms/


9

The Inventory is attached as a separate document, see Annex. The Inventory presents, for each member organization, information on Basic data, Activities, Relations with the Forum, Relations outside the Forum and a Case study of Best Practices.

All member organisations are officially registered in their country (see below). The degree of cooperation with and recognition by national governments varies greatly and is a dynamic process41.

Regional Focal Points True to the Cotonou principle of differentiation and regionalisation the ACP CSF is subdivided in 6 regional groupings. These regional groupings are: West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa, The Caribbean, and The Pacific. Each regional grouping has two Regional Focal Points.

“The first change we made in 2009 is to call the regional rapporteurs Regional Focal Points: they all advise and help administer the Management. So the Bureau consists of the Regional Focal Points plus the Chair and the other 2 members of the Management Team”. “Rightfully there should be 6 vice chairpersons with specific roles and responsibilities, but in practice that does not happen”.42

2. Governance Since 2001, the ACPP CSF has gradually developed its governance structure. This included, apart from an appropriate and effective management structure, transparent guidelines on decision making and democratic procedures for election of the chairperson and regional focal points.

One aspect of improving governance was the inclusion of national representatives of civil societies in the member countries rather than government appointed members – whereas the participants of the 1st ACP CSF Forum meeting were almost 50% government appointed, by 2009 the ACP CSF constituency consisted of genuine civil society organisations (see below).

The ACP CSF management succeeded in involving a core team of qualified civil society leaders, each in their respective countries leaders of civil society networks, knowledgeable in their particular sector of expertise (development related issues), and acknowledged by external stakeholders (State, Non-State and EU). There is relatively little turn-over in leadership. The management team is a group of highly committed individuals.

The Leadership is officially elected every two years, at the Forum meetings. The Chair of the ACP CSF - rotating - should be from the same country as the ACP Committee of Ambassadors or from a country from the same region, but with the discontinuity of Forum meetings this rule is likely to be changed.

Unlike other Civil Society Forums, the ACP CSF management had to function without a proper secretariat. In view of the fact that no institutional funding has been available right from the start, everything that has been achieved was achieved on a pro bono basis. Some members of the management (the network administrator and the legal advisor) dedicated considerable part of their time to the implementation of the Forum activities.

Tasks and responsibilities of the Chairperson, the National Focal Point and the Regional Focal Points are defined in the ACP CSF Operation and Management Terms of Reference43.

Decision making takes place in Forum meetings and through email consultations.44 Changes in membership are decided through elections and accreditation at Forum meetings. Decision making is transparent, as reported by participants45.

Crucial in understanding the internal governance of the ACP CSF is its relation to the ACP. The ACP Secretariat authorizes the organization and funding of Forum meetings and decides on modalities of the meetings (see below). This has right from the start created a structure of dependency, the pros and cons of which have never been validated in an open manner between ACP, ACP CSF and EU.

As Forum meetings are ‘core business’ of the ACP CSF, the lack of support for organizing the 4th Forum has incapacitated the ACP CSF management. Related to this, the relation with ACP has been increasingly strenuous, and this has eroded the governance framework that resulted from the 3rd Forum.

41 see below, the paragraph on cooperation with national stakeholders. 33% respond that their organization is not recognized by their government as the National Focal Point. 42 Communication with ACP CSF Management, Mr. Roosevelt King and ACP CSF Joyce van Genderen-Naar. 43 ACP Civil Society Forum: Operation and Management, Terms of Reference, 2009 – internal document. 44 Communication Mr. Roosevelt King. “We solicit their opinions and we compile them; there may be different opinions, like between NGOs Africa, Caribbean and Pacific dealing with Trade but not antagonisms, that has never happened, you have to qualify opinions. In case of Declarations we list the signatories at the end of the document.” 45 Example: the proposal to register with the EU Transparency register. The Legal Advisor puts a proposal on the internet network, and based on the response the management goes ahead.


10

The ACP CSF management at this moment is not taking leadership. A major factor is that they are deprived of the resources and the environment enabling them to act. Other factors are: lack of a clear action plan that is endorsed by the ACP CSF constituency and on a more general level lack of a strategy on how to deal with the present impasse.

Management The management of the three ACP CS Forum meetings has improved over time46. Participants comment that the solid management structure established at the 3rd Forum gave them confidence in its future management. However, there is considerable space for improvement of the Forum meetings, technically and content-wise.

Effective and results based management should include proper preparations and management of meetings, with Declarations and Action plans, follow up planning, an implementation structure, tasks and responsibilities, monitoring and reporting. Each Forum is supposed to produce a Declaration and an Action Plan47, but the 3rd Forum meeting did not complete the Action Plan. “We did not have sufficient time and resources. We have not been able to achieve anything substantial regarding the 3rd Declaration”48.

A robust planning, implementation and reporting structure – key to good management - is still to be developed. This affects effectiveness and impact of the ACP CSF.

Nearly all ACP CSF representatives interviewed during this study return the question: How could we have achieved more, without any support?

All in all, there is a substantial problem in both management and performance, which is definitely partly to be attributed to lack of resources. However, lack of an enabling environment can’t fully account for gaps in management and performance.

Accountability The ACP CSF commits itself to promoting accountability, transparency and good governance 49 ; transparency and accountability are highly valued by all members 50 . In the perspective of the Forum members, the ACP CSF is in the first place accountable to the member organisations.51

Accountability of the Forum depends on the accountability of the member organisations. Accountability requires transparency in every stage of the project cycle – identifying, planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, reporting. At the level of the member organisations there is evidence that this is to a large extent realized but at the level of the ACP CSF a proper organizational mechanism for exercising accountability is lacking: Forum meetings do not take place regularly, and no other systematic accountability mechanisms are in place; incidentally, the online network is used.

The members of the ACP Civil Society Forum are quite unanimous in what they see as the most important mechanisms of accountability in the ACP CSF: most of them prioritize a decentralized model with accountability exerted through Regional Forum meetings. Most agree on the need of a clear formal structure, specifying roles and responsibilities of the elected board and participating members. Regular Forum meetings are seen as a major mechanism of accountability. Many, also, agree on the need of formal action planning, reporting and mid-term monitoring. The online network and email consultations are seen as major channels for informing and consulting members. Members recommend that for the Forum to be revived, a solid accountability structure should be in place, including a combination of the above-mentioned mechanisms.

3. Funding and relation to ACP The ACP has taken charge of the ACP Civil Society Forum from the start. The ACP Secretariat authorized the organization of the Forum meetings. ACP Secretariat organized the 3 Forum meetings (2001, 2006, 2009) including accessing budgets, inviting participants, issuing tickets, writing reports, financial reports. The agenda of the meetings was decided at least partly by the ACP Secretariat 52 . Forum meetings and 46 Observation based on interviews and internal reports, e.g. 2nd ACP Civil Society Forum, Report by BANGO, 2006 47 Declarations and Action Plans, 1st en 2nd Forum Meeting; Declaration on the 3rd Forum meeting: ACP CSF website. 48 Interview with Mr. Roosevelt King. 49 ACP CSF website; Third Forum Declaration, 2009, iii, p 3; Chairman Lawman Lynch: “A good practice of the ACP CSF is our openness and transparency; if we have a communication immediately we share it with all, information was never handled in an authoritative manner. Interview, 11 May, 2013. 50 Outcome of the Survey on the members of the ACP CSF, Q 35 and Q 36; 51 Accountably to member organisations is prioritized: 100% of respondents; Outcome Survey, Q 35. Second in importance is ‘the wider population in the ACP countries’. Third: ACP Secretariat, EU and the national governments.’ 52 One of the participants wrote, in an internal document: “the agenda is the total authorship of the ACP Secretariat”. It has not been possible to triangulate this information.


11

preparatory meetings took place in the premises of the ACP. The ACP Secretary General delivered the welcome address.53

The ACP CSF was never provided funds for secretarial infrastructure.54 The ACP CSF has a Bureau consisting of 11 persons and a Management Team of three persons. None of these functions is salaried, nor is there any compensation for expenditures incurred. All tasks are executed on a voluntary basis. Members of the management team generally personally pay travel and other expenditures.

ACP funded the three Forum meetings (travel, accommodation, meeting rooms) from intra-ACP EDF funds. CONCORD funded one thematic meeting.

ACP CSF’s requests for institutional and activity funding55 have not been approved; ACP CSF management made efforts to lobby at the highest level.56 ACP Secretariat has informed ACP CSF that the 4th Forum meeting is postponed due to current budget restrictions57.

ACP CSF considers it not appropriate to go for other funding “because it is the primary responsibility for ACP - it is their platform”. This position is understandable in view of the fact that the ACP has from the start taken responsibility of the Forums. On the other hand, the question remains as to why the ACP CSF has not made efforts to access other sources58.

The lack of a minimal secretarial support and the lack of regular Forum meetings are found to be key external factors affecting performance of the ACP CSF.

4. Genuine civil society representation The Third Forum endorsed the ACP CSF as a Forum of genuine civil society representatives. So far, the ACP Secretariat had sent out the invitations.

“The 2009 Forum was a landmark from the point of view that we were able to purge the list of government officials, and also in strengthening ownership of the Forum by informing the ACP Secretariat that we, the Forum, are responsible for identifying as well as inviting the members of the Forum”59. “We found new representatives, we were able to achieve better participation; we were more confident about serving the constituency of Civil Society.” “During the first two Forums a lot of NGOs were not saying anything knowing that there were government officials in the Forum. What the 3rd forum also did was: it changed the process”.

According to one of the participants of the 1st Forum, more than half of the participants were sent by their governments60. Another member: “A lot of them had their addresses listed as Ministries, Embassies, or carried a title like Foreign Affairs staff. Now we have not a single State Actor on the list. We achieved that by locating NGOs and asking them who is the best organisation to be the focal point. In many cases we contacted organisations who suggested other organisations who should be the focal point. We cross checked as much as we could; sometimes we even involved the Government in finding genuine NGOs.”61

This study found, based on a variety of sources and methods62, that the far majority if not all member organisations are genuine Civil Society organisations. This study did not find a single evidence of a member organisation that does not qualify as a genuine Civil Society organization – a non-State Actor.

5. Activities This study ‘reconstructed’ an overview of ACP CSF’s activities through activity reports, ACP documents and interviews.63 The following conclusions pertain to the output level (the activities) of the ACP CSF. An analysis of results and outcome merits a study in its own right.

53 Welcome address by Secretary-General at 1st and 2nd Forum, see ACP: Outcome, 2001, p 1, and ACP 2006. 54 J. van Genderen-Naar: “The price of not having a modest secretariat structure is high: no institutional continuity”. 55 See ACP CSF institutional and activity budget, draft, 2010-2013, unpublished document 56 Letter by Mr. Lawman Lynch, ACP CSF Chairman to Dr. Mohamed Ibn Chambas, Sec.-Gen., ACP, 7 June 2010 57 Ms. M. Dominique Raymond, ASG, ACP: letter to Mr. Lawman Lynch, Chairperson ACP CSF, 20.3.2013, Ref: 8/8/35(Vol.2)13: “.. due to current budget restrictions, the Political Affairs and Human Development Department will not be able to organize the 4th ACP Civil Society Forum in 2013”. 58 Such as EU Calls for Proposals. 59 Interview with Mr. Roosevelt King. 60 Interview with Ken Ukaoha, Esq., Nigeria, 29 May 2013. A quick scan of the List of Participants of the 2001 Forum shows that out of 150, at least 100 are NSA and about 50 are embassies, ministries, government officers. 61 Interview with Mr. Roosevelt King, 16 May, 2013 62 Telephone discussions with 42 organisations; interviews; observations as a participant in the yahoo network; scan of Member List, field visits.


12

It should be noted that assessing the activities and achievements of the ACP CSF vis-à-vis planned activities has been problematic, primarily because a framework for planning and reporting is lacking. There is no systematic reporting on action plans and ACP CSF does not have a formal mechanism for accountability on its activities. The ACP CSF does not produce annual reports. Activity reports are published on the website (but outdated).

- the 3rd Forum did not produce an Action Plan, that can be used as a benchmark for implementation, - the 1st and 2nd Forums produced Action Plans. These plans lack specificity in terms of tasks and

responsibilities, resources and time frames. There are no reports on their implementation. - The four headings of these Action plans are not congruent with the headings of activity reports produced

since 2009. - Activity reports are not analytical, they are largely a description of activities and they lack reference to

achievements, results or outcome.

Overview ACP CSF implemented the following activities:

1) Activities related to the institutional strengthening of the Forum: a) The 2009 Forum endorsed the ACP CSF as a Forum of genuine civil society representatives. This is

a clear achievement and a major step towards realization of a genuine ACP Civil Society Forum. b) The 2009 Forum built a solid governance structure for the ACP CSF. c) Registration of the ACP CSF.

2) Activities related to Forum objectives, Forum Declarations and Action plans: a) Networking activities – the yahoo network. See the paragraph, below. b) Letters, informing policy makers and aid institutions of a civil society perspective on pressing issues.

¾ Information on results or response is not available. c) Participation in seminars - including presentations, interventions; and through this, informing

members. The Legal Advisor and Forum representatives participate in (ACP – EU) policy meetings and keep the members informed on relevant ACP-EU activities through the online network. They participated in meetings on Trade, EPA, NSA participation in the EPA negotiation process, GSP, WTO, SMEs, EU Aid Effectiveness, Haiti, Gender, Climate Change, Civil Society Dialogue, EU Africa Strategy, Migration, HIV/Aids, e.a. ¾ Members report that they use this information. This is a positive result. Result can’t be measured

in terms of policy change, as this appears to be not the immediate objective of this activity. ¾ Some of these meetings resulted in action plans and strategy development.

d) Communication and collaboration on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation from a civil society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise and experience. ACP CSF provided inputs and facilitated sharing of expertise and experiences, through the yahoo network.

e) Contributions to the EU Civil Society Structured Dialogue (see Ch.3). ¾ No formal submission was made by ACP CSF.

f) Partnerships. No reference is made to the results of this activity.

