Action Fiche for Eastern Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility 2012 and 2013 1. IDENTIFICATION Title/Number Special measure: Eastern Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility 2012 and 2013 CRIS: 2012/024-279 Total cost EU contribution: EUR 23,380,434.00 under 19 08 01 03 EUR 13,380,434.00 from the 2012 budget EUR 10,000,000 from the 2013 budget, subject to the approval of the 2013 Budget by the Budgetary Authority and effective availability of appropriations Aid method / Method of implementation Project approach direct centralised management DAC-code 15150 Sector Strengthening of civil society 2. RATIONALE 2.1. Sector context Civil society actors play an important role in the development, implementation and monitoring of national reforms in general and in the success of development aid policies and programmes supporting them. The Joint Communication on A new response to a changing Neighbourhood 1 of May 2011, the culmination of a comprehensive review of the European Neighbourhood Policy launched in 2010, outlined a new approach towards EU s neighbours to the East and South, based on mutual accountability and a shared commitment to respecting universal values, international human rights standards, democracy and the rule of law. Acknowledging civil society s role to contribute to policy-making and hold governments to account, the Communication committed to supporting a greater role for civil society actors through a partnership with societies, helping civil society actors develop their advocacy capacity, the ability to monitor reform and their role in implementing, monitoring and evaluating EU programmes. It also envisaged more intensive engagement with all stakeholders already involved in the implementation of the Eastern Partnership (EaP), including the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (a forum bringing together civil society actors from the Eastern Partnership countries and EU Member States) and its national platforms. While the national platforms have an important role to play in bilateral cooperation, the Forum is an active actor in the EaP multilateral cooperation. Taking into account the development in recent years of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, particular attention will be given to strengthening the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum national platforms and the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum itself. 1 COM(2011)303 1
Finally, the Communication 2 proposed the establishment of a Civil Society Facility to provide funding for civil society actors. The Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility (hereafter referred to as the Facility) attempts to move beyond simply providing financial support to civil society organisations (CSO), towards enhancing engagement with civil society and increasing its involvement in the policy dialogue at the country level. The Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility addresses three main aspects: Strengthening civil society actors' capacities to promote national reform and increase public accountability, to enable them to become stronger actors in driving reform at national level and stronger partners in the implementation of ENP objectives. Strengthening civil society actors through support to regional and country projects, by supplementing the funding available through thematic programmes and instruments. Increasing involvement of civil society actors in selected EU-partner countries policy dialogues and in the implementation of bilateral programmes. In 2011 funding through the Facility was directed to support CSO-led projects at regional and local level, as well as to support the development of CSOs' capacities in the Neighbourhood region. In 2012 and 2013 the implementation of the Facility will focus on contributing primarily to a stronger engagement with civil society actors in bilateral cooperation, in particular sector support programmes, including those implemented through budget support. One year after the review of the Neighbourhood policy, the Eastern Partnership: A Roadmap to the autumn 2013 summit published in May 2012 3 reaffirms the need to strengthen EU support for civil society in Eastern Partnership countries and underlines that civil society is expected to facilitate the transformation of partner countries by advocating reforms and by fostering the Eastern Partnership s values. The Joint Communication emphasizes that civil society input is crucial in monitoring the implementation of the Eastern Partnership and the pace of reforms in partner countries. It also underlined the important role that the Civil Society Forum and its national platforms are expected to play in achieving the Partnership s goals and monitoring the implementation of the Roadmap itself. In 2010 the European Commission launched the Structured Dialogue 4 strategic process aimed at defining and agreeing on the roles of civil society and local authorities in development, improving the effectiveness of their involvement in aid activities and exploring ways to adapt EU aid modalities to increase the impact of its development programmes. Building on the Structured Dialogue, the Communication on "An Agenda for Change" 5 called upon the EU to "strengthen its links with civil society organisations" and "support the emergence of an organised local civil society able to act as a watchdog and partner in dialogue with national governments". 2 Idem. 3 http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/docs/2012_enp_pack/e_pship_roadmap_en.pdf 4 The complete list of recommendations of the Structured Dialogue is available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/images/e/ea/final_concluding_paper.pdf 5 COM (2011 637) and Council Conclusions Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change, 3166th Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 14.05.2012 2
