http://www.eap.pauci.org/file/ZWFwX3BhdWNpX2ZpbGVzMjY5NQ__

Working Group 4 meeting Brussels, 3 September 2010 DRAFT Minutes Contents

Contents 1 1.Participants.......................................................................................................................1 2.Opening.............................................................................................................................1 3.Progress of the EaP and platform 4 “Contacts between people” .....................................1 4.Progress of the Steering Committee.................................................................................2 5.EaP-connected funding opportunities for CSOs...............................................................2 6.Brief update from each participant on activities and plans...............................................3 7.Flagship project................................................................................................................3 8.Proposals for the Civil Society Forum Event 2010, particularly for the WG4, and Action plan of lobbying activities targeting national governments and EC..............4 9.Developing project ideas in 4 small groups......................................................................6 10.Final comments...............................................................................................................7 11.Conclusions and closing of the meeting.........................................................................7 Natalia outlined the conclusions based on the objectives of the meeting. ..........................7 Participants were informed about the progress of the Platform 4 and of the Steering Committee, as well about the funding opportunities for CSOs..................................7 Participants discussed the structure of the second CSF event and agreed on the main outcomes of the event.................................................................................................7 Participants’ details..............................................................................................................9 1. Participants There were 31 participants, including the co-coordinators. The full list can be found at the end of these minutes, on page 8.

2. Opening The WGs co-coordinators Natalia Cojohari and Ben Rattenbury opened the meeting, thanking participants for attending and outlining the agenda.

3. Progress of the EaP and platform 4 “Contacts between people”

1

Maciej Stadejek, the CSF coordinator within the European Commission DG Relex, gave a presentation on the state of play within the EaP. The presentation can be viewed as a separate document.

4. Progress of the Steering Committee NC and BR gave an update of the work of the CSF Steering Committee, explaining that whilst it may appear that little had been achieved, huge amounts of work had been going on behind the scenes. In response to a later question about the lessons learnt from the first year of the CSF, BR listed the following: • • • •

• • • •

Don’t be vague in the recommendations (this has been the single biggest criticism from officials both within national governments and within the EC) Target specific actions at specific decision makers, rather than a general list of recommendations without clear targets. Differentiating the objectives country by country was a useful suggestion made during the meeting Take responsibility, plan our work and work our plan – e.g. the idea of focussing more intensely on networking and joint projects – rather than drawing up a ‘wish list’ of recommendations and expecting policy makers to implement them The platform process is incredibly slow and achieves little other than sharing information, meaning that the CSF has achieved quite a lot (planning the next event – Berlin in November – and selecting the participants, creating a newsletter and logo) by comparison The SC is learning on the job, and must share responsibility with the wider membership of the CSF The process was imposed on civil society at the first event in 2009 – now CS controls the process, which is a significant achievement The concept paper is being drafted and this will address the ‘aims’ question Expectations were possible too high at the beginning. Recognising that a year ago none of these structures existed, the challenges for the SC (and the wider CSF) are that it must effectively build a car whilst driving it at high speed.

Furthermore this cannot be just any car but must be an excellent car, a Ferrari!

The full presentation given at the meeting can be viewed as a separate document.

5. EaP-connected funding opportunities for CSOs Three presentations were given on EU funding opportunities: 1. Chrystelle Lucas, DG Aidco: funding opportunities for CSOs in the context of culture-related programmes under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 2. Sara Sighinolfi, DG Aidco: funding opportunities within the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 3. Chiara Sorge, DG Aidco: funding opportunities within the thematic programmes under the Development Cooperation Instrument Following the presentations there were a number of questions asked:

2

Q: What does it mean to open a window for Youth in Action?

A: Currently only some actions are open to EaP countries. The idea for the window is to have a special budget just for youth organisations from EaP countries.

Q: Please elaborate on FP7 – how will the national contact points be selected?

A: The national frameworks will be done through the national authorities, which will select one or two organisations to participate.

Q: How can we overcome the problem of government not selecting in the best interests?

A: We have to follow the same rules as for EU, where the participants represent national authorities Q: Event in Poland planned for 2011 – does it cover higher education or only schools?

A. Mobility is mainly at the higher education level, however there are also opportunities for virtual mobility.

6. Brief update from each participant on activities and plans Each of the 31 participants briefly described their organisations’ work.

7. Flagship project BR outlined the Steering Committee’s flagship Project proposal, and sought feedback.

The proposal is to run a series of one week exchanges for civil society professionals from across the EaP countries to spend time with one another, and to spend time working with their peers from EU member states.

Comments and questions from participants: • Sviatlana - It is a great idea, but to achieve the expected outcomes, the project should last at least 2-3 years. It is important to focus on concrete results, the budget can be adjust on number of participants.

• Leonid – Q: Do you plan to organize exchanges consequently. A: Participants of the project will have to choose for only one exchange either in one of the EaP country, either in EU country based on their necessity.

• Tsveta – It is important to not duplicate the existing projects. We have to synergize with initiatives of other organizations. There are already exchanges in the cultural field; it will be more feasible to search for some additional funding.