Activities vis-à-vis Objectives In the absence of a 2009 Forum Action Plan as a benchmark, the most appropriate level of validating the activities is the level of the Objectives of the Forum. See the table, below.

ACP Civil Society Forum - Assessment of Activities in view of ACP CSF Objectives Objectives 64 Activities undertaken to address this

objective? 1 to provide a platform for CSOs to formulate common

positions on ACP-EU cooperation Yes, to some extent, but visibility is lacking

2 to articulate concerns of marginalised social group No evidence 3 to facilitate dialogue between ACP CSOs and ACP-

EU institutions Yes, to some extent, but visibility is lacking

4 to strengthen participation of ACP CSOs in the ACP-EU development cooperation framework

Yes

5 to share relevant information on ACP-EU cooperation Yes

63 Forum Declarations and Action Plans: See ACP CSF website. ACP Civil Society Forum, Report of Activities, 2009-2011, 2009-2012; 2010-2011; 2012-2013. ACP Secretariat: ACP Secretariat Overview of the ACP CSF 2001-2011, 2001. ACP Secretariat: Outcome of the Meeting of the ACP and ACP-EU Civil Society Forum from 2nd- 7th July 2001, ACP/82/008/01, 11.7. 2001. One of the sources on ACP CSF activities, the Euforic website, has been discontinued. 64 Abbreviated version. See http://acpcsforum.igloocommunities.com/about_us. There are two versions of the Objectives.

http://acpcsforum.igloocommunities.com/about_us


13

Assessment 1. An assessment of ACP CSF activities in view of objectives demonstrates that:

a. activities are not fully coherent with the Objectives of the Forum; the Forum has been able to deliver on about half of its 5 objectives,

b. there are obvious performance gaps: the Forum is delivering below its potential. 2. The impact level of the ACP CSF activities is in the first place the level of the member organisations - the

National and Regional Focal Points. 3. Plans of Action of the first two Forum meetings do not include activities related to strengthening the

institutional foundation of the ACP CSF, whereas that was, with hindsight, evidently the highest priority. It still is.

4. The two main activities by 2013 are: a. participation in (ACP – EU) policy meetings and keeping the members informed on relevant ACP-EU

activities through the online network. b. Communication and collaboration on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation

from a civil society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise, with ACP CSF providing inputs and facilitating sharing of expertise.

These activities are crucial to the ACP CSF and they can be seen as part of its Core Identity.

5. Members clearly indicate that the information is useful, and a majority has practically used it in their own activities. This is a major indicator for successful outcome. See paragraph below for details.

6. While no funding has been available right from the start, the Forum has managed to continue implementing activities on a pro bono basis. Some members of the management spent considerable resources (time, money) on Forum activities. The number and range of activities implemented since 2009 is moderate. This must be seen in the context of its limited resources.

7. How should the number, range and effectiveness of the activities implemented by the ACP CSF be qualified? In view of its lack of resources they are considerable. In view of ACP CSF’s mandate and potential its performance is weak.

6. Modalities of communication and coordination with(in) the member associations Meetings, the online network and social media The modalities of communication and coordination used by the ACP Civil Society Forum are: 1. Forum meetings (international and regional level), 2. The internet network, and 3. Social media.

At the 3rd Forum participants agreed upon a virtual network as the most appropriate mechanism for future communication and cooperation at the national, regional and international level. 65 Mr. Roosevelt King, network coordinator, created the ACP CSF yahoo network66. The yahoo network developed into the major communication mechanism for the ACP CSF and meant a qualitative leap forward in internal communication.

One of the challenges was to establish a contact list with genuine civil society representatives; this was achieved. Also, there were technical challenges like how to manage a contact list in view of the frequent changes of contact details (due to ‘natural dynamics’ within organisations (e.g., rotation of management) and ‘technical factors’). A web portal is planned to address this problem.67 The past ten years have been the decade of social media and CSOs have embraced ICT and social media as a tool for communication worldwide. However, apart from the yahoo network, the Forum is not making much use of web based communication-and-advocacy tools and social media; 68 the website is not advanced, has not been updated and does not include links.

The majority of the ACP CSF member organisations regard the online network as the most important channel of information. Over half of them regard ‘meetings’ as the second best channel. The website is still seen as a potentially relevant source of information. The facebook page hardly plays a role of significance69.

65 J. van Genderen-Naar: Third ACP Civil Society Forum establishes CP information and dialogue network, p. 2, 2009. 66 Mr. Roosevelt King: “I managed the network around the clock. This was purely a one-person issue, BANGO does not have a budget, but I had access to a computer through the NSA Panel”. 67 Mr. Roosevelt King, 8 May 2013: “The list is 4 years old. Many organisations change their executives annually. We don’t have the resources to do the updating. A web portal would solve the problem of handing over; member organisations will be responsible for updating their information. They will have usernames and passwords.” 68 ACP CSF facebook: https://www.facebook.com/acpcsf.org 69 Sources: Outcome of the Survey; interviews


14

Usefulness of the information provided by the ACP CSF online network The ACP CSF Legal Advisor and other members participate in ACP-EU policy meetings and keep the members informed on relevant ACP-EU activities through the online network. Most members receive information from the ACP CSF through the online network. Most regard the information received from the ACP CSF as useful70.

Most have practically used the information provided by the online network in their own activities 71 . French speaking members find the information less practically relevant than English speaking members. The usefulness of the ACP CSF network for its members is a major indicator for its strength. 72

Member organisations use email in their communication with ACP CSF; meetings are a second-best option.73

7. Representativeness Representativeness is one of the fundamental criteria for civil society networks as it confers legitimacy. There is a certain consensus on the main indicators for representativeness in that they should encompass 1. a ‘local’ support base, and 2. qualitative criteria, including having authority to represent and act, access to expertise, and 3. being independent and transparent, especially financially and in decision making structures74.

The representativeness of the Forum on a global level is a function of the actual representativeness of its respective member organisations in each ACP country.

Evidence from interviews with ACP CSF National Focal Points and external stakeholders, observations on communication in the yahoo network, the Inventory of Factsheets on ACP CSF Member organisations, and the Survey, confirms the representativeness of the ACP Civil Society Forum, formally and substantially, in the following indicators:

1. The ACP CSF member organisations are networks, encompassing ten to several hundreds of member organizations in their own respective country,

2. The Forum represents genuine Non-State Actors: the Forum has achieved to transform its membership from being largely government-appointed to genuine civil society representation,

3. The majority of these organisations are representing the civil society in their country, as confirmed in interviews on perceptions of CSOs,

4. Their representativeness is based on a process of careful identification by the ACP CSF75, 5. Their representativeness is confirmed by a sample of key external informants during this study as well as

by external mapping studies and evaluations76,

70 43%: useful, 37%: ‘sometimes useful’ 71 Two thirds of the members have practically used the information in their activities; one third have not actually used it. 72 See Ricardo Wilson-Grau and Martha Nuñez: Evaluating International Social Change Networks: A Conceptual Framework for a Participatory Approach, in: Development in Practice, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 258 – 271 73 82% and 33% respectively. 74 European Economic and Social Committee (EESC): SC/023 The Representativeness of European civil society organisations in civil dialogue, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 14 Feb 2006. 75 Such is reported in interviews. The national networks use different (formal and informal) approaches to identify CS member organisations, see the mapping exercise undertaken in the Caribbean: Non State Actor Advisory Panels and NSA capacity building programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, EC Delegation, 2005, Annex 3: Country reports. One of the organisations: “Yes, we are representative because we chose to cooperate with those who are representative”. 76 EC: The Non State Actor Advisory Panels and NSA capacity building programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, 2005; Interview with Mr.K.Rossel-Cambier, EU Delegation for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean; Ms. J.D’Offay, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Seychelles; Mr.J.Stanley, Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific, Samoa.


15

6. The member organisations cover a wide spectrum of target groups and beneficiaries, urban and rural; they mostly have national coverage; most of them have mechanisms to ensure inclusiveness77,

7. They are knowledgeable, they articulate development concerns from a civil society perspective, they have authority to represent and act, and have access to expertise.

8. The ACP Civil Society Forum is registered with the EC Register of Interests Representatives78.

8. Overall Relevance of the Forum for its member organisations The ACP Civil Society Forum is an important platform for its constituent organisations; its relevance is confirmed by the majority of its members 79 though some are very critical and sceptical.

The high level of response to the Survey and to the Fact Sheets may be seen as a strong indicator for the level of motivation of the member organisations and the perceived relevance of the ACP Civil Society Forum for its member organisations.80

The ACP CSF members see “Information on ACP-EU Development Cooperation” as the main added value of the ACP Civil Society Forum. Other aspects of the ACP CSF seen as highly important are: Information on ACP, Information on development cooperation at a Regional level, Regional Civil Society cooperation, Awareness on models of development cooperation used by other ACP CSF members, Knowledge sharing & new ideas, Capacity building.

B. The Member Organisations 1. ACP CSF Member organisations: characteristics Inventory of Fact sheets One component of this Study on the ACP CS Forum is an Inventory of Fact sheets on member organisations of the Forum. The Inventory provides detailed information on each member organization: Basic Information, Activities, Relations with the Forum and with other organisations in the Forum, Relations with organisations outside the Forum, and Case studies of Good Practices81. The Inventory is complementary to the Survey.

Type of organization The majority of the ACP CSF National Focal Points are networks, alliances, Forums, umbrella organisations, coalitions82. One third of these are membership organisations.

11 organisations characterize themselves as single autonomous NGOs.

Number of members The ACP CSF national focal points are themselves networks of a large number of member organisations - with considerable differences in the number of their constituent organisations, varying from 1 till over 1000.

- 6 National Focal Points report having 1-10 member organisations,

- 12 report having 10-30 member organisations, - 2 report having 30-70 member organisations, - 9 report having 70-200 member organisations, - 7 report having 200-1000 member organisations, - 6 report having over 1000 member organisations83. See the

figure, opposite.

77 e.g., some of them have in their constitution a provision that they are not excluding any NSA from their network. 78 Formally acknowledged by the ACP Secretariat. ACP Secretariat: Letter to The Hon. Bruce Golding, M.P., Prime Minister of Jamaica, 29.4.2010. The letter informs a.o. on the registration: “The ACP Civil Society Forum is now registered with the European Commission’s Register of Interests Representatives, Identification nr 36703913506-85”. 79 as reported by 90%. 80 Response to the Survey: 49, potential response: 57; 54 out of 57 organisations validated the Fact Sheets. 81 Inventory of Fact Sheets on the Member Organisations of the ACP Civil Society Forum, 2013. 82 Source: Survey. 76% are networks, alliances, Forums; 35% membership organisations; these are overlapping.


16

Each of these constituent organisations represents various target groups. Most of them operate on a national level. In some countries different networks are operating; they may be faith based, focusing on economic / social issues; they may represent different political profiles. ACP CSF networks are not stagnant – they are dynamic and changing over time.

A strong feature of the ACP CSF national focal points is their representativeness and their diversity.

Type of organization: operational and advocacy Nearly all ACP CSF member organisations84 qualify themselves as organisations working on Advocacy and Capacity Building and Service Delivery. (See factsheets) Over half of the ACP CSF members are immediately involved in implementing development projects as development practitioners. Half of the ACP CSF member organisations are active at the implementation level as well as in advocacy/capacity building.

Geographical coverage The far majority of the ACP CSF National Focal Points cover all areas in their country. A small minority focus on particular areas in their country. One third of the members are involved in Regional Development and at an international level85. See below.

2. ACP CSF Member organisations: Governance, Management, Accountability The profile of ACP CSF member organisations on Governance is significant: there is a high degree of similarity in terms of internal structure, governance and (perceived and factual) accountability. This is a remarkable outcome of this study. The data resulting from the survey are supported by observations during field visits and interviews, with member organisations and external key informants.

Legal status All member organisations, except one, are registered. The far majority of the member organisations (90%) is registered as a non-profit organisation according to local law86; 4 organisations are enacted by Statute.

All ACP CSF member organisations (100%) have a Constitution and Bye-laws.

Management and governance All ACP CSF member organisations, without exception, have a proper management & governance structure, including a Board of Directors87. The Members of the Board are in majority elected, sometimes appointed.

Planning and monitoring Over 90 % of the organisations has an adequate democratically functioning governance structure, as reflected in the following indicators:

- the organisation has annual/bi-annual activity plans, - their staff is participating in planning, - the organisation is monitoring the implementation of

activity plans, - the organisation has annual narrative reports, - annual narrative reports are publicly accessible (though

not always on their website or on request, and - the organisation publishes annual financial reports.

83 See Inventory of fact sheets for details. 84 94% working on Advocacy and Capacity Building, 60% development practitioners 85 Source: Outcome of the Survey, Inventory of Fact Sheets, and interviews. 86 Source: Outcome of the Survey on Member organisations of the ACP CSF, Q 7. See fact sheets for details 87 Source: Interviews, field visits, outcome of the Survey, Q 12


17

Management procedures A majority of the ACP CSF member organisations indicate that in their perception, the management procedures in their organisations are clear to all. A minority indicates that in their perception, management procedures are clear to ‘most’, or clear to ‘some’, not to all88.

Accountability

The question of accountability generates various responses. There is a considerable degree of unanimity concerning the need of accountability to member organisations: according to a far majority89 of the members, this is the highest priority, and accountability to member organisations is actually practiced.

Accountability to target groups and beneficiaries is perceived as equally relevant (two-thirds).

ACP CSF member organisations perceive themselves as relatively independent vis-à-vis their local governments: accountability to national governments is seen as important but less prioritized than accountability to the three main groups of stakeholders (members, target groups and beneficiaries).

A majority of the member organisations 90 is reports that accountability is actually practiced in the organization. However, 3 organisations indicate that accountability is poor.