The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 6 also underlined the role of civil society in shaping development policies and partnerships and overseeing their implementation, as well as providing services in areas that are complementary to those provided by states. The participation of civil society actors in the development process is more than an instrument for improving aid effectiveness. Engaging civil society actors in new aid modalities is about giving people a voice and a role in their own development. It is about constructing social capital, democratic societies and accountable states 7. The challenge ahead is to better connect the aid effectiveness agenda with participatory development principles 8. Due to its potential to contribute to the improvement of aid effectiveness such as improved harmonisation, ownership and alignment, budget support 9 is used increasingly as the preferred aid modality' of the EU. Budget support goes beyond financial support to partner governments, to include policy dialogue, performance assessments and capacity-building. The recent "Communication on the future of EU Budget Support to Third Countries" (2011) strongly reaffirmed the role of CSOs and underlines that particular attention should be paid to facilitating CSOs' oversight role, when using budget support. A new eligibility criterion on transparency and oversight of the budget is now used to assess whether partner countries are suitable to receive budget support. The criterion focuses on whether comprehensive and sound budgetary information is made available in a timely manner. The inclusion of this new criterion should allow civil society organisations to better hold decision makers to account. Using budget support as an aid modality may at first sight seem to pose more problems to the involvement of civil society than project-based approaches. Discussions on budget support can involve negotiation on a range of technical issues, requiring specialist skills in macroeconomic analysis, budget analysis and public expenditure tracking. This may create a serious barrier for civil society actors to participate in a meaningful way. In fact it offers a new set of opportunities to civil society actors, provided that certain conditions are met. In order to find mechanisms to engage with CSOs in the implementation of budget support operations, and of sector support programmes more broadly, it is necessary to assess the extent to which these conditions are met in partner countries and to then address those problems which hinder CSO involvement. The 2011 CSO Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia (a very recent assessment of the CSO situation in partner countries), published by USAID 10, shows that the situation slightly improved in some partner countries (like the Republic of Moldova), but it worsened in others (like Azerbaijan), making it difficult to describe the situation of CSOs in the region without clear national references. On those aspects which are particularly relevant to involving civil society in policy-making, the following has been observed: 6 http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/images/stories/hlf4/outcome_document_-_final_en.pdf 7 Commission Reference Document no.12: "Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities for Better Development Outcomes and Governance", January 2011 8 Idem 9 Budget support is defined as the transfer of financial resources of an external financing agency to the national treasury of a partner country. Any transfer is always made after the agreed conditions for payment have been respected. 10 http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/ 3
Civil society organisations as experts and monitors: in Armenia, CSOs were sometimes involved as experts and monitors for the government in areas such as anticorruption, environment, education, and health. In Azerbaijan, although the government still has a cautious approach to cooperation with CSOs on national projects and in the decision-making process, there were some examples of CSO involvement in drafting legislation on less sensitive issues. Belarusian CSOs disseminated their expertise internationally through the development of alternative reports on important issues. In Georgia, CSOs participated in public discussions and reviewed the draft elections code, one of the government s key priorities in light of the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012 and 2013. In Moldova, civil society advocacy efforts were strengthened as a result of the work of the National Participation Council (CNP), which was created in 2010 at the initiative of the government. The role of the Council, which includes thirty CSO representatives, is to serve as a permanent platform for dialogue and consultation between CSOs and the government on the development of public policies. Civil society organisations in advocacy: CSO advocacy capacity has slightly increased during the last year, with some minor differences from one partner country to another. For example, in Georgia, a CSO advocacy campaign succeeded in improving the regulation of taxes on CSO income from dividends. In Ukraine, CSOs conducted successful advocacy campaigns at both the national and local levels. Civil society organisations in service provision: in Armenia, the majority of services provided by CSOs focused on working with vulnerable groups; providing legal, social, and medical assistance; and offering informal education and capacity building in various fields. In Belarus, CSOs provide a diverse range of services, in areas such as informal education, employment and rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, prevention of HIV, activities for youth, international exchange visits, psychological and social support for