REVIEW OF CURRENT STRATEGY

1
REVIEW OF CURRENT STRATEGY

• Feedback on interviews
• questionnaires

2
FRAMEWORK

• Current strategy 2005-8
• Strategy for a new CONCORD
• No agreed indicators
• REVIEW
• Quick simple
• 15 interviews, 16 questionnaires
• Perceptions, no objective measurement
• Dont shoot the messenger!
• Broad flavour, not refined bouquet
• Sections inter-linked/overlapping

3
Big picture by numbers
4
Objective 1 InfluenceWork strand commentaries

• Political context tough, worsening even holding
  the ground is positive
• Big positive AidWatch
• Financial perspectives/DCI positive
• Aid promises 2005 but not CONCORD?
• Gender prioritised good development
• EU-Africa good at getting civil society space,
  not so good at using it
• Development education few mentions, but positive
• Coherence some nice work, losing the war
• No to EPAs seen as CONCORDs, ineffective,
  damaging relations reputation
• Humanitarian not addressed
• Do it or drop it!

5
Objective 1 issues (1)

• Policy papers respected, used, influential
• But CONCORD could be more influential than this
  must be more political
• Means different things to different people?
• Must be more strategic
• Framework for prioritising getting in early
  (by being more political)
• ? ways of working, common lines for work
  strands/WGs
• So much fire brigade work, and a lot of
  running need to take time to learn from
  successes mistakes

6
Objective 1 issues (2)

• A top priority? civil society role, rights,
  legitimacy, voice, access
• The one we have to win
• But members not engaging sufficiently
• EU global?
• Collective view on role/effectiveness of state?
• and of NGOs?
• Review advocacy on NGO financing?

7
Objective 1 issues (3)

• Preparing for 2009 changes post-EPAs world
  major work
• CONCORD is seen as the old development, not the
  new development cant win the EU war on poverty
  without engaging with
• Human rights (rhetoric but not yet
  understanding?)
• Climate change
• Agriculture
• Migration
• Security, conflict
• Counter-terrorism
• How to combine multi-faceted agenda with
  coherence, quality, rigour prioritising?

8
Objective 2 Recognised playerBig positives

• CONCORD is a recognised player
• part of the geography
• dont need to fight for existence, respect
• if it didnt exist, wed have to create it
• especially rising from the ashes of CLONG, very
  impressive
• Seen as legitimate representative, capable

9
Objective 2 Relations recognition for influence

• We value and use your policy papers but
• Be more political inside
• psychological dont moralise at us more
  constructive proposals
• Ask your friends inside before sending something
• Send your politicians, not just your policy
  people
• Send them to other Commissioners too
• Appearance of self-interest/backs-to-the-wall
• and/or outside
• Use the power of 1600 organisations better
• Mobilise the public on the really big issues
• Strengthen use of the media
• Not necessarily consistent whats CONCORDs
  self-image / understanding of how to create
  change?
• Member view OK at EP Committee and Commission,
  but not Council/GAERC/other MEPs, especially NMSs

10
Objective 2 Capacities NW / NP Systems

• Capacity building positive feedback
• Much more to be done for NPs
• Even more for members of members
• Including publicising importance and successes
  better
• NWs NPs big steps forward, more needed
• Brussels ?? national synergies
• AidWatch a great example of potential
• Learn and replicate
• CONCORD political agenda Presidency platform
  priorities?

11
Means 1 Platform for common action

• Built a tradition of inclusion, participation
• Great for a young confederation
• Praise for Secretariats facilitation
• Time to move on?
• More and more issues
• Multiple layers
• CONCORD is a big elephant it takes time to make
  it change direction
• Inclusion and process at expense of joint
  action
• Uninspiring macro processes result in
  withdrawal from engagement
• ?Re-balance leadership process

12
Means 1 Examples ideas

• Good example CSO Effectiveness
• Concept note, QA enables members to engage
• Not good example AA
• People didnt follow it, and in the end didnt
  care
• GAs too often ponderous
• Group of wise people first, then consult rather
  than big, open questions to members?
• Processes that are more light-touch will be
  better-owned
• Bank what you agree on, consult on new issues
  review levels of trust leadership

13
Means 1 Working Groups

• Policy Forum a big improvement
• We need a more structured way of covering many
  bases
• Groups overburdened by consultations from each
  other and the rest of CONCORD
• Very reliant on small group of dedicated
  people, who keep moving on engineering term
  single-line failure new people, fresh blood,
  but hard

14
Means 1 New Member States

• Capacity building for NMSs remains strategically
  crucial (see Objective 2)
• Needs more resources?
• Key differences between OMS and NMS perspectives,
  eg
• Role of the state in development aid
• Role of NGOs ?? public awareness (Prague)
• Overall, CONCORD is increasingly listening to
  NMSs, but habits of thought mean were not really
  heard

15
Means 1 Communications

• Steady improvements
• Big increase in volume no time to read, needs
  streamlining
• We like M2M
• EU Monitoring more critical distance please
• Website time for an overhaul
• Need regular summary of CONCORDs achievements,
  to sell to members members
• They (and we) have high ambitions and demands,
  need to match it with time and money

16
Means 2 Progressively develop new dialogues

• Reviewed already in Objectives 1 2
• Re-emphasised EU ?? national could be stronger
• Re-emphasised quality of development education
  work

17
Means 3 Identify build strategic alliances

• Not visible to all members
• Better on effort than impact? Too ambitious for
  new confederation?
• Crucial for next strategy

18
Means 3 Europe

• Some good work
• Civil Society Contact Group
• Stakeholder Advisory Group
• Great response to Commissioners divide rule
• Not yet a political impact
• Seen by Commission as not led by CONCORD
• NGO Effectiveness work (early days)
• Support for GCAP (could have been more)
• Reputation for openness
• Gaps
• Research bodies
• Humanitarian

19
Means 3 Global alliances southern contact

• Good start
• mainly opportunistic so far relations need to
  be more strategic/sustainable
• moments seized when people wanted not
  strategic, which was brilliant because it
  capitalised on existing energies
• Be careful to add value to members existing
  links, dont duplicate

20
Big Picture

• Some good advocacy work, some not so
• learn lessons and replicate
• be more political strategic
• broaden the agenda
• Recognised, respected player
• be more political
• broaden the contacts
• continue/deepen capacity building
• strengthen national-Brussels synergies

21
Big Picture

• Strong on inclusion participation
• But time to review how it works
• Broadening agenda range of contacts strains the
  systems (consultations, WGs, communications)
• Leadership ?? participation balance?
• Resourcing?
• Good alliance-building
• Plug some gaps
• Be more strategic for global/southern?
• Unrecognisable compared with starting point
  well done