Sources of financing; number of paid staff and volunteers The funding base of the ACP CSF member organisations is diverse. Some organisations work with limited funding, and quite a few have a broad range of funders. A broad range of donors may reflect the visibility of the member organisation in terms of effectively making impact (e.g. NANTS, Nigeria). Others may be similarly effective but they may operate in regions that are less attractive to donor organisations.

Organisations in Africa tend to have more access to donors than those in the Pacific and the Caribbean. Some Forum members work with limited funding or no funding at all; 8 organisations are working exclusively with volunteers: personal commitment to the ‘cause’ is their driving force. (See Inventory for details). Overall:

1. International NGOs are a main source of financing for the ACP CSF member organisations (59%), 2. Quite a few receive (or have received) funding from EU (41%), 3. Private donations are a major source of funding (29%), as are “fund raising campaigns” (29%), 4. One third indicates access to UN funding (33%), 5. Some 20% of the organisations indicate subventions from their national government as one of their

sources.

The far majority of the member organisations has 1-10 paid staff members (65%); a minority (6 organisations) has between 11-50 staff members and 3 organisations have over 50 staff members. The number of volunteers varies; most organisations work with 1-10 volunteers.

3. Member organisations: Priority areas, activities, impact dimensions ACP CSF member organisations have a social-economic focus. The survey highlights that nearly all organisations focus on social activities, while two-thirds of them focus on economic activities91; most ACP CSF organisations have an integrated approach to social and economic issues.92

Priorities and activities ACP CSF member organisations represent and address a wide range of activities. The Survey asked member organisations to indicate their priority activities. The outcome of the Survey highlights three clusters of priority activities: Poverty Alleviation, Rights, and Peace Building.

1. Poverty alleviation (78% of the member organisations active in this sector): Food security, Right to food, Agriculture, Trade, Income generating activities, Credit & loans, Small enterprise development,

88 40%; Outcome of the Survey on the ACP CSF, Question 14 89 94% 90 very good: 31%; sufficiently: 63% 91 92% focus on social activities; 69% focus on economic activities 92 evidence from interviews and field visits.


18

2. Good governance (73%), Transparency, anti-corruption, Human rights (71%), Women’s rights & gender (76%), Empowerment, Community development, Child rights, Youth, Minority rights, Consumer rights, Land rights,

3. Peace Building and Reconciliation (59%), Emergency relief.

In addition, Environment is a major area of concern to ACP CSF member organisations (two-thirds report activities in this sector); and half of the members are active in Education and Health. Culture, ICT and media are less prominent.

The main activities of the National network’s own local member organisations are:

1. Poverty alleviation / Income generation / food security 2. Good governance, Human rights, Women’s rights, 3. Peace and reconciliation.

The issues prioritized by the ACP CSF National Focal Points in their communication with the Forum are:

4. Trade related issues, 5. Good governance and Human Rights 6. Women and gender.

In their contact with other organisations in the region, ACP CSF members prioritize:

1. Trade related issues, 2. Poverty alleviation, Agriculture, food security, 3. Good Governance and Human Rights, and 4. Peace and reconciliation.

The responses to the Survey demonstrate that there is considerable synergy between the issues prioritized by the National Focal Points, their local member organisations, the regional networks and the issues addressed by the ACP CSF. The priority issues addressed by the ACP Civil Society Forum in their communication with the members are pertinent to the areas of concern addressed by the national member organisations, their respective local member organizations and the regional networks.

The main sectors / clusters of issues where member organisations perceive to have most impact93 are -

1. Information services, community mobilisation, awareness campaigns (Burkina Faso, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria, Samoa, South Africa, Swaziland, The Gambia),

2. Poverty alleviation, micro-credit, income generation, food security, right to food, trade (EPA, FTAA), agriculture, economic policy, external debt policy, fair trade (Angola, Cabo Verde, Uganda, Belize, Cuba, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Uganda, Antigua and Barbuda),

3. Good Governance (Civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, good governance, accountability, legal reform, strengthening civil society, Capacity Building, State-non-State partnerships, establishment of NSA panel (Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Samoa, Tonga, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Congo / RD Kinshasa, République du Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jamaica, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, The Gambia, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, St Vincent, Marshall Islands, Guinée Bissau, République Centralafricaine, St Lucia, Senegal, Togo, Guyana),

4. Peace and reconciliation (Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Congo, Cuba).

Inventory of Good Practices The Survey, in addition to the Inventory of Fact Sheets, produced an “Inventory of Best Practices” of the ACP Civil Society networks. Together, these examples form a significant body of successful development models initiated by Non-State Actors in the CPA countries. They cover diverse areas like Poverty Alleviation, Economic Development, Social development, Human Rights, Good Governance and Peace Building. See Annex for full details. A few examples are mentioned below. 93 Sources: Survey on ACP CSF; Inventory of Fact Sheets on the ACP CSF; (Skype) interviews; field visits. See Fact Sheets for more details. See the wordle on page iv.


19

Examples of Best Practices

1. NANTS in Nigeria played a role in expelling the military regime in Nigeria. The organisation was formed as a human rights and mediating force during the military regime of General Abacha when traders were suffering from arbitrary harassments and arrest. The organisation transformed into a national body that spread across gender and sectoral balance, essentially influencing government policies and practices in different ways.

2. WINFA, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, acquired fair trade certification and achieved maintaining the banana market in UK. It resulted in fairer prices for farmers and access to fair-trade premiums for community development projects. Without this, the banana sector would have collapsed.

3. BANGO, Barbados, was a driving force behind the Non State Actors Advisory Panels in the Caribbean. 4. TANGO of Tanzania – a major success story is the action model on Public Partnership Dialogue – PPD.

The programme established advisory committees at district level consisting of CSOs and local authorities cooperating in planning, implementation and monitoring of development projects – the programme works well.

5. CONGAC, Cameroun: established an Ethical Code of Good Governance that was adopted by 59 organisations,

6. SUNGO, Samoa, coordinates a Civil Society support programme that strengthens CSOs to better serve their communities through training and project funding. The fact that the Prime Minister invited SUNGO on the board of Ministerial Committees indicates that finally Civil Society got acknowledged in Samoa. SUNGO holds them accountable. For example: Samoa Water Authority (SWA) receives EU funding. One third of the population is not under the SWA; they drink from their own resources. SUNGO managed to re-direct funding to those 1/3 of the population who are not under the SWA.

7. NANGO, Zimbabwe, collaborated with the churches, the private sector, communities, NGOs and the government to build a solid foundation for peace and reconciliation in the country.

8. Belize: BEST’s microcredit programme has provided economic benefits to thousands of low-income women and men.

9. CSFT – Tonga worked on a national consultation for political reform with a National Leadership Code. This brought the civil society sector together to set common goals. Most of CSFT’s recommendations were implemented.

10. NANGOF in Namibia undertook a lawsuit against the government when the government banned demonstrations which is a violation of a basic Human Right. NANGOF won the case and the law (dating from the times of Apartheid) was found to be unconstitutional.

Dimensions of Impact This study identified 6 dimensions of impact94 of the ACP CSF member organisations95 and created an inventory of these. The impact dimension is reflected in various qualitative indicators. For elaboration of the 6 dimensions see Annex. Areas of impact of the National Focal Points:

1. Influencing public policy: Examples: Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Madagascar, Togo, Guinee Bissao, Barbados, St Vincent, Ghana,

2. Holding State accountable, setting Good Governance standards for the Civil Society sector: Examples: Nigeria, Namibia, Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, Cameroun, Niger, RD Congo, République Centrafricaine, Sénégal, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Togo, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Timor Leste.

3. Responding to social interests: Examples: Tanzania, Rwanda, The Gambia, Belize, St. Vincent, Trinidad & Tobago, Ethiopia, Liberia.

4. Empowering citizens. Examples: Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, RD Congo Kinshasa, St Lucia, Barbados, Marshall Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Samoa.

5. Meeting societal needs: Examples: Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Cabo Verde, Madagascar, Djibouti, Belize, St Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Gabon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tchad, Cuba, Guyana, Samoa.

6. Influencing international development policies. Examples: Nigeria, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Togo, Seychelles, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Haiti, Samoa, Kiribati, Fiji, Tonga.

94 For a discussion on impact of CSOs see Fowler, Alan, 1999: "Advocacy and Third Sector Organizations: A Composite Perspective" in: Lewis, David (ed.), International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector, London: Earthscan, 242-57. 95 This makes use of the (5) impact dimensions proposed for the CIVICUS CSI Framework, see CIVICUS 2004, p. 22


20

4. Analysis of relations among organisations Communication with other ACP CSF member organisations, modalities Most ACP CSF member organisations maintain direct communication with a considerable number of other ACP CSF member organisations. Communication is most intense with partners in the Region.

The number of active ACP CSF partners varies greatly: a small minority has no active partners, whereas some ACP CSF members maintain active communication with more than 25 other ACP CSF partner organisations.96 The majority of ACP CSF members have direct communication with 2-10 partner organizations in the Forum.

Communication with the largest numbers of partners (over 10) occurs in Central Africa and West Africa. 23 ACP CSF members (half of the respondents, of which 19 in Africa), report that they have active communication with more than 10 other ACP CSF partners. Caribbean partners mention intense communication with 1-4 partners. Regional differences in terms of active communication with partner organisations are not particularly significant with the exception of the apparent lack of communication between and with the island states in the Pacific. This pattern was supported by data from field visits.

The figure below visualizes cumulative flows of communication, based on reported communication by region. West and Central African partners score highest, and Pacific partners considerably lower.

The frequency of communication is generally weekly or once a month. The network communicator in Barbados, the ACP CSF Bureau in Brussels and the twelve regional focal points in particular maintain communication with network partners on a near-daily basis.

Modalities of communication: E-mail is the predominant mode of communication with other ACP CSF partner organisations, with ‘Meetings in a Regional context’ as a second best option. (See the figure, below)

The preferred mode of communication is to be seen in the context of the organizational culture of the particular organization: Some are more used to a written tradition and to using email, while for others, meetings and face-to-face contacts are more appropriate. As one of the African member organizations remarked: “There is this perception that people read e-mails yet it is not true. The best way to engage CSOs is meetings and engaging them face-to-face. Regional forums are the best approach”. Another African partner, however: “E-mail is a golden opportunity as long as we can not meet due to lack of funding. Let us maximize this opportunity and make sure that as many as possible have access”. Evidently, a proper mix of modes of communication enables responding to the needs of the network members to a maximum extent. A major issue to be solved is the question of language and translation.

96 No active partners: 12%; more than 25 other ACP CSF partner organisations: 16%.


21

Communication requires resources (human, financial, infrastructure) and many partners are under-resourced. Availability and accessibility to internet can’t be assumed and technical obstacles affecting communication are manifold, in particular in remote areas97.

A far majority of ACP CSF member organisations collaborates ‘in some way’ with other ACP CSF organisations (78%). If there is active collaboration with other ACP CSF member organisations, the collaboration is for half of the respondents related to either Regional development policies or to the ACP Civil Society Forum. Collaboration is to a lesser extent related to Regional Forum meetings (one third). Coordination takes place through the email network and direct emails, and to a lesser extent through Forum meetings and Regional Forum meetings. Some 22% of the ACP CSF member organisations mention that they do not collaborate with member organisations in other countries.

5. Analysis of relations with key national and external stakeholders All ACP CSF member organisations maintain strong relations with key national stakeholders. Among these, prominent Civil Society Organisations are generally considered most important. In addition, nearly all ACP CSF member organisations maintain valued relations with their national governments98. Over two-thirds of the member organisations maintain relations with local authorities. Also, two-thirds of the member organisations maintain working relations with stakeholders from the private sector.

Views of national stakeholders and EU Delegation on cooperating with ACP CSF representatives This study consulted external national stakeholders and representatives of the EU Delegation on cooperation with civil society representatives99. Discussions were organized with government representatives, private sector, external NGOs and EU Delegation during field visits and through telephone, Skype and mail. External stakeholders consulted report that cooperation with ACP CSF partners on development issues has been effective and appreciated. See below.

Mr. Koen Rossel-Cambier, EU Social Development Attaché, Barbados100 on cooperation with Barbados ACP CSF National Focal Point BANGO In Barbados, EU is highly appreciative of the cooperation with the ACP CSF National Focal Point, BANGO, in the context of the establishment of the Barbados NSA Panel. “This NSA Panel sets an example, it has a model function. We have been able to create this NSA Panel with the most representative NGOs, in cooperation with the government. They are representative because we did a mapping study101. Several Panels in the Caribbean Region are effectively operating now, and in particular those in Barbados, St. Vincent and Grenada are working well. The expertise of Civil Society is acknowledged by EU, absolutely! In particular on development issues, for example on poverty alleviation, health.” 97 ACP CSF partner Siotame Drew Havea from Tonga: “I am now in the outer islands of Tonga - we have 177 islands and only 6 of the main islands have access to the internet”. Siotame Drew Havea, CSFT, Tonga, letter dated 9.8.2013 98 such is reported by more than 90% of the national focal points 99 Government representatives and EU Delegation were consulted through Skype interviews and in writing. A methodological caveat: half of these contacts were established through ACP CSF National Focal Points; alternative approaches are beyond the scope of the study. 100 Interview with Mr. Koen Rossel-Cambier, Social Development Attaché, EU Delegation for Barbados & the Eastern Caribbean, Barbados 16.5.2013, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/index_en.htm https://www.facebook.com/EUinBarbadosandtheEasternCaribbean 101 European Commission: Final Report, Non State Actor Advisory Panels and NSA capacity building programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, 2005/102899, December 19, 2005; Non State Actor Advisory Panels and NSA capacity building programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, EC Delegation, 2005/102899, Final report: Annexes.