vulnerable groups, environmental actions, and legal assistance. In Georgia, CSOs continue to offer a variety of services to the public, business, and government in areas such as education, health care, social welfare, and legal aid. In Moldova, CSOs are still most active in the social, health, and educational sectors, while services related to regional and economic development, especially outside of the capital, have also increased. In Ukraine, the range of services provided by CSOs is expanding and a growing number of service providers disseminate information about their services and actively promote their work. Perception of Civil society organisations by government officials and the public: in Azerbaijan, government officials have a low opinion of CSOs. In Armenia, they also seem to have a negative opinion of CSOs, mainly as a result of CSO advocacy campaigns. In addition, many CSOs are perceived as profit-seeking and lacking the necessary capacities and skills to affect policies. In Georgia, CSOs public image improved slightly over the past year, as CSOs have become more vocal in voicing their support or criticism of social, legal, and human rights, as well as environmental developments in the country. However, the public does not consider CSOs as a real source of expertise and advice. In Ukraine, public authorities are becoming more aware of civil society, and have begun cooperating with CSOs at local and national levels. 4
Capacities: CSOs are gradually expanding their capacities, although there is still a need to increase the number and quality of trainings. One common trend seems to be that most trainings are organised in the capitals, making it difficult for local organisations to attend. Use of data and link to constituencies: in Armenia, CSO service providers began to use a more participatory approach to improve their responsiveness to community needs, although there is still considerable room for improvement in this area. In Azerbaijan, few CSOs assessed the needs of their target groups, choosing to follow priorities defined by donor organisations instead. In Belarus, an increased number of CSOs used surveys to identify the needs of their constituencies. In Moldova, more organisations now actively seek to build their constituencies using various tools to foster public involvement, such as community gatherings, CSO fairs, constituentbased research, and public policy debates. In Ukraine, CSOs, particularly those involved in advocacy-related activities, are now more connected to their constituencies and rely on them more for support. CSOs are starting to understand the importance of engaging the public in their activities, not only as clients and beneficiaries, but as contributors in the development of projects. 2.2. Lessons learnt Although the implementation of the 2011 Facility funds have not yet given visible effects on the ground, there are several lessons learnt which might be drawn in particular from the calls for proposals launched both at regional and local level in 2011-2012. In 2011, the Facility package consisted of capacity building activities to be implemented through a technical assistance contract, a regional call for proposals to support regional CSOled projects and various local calls for proposals launched by EU Delegations. The regional call for proposals (ref. 131140), with a budget of EUR 5 million for the Neighbourhood East, had two main objectives: strengthening regional, continental or global networks of CSOs; supporting concrete civil society projects of a regional nature aiming to promote the reinforcement of an enabling environment for CSOs or support the political priorities of the Eastern Partnership. A high number of proposals were received for the entire Neighbourhood, a significant proportion being of a good and very good quality. Given the size of the budget allocated, it seems the indicative final success rate will be around 10%. This shows the high absorption capacity of CSOs from the region and the extent to which very good proposals could be financed, provided that additional budget is made available. Country focused calls for proposals have also been launched by the EU Delegations in all partner countries, addressing objectives ranging from involving CSOs in local selfgovernance reforms to CSO monitoring of the implementation of public administrative reform and anti-corruption policies. In Azerbaijan, the call aimed to increase the role of civil society in supporting oversight functions on public finance policy and management and to improve public understanding and participation in the budgetary process, thus setting the ground for addressing the specific objectives of the Facility in 2012 and 2013. 5
Some Delegations chose to join the budgets under the Facility with those under the Non-State Actors and Local Authorities (NSA-LA) thematic programme, to achieve economies of scale, a bigger impact and to better streamline EU activities in partner countries. However, in some cases, this proved to be more complex and difficult for applicants to follow, mostly due to the different provisions underpinning the different legal bases of the two programmes (especially regarding taxes). These provisions having in the meantime been harmonized, the eventual complexity of the guidelines can relatively easily be addressed through better and more coordinated communication campaigns both at the level of Delegations and Headquarters. The main lesson to be drawn from the experience of the past year is the fact that the absorption capacity of CSOs was very high, which goes to prove that despite donors' efforts, CSOs in the region still lack funding. Last but not least, the 2011 experience also showed that, given the diversity of the civil society landscape in the East and South Neighbourhood, splitting the Facility into an Eastern component and a Southern component would make it more manageable and effective, while keeping the same overall objective for which the Facility had been created in 2011. 