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/index_en.htm

https://www.facebook.com/EUinBarbadosandtheEasternCaribbean


22

EU–NSA-Government cooperation: Good Practices102 “Since 2005,The EU Delegation has undertaken various efforts in conjunction with Eastern Caribbean Governments and local NSAs to establish NSA Advisory Panels in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In each country, the European Commission undertook a mapping of the NSA presence and capacity, looking into the feasibility of enhanced and structured NSA participation in the respective national partnership with the EU. Starting in 2006, at varying pace, nearly all panels have been launched and formally recognised through a MoU between the respective Government and the EU Delegation. (..) Good practices of NSA participation on EU Cooperation “Since 2005, various initiatives have benefitted from NSA participation in the achievement of development results. To this extent various examples can be considered as good practices (in Barbados, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis). The various NSA representatives of the Eastern Caribbean and beyond have set up a Regional NSA platform to channel their initiatives and support their involvement in relation to EU Cooperation at the CARICOM/CARIFORUM level. There is funding available for capacity building and NSA participation under the regional programme of the 10th EDF.”

In Nigeria, Government stakeholders report that they feel ‘privileged’ to cooperate with NANTS, the ACP CSF National Focal Point and Regional Focal Point for West Africa.

Mr. Barr. Sunday Oghayei, Assistant Director in the Federal Ministry of Trade and Development, Abuja, Nigeria on impact of Government Cooperation with ACP CSF National Focal Point NANTS103 “We cooperated with NANTS on the EPA. When we saw how EPA was advancing there was a need for Nigeria to articulate an all-inclusive approach. NANTS’ idea was to set up a Technical Committee on EPA. Other institutions did not have the manpower and capacity. NANTS offered to host the secretariat and drive the committee. We appointed NANTS as the vice-president. Most activities of the Technical Committee were done jointly by NANTS and the Government. We had the privilege of NANTS assisting us with technical inputs like research. NANTS also helped to involve relevant stakeholders in articulating their views to make it an all-inclusive process, and NANTS helped in formulating an economic reasoning. NANTS produces a Bulletin with information that is very useful for the Government. Also, when issues arrive in Brussels, they always bring it to our notice to formulate a position. The expertise of NANTS is very good. The particular strength of NANTS is: they have a wider reach of the private sector of the civil society – it is all-inclusive. We rely on their platform to get critical views on issues. An example of impact of NANTS? When the Common External Tariff (CET)104 was being proposed, it was NANTS that saw the implications for the private sector. With their outcry we could consult all stakeholders and as a consequence the Government changed its position; rather than 20%, we agreed on 50%.”

In the Seychelles, Mrs. Jeanette D’Offay, National Project Director, Chairperson, Steering Committee 10th EDF Seychelles Governance Capacity Building Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, says there is a need (for the government) to consult civil society and invite for their participation “in whatever way we can”.

In the Seychelles, LUNGOS mentions the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and Lungos as one of its Best Practices. Why? “Because we have been able to develop a good working relationship which allows for participation in policy dialogue and decision making at national level”. “We are participating in the socio-economic reforms initiated by the government with the support of IMF, through an economic reform social project”. Mrs. Jeanette D’Offay, National Project Director, Chairperson, Steering Committee 10th EDF Seychelles Governance Capacity Building Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs105: “LUNGOS does not represent all the civil society platforms but a good majority is registered with it. I think there is a need (for the government) to consult civil society and invite for their participation in whatever way we can. This is what we are trying to do. LUNGOS has signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with Government and it does get some assistance from Govt. LUNGOS participated actively in the Economic Reform programme through various training development programmes for the young and the re-training of certain categories of workers who were made redundant as a result of the reform. In all I would say that civil society organisations have a lot to contribute to the development of the country in general.” 102 European Union: Empowering Non State Actors Through EU Partnership in the Eastern Caribbean. See full text for examples of national focal points. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/documents/eu_barbados/eu_nsa_brochure_en.pdf. 103 Interview with Mr. Barr. Sunday Oghayei, Assistant Director in the Federal Ministry of Trade and Development, Abuja, Nigeria, [email protected], 1 August 2013 104 http://nants.org/ecowas-common-external-tariff-and-regional-integration-french/ 105 Mrs. Jeanette D’Offay, National Project Director, Chairperson, Steering Committee 10th EDF Seychelles Governance Capacity Building Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; interview and email correspondence July-August 2013

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/documents/eu_barbados/eu_nsa_brochure_en.pdf

mailto:[email protected]


23

In Burundi, Mr. Jean Claude Ntibaneneje, Advisor to the Minister, Chargé des Affaires de la Communauté Est Africaine, is highly appreciative of the role of ACP CSF National Focal Point ADIR.106

Jean Claude Ntibaneneje, Burundi, Advisor to the Minister, about ACP CSF National Focal Point ADIR: “The strength of ADIR is their role in advocacy. We have very well cooperated with ADIR. In fact, ADIR plays the role of advocacy towards the Ministries of Trade, Agriculture, Education and Environment. That is to say, ADIR conducted a research in those areas to influence the government policies to assist the government to build policies that will be effective. The research was validated by a committee representing the 4 ministries concerned, the private sector and civil society. The impact is that those ministries now acknowledge that there is a need for an integral approach combining agriculture, trade and climate change – which is what ADIR had demanded. Public debate around the issue of agriculture and climate change has been organised on national TV. The participation of civil society to strengthen the government in working for the well-being of its citizens is very important.”

In Samoa, Mr. John Stanley, Attaché, Head of Technical Office, EU Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific, Samoa, appreciates ACP CSF National Focal Point SUNGO:

John Stanley, Attaché, Head of Technical Office, EU Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific, Samoa: “Under the 10th EDF, 3 million €, 10% of the total EDF to Samoa, was allocated to Civil Society.107 Civil Society in Samoa is very good at providing services but it is hoped that in future civil society may strengthen its engagement with the Government at a higher level, for example in checking the budget and auditors reports, and in participating in the Public Finance Management (PFM) Reform. In a state where one party has governed for years like Samoa you have a weak opposition, and there is a need for a civil society to challenge the government – which media really do in Samoa. SUNGO represents most of the Civil Society organisations. For EU it is very useful that there is an organisation like SUNGO. Its added value is that we don’t have to interact with individual CSOs. SUNGO is on the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Support Programme. They have an enormous role to play in Capacity Building and we see the results in the improvement of grant applications and in their strategies, and from evaluations. SUNGO is definitely one of the organisations having the potential to engage at the level of the PFM.”

Collaboration with Regional organisations or Regional bodies Nearly all ACP CSF member organisations are actively engaged in collaboration with Regional organisations, and institutions108. They collaborate in over 70 Regional networks109; on average 2-4; in exceptional cases 6-8. These organisations cover a wide gamut of issues, including social and economic policies and regional integration. Many member organisations know each other and they communicate and collaborate with each other within these regional institutions. The regional networks are perceived as the primary relevant forum for international cooperation.

Relations with international organisations All ACP CSF member organisations maintain relations with international organisations: 80% with EU, 80% with UN organisations, 80% with INGOs, and 40% with the ACP Secretariat.

106 Jean Claude Ntibaneneje, Conseiller du Ministre, Département des Finances, Commerce et Investissement Ministère à la Présidence Chargé des Affaires de la Communauté Est Africaine, Bujumbura, Burundi. 6 August 2013. 107 Agreement No WS/FED/021-174 108 93% - see Annex, Outcome of the Survey, Q 38 109 For a full list of Regional networks in which ACP CSF members collaborate, see Annex. They include Regional Economic Communities (COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, UEMOA); Regional NGO networks (REPAOC, REPONGAC, SADC CNGO, EACSOF, FOSCAO, Network of Central African NGO Platforms, PIANGO, PRNGO, SADC Civil Society); Regional NGO-Cotonou platforms; Regional Non State Actors Panels on EU-NGO-Government collaboration; Regional networks for Aid effectiveness and social accountability (CS Partnership for Development Effectiveness, Caribbean CS Network for Aid Effectiveness); Regional Trade networks; Regional Entrepreneurs organisations; Regional Women’s networks (WAWA, CAFRA); and Regional sectoral platforms.


24

Mechanisms of coordination between EU, national government and civil society More than half of the Forum members report that in their country the EU, the government and CSOs have established a coordination mechanism. These mechanisms appear to exist significantly less frequently in French speaking countries (one third) than in English speaking countries (two-thirds). Coordination is often in the form of meetings (between NSAs, NAO, EU Delegation); members recommend formalization in a MoU. In some countries a structure has been in place but has collapsed. Other countries have sector specific coordination mechanisms (e.g. “Trade and Development”). 25 member organisations are actively engaged in coordination mechanisms between EU, national government and CSOs on development issues. Several national platforms (especially those in the French speaking countries) are engaged in strengthening coordination between CS partners. Samoa has a well-established Civil Society Support programme, funded under the 10th EDF and managed jointly by government and SUNGO110. The region with the strongest coordination mechanism is the Caribbean. Barbados, Grenada, Saint Vincent, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda have well-functioning NSA Panels under a MoU between Civil Society, Government and EU.111 BANGO provides assistance on NSA Panel management.

In countries where a mechanism of coordination between EU, national government and civil society has been established, it is perceived as helpful by nearly everyone (90%). It is believed to contribute to better understanding of (EU) development cooperation (according to over 80% of the respondents); it leads to better cooperation among civil society organisations, it leads to better relations with the national government (over 60%), and it facilitates access to development funds. A small minority believes it is not helpful.

Relevance of the information provided by the Forum for participation in EU development activities Nearly half of the member organisations participate in ACP EU development activities themselves.

Whenever ACP CSF members participated in ACP-EU development activities, the information provided by the Forum is regarded as useful. Particularly useful was the information provided by the Forum on:

- EPA and Trade negotiations - EU development cooperation activities - Funding opportunities and consultancies - CSOs and civil society networks in other countries, and finally - Contacts for development activities and resources - government and other development actors.

110 SUNGO and Government representatives are on the Steering Committee, as is Ausaid. 111 Survey; and interview with Koen Rossel-Cambier, Social Development Attaché, EU, Barbados,16.5.2013


25

5. CONCLUSIONS

The ACP CSF and ‘Cotonou’ The ACP Civil Society Forum reflects and embodies the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement.

Cotonou, The Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda and the Busan Declaration explicitly refer to Civil Society Organisations as independent development actors in their own right.

The ACP CSF and ACP - The ACP established the ACP Civil Society Forum as the official platform of the African, Caribbean and

Pacific Civil Society Organisations and NGO Networks for the ACP-EU Cooperation since 2001, confirming the formal status of the ACP CSF as an “all-ACP Civil Society Forum”.

- The ACP Secretariat presented the Plan of Action, Declaration and the Report of the first Forum to the ACP Council of Ministers through the Committee of Ambassadors and these documents were endorsed by the 27th ACP-EU Council of Ministers Meeting in June, 2002.

- The ACP CSF is the legitimate network of Civil Society organisations in the ACP countries that gives effect to the principles of the Cotonou Agreement on the role of Civil Society.

- The ACP has taken charge of the ACP Civil Society Forum from the start. ACP Secretariat authorized, funded and (co-)organized the 3 Forum meetings that have taken place: 2001, 2006, 2009.

- This included inviting participants, issuing tickets, reporting, financial reports, deciding on the agenda of the meetings, hosting Forum meetings in the ACP premises; and the ACP Secretary General delivering the welcome address. The 3 ACP CS Forum meetings were funded through intra-ACP EDF funds.

ACP, EU and the ACP CSF - EU has a long-standing partnership with Civil Society organisations; in 2012 EU issued new policy

guidelines on strengthened support to Civil Society in partner countries. - EU supports several Civil Society Forums. - Support to the ACP CSF never included support for institutional infrastructure.

ACP Civil Society Forum - The performance of the ACP CSF shows a mixed picture, with, in terms of performance indicators,

strength and progress in some areas (organizational structure, realizing genuine Civil Society membership, representativeness, communication network) and stagnation under-utilized potential in other areas (activities in relation to objectives, implementation of Forum meetings).

Internal structure and management - The Forum has a 3-tier organizational structure - the Bureau, and Regional and National Focal Points. - Its internal structure is appropriate to its identity as an international network and to its objectives. - ACP Civil Society Forum member organisations are formally designated as the National Focal Points for

the ACP CSF in their respective countries. - Since 2001, the ACP CSF has gradually developed its governance structure. This included, apart from

an effective management structure, transparent guidelines on decision-making and democratic procedures for election of the chairperson and regional focal points.

- The ACP CSF Bureau consists of a core team of highly qualified civil society leaders, knowledgeable in their particular sector of expertise, as confirmed by external stakeholders.

- ACP CSF does not have a formal mechanism for exercising accountability. Online consultations are seen as a major channel for informing and consulting members, and this functions well.

Lack of an enabling environment - Though the ACP CSF was established with a clear mandate, right from the start the ACP CSF lacked a

proper implementation mechanism. - An obstacle in the first years was the fact that many representatives were appointed by governments;

the ACP CSF did not yet represent genuine civil society. - The ACP CSF has never been provided funds for secretarial support. In view of optimal effectiveness of

the Forum a modest support structure is recommended. The lack of secretarial support and the lack of continuity of Forum meetings are key factors affecting performance of the ACP CSF.

- Crucial in understanding the internal governance of the ACP CSF is its relation to the ACP. The ACP Secretariat authorizes the organization and funding of Forum meetings and decides on modalities of the meetings, not the ACP CSF. This has right from the start created a structure of dependency, the pros and cons of which have never been validated in an open manner between ACP, ACP CSF and EU.


26

- Since 2011 the ACP CSF has requested the ACP Secretariat to organise the 4th Forum, so far without positive response. Related to this, the relation with ACP has been increasingly strenuous, and this has eroded the governance framework that resulted from the 3rd Forum.

- Key informants identify this situation as a major external disincentive for the ACP CSF and they regard the ‘unbalanced ACP-ACP CSF relationship’ as not conducive to a vibrant ACP CSF. “The two should be given the opportunity to function as two independent entities in their own right”.

- They recommend the creation of a MoU outlining the commitments of the ACP and EU towards making the resources available for ACP CSF to effectively carry out its mandate.

- The ACP CSF management at present is not taking leadership. A major factor is that they are deprived of the resources and the environment enabling them to act. Other factors are: lack of a clear action plan that is endorsed by the ACP CSF constituency and on a more general level lack of a strategy on how to deal with the present impasse.