2.3. Complementary actions The Eastern Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility gives a coherent and strategic approach to a range of activities directly or indirectly targeting civil society actors in the Neighbourhood region. It therefore: (i) enhances the visibility of CSO-oriented geographic and thematic programmes planned under the 2011-2013 exercise; (ii) complements these activities in areas and/or countries where the involvement of the EU could be strengthened in terms of engagement with civil society actors. The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and thematic programmes under the Development Co-operation Instrument 11 Migration and Asylum and Environment and Natural Resources have a global coverage and are implemented largely through calls for proposals under which applicants, mainly civil society, have a right of initiative. The EIDHR and NSA-LA programmes are also partly implemented through local calls for proposals launched at national level by EU Delegations. In the implementation of this initiative, complementarity will be ensured with existing support through EIDHR, the NSA-LA and other thematic programmes, as to the objectives and types of projects to be supported, both at country and regional level. The activities of other donors directed towards supporting civil society, notably EU Member States (like SIDA), other international organisations (like the World Bank) or development agencies (like USAID), will be taken into account. 2.4. Donor coordination Various support mechanisms and initiatives for civil society and non-state actors are already implemented by Member States and other donors in Neighbourhood countries. Further 11 The relevant thematic programmes are: Non-state Actors and Local Authorities NSA-LA, Investing in People, Migration and Asylum, Environment and Natural Resources. 6
development of the concrete activities under the Facility at implementation stage will have to take into account specific donor initiatives in each of the countries and to avoid overlap. EU Delegations will keep other donors informed of progress under the Facility in the context of country-level donor coordination groups. Among others the mapping exercise to be carried out under the 2011-funded technical assistance contract will offer a better picture of the CSOs landscape and of the different on-going initiatives related to support to civil society. EU Delegations will keep other donors informed of progress under the Facility in the context of country-level donor coordination groups. 3. DESCRIPTION 3.1. Objectives The overall objective of the Eastern Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility is to strengthen and promote civil society's role in reforms and democratic changes taking place in the Eastern Neighbourhood countries, through increased participation in the fulfilment of Neighbourhood Policy objectives. The Facility will pursue the following specific objectives: To strengthen CSOs capacities to promote reform and increase public accountability, including to increase the understanding and knowledge by CSOs of EU (ENP) policy instruments and programmes, new aid modalities, EU procedures and improving CSO s technical skills to respond to calls for proposals; To increase interaction between CSOs and authorities at the national level and local level; To increase CSOs involvement in programming, implementation and monitoring of EU assistance and policies in the region, in particular to facilitate civil society actor s participation in (selected) sector policy dialogues between the EU and the partner countries; In 2012 and 2013 the focus will be on a stronger engagement with civil society in the implementation of bilateral cooperation, in particular sector support programmes and budget support operations, in order to ensure that: reforms reflect local priorities, social services are improved, corruption is reduced, and citizens can see the tangible results of their civic participation. 3.2. Expected results and main activities There is significant potential for civil society to contribute to the implementation of sector support programmes through stronger engagement alongside all stages of the programming cycle. Depending on this, the involvement of CSOs may take different forms. During the programming stage, CSOs could: 1. Contribute to the country analysis (a good entry point for CSOs); 2. Participate in the definition of national strategies and sectoral policies. 7
During identification and formulation, CSOs could: 1. Contribute to the country or sector analysis; 2. Participate in the definition of sector policy; 3. Participate in the definition of performance criteria and related monitoring systems; 4. Contribute to the assessment of the eligibility criteria. During implementation, CSOs could: 1. Support the production of local evidence on key issues of service delivery (quantity, access, quality, equity) with a view to feed both national policy processes and donor related support schemes; 2. Deliver social services; 3. Participate in multi-stakeholder policy dialogues. During monitoring, CSOs could: 1. Participate in performance monitoring processes (the most popular entry point for the participation of civil society actors in budget support) 12; 2. Participate in budget monitoring; 3. Evaluate policies based on user consultations; 4. Participate in review processes. The above represents only a selection of the possible entry points available. The extent to which genuine engagement with civil society in any of these stages will happen will depend on the characteristics of the particular sector of intervention, of the capacity of civil society in a particular field, and will be up to each EU Delegation to assess. An important element of CSO involvement at all stages should be the collection of evidence (data) at local level which would not only help address the problem of a limited connection of CSOs to their constituencies, but should also contribute to increasing the quality of CSO expertise and their legitimacy towards the government. In turn this would increase the chances of having recommendations taken into account during the policy-making process. Taking the above stages as guidance, possible activities to be supported through the Facility, and corresponding expected results, could include (non-exhaustive list): 1. Indicative results linked to the involvement of civil society organisations in the programming stage: R1.1: The capacity of CSOs to contribute to country analyses is increased. Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs on political reporting and analysis, exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings, support to CSO projects contributing to country analyses, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. 12 EC Reference Document no.12: "Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities for Better Development Outcomes and Governance", January 2011, p. 56. 8
R1.2: CSOs are more often involved in defining national strategies, including associated budgets. Proposed activities: capacity building for public authorities on how to better involve CSOs in policy-making, support to CSO advocacy projects, organisation of multi-stakeholder meetings, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. 2. Indicative results linked to the involvement of civil society organisations in the identification and formulation stage: R2.1: The capacity of CSOs to contribute to sector analyses is improved. Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs on sectoral analysis, exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings, support to CSO projects contributing to sectoral analyses, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. R2.2: Public authorities involve civil society actors in sector analyses and the definition of sectoral policies and associated budgets more often. Proposed activities: capacity building for public authorities on how to better involve CSOs in policy-making, support to CSO advocacy projects, organisation of multi-stakeholder meetings. R2.3: CSOs have increased capacity to meaningfully participate in the definition of performance criteria and related monitoring systems; Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs on monitoring, exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings, support to CSO projects on monitoring, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. R2.4: Civil society actors are able (have the capacity and 'space') to contribute to the assessment of the eligibility criteria for budget support operations. Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs, exchange of best practices, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. 3. Indicative results linked to the involvement of civil society organisations in the implementation stage: R3.1: CSOs have increased capacity and resources (financial and human resources) to support the production of local evidence on key issues of service delivery (quantity, access, quality, equity); Proposed activities: support to CSO projects on data collection and analysis for policymaking; trainings for CSOs on quantitative and qualitative research methods (user-based surveys, citizens' questionnaires, citizen report cards, direct observation, interviews, focus groups, etc.), exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings. R3.2: CSOs have an increased capacity to draft recommendations based on findings and to organise evidence-based advocacy campaigns informed by local needs; 9
Proposed activities: trainings on data analysis and on evidence-based advocacy, exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings, support to evidence-based advocacy campaigns. R3.3: National and local public authorities use more often the evidence provided by CSOs in their policy-making and incorporate to a larger extent CSOs' recommendations in their policies; Proposed activities: capacity building for public authorities on evidence-based policy making and engaging CSOs in their work, support to CSO advocacy projects. R3.4: More CSOs have the capacity to deliver good quality social services; Proposed activities: support to public opinion surveys on the quality of services, CSO led projects for service delivery (if clearly linked to a bilateral assistance programme), in particular innovative approaches from CSOs aiming at supporting and setting up services in the field of economic development, exchange of best practices, CSO twinnings. R3.5: Public authorities delegate the delivery of social services to CSOs when this is most appropriate; Proposed activities: support provided to public authorities on the legislative aspects of service delivery. R 3.6: CSOs have an increased capacity to participate in multi-stakeholder policy dialogues. Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs on negotiation skills, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying, support for the organisation of multi-stakeholder meetings. R3.7: Public authorities have a more favourable attitude towards CSOs and involve them in multi-stakeholder consultations more often. Proposed activities: support to campaigns improving the image of CSOs in partner countries, trainings for public authorities on how to involve CSOs in policy-making, support for the organisation of multi-stakeholder meetings. 4. Indicative results linked to the involvement of civil society organisations in the monitoring and evaluation stage: R4.1: CSOs have an increased capacity to participate in performance, budget monitoring and review processes (the most popular entry point for the participation of civil society actors in budget support) 13 ; Proposed activities: trainings for CSOs on budget literacy and analysis, trainings on understanding the budgetary process, support to CSO projects aiming to check the delivery and quality of public services, support to CSO budget advocacy projects (both aiming to make the budgetary process itself more transparent or aiming to reflect local priorities in the 13 EC Reference Document no.12: "Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities for Better Development Outcomes and Governance", January 2011, p. 56 10