Overall performance - While no funding has been available right from the start, the Forum achieved to implement activities.

Everything that has been achieved was achieved on a pro bono basis. Some members of the management spent considerable resources (time, money) on Forum activities.

- The ACP Civil Society Forum implemented 3 Forum meetings (2001, 2006, 2009) in collaboration with the ACP Secretariat. Discontinuity in Forum meetings is in the first place due to external factors – fundamentally lack of an operational mechanism enabling ACP CSF to act.

- Assessing the activities of the ACP CSF vis-à-vis planned activities has been problematic because a framework for planning and reporting is lacking. This affects effectiveness and impact of the ACP CSF and points to a substantial management and performance problem of the Forum.

- Management of meetings should be improved: proper preparations, technically and content-wise, with declarations and action plans, follow up planning, monitoring and reporting.

- The 3rd Forum did not complete an Action Plan, and follow-up to the 3rd Forum has been lacking. - Plans of Action of Forum meetings do not include activities related to strengthening the institutional

foundation of the ACP CSF, whereas that was, with hindsight, evidently the highest priority. It still is. - An assessment of activities in view of objectives demonstrates that: the Forum has been able to deliver

on about half of its 5 objectives. There are obvious performance gaps. - The two main activities by 2013 are:

- participation in (ACP – EU) policy meetings and keeping the members informed on relevant ACP-EU activities through the online network.

- Communication on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation from a civil society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise, with ACP CSF providing inputs and facilitating sharing of expertise. These activities are crucial to the ACP CSF and can be seen as part of its Core Identity.

- The 2009 Forum endorsed the ACP CSF as a Forum of genuine civil society representatives. This is a major step towards realization of a genuine ACP Civil Society Forum. This study did not find a single evidence of a member organisation that does not qualify as a genuine Civil Society organisation.

- Overall, how should the number, range and effectiveness of the activities implemented by the ACP CSF be qualified? In view of its lack of resources they are considerable. In view of ACP CSF’s mandate and potential its performance is weak.

Modalities of communication and coordination - The ACP CSF yahoo network is the major communication mechanism for the ACP CS; it meant a

qualitative leap forward in internal communication in the Forum. - The Legal Advisor and other Forum representatives participate in policy meetings and keep the

members informed on relevant ACP-EU activities through the online network. Members regard this information as useful, and a majority has practically used it in their own activities.

Representativeness - Representativeness is a major strength of the network– an important indicator being that a majority of

the member organisations perceive the Forum as relevant for their own work. - This study confirms the representativeness of the Forum, formally and substantially, in view of major

indicators: 1. its support base, and 2. qualitative indicators. - The Forum represents genuine Non-State Actors, - The Forum is registered with the EC Register of Interests Representatives. - The ACP CSF member organisations are networks encompassing ten to several hundreds of

member organizations in their own respective country; they have appropriate mechanisms to ensure inclusiveness and representativeness among their constituencies; and their representativeness is confirmed by external informants and mapping studies;

- They cover a wide spectrum of target groups and beneficiaries, urban and rural, and mostly have national coverage;


27

- They are knowledgeable, have the ability to articulate development concerns from a civil society perspective, have authority to represent and act, and have access to expertise.

Relevance - The ACP Civil Society Forum is an important platform for its constituent organisations; its relevance is

confirmed by the majority of its members, though some are critical and skeptical. The high level of response to the Survey and the Fact Sheets is a strong indicator for the level of motivation of the member organisations and the perceived relevance of the Forum for its members.

ACP CSF Member organisations Key Findings from the Survey, the Inventory, field visits and interviews - This Study produced an Inventory of on member organisations of the Forum. The Inventory provides

detailed information on each member organization: Basic Information, Activities, Relations with the ACP CSF and with other organisations in the Forum, Relations with organisations outside the Forum, and case studies on Best Practices. This Inventory is a separate Annex to this report.

- An in-depth Survey was a significant tool for data collection on the member organisations. - The Fact Sheets and the Survey resulted in a wealth of information on the ACP CSF member

organisations.

The ACP CSF member organisations - The constituencies of the Forum, the National Focal Points, play a pivotal role in strengthening civil

society in their countries. - Many of them are prominent organisations in their own field of expertise. A majority of the member

organisations is engaged in both economic and social activities. - Many of them are playing a crucial role in strengthening democracy or they have played a role in the

transition to democracy. - A strong feature of the national focal points is their representativeness and their diversity. - They are all (except one) officially registered in their own country; they all (100%) have a constitution and

bye-laws. - The functioning of the member organizations depends to a large extent on the efforts of a group of highly

committed persons. They are also the driving force behind the Forum. The strength of the Forum depends on these member organisations; as such, the strength of the Forum is beyond doubt.

- They are networks, umbrellas, and often membership organisations; representing ten to several hundreds of civil society organisations in their countries.

- They value accountability and confirm that accountability is practiced in their organization. - Some organisations work with limited funding, and many have a broad range of funders.

Priority areas, activities, impact - ACP CSF member organisations generally have a social-economic focus. The outcome of the Survey

highlights three clusters (sectors) of priority activities of member organisations: Poverty Alleviation, Rights, and Peace Building. Members are also engaged in capacity building of civil society organizations and they provide various sorts of technical support to the civil society sector.

- There are dozens of ‘Good Practices’, success stories, case studies of impact of social and economic interventions. All members have been, to varying extent, involved in such successful activities. This study created an inventory of Best Practices of ACP CSF member organisations. See Annex.

- Moreover, this study identified 6 ‘Dimensions of Impact’ and documented examples of the ACP Civil Society platforms having a powerful track record on these impact dimensions. It produced an inventory of these as well. See Annex.

- There is synergy between the priorities addressed by the National Focal Points, their local member organisations, the regional networks and those addressed by the Forum on a global level.

- Impact is realised at the level of the National Focal Points and their thousands of constituent members. However, this impact can neither be ascribed to nor claimed as an impact of the ACP CSF though the ACP CSF is certainly ‘carried’ by it, and vice versa.

- Nearly all Forum members are cooperating with Regional level networks and institutions. - They confirm the added value of the ACP CSF for their work. Being the platform of these national level

organisations the ACP Civil Society Forum brings together a huge potential of actors on development issues from a Civil Society perspective.

Analysis of relations with key national and external stakeholders Communication - ACP CSF national platforms have a diverse support base, often with formal membership: between ten

and hundreds of CSOs, with which they interact in meetings and through e-mail;


28

- They forward information to their members on development activities and ACP-EU cooperation, function as an information hub (besides coordinate activities and providing capacity building).

- They provide information or referral for third parties, e.g. for the EU and the government. - E-mail is the predominant mode of communication with other ACP CSF partner organisations, with

‘Meetings in a Regional context’ as a second best option. Collaboration on development interventions - Most Forum members have ‘some kind of collaboration’ with other Forum members. - All members maintain strong relations with national stakeholders. This study consulted national

stakeholders (government representatives, external NGOs) and representatives of EU Delegations. They report that cooperation with Forum partners has been effective and appreciated. The report provides a selection of quotations.

- National platforms are actively collaborating with Regional organisations in strengthening civil society at a Regional level. For a list of Regional networks see Annex.

Mechanisms of coordination - 25 member organisations are actively engaged in coordination mechanisms between EU, national

government and civil society organisation on development issues. - The region with the strongest coordination mechanism is the Caribbean, with several countries having a

well-functioning Non State Actors Panel under a MoU between Civil Society, Government and EU.

ACP CSF: 3 Core identities From the research data on the ACP Civil Society Forum, 3 ‘Core Identities’ are derived.

1. Core identity 1: The ACP Civil Society Forum is the legitimate network of Civil Society organisations in the ACP countries that gives effect to the principles of the Cotonou Agreement on the role of Civil Society.

2. Core identity 2: ACP CSF keeps the members informed on ACP-EU activities through the online network. Most member organisations regard this information as useful; they use it in their own activities, and they see this as a key activity of the Forum.

3. Core Identity 3: Communication and collaboration on regional policies on trade, development and poverty alleviation from a civil society perspective capitalizing on civil society expertise and experience.

Challenges and future potential - The ACP Forum members are Civil Society platforms of thousands of organisations in ACP countries

representing an invaluable source of expertise and experience, as has been documented in this study. - As such, the ACP CSF Forum is in a unique position, or ‘best placed’ to coordinate exchange of

experiences and create joint positions or strategies, both in view of pressing development issues, as well as in view of joint internal Civil Society sector concerns.

- With the yahoo network one main condition for a coordinating role is in place. The ACP Civil Society Forum has a huge potential, that is presently under-utilized, but the potential is still there.

- ACP CSF member organisations see the fact that meetings are not taking place as prescribed as a major challenge for the ACP CSF that need to be solved. They also see “lack of a clear mandate” and “lack of funding” as major challenges.

- A far majority of the immediate constituency of the Forum has confidence in the future potential of the ACP CSF. According to them, to realize this potential in order for the Forum to be able to play its role to the fullest in the spirit of ‘Cotonou, Paris, Accra and Busan’, as an independent development actor in its own right, a concerted effort of internal and external stakeholders is required. “ACP CSF has to be revived” 112. The Forum needs to catch the momentum and take ownership. It needs to reconsider its core identity, objectives and deliverables. Appropriate planning and accountability structures must be in place.

- It is recommended that a clear and transparent mechanism be worked out by the main stakeholders - the ACP Civil Society Forum, the ACP and EU - for a realistic operational structure conducive to the optimal functioning of the ACP Civil Society Forum, with due attention for accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. Without this, it is not anticipated that the ACP CSF will overcome its present impasse.

112 Ken Ukaoha, Esq., NANTS, Nigeria: “ACP CSF has to be revived. It is a shame that the ACP CSF has not been assisted to stand on its feet. Civil Society is the watchdog of society all over the world. Without a credible civil society you don’t have a credible government. Civil Society is critical in governance. You must have a voice of dissent. For the ACP Secretariat to have valuable impact on the citizens of the ACP, CS must not be stifled. It must be given a voice. It must be given institutional and financial support. It should be allowed to show that: democracy is enthroned, that military takeovers are no longer accepted, that trade relations should reflect people’s interests, that women’s participation should be mainstreamed, that CS in ACP countries has a voice.” Ken Ukaoha, Esq, NANTS, Nigeria, 29 May, 2013


1

Annexes 1. Terms of Reference

SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE

FWC BENEFICIARIES 2009 - LOT 1 EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi REQUEST N° 2012/ 310569

Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum

The European Union and the ACP Group of States (represented by the ACP Secretariat), in the

framework of the Cotonou Agreement1 are supporting civil society organisations (CSO) through a wide range of instruments and programmes. The Cotonou Agreement, states in its article 4 that non- state actors, including civil society, should be informed and involved in cooperation policies and strategies between the official parties to the Agreement and in its article 8 that they shall be associates to the political dialogue.

In October 1997, more than 30 civil society organisations from the ACP regions met in Entebbe (Uganda), to establish a Forum charged to address issues relating the cooperation between the ACP Group of States and the EU. Seven ACP NGOs, representing the four African sub-regions (Southern, Central, East and West Africa), the Caribbean and the Pacific were mandated to drive the process leading to the establishment of the platform named ACP Civil Society Forum ("the Forum"). The Forum formally met 3 times since its creation (in 2002 - 2006 -2009) and its representative based in Brussels participated in various meetings organised by the European Commission and the ACP Group.

Since the Cotonou agreement does not mention explicitly the creation of a formal institution of civil society organisations, the ACP Forum remains an informal network that is currently gathering 79 CSO representatives of ACP Countries (1 representative per country). Members are directly appointed by ACP States' authorities to represent their country on civil society issues as national focal points.

The main objectives of the forum are:

(i) To promote, facilitate and enhance the vital contributions of regional and national grassroots, community based and other civil society organisations, who work for the benefit of the people of the ACP states and regions.(ii) To work together with EU actors and organisations in accordance with article 5 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, the Cotonou Agreement, in order to provide more information and create greater awareness of the ACP-EU Partnership, encourage partnership and build links between ACP and EU actors, strengthen networking and exchange of expertise and experience among the ACP-EU actors.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

Global objective

The overall objective of this study is to provide the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission with information related to the structure of the Forum, the activities that are implemented and have been implemented since its foundation and the relations with its members.

The user of the outputs of this study will be the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission. Specific objectives:

1

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/overview/cotonou-agreement/index_en.htm


2

1. Analyse the internal structure of the Forum with a qualitative analysis of the established processes (e.g. the internal governance, sources of financing, the modalities of communication and coordination within the associations, its representativeness and accountability).

2. Inventory of the organisations and in-depth analysis of the organisations that are members of the forum (e.g. in terms of number of local members and geographical coverage, scale and variety of activities, presence and impact in public debates).The expert will identify, analyse and describe, for each of the members (with a fact-sheet per member):

• The main participants of the organisation, the location of the headquarters, the number of years of existence, number of staff,;

• The priority areas (missions) of the organisations, the main activities/projects implemented by them since their creation (e.g. advocacy campaigns), the main products (e.g. reports, guidelines on good practices) with an identification of the main targets of these products;

• The internal structure, the modalities of communication and coordination within the Forum;

• The main sources of financing/donors (in order to assess the degree of financial independence of the networks). The expert will pay particular attention to evaluate the participation of representatives of economic and social non-state actors within the Forum.

3. Analysis of the relations (if any) among the organisations (not exclusively in relation with the Forum). The expert will analyse and describe the connections between the organisations, more precisely:

• The modalities of communication and coordination among organisations;

• The degree to which different organisations' missions and actions/projects are complementary (or overlapping) within the Forum.

4. Analysis, for each organisation member of the Forum the relations with key national and external stakeholders (e.g. international organisations, major private sector actors). The expert will analyse and describe the communication/collaboration processes between members of the Forum and key external stakeholders, more precisely:

• the channels and frequency of communications and the main issued tackled

• the most important projects/advocacy campaigns and their impact

• the most stable and productive relations/partnerships identified (case study of best practices).