budget), support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying, exchange of best practices on budget monitoring, support to CSO projects aiming to draft shadow reports on government performance. R4.2: CSOs are more often involved in performance and budget monitoring; Proposed activities: support to CSO led pro-poor expenditure tracking, support to CSO projects observing the implementation of policies and conducting citizen-based service delivery evaluations to ensure quality, trainings for CSOs on budget monitoring, support to CSO projects monitoring public procurement. R4.3: CSOs have an increased capacity to provide good quality evidence-based evaluations of policies based on user consultations; Proposed activities: support to CSO projects on data collection and analysis; trainings for CSOs on quantitative and qualitative research methods, support to CSO projects on evidencebased evaluations of policies. R4.4: The findings of involved CSOs more often translate into concrete actions taken by public authorities. Proposed activities: support to CSO advocacy campaigns, capacity building for public authorities on engaging CSOs in their work, support to strengthened networks of civil society actors that may facilitate coordination and lobbying. A more structured civil society carries more weight and has a higher chance of influencing policy-making at national level. Thus, support under the Facility will also take into account the potential of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum and of its national platforms to contribute to this process. Both in 2012 and 2013 the proposed activities will be implemented through calls for proposals launched both by Commission headquarters and through EU Delegations. Past experience with implementation of thematic programmes in the ENP region and the very recent experience of the 2011 calls for proposals under the Facility show a high absorption capacity of civil society actors. Increased support is needed for civil society, especially to develop their advocacy capacity and their ability to monitor reform. Financial allocations under the Facility for each country take into account the budget already received for implementation by each Delegation under the country-based support schemes of the EIDHR and NSA-LA thematic programmes, based on an assessment of each EU delegation of the absorption capacity in the country and civil society needs and potential of engagement in the implementation of sector support programmes. EU Delegations will have the possibility to launch joint local calls for proposals under this Facility, with those planned under the EIDHR or the NSA-LA thematic programmes. This may include also the possibility of having different lots for each specific programme/instrument. In 2013, the Facility will also include calls for proposals at regional level (managed by Headquarters) for the creation of twinning programmes between civil society actors and for the implementation of capacity building activities for CSOs (in particular on budgetary 11
analysis and monitoring) and public authorities (on budget transparency and how to involve CSOs in policy-making). 3.3. Risks and assumptions In order to allow for the involvement of civil society actors in bilateral cooperation and the budgetary processes at national level, the following assumptions have to hold true: There must be political stability in the region; At least the basic elements of an enabling environment must exist in the partner countries (including a certain degree of freedom of association); Civil society actors should have proper internal governance mechanisms; Civil society actors need to have some access to information on policies and the functioning of the legislative and budgetary processes; Public authorities must consider that CSO involvement in policy-making can bring added-value; CSOs must be interested in engaging in policy dialogues; The government must allow at least some 'space' for the involvement and intervention of civil society; CSOs must have at least some basic capacities allowing them to interact with international donors and their own government; There must be some accountability mechanisms in place allowing civil society to hold government to account for its actions. The risk of deterioration of the working environment for civil society actors will find a certain measure of mitigation in that projects to be financed under the Facility could cover monitoring and advocacy for an improved enabling environment for civil society actors. Furthermore, the EU will include in its political dialogue with partner countries the requirement to engage with civil society actors at the national level and to promote a more enabling environment for the work of civil society. However, there is a risk of inadvertently involving GoNGOs in the political dialogue which, of course, would undermine to a large extent the entire democratic exercise. Particular attention will be paid by the Delegations and Commission services to making sure that the involvement of GoNGOs is limited. The new criterion on budget transparency should ensure that those countries receiving support in the form of budget support will at least make the national budget proposal public and accessible to CSOs. There is a risk that the authorities do not see the added value of involving CSOs in the policy dialogue or that they do not provide an enabling environment that put in place modern and transparent institutions to encourage accountability and good governance and ensure fair and transparent rules of the game. The EU includes therefore in its political dialogue with partner countries the requirement to engage with CSOs at the national level and to promote a more 12
enabling environment for the work of civil society, in an attempt to counteract unwillingness of partner countries authorities to engage with CSOs. On the contrary, another risk could be the unwillingness of CSOs to engage in policy dialogue with the state or simply the lack of incentives to do so. Tripartite dialogue (authorities, EU, CSOs) will then help to highlight the usefulness for CSOs (and for authorities) to dialogue and work together. 3.4. Crosscutting Issues The programme is actor-oriented and not limited to one sector. The inclusive approach taken to the definition of civil society actors will ensure a representation of multiple sectors of activities. The programme aims at reinforcing civil society actors' contribution to the decision-making process and foster interaction between authorities and civil society. This participatory approach to decision-making is at the heart of the good governance principles, and a core element of democracy. The Facility will enhance the accountability of the governments and the reforms implemented vis-à-vis a structured and solid civil society. It will also seek to enhance the representativeness, the transparency and internal democracy of civil society actors themselves. The implementation of activities under the Facility will capitalise upon the existing thematic, regional and bilateral programmes already implemented with civil society actors active in the field of gender equality and support to youth. 3.5. Stakeholders The programme will primarily support non-state actors in the wide definition of the term, as provided for in Article 14 of the ENPI Regulation: non-governmental organisations; organisations representing national and/or ethnic minorities; local citizens groups and traders associations; cooperatives, trade unions, organisations representing economic and social interests; local organisations (including networks) involved in decentralised regional cooperation and integration; consumer organisations, women s and youth organisations, teaching, cultural research and scientific organisations; universities; churches and religious associations and communities; the media; cross-border associations, non-governmental associations and independent foundations. Local authorities in partner countries, as defined in the same article of the ENPI Regulation ("decentralised bodies in the partner countries, such as regions, departments, provinces and municipalities") may also be addressed. Other stakeholders involved are partner government authorities, which should be associated to the activities under the Facility, to the extent possible. The Facility should ultimately aim also at fostering public institutions' ability and willingness to associate civil society actors in policy dialogues and cooperation activities and sector reforms. In fact, the facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogues, involving CSOs and public authorities at different levels, is an important element of the Eastern Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility. 13
4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 4.1. Method of implementation Direct centralised management through the award of grant contracts following calls for proposals launched by Delegations and by Commission headquarters. Service contracts may also be envisaged where appropriate (e.g. visibility, monitoring etc.). An amount up to EUR 250,000 from the 2013 budget allocation may be used to fund an operating grant for the Secretariat of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum Steering Committee, which is the administrative body (non-profit organisation under Belgian Law) that coordinates the activities of the Forum and its national platforms. 4.2. Procurement and grant award procedures 1) Contracts All contracts implementing the action must be awarded and implemented in accordance with the procedures and standard documents laid down and published by the Commission for the implementation of external operations, in force at the time of the launch of the procedure in question. Participation in the award of contracts for the present action shall be open to all natural and legal persons covered by the ENPI Regulation. Further extensions of this participation to other natural or legal persons by the concerned authorising officer shall be subject to the conditions provided for in Article 21(7) of the ENPI Regulation. Considering that programme funds may also be used for topping up EIDHR and DCI funded calls for proposals, participation may be restricted to correspond to the eligibility conditions (nationality of applicants and/or partners) defined in the financing decisions funding these thematic calls for proposals. 2) Specific rules for grants The essential selection and award criteria for the award of grants are laid down in the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions. They are established in accordance with the principles set out in Title VI 'Grants' of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget. When derogations to these principles are applied, they shall be justified, in particular in the following cases: - Financing in full (derogation to the principle of co-financing): the maximum possible rate of co-financing for grants is 90%. Full financing may only be applied in the cases provided for in Article 253 of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget. - Derogation to the principle of non-retroactivity: a grant may be awarded for an action which has already begun only if the applicant can demonstrate the need 14