Requested services

• Inception phase: preliminary analysis of the situation and presentation of the methodology used for the study which will include a field phase plan

• Desk research: analysis of information available on the internet (websites of the networks, academic research, other reports).

• Field phase: meetings with i. the representative of the Forum in Brussels, ii. The chairperson of the Forum based in Kingston (Jamaica) and with iii. the representatives of 6 associations members of the Forum (located in 6 different ACP regions).


3

• Research and analysis of information obtained through interviews with the representatives of the associations (that have not been visited during the study visit) via questionnaires sent via emails or by telephone.

• Consultation meetings with the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission in Brussels (2 meetings in total: 1 briefing and 1 debriefing).

Required outputs A report containing:

• An analysis of the internal structure of the Forum

• An inventory of the organisation (with fact-sheets on each of the members) and in-depth analysis of these organisations

• Analysis of the relations (if any) among the organisations

• Analysis of the Forum and of each organisation member of the Forum on the relations between the Forum itself and each organisation member and networks and key external stakeholders. 3. EXPERT PROFILE Number of requested experts per category and number of man-days per expert or per category 1 senior expert for a maximum of 35 working days

Profile and/or expertise required

Qualification and Skills

• University degree in a topic related to this study;

• Computer skills in Microsoft Office and or equivalent software programmes.

• Excellent written and oral communication and ability to conduct interviews. General Professional Experience

• • At least 10 years' professional working experience in the field of development cooperation with civil society and in particular in the relations with networks/platforms of Civil Society Organisations.• Knowledge of strategic management principles, operational planning, human resource allocation, and budgeting.

Specific Professional Experience

• • Experience in conducting mapping studies with agreed methodologies and a track record of delivering results to professional standards.

• Language skills

• Fluent in English and French, both spoken and written. The knowledge of Portuguese will be an asset.

Number of requested experts per category and number of man/days per expertOne senior expert is needed for this assignment for a maximum number of 35 working days.

Working language(s) The working language will be English and French. The knowledge of Portuguese will be considered as an asset.

LOCATION AND DURATION


4

3. Starting period

The starting date of the assignment will be by the end of January 2013.

Foreseen finishing period or durationThe finishing date of the assignment will be in March 2013.

4. Planning

At the beginning of the assignment, the consultant will meet with the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission and for a start-up meeting to discuss the ToR and the submitted methodology and make an exact plan and time frame for the assignment.

Location(s) of the assignment

The assignment will be carried out:- During the inception and the desk phase at the home of the expert,- During field study, the expert will visit Kingston (Jamaica) other ACP 6 (the list will validate at the inception phase). .

5. REPORTING

Content

1. Draft final report (of maximum 30 pages, main text, excluding fact-sheets and other annexes) that includes all the required services described in §2.

2. Final Report that incorporates the comments from the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission the Draft Final Report including any revisions requested.

LanguageThe reports (and other documents prepared under the assignment) should be both in English and

French.

Number of report(s) copies2 printed copies and one electronic format of each language of the final report will delivered to the

Contracting authority.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION Language of the specific contractThe language of this contract is English

Management team member presence required or not for briefing and/or debriefing

NA

Other authorized items to foresee under ‘Reimbursable’

In addition to the overall cost of the services requested, the budget must also include costs for:- 3 return tickets: Home/Brussels (for two visits in Brussels);- 1 return tickets Home/Jamaica + estimative cost for 6 return tickets intra-ACP- Costs for daily allowances (per diem) during the 3 one day visits to Brussels and for the other missions in the field phase.

- Provision for the reimbursement of phone calls for the interviews

OtherThe present contract is a global price contract.


5

2. Time schedule and Itinerary

April

3rd Brussels, meet Mrs. Michèle Dominique Raymond, ACP-Secretariat, Mr. Marco Sioli, EU

8 Preparations, desk study

9 Preparations, desk study

10 Inception report, introductions, methodology, planning

11 Inception report, introductions, methodology, planning

12 Designing questionnaire, study documents

13 Weekend, telephone calls with ACP CSF Management

14 Weekend, telephone calls with ACP CSF Management

15 Designing questionnaire, planning

16 Inception report

17 Bruxelles, meet ACP CSF Management Ms. Joyce van Genderen-Naar.

18 designing questionnaire and semi-structured interviews

May

10 Travel Amsterdam-London-New York

11 ACP CSF Chairman Mr. Lawman Lynch

12 Weekend

13 ACP CSF Chairman Mr. Lawman Lynch

14 Travel New York-Bridgetown

15 Barbados meet ACP CSF Management Mr. Roosevelt King

16 Barbados meet ACP CSF Management Mr. Roosevelt King

17 Barbados meet ACP CSF Management Mr. Roosevelt King, meet members of BANGO Mr. Koen Rossel-Cambier, Social Development Attaché, EU Delegation for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean

18 Travel Bridgetown – London – Amsterdam

19 prepare Survey

20 preparations field visits Africa

21 Preparations field visits Africa

22 Preparations field visits Africa

23 Travel Amsterdam-Johannesburg

24 Travel Johannesburg–Windhoek meet NANGO, ACP CSF Focal Point Namibia Mr. Michael Gaweseb

25 weekend

26 Meet NANGO, Mr. Michael Gaweseb, ACP CSF Focal Point Namibia

27 Travel Windhoek – Johannesburg

28 Travel Johannesburg - Lagos; Lagos – Abuja, Meet National Focal Point NANTS, Nigeria


6

29 Meet National Focal Point NANTS Meet Ken Ukaoha, Esq, Nigeria

30 NANTS, Nigeria Travel Abuja–Lagos, travel Lagos-Kigali Rwanda National Focal point RCSP

31 Meet Rwanda National Focal point RCSP Meet Mr. Edouard Munyamaliza, Mr. Thacien Munyaneza Travel Kigali-Bujumbura Meet Burundi National Focal Point ADIR, Mr. Godefroid Manirankunda

June

1 Burundi, Meet Burundi National Focal Point ADIR, Mr. Godefroid Manirankunda

2 Burundi, ADIR, Mr. Godefroid Manirankunda on Regional developments ACP CSF (Central / East Africa)

3 Burundi, field visit ADIR

4 Burundi, Meet Burundi National Focal Point ADIR, Mr. Godefroid Manirankunda

5 Travel Bujumbura-Nairobi, Nairobi - Dar es Salaam

6 Tanzania, meet National Focal Point TANGO Mr. Emanuel Mbwambo, Acting Executive Director

7 Survey and factsheets



10 Survey and factsheets: reminders

11 TANGO, National Focal Point ACP CSF Tanzania, meet Ms. Marie Shaba, former chair of TANGO

12 TANGO, National Focal Point ACP CSF Tanzania, Mr. Ngunga Tepani,

travel Dar es Salaam - Amsterdam

13 arrival Amsterdam

14-25 Inventory of Fact Sheets on the Member Organisations of the ACP CSF Survey, ACP CSF member organisations

July

28-31 Survey, ACP member organisations: Data analysis, conclusions and graphic representations| Report writing Interviews with government stakeholders / external stakeholders stakeholders

August

1-5 Report writing

6 Travel to Samoa

7 Travel to Samoa, report writing

8 arrival Samoa, meet SUNGO, ACP CSF National Focal Point Samoa

9 Samoa, meet SUNGO, Mr. Percival Grant, meet Mr. Lemusu Taviuni Fonoti

10 weekend

11 weekend

12 Meeting with SUNGO


7

13 meet SUNGO, Mr. Lemusu Taviuni Fonoti, Ms. Roina Faatauvaa-Vavatau

14 field visit SUNGO, Women Transformational Leadership training

15 European Union, meet Mr. John Stanley, Attaché, Head of technical Office, Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific

16 meet SUNGO

17 SUNGO, field visit

18 SUNGO, field visit

19 Departure - end of mission


8

3. List of Literature and Sources

ACP Civil Society Forum: Report of Activities, 2009-2011, unpublished document, 2011


ACP Civil Society Forum: Concept Note for the 4th ACP Civil Society Forum. To be held at ACP Secretariat, ACP House Brussels Belgium: “Achieving the Developmental Potential of ACP Civil Society”. Brussels, January 2012, by Chairman Lawman Lynch


ACP Secretariat: Outcome of the Meeting of the ACP and ACP-EU Civil Society Forum from 2nd-7th July 2001, Brussels – ACP/82/008/01, dated 11 July, 2001.

ACP Secretariat: The Cotonou Agreement. A User’s Guide for Non-State Actors. Compiled by the ECDPM, Brussels, 2003; www.acpsec.org/en/nsa/nsa_users_guide_en_rev1.pdf

ACP Secretariat: An Overview of ACP Civil Society Participation under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP/29/024/06, Brussels, 10 April, 2006.

ACP Secretariat: Brussels Declaration of the 2nd ACP Civil Society Forum, Held in Brussels, Belgium from 19 to 21 April 2006, ACP HOUSE, ACP/28/031/06 Final Brussels, 21 April 2006, Department of Political Affairs and Human Development

ACP Secretariat: Plan of Action for the implementation of the Brussels Declaratin of the 2nd ACP CSF Forum of 21 April 2006, ACP/28/032/06 Final Brussels, 21 April 2006, Department of Political Affairs and Human Development

ACP Secretariat: “The establishment of eligibility criteria for Non-State actors: access to financing under the 10th EDF/ACP/81/025/08”, 2008, n.p.

ACP Secretariat: The Role of Non-State Actors (NSAs) in the Implementation of the Cotonou Agreement. ACP/81/009/09 Rev.2, Brussels, dated 7 March 2008.

ACP Secretariat: An Overview of Civil Society Participation under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP/28/017/09, dated 2 December 2009.

ACP Secretariat: 3ème Forum de la Sociéte civile ACP - Déclaration, 2009, Bruxelles, le 11 décembre 2009, ACP/28/020/09 Rév. 1.

http://www.acpsec.org/en/nsa/nsa_users_guide_en_rev1.pdf


9

ACP Secretariat: ACP Secretariat Overview of the ACP Civil Society Forum 2001-2011. ACP Secretariat Internal Document, 2011.

ACP Secretariat: Letter to The Hon. Bruce Golding, M.P., Prime Minister of Jamaica; Dr. Marco Mazzocchi-Alemani, Ambassador, Jamaica; The Most Hon. Portia Simpson-Miller, Leader of the Opposition, Jamaica; The Hon. Maxine Mc.Clean, M.P., Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Barbados; and others, dated 29 April 2010.

BANGO: 2nd ACP Civil Society Forum, Report, 2006, by Roosevelt O. King, Internal report

BANGO: A Civil Society Submission on the ACP Civil Society Forum, By Roosevelt O. King, 2009, unpublished document

Capacity Works http://www.giz.de/en/ourservices/1544.html; Capacity Works; GIZ, Eschborn 2007.

Centre for Social Innovation: Network Evaluation. Cultivating Healthy Networks for Social Change, 2011 http://s.socialinnovation.ca/files/NetworkEvaluation_Pocket_english.pdf

Church, Madeline, et al.: Participation, Relationships and Dynamic Change: New thinking on evaluating the work of international networks, Development Planning Unit, University College London, 2002

CIVICUS: State of Civil Society 2012, Johannesburg 2013

CIVICUS: State of Civil Society 2011, Johannesburg, 2012

CIVICUS: Assessing and Strengthening Civil Society Worldwide, A Project Description of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index: A Participatory Needs Assessment & Action-Planning Tool for Civil Society. By Volkhart Finn Heinrich, CIVICUS Civil Society Index Paper Series 2004, Vol. 2, Issue 1

CIVICUS: Civil Society Index (CSI). The CIVICUS Civil Society Country Profiles include the following ACP countries: Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Senegal Tanzania, Zambia; see http://socs.civicus.org/2011/?page_id=275

Civil Society @ Crossroads. Shifts, Challenges, Options? Issued by CDRA, EASUN, PRIA, INTRAC, PSO, ICD. N.p., 2013.

CONCORD Cotonou Working Group: CONCORD concerns on the upcoming review of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, www.concordeurope.org

CUTS: Taking East African Regional Integration Forward – a civil society perspective. Jaipur, 2010.

http://www.giz.de/en/ourservices/1544.html

http://s.socialinnovation.ca/files/NetworkEvaluation_Pocket_english.pdf

http://socs.civicus.org/2011/?page_id=275

http://www.concordeurope.org/


10

CUTS: Climate, Food, Trade. Where is the Policy Nexus? Burundi. Geneva, 2013.

CUTS: Bâtir une Communauté Est-Africaine Inclusive. Atelier National de Présentation des Résultats de Recherche. Bujumbura, 2010

Curtis, J. M.: Involving NGOs in Trade Policy Negotiations. Optimum 30 (2): 60, 2000. http://www.optimumonline.ca/article.phtml?id=61.

Devine, Vera: The Russia Civil Society Forum. Evaluation report, 2013.

Diamond, Larry: "Rethinking Civil Society - Towards Democratic Consolidation", in: Journal of Democracy 5, 1994, 4-17.

Edwards, M. and J. Gaventa: Global Citizen Action, London: Earthscan and Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001

European Commision: L’Accord de Cotonou, Signé a Cotonou le 23 Juin 2000, révisé a Luxembourg le 25 Juin 2005, révisé a Ouagadougou le 22 Juin 2010. ACP, UE. Union européenne, Développement & Coopération – EuropeAid, ACP

European Commission: The Cotonou Agreement. Signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, Revised in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010. ACP EU. European Union DEVCO - 3173_DEVCO_ACP_Cover_A5_120816.indd 4-6, 2012 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/overview/cotonou-agreement/

European Commission. Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States. The Lome Convention. http://ec.europa.eu/development/geographical/cotonou/lomegen/lomeitoiv_en.cfm

European Commission: Enhancing democracy and fighting poverty: European Commission commits to further support civil society in partner countries – European Commission, September 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-963_en.htm

European Commission: The Court of Auditors, Special Report “The Commission’s management of non-state actors’ involvement in EC development cooperation” (2009/C 152/04).