to start the action before the grant is awarded, in accordance with Article 112 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget. 4.3. Budget and calendar The total budget of the programme is EUR 23,380,434: EUR 13,380,434 from the 2012 budget and EUR 10,000,000 from the 2013 budget, subject to the adoption of 2013 budget by the Budgetary Authority and effective availability of the appropriations. The indicative split is the following: 2012 budget: financial allocations at local level will be implemented through calls for proposals launched by EU Delegations, for a total amount of EUR 9,980,434. Calls for proposals are expected to be launched during last quarter of 2012 and first half of 2013. Based on consultations with EU Delegations, the indicative country allocations for 2012 budget are as follows: Armenia: EUR 850,000 Azerbaijan: EUR 3,630,434 Belarus: EUR 2,000,000 EUR (in addition to 2012 programme "Special Measure: support to civil society in Belarus" for the benefit of CSOs with a value of EUR 2,300,000 decision ENPI/2012/23453) Georgia: EUR 1,500,000 Ukraine: EUR 2,000,000 Part of the 2012 budget (indicatively EUR 3,400,000) may also be used to finance proposals on the reserve lists of the Regional Call for proposals and the local Calls for Proposal launched under the 2011 budget of the Facility, subject to the validity period of the reserve lists and to the quality of the proposals put on the reserve lists. As the overall objectives of the Facility were defined in 2011 for the entire remaining programming period (2011-2013) the objectives of the calls for proposals launched with 2011 funding are perfectly compatible with the objectives of the current fiche. Repartition of these funds will be agreed following a consultation of Delegations and Headquarters, based upon the elements listed above (validity of reserve lists and quality of reserve proposals). An equal repartition (in terms of number of additional proposals funded) will be sought. 2013 budget: two calls for proposals will be launched by Headquarters, one for the creation of CSO twinning programmes (indicatively EUR 1,750,000) and one for capacity building activities for civil society actors and public authorities (indicatively EUR 1,700,000). Calls for proposal are expected to be launched before end of 2013. An operating grant for an amount of up to EUR 250,000 may be used for an operating grant for the Secretariat of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum Steering Committee, as described in section 4.1 above. Unused funds of this allocation if any will be used for increasing the budget of the two calls for proposals mentioned in the previous paragraph. 15
Financial allocations at local level will be implemented through calls for proposals launched by EU Delegations (indicatively EUR 6,300,000). Calls for proposals are expected to be launched during last quarter of 2012 and first half of 2013. Based on consultations with EU Delegations, the indicative country allocations for 2013 are as follows: Armenia: EUR 850,000 Azerbaijan: EUR 1,500,000 Belarus: EUR 1,000,000 (in addition to a 2013 Special Measure for the benefit of CSOs with a planned amount of EUR 1,200,000) Georgia: EUR 950,000 Ukraine: EUR 2,000,000 Subject to obtaining prior approval from the relevant authorising officer, Delegations may use a suspension clause for launching calls for proposals covering the two budgetary years' allocations (pooling of 2012 and 2013 funds). Procurement of technical assistance activities (e.g. visibility, monitoring etc.) is expected to take place in the course of 2013 (2012 and 2013 funds) and 2014 (2013 funds only). 4.4. Performance monitoring Monitoring of the activities will be ensured through: a monitoring element embedded in each of the contracts, in order to measure performance and achievement of the assigned objectives, and through the usual results-oriented monitoring (ROM) used for grants and projects. Objectively Verifiable Indicators exist (ex. the number of consultations undertaken by governments with civil society actors, the satisfaction of international standards by national legislation on associations, etc.). 4.5. Evaluation and audit A mid-term and final evaluation of the programme will be carried out in the course of the programme s implementation. Mid-term and final evaluations of the results achieved will be entrusted to independent consultants, as well as external audits (which will be carried out if necessary). These evaluations and audits will be funded from other sources than the project budget. 4.6. Communication and visibility The Communication and Visibility Manual for EU External Actions will be followed by all projects selected through the various calls for proposals. Visibility and communication in the partner countries will be carried out with the support of EU Delegations, in line with the Communication and Visibility Manual for EU External Action. The technical assistance funded from the 2011 allocation and expected to start implementation by the end of 2012 will develop a strategy dedicated to communication and visibility of the Facility and will develop a programme website centralising all information 16
regarding all components of the Facility and all opportunities available to civil society actors in the Eastern Partnership region. The activities funded from the Facility will also be promoted during Eastern Partnership events (platforms, panels and Civil Society Forum meetings) and on the EU-funded website of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum: http://www.eap-csf.eu/. The facility will also be promoted through the ENPI Info Centre. 17