European Commission: Communication on the engagement with civil society and local authorities in development, Roadmap, DEVCO.D2, 18.10.2011.


European Commission: Evaluation of the EC aid channelled through civil society organisations (CSOs) – 2008, ref. 1259

http://www.optimumonline.ca/article.phtml?id=61

http://ec.europa.eu/development/geographical/cotonou/lomegen/lomeitoiv_en.cfm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-963_en.htm




11

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/evinfo/2008/1259_ev_en.pdf;

European Commission: Report on the public consultations, 2012, by B. Sanz Corella and A. van Goey; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/documents/20121025-full-report_en.pdf

European Commission: NSA Panels: Empowering Non State Actors Through EU Partnership in the Eastern Caribbean, no date.

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/documents/eu_barbados/eu_nsa_brochure_en.pdf.

European Commission, 2005: Final Report, Non State Actor Advisory Panels and NSA capacity building programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, EC Delegation, 2005/102899, December 19, 2005, Annex 3: Country reports, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines


European Economic and Social Committee (EESC): SC/023 The Representativeness of European civil society organisations in civil dialogue, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 14 Feb 2006

Fowler, Alan: "Advocacy and Third Sector Organizations: A Composite Perspective" in: Lewis, David (ed.), International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector, London: Earthscan, 1999, 242-57.

Genderen-Naar, Joyce van: Een beschrijving en analyse van de ACP-EG Partnerovereenkomst: Samenwerking in wederzijds belang en onderlinge afhankelijkheid. Heule, 2002

Genderen-Naar, Joyce van: Third ACP Civil Society Forum establishes CP information and dialogue network, p. 2, 2009, acp csf facebook https://www.facebook.com/notes/acp-civil-society-forum/third-acp-civil-society-forum-establishes-acp-information-and-dialogue-network/243526706832

Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle: Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside, 2005. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

IDRC: Next Generation Network Evaluation, 2005, http://www.scalingimpact.net/files/IDRC_Network_IPARL_Paper_Final_0.pdf, June 2012

King, B.: EU – Cariforum Consultative Committee. ACP Follow Up Committee, European Economic and Social Committee Mambara, J., L. 2007.

Montoute, A.: Civil Society Participation in Trade Negotiations: A Caribbean Case Study. PhD diss., University of the West Indies, 2009.









https://www.facebook.com/notes/acp-civil-society-forum/third-acp-civil-society-forum-establishes-acp-information-and-dialogue-network/243526706832



http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

http://www.scalingimpact.net/files/IDRC_Network_IPARL_Paper_Final_0.pdf


12

IFP, International Forum of National NGO Platforms: Annual Report, 2011. http://www.ong-ngo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RA-FIP-anglais-BD.pdf

Kendall, Jeremy and Martin Knapp: "Measuring the Performance of Voluntary Organizations", in: Public Management 2, 105-32, 2000

Lanegran, Kimberly: "South Africa’s Civic Association Movement: ANC's Ally or Society's "Watchdog"? Shifting Social Movement-Political Party Relations", in: African Studies Review 38, 2, 1995, 101-26.

Mambara, Jacqueline: An Evaluation of Involvement of Southern Africa’s Civil Society in EPA Negotiations to Date. Trade and Development Studies Centre. Harare, 2007

MandE news Rick Davies, no date. http://mande.co.uk/, http://www.mande.co.uk/networks.htm

Montoute, Annita, Civil Society Participation in EPA – implementation: how to make the EPA joint CARICORUM-EC Consultative Committee work effectively? ECDPM Discussion Paper 119, 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/CRNM/ecdpm-discussion-paper-119-civil-society-participation-in-epa-implementation-how-to-make-the-epa-joint-cariforumec-consultative-committee-work-effectively

Naidoo, K.: Civil Society, Governance and Globalisation. Paper presented at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C., 2003. http://www.civicus.org/new/media/WorldBankSpeech.doc.

NANTS publications:

- The Comatose Nigerian Textile Sector. Impact on Food Security and Livelihoods. Abuja, 2011.

- Retracing Organic Agricultural Policy and Practice in Africa. Abuja, 2011 - Quality and Safety Standards in Agricultural Livelihoods in Nigeria. Abuja, 2011 - The Nigerian Small Scale Industry. A case study of Aba. Abuja, 2008 - Farm and Food. Towards food security and sustainable livelihoods. Issued by NANTS. No

date. - ECOWAS Vanguard. Issues for an ECOWAS of peoples. Issued by NANTS. No date.

Ramdoo, I. and A.Walker: Implementing the Economic Partnership Agreement in the East African Community and the CARIFORUM regions: What is in it for the private sector? ECDPM Discussion Paper 104, Maastricht: ECDPM, 2010. www.ecdpm.org/dp104.

Raynor, Jared: What Makes an Effective Coalition? Evidence-Based Indicators of Success, TCC group, The California Endowment, March 2011

http://www.mcf.org/system/article_resources/0000/1297/What_Makes_an_Effective_Coalition.pdf

Riles, Annelise: The Network Inside Out. Michigan, Univ. of Michigan Press, 2000

http://www.ong-ngo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RA-FIP-anglais-BD.pdf

http://www.ong-ngo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RA-FIP-anglais-BD.pdf

http://mande.co.uk/

http://www.mande.co.uk/networks.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/CRNM/ecdpm-discussion-paper-119-civil-society-participation-in-epa-implementation-how-to-make-the-epa-joint-cariforumec-consultative-committee-work-effectively



http://www.civicus.org/new/media/WorldBankSpeech.doc

http://www.ecdpm.org/dp104

http://www.mcf.org/system/article_resources/0000/1297/What_Makes_an_Effective_Coalition.pdf


13

Robertson, D.: Civil Society and the WTO. The World Economy 23 (9), 2000: 1119-1134

Smith, David Horten: "The Impact of the Volunteer Sector on Society" in: O'Connell, Brian (ed.), America's Voluntary Spirit: A Book of Readings. New York: Foundation Center, 1983, p. 331-44.

UNDP: A users guide to Civil Society Assessments. Oslo, UNDP, 2010

Willard, Terri and Heather Creech: Sustainability of International Development Networks; in: Review of IDRC Experience (1995-2005), International Institute for Sustainable Development, October 2006, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/networks_sus_int_dev.pdf.

Wilson Grau, Ricardo: Notes on the Challenges of Performance Evaluation in an International Network, web-based publication.

Wilson-Grau, Ricardo, and Martha Nuñez: Evaluating International Social Change Networks: A Conceptual Framework for a Participatory Approach, in: Development in Practice, 1364-9213, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 258 – 271.

Wilson-Grau, Ricardo: Evaluating the Effects of International Advocacy Networks. A paper presented at the Advocacy Impact Evaluation Workshop at the Evans School for Public Affairs, University of Washington, 4-6 December 2007, Seattle, WA, USA, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (available on internet)

Wood, Jacqueline and Karin Fällman, in: CIVICUS, 2013, the State of Civil Society, 2012

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/networks_sus_int_dev.pdf


14

4. List of persons interviewed

ACP Secretariat: - Ms. M. Dominique Raymond, Assistant Secretary General, African, Caribbean and Pacific

Group of States, Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, 451 Avenue Georges Henri, 1200 Brussels, Belgium

- Dr. D. Natallie Corrie-Kordas, Expert, Humanitarian Matters and Civil Society, Political Affairs and Human Development Department, Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, 451 Avenue Georges Henri, 1200 Brussels, Belgium

European Commission:

- Mr. Marco Sioli, Programme manager, External Relations, Regional Programme Sub-Saharan Africa and ACP wide, European Commission, DG for Development and Cooperation, EuropeAid, Rue de la Loi, 41, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

- Mr. Koen Rossel-Cambier, Social Development Attaché, EU Delegation for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, Tel: +1-2464348505

- Mr. John Stanley, Attaché, Head of Technical Office, European Union, Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific, Samoa, Tel.: +685-20070

ACP CSF Management:

- Mr. Lawman Layon Lynch, Chairperson - Mrs. Joyce van Genderen-Naar, Legal Advisor - Mr. Roosevelt King, Network Coordinator

ACP CSF Member organisations: Telephone/Skype consultations and interviews were held with 42 National Focal Points:

- Antigua and Barbuda - Bahamas - Barbados - Benin - Botswana - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cabo Verde - Côte d’Ivoire - Cuba - Dominican Republic - Ethiopia - Fiji - Gabon - Gambia - Ghana - Grenada - Guyana - Haiti - Jamaica - Kenya - Lesotho - Liberia - Madagascar


15

- Malawi - Mozambique - Namibia - Nigeria - Rwanda - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Samoa - Senegal - Seychelles - Sierra Leone - South Africa - Suriname - Swaziland - Tanzania - Trinidad and Tobago - Tchad - Tonga - Zambia

Regional Organisations: WAWA

Women Leaders:

- Ms. Marie Shaba, Tanzania - Ms. Ama Esso, Togo - Ms. Maimouna Dieng, Senegal - Ms. Betty Ubekau, WAWA - Ms. Bagaisi Mabilo, Botswana - Mme. Mady Annick, Côte d’Ivoire - Ms. Ruth Caesar, Liberia - Ms. Roberta Williams, Antigua and Barbuda - Ms. Sharda Ganga, Suriname - Ms. Jacqueline Lorice Pascal, Grenada - Ms. Roina Faatauvaa-Vavatau, Samoa - Ms. Joyce Naar, ACP Secretariat

Regional Focal Points and Field visits - Barbados Mr. Roosevelt King - St. Vincent Mr. Renwick Rose - Burundi Mr. Godefroid Manirankunda - Rwanda Mr. Edouard Munyamaliza - Seychelles Mr. Bernard Elizabeth - Namibia Mr. Michael Gaweseb - Nigeria Mr. Ken Ukaoha, Esq. - Tanzania Ms. Marie Shaba, Mr. Ngunga Tepani, Mr. Emanuel Mbwambo - Samoa Ms. Roina Faatauvaa-Vavatau, Mr. Percival Grant, Mr. Lemusu

Taviuni Fonoti

Government stakeholders: - Nigeria: Barr. Sunday Oghayei, Assistant Director, Dep. Of Trade, Federal Ministry of

Trade and Investement, Abuja, Skype: sunday.oghayei


16

- Burundi: Jean Claude Ntibaneneje, Conseiller du Ministre à la Présidence Chargée des Affaires de la Communauté Est Africaine, [email protected]

- Seychelles: Mrs. Jeanette D’Offay, National Project Director, Chairperson, Steering Committee 10th EDF Seychelles Governance Capacity Building Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [email protected]

Other Stakeholders / representatives of CSOs: Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Barbados, Samoa

Other key informants:

- Vera Divine, Consultant on Russia Partnership CSF - Lucas Maurer, Eastern Partnership CSF

5. Inception Report, Study on the ACP CSF

see separate document




17

6. Survey: Member organisations of the ACP CSF - Questionnaire

6.1. Questionnaire – English see separate document

6.2. Questionnaire – Français see separate document


18

7. Inventory of Factsheets on ACP CSF Member organisations see separate document


19

8. Inventory of Best Practices, ACP CSF National Focal Points. Outcome from Survey

ACP Civil Society Forum – Member Organisations Inventory of Best Practices

As reported in the Survey on Member Organisations

The Survey, in addition to the Inventory of Fact Sheets, produced an “Inventory of Best Practices” of Civil Society networks in the 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. They cover diverse areas like Poverty Alleviation, Economic Development, Social development, Human Rights, Good Governance and Peace Building.

Country Successful activity: Why is it successful: Result, impact: Belize Our microcredit programme It provides livelihoods for poor

individuals and households. At least one job created for every BZE $ 2,000.00 invested

Burkina Faso

Producing the Citizen Policy Review

Advocates for citizens Recognition by Government and donors

Burundi PACT-EAC Project (Promoting agriculture, climate and trade linkages in EAC)

Gathering Public institutions, academia, CSOs, PSOs and farmers' representatives

Publications, New producers structural organisations, on economically profitable agriculture

Cote d'Ivoire

Advocacy for Economic and Monetary Freedom

Mass Mobilization and Petition for reforms

Public debate totally changed in line with our position, official move towards our ideas before the government was overthrown by rebels during the post electoral crises in Cote d'Ivoire

Cuba workshops on food security, right to food, climate change and education for peace and human rights

Because many stake holders and government representatives have attended these workshops

Some recommendations have been implemented or at least have been accepted or recognized

Haiti lobbying regarding trade policies (especially FTAA and EPA / Training and awareness campaign / Campaign on public external debt issues

These campaigns mobilized a lot of people with a large participation of youth, artists and cultural groups with presence in carnival

Mentality changes, inclusion of the issues in national political debates

Jamaica Caribbean American Legislative Week

Engagement of Caribbean community towards development and lobbying for relevant legislation

Awareness

Malawi economic governance - economic literacy and budget accountability for governance

generated a lot of interest in the broader public and has helped demystify the policy process over the past decade

positive relationship and acknowledgement by government of civil society and general public as key partners in the development process; strong social accountability systems between government and civil society

Mozam-bique

Democracy and Good Governance, Internal and External Trade

Probably because it touches many people and interests, including those of Partners

People from the grass roots till up, are much more involved as time goes


20

Country Successful activity: Why is it successful: Result, impact: Namibia Taking the Namibian

government to court over demonstration ban

Unprecedented law to be changed

Nigeria Evidence-based advocacy, inclusivity and rights based approach in all interventions

Indubitable facts are clearly expressed for conviction

Required change is made much easier from the target group or beneficiaries

Regional Secretariat in St. Lucia

Training of Police Officers throughout the Caribbean in Domestic Violence Intervention and Prevention

Because there is a much better response from most Police Officer and greater awareness. The training manuals are still being used by Police training schools in the region

Reduction in badly handled cases of domestic violence and more effective intervention at many levels. Also better enforcement of existing laws

Seychelles implementation of the MOU between the State and Lungos

because we have been able to develop a good working relationship which allows for participation in policy dialogue and decision making at national level

we are participating in the socio-economic reforms initiated by the government with the support of IMF, through an economic reform social project which has now become a programme

Rwanda Advocacy on Policy Formulation / Change

It impacts on people's lives Citizens' active participation in governance achieved

Samoa sharing knowledge and experience to enable effective action and policy development

Allows us to present our issues to the partners

review of policy positions

South Africa

National NGO Assembly NGO-weeks are held bi-annually

Election of National Executive Committee

St Vincent and the Grenadines

Achieving fair trade certification and maintaining banana market in UK

Because without it, banana industry would have collapsed

Fairer prices for farmers; access to fair-trade premiums for community development projects; empowerment

Swaziland Accountability to our members

We are a membership organisation and our members have really supported us in most initiatives.

Better coordinated NGO society.

Tanzania Public Partnership Dialogue-PPDs

Because we use local area networks-District networks

Monitoring committees are functional

The Gambia

Advocacy on human rights, and good governance

create awareness in our communities

ask for their rights

Tonga submission for political reform

This bought the civil society sector together to set common goals

most of our recommendations were accepted & implemented; we took part in the national consultation on these issues

Trinidad and Tobago

building the Core Group because we have responsible willing people who work without being paid, as money is not the driving force

having a sound management.

Uganda Gender and Trade Improved income, improved livelihoods

More women using legal routes to trade rather than illegal cross border routes where costs are even higher indirectly

Zimbabwe Peace building NANGO collaborated with the churches, the private sector, communities, NGOs and the government to build a solid foundation for peace and reconciliation in the country

We are still working on dealing with the peace process but the operational, legal and institutional framework has been established to deal with this sensitive issue.


21

Country Successful activity: Why is it successful: Result, impact: ACP CSF Bureau

dissemination of information

through information, awareness and capacities of the organizations are built

implementation of the ACP-EU procedures and involvement in the development process

Antigua and Barbuda

small enterprise development, technical vocational training for youth

excellent and proven holistic curriculum, well trained and committed tutors, innovative teaching methods, counseling

51% vocational trainees gained jobs, 94% of trainees gained more self confidence

Barbados Negotiation for and establishment of the Non State Actors Advisory Panel

It was the first time that NGOs had reached the level of organisation and gained the trust of the NGO Sector for it to accept its participation in the implementation stage of Development Cooperation

More of civil society participating in the implementation stage of national development

Côte d’Ivoire

defend freedom of movement

reduction of police roadblocks it promoted the movement of people and goods

Fiji Coordination of civil society organisations

we are coordinating 22 countries umbrella organizations in the Pacific

very positive

Marshall Islands

building capacity of small NGOs


22

Quelles est l’activité que vous considérez comme activité réussie ('bonne pratique') au sein de votre organisation? Pourquoi est-elle considérée comme activité réussie ? Veuillez mentionner un résultat ou impact de cette activité ?

Pays: Activité réussie: Pourquoi dites-vous qu’elle est réussie:

Résultat, impact de cette activité:

Angola Réduction de la pauvreté Bonne participation de la société en ce qui concerne le plaidoyer.

Prise en compte des contributions par les décideurs

Bénin Mise en place de la dynamique des Organisations de la Société Civile d'Afrique Francophone

Il y a l'émergence d'un consensus et d'une voix africaines sur les enjeux liés à la mise en gouvernance économique (commerce, investissement, responsabilité sociétale des entreprises et efficacité du développement

Mise en place des points focaux nationaux qui s'approprient ces questions

CAP VERT Foire promotionnel des petites entreprises avec les enfoques dans l´agriculture et élevage

Les résultats déjà mesurables Activité génératrices de revenus et nombre des promoteurs réussies chaine petites entreprises

Cameroun Adoption du code d'éthique dans le processus de promotion de la gouvernance

Adoption par une cinquantaine d'organisations

Le code est utilisé comme guide par les Organisations signataires

KINSHASA/RD CONGO

Identification des plateformes nationales pour l'élargissement du réseau

la région compte beaucoup des plateformes nationales mais le questionnaire utilisé permet une harmonisation de toutes

8 pays se sont adhérés au réseau; 1 pays non membre de l'Afrique Centrale s'est intéressé à faire partie du réseau et deux autres pays de la région ont introduis leur demande d'adhésion et le processus de leur adhésion est en cours.

Madagascar Eau, Assainissement, Hygiène

Augmentation du nombre de familles ayant accès à l'eau potable et à l'assainissement

Mise en place Ministère de l'Eau, reformulation de la Politique de l'eau à Madagascar

Niger Campagne contre les APE et pour une Intégration Régionale comme alternative en Afrique de l’Ouest

LES NEGOCIATIONS ETAIENT OBLIGEES DE DIFFERER LA SIGNATURE DES APE

REPORT ET LA PRISE EN COMPTE DES PREOCCUPATIONS DES COMMUNAUTES

Rep de Djibouti

la formation en gestion des projets en approche participative aux organisations communautaires de bases des différentes localités de la république de Djibouti

car après ces actions de formations les dirigeants de ces localités sont capables de monter leurs projets développements locaux

grâce à cette approche inclusive ils ont mobilisé deux fois plus de fonds de financement et d'aide qu'auparavant

République du Congo

Renforcement des capacités institutionnelles et opérationnelles du CCOD et de ses ONG membres

Appropriation par les ONG, Changement de comportement dans la gestion institutionnelle et organisationnelle du CCOD et ONG membres

Au moins 50% des ONG membres tienne régulièrement les assemblées générales, le CCOD tient régulièrement ses assemblées

Togo Commerce entre les ACP l'AO n'a pas signé les APE à Pays Conforme à ITIE


23

Pays: Activité réussie: Pourquoi dites-vous qu’elle est réussie:

Résultat, impact de cette activité:

et UE (APE), Transparence et lutte contre la corruption, Education

cause de la mobilisation au plan national, régional et international des OSC, pour la transparence et lutte contre la corruption, il y a volonté manifeste du Gouvernement et les entreprises à mieux communiquer et à rende compte aux bénéficiaires

Guinée-Bissau

L'université des acteurs non étatiques

elle a pu réunir l'ensemble des acteurs non étatiques, étatiques, universitaires sur une trentaine de panels, une exposition des porteurs d'expérience et a été officiellement ouverte par le Premier Ministre du Sénégal, le Ministre de la Promotion de la Bonne gouvernance et la Chef de Délégation de l'UE au Sénégal

création d'un cadre 'échanges multi-acteurs sur les politiques publiques, reconnaissance du rôle des acteurs non étatiques dans la contribution au politiques publiques, élaboration d'un Cahier des recommandations des citoyens sur les politiques publiques et la participation citoyenne remis officiellement au Ministre de la Promotion de la Bonne gouvernance à la clôture de l'Université

République Centrafricaine

Plaidoyer sur la bonne gouvernance et la redevabilité

Parce que la population semble percevoir cela

Quelques changements constatés

Sénégal Recherche action au profit de la communauté

changement de Comportement, Attitude et Pratique


24

9. Impact Areas

This study identified 6 dimensions of impact113 where ACP CSF member organisations demonstrate a considerable track record114. In each of these areas at least ten ACP CSF national platforms have been identified (within the limitations of this study) with extensive experience. This study produced an inventory of these.

The impact dimension is reflected in various qualitative indicators (and proxy indicators) establishing a broad notion of impact. The areas of impact of the National Focal Points are:

1. Influencing public policy: The ACP Civil Society network includes a number of organisations that have a track record in influencing public policy, e.g. in trade policies, national budget processes, human rights and social policy issues. This includes countries where CSOs are invited to give advice as well as countries where CSO have enforced transformation of public policy through public mobilisation or legal action. ¾ Examples: Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Madagascar,

Togo, Guinee Bissao, Barbados, St Vincent, Ghana.

2. Holding State accountable, setting Good Governance standards for the Civil Society sector: There are many examples of ACP CSF platforms playing a role as “watchdog”, holding the state and private corporations accountable. Some ACP CSF members have a powerful track record in this area. Another important area is: setting Good Governance standards for the Civil Society Sector (Code of Conduct, Ethical Code) and holding CSOs accountable – this is an area where SCP CSF is actually, given its unique position, ‘best placed’. This study found several examples of ACP CSF networks playing a prominent role in developing Good Governance standards for the CS sector. ¾ Examples: Nigeria, Namibia, Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, Cameroun, Niger, RD Congo,

République Centrafricaine, Sénégal, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Togo, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Timor Leste.

3. Responding to social interests:

This study concludes that the ACP CSF network consists of CSOs that have a clear ‘grounding’ in society. The ACP CSF organisations function as a “representative” or “articulator” of societal interests. They effectively respond to priority social concerns and they merit a considerable level of public trust in civil society. This study did not find any evidence of “elitist” types of civil society organisations, that are 'out-of-touch' with citizens, within the network. ¾ Examples of organisations responding to social interests: Tanzania, Rwanda, The

Gambia, Belize, St. Vincent, Trinidad & Tobago, Ethiopia, Liberia, Benin, Guyana, Suriname.

4. Empowering citizens: The ACP Civil Society network includes a great number of organisations that have made considerable contributions if not impact on empowering citizens in their country.

113 For a discussion on impact of civil society organisations see Smith, David Horten, 1983: "The Impact of the Volunteer Sector on Society" in: O'Connell, Brian (ed.), America's Voluntary Spirit: A Book of Readings. New York: Foundation Center, 331-44; and Fowler, Alan, 1999: "Advocacy and Third Sector Organizations: A Composite Perspective" in: Lewis, Dav18 id (ed.), International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector, London: Earthscan, 242-57. 114 These impact dimensions make use of the (5) impact dimensions proposed for the CIVICUS CSI Framework, see CIVICUS 2004, p. 22


25

Empowerment can be defined as a process whereby citizens have more choice and are able to take more control over decisions that affect their lives. Additional indicators look specifically at the empowerment of two traditionally marginalised social groups - women and poor people. ¾ Examples: Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Ghana, RD Congo Kinshasa,

St Lucia, Barbados, Marshall Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Samoa.

5. Meeting societal needs: The ACP CSF network includes more than 30 organisations with a strong profile on ‘meeting societal needs’. An essential role of civil society is its contribution to meeting pressing societal needs, particularly those of poor people and other marginalised groups. This dimension looks at civil society's performance in meeting these needs directly (e.g. through promoting self-help initiatives or delivering services) and in lobbying the state for improved service provision. ¾ Examples: Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Cabo Verde, Madagascar,

Djibouti, Belize, St Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Gabon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tchad, Cuba, Guyana, Samoa.

6. Influencing international development policies: This study has documented several examples of ACP CSF platforms that have a track record in influencing development policies or donor policies including in specific sectors like Trade, Agriculture, External Debt policies, Food security, Gender and Women, Development funding, Civil society support, Climate change, Water management. ¾ Examples: Nigeria, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Togo,

Seychelles, Benin, Haiti, Samoa, Kiribati, Fiji.


26

10. Main Regional networks in which ACP CSF members collaborate

Key Regional Networks and Regional Institutions

in which ACP Civil Society Forum members cooperate

Outcome from Survey on ACP CSF Member organisations As per the response from member organisations

They include Regional Economic Communities. They include all regional NGO networks, Regional NGO-Cotonou platforms, Regional Non State Actors Panels on EU-NGO-Government collaboration, Regional networks for Aid effectiveness and social accountability, Regional Trade networks, Regional Entrepreneurs organisations, Regional Women’s networks, Regional sectoral / thematic platforms, Regional programmes at UN level, Regional Church Platform.

ACCP - Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police

ACFM

AFDB

AFFILIATED NETWORK FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

AFRICA TRADE NETWORK

AFRODAD

AU

AU ECOSOCC

BANGO

CAFRA - Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action

CARDI

Caribbean Farmers Network

Caribbean Group of Youth Business Trusts

Caribbean Civil Society Network for Aid Effectiveness

Caribbean Non State Actors Panel

CARICOM - Caribbean Community

CIVICUS

Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness

COASAD Coalition of African Organizations for Food Security, Sovereignty and Sustainable Development

COI

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

CONCORD

CONGAD

COTED

CPDC - Caribbean Policy Development Centre

CRFM

CSA - Caribbean Studies Association


27

EACSOF in EAC - East African Civil Society Organizations' Forum

ECCAS - Economic Community of Central African States - (Fr: CEEAC)

ECOWAS - Economic Community Of West African States (Fr: CEDEAO)

ENDA: Cacid

FIP

FOPAO - Fédération des Organisations Patronales de l'Afrique de l'Ouest

FOSCAO - FOSCAO [Forum des Organisations de la Société Civile de l’Afrique de l’Ouest

GRAPAD

ICSW

IGAD

IGOs in ECOWAS

IICA

Indian Ocean Commission

Network of Central African NGO Platforms

OCES Secretariat

OSISA

Pacific Island Forum

PANG Pacific Network on Globalization

PIANGO -Pacific Island Association of Non Government Organizations

PRNGO - Pacific Islands Regional Non-governmental Organizations

PIPSO

Plate-forme régionale Cotonou / ACP

PNLP

POSCAO-AC - Platform of West African Civil Society Organizations on the Cotonou Agreement

POSER

PRNGO

PROPOAC

OSCAF

Regional Council of Churches

REPAOC - Réseau des plates-formes d’ONG d’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre

REPONGAC - Réseau des plates-formes nationales d'ONG d'Afrique Centrale

SADC Council of NGOs (SADC CNGO)

SADC Civil Society

UNDP – regional programmes

UN Economic Commission for Africa (Bureau for Central Africa)

UEMOA - West African Economic and Monetary Union

USYAC

UWI

WACSI (in Ghana)

WAWA

Zimbabwean Elections Network

Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum€¦ · 3. Analysis of the relations among the organisations....

Documents

Transcript of Study on the ACP Civil Society Forum€¦ · 3. Analysis of the relations among the organisations....