There some cultural exchanges planned for next year, we can make collaboration. Ben – that’s absolutely right, we know of the Civil Society Leadership Network (CSLN) and the PAUCI Foundation’s exchanges, so we will seek to cooperate with those too.

• Ivan – We have to look at regional cooperation in EU, cooperation between villages, NGOs, public administration, to gain their experience in organizing such project. Also, there are regions in the EaP countries were such exchanges are taking place, we need now to focus on quality of such exchanges. There is also a possibility that some regions will be able o finance by themselves part of the budget.

3

• •

Nino – Q: Is this flagship idea is connected with existing flagship initiatives of the EaP. A: It is not formally, but we have to see how we can make the links.

Ramaz –Q: Are the main goal of the exchanges new projects? A: Not only, also networking, new contacts, lobby activities, experience sharing.

8. Proposals for the Civil Society Forum Event 2010, particularly for the WG4, and Action plan of lobbying activities targeting national governments and EC This was the biggest and most substantive discussion during the day, and attempted to address the following questions: On the upcoming CSF event, Berlin:  What should be the main outcomes of the event?  What is the role of last year recommendations?  What is the aim of recommendations?  What kind of recommendations?  How to make the recommendations more specific?  Suggestions on how to manage the process and the discussion On lobbying activities:  What lobby activities have been done for last year at the national level?  What is the strategy to promote the recommendations?  How to approach national governments?  How to connect political priorities of the governments with the EaP goals?  How to approach EC?  What kind of support the CSF needs from EC? General context Ben – we only have the right to decide for one year, until the next event. Therefore we should define clear objectives that can then be made specific and implemented through the national platforms and the WGs. Then the next year may make new specific objectives.

Tevan – mini review and brainstorm how to build on existing initiatives Lyuba – we need to think about where the money is coming from. EC spends money through the national governments.

Sviatlana – we need to be realistic what can we really do? We can’t get near the real decision making processes. In many cases CS has greater expertise than the government Ben – better to focus on objectives rather than recommendations Objectives: being specific and differentiated Lyuba – our strength is diversity so setting common objectives would restrict us. We all know what we should do but when it comes to how we are less sure. Let’s start with a project – we have lots of expertise in this room, let’s use it. We were talking about human rights defenders so let’s develop Ivan – agree that we should make concise proposals for governments

4

Galina – we have developed agreement on who will receive our recommendations, and there is a good idea of how they should be structured. If they are not properly structured they will never be monitored properly.

Nuone – the problem of last year was that we tried to cover everything, and it didn’t work. We need to show our specific role. Reviewing last year’s recommendations they were all extremely vague apart from the ratification of the UNESCO convention on cultural rights. When we are in this building we should act as policy makers, not project implementers.

Need to secure our government’s consent for a framework Knowledge sharing Ivan – need to improve understanding among us.

Lionid – in MD we have a National Participatory Council which is able to speak to government. This is an example of good practice that could be interesting to others.

Seymur – in Azerbaijan we have had some success, especially in the Bologna process.

But it was very difficult. We should propose to involve government officials to the event to ask them why they have stopped certain processes.

Dorina – good practice examples from the EaP 6 and in terms of partnerships with the EU member states. E.g. the national NGO council in Md. Monitoring progress Elnur – suggests a review of the status of the recommendations’ implementation – this could be done quite easily through the google group. Responsibility also lies on the national platforms to select the most relevant.

Tsveta – last year these recommendations were for 27 foreign ministers. Need to review what the EU has achieved in relation to the recommendations off the back of those recommendations Tatiana – need to agree common frameworks for monitoring progress Andriy – we have achieved something on one recommendation – the UNJ convention on cultural heritage Oleg – we shouldn’t just make government the bogeymen. Part of the recommendations should be for ourselves as CS. Who has spoken to their governments since November event?

Being concrete – projects and actions Dorina: creating a regional network on Youth, education, culture, and research and to say to ministries what we want from them and what we can provide; Tevan: we need to connect CSF on some institutions that already exist, e.g. CSLN, this will avoid the building institutions again.

Radu – need to develop research, as in Md there are very few think tanks. Need training on how to apply to European projects Dorina – recommendations are easily ignored by the governments. Future recommendations should be more specific. How will this be done? The main outcome of the event would be to create a regional network on youth, education, culture, research, and exchange knowledge and expertise. Most valuable thing we can give is policy analysis, lobbying and advocacy, think tanks need to discuss and decide what to recommend in their countries over the next year General points

5

Tatiana – policy dialogue is a challenge on some countries which don’t have the tradition of such dialogue. Need to define a process and recommendations that can be implemented in a differentiated way in different countries. Need to monitor how governments are implementing the recommendations Nino – how can we empower the national platforms better? There should be one national meeting a year to feed back on the main goals and outcomes.

Vache – repeat suggestion about the election of the national facilitators. There are several EaP countries with national platforms and they should elect their representatives. They should also decide on the responsibilities of the national platforms. The is the official position of the platform. We should set a deadline for the national platforms to be established.

Natalia explained the constraints of electing national facilitator by national platforms: not all 6 countries have national platforms, but the selection process should be the same to all.

Radu: we need some training on how to apply for EC calls for applications We should link to the March 2011 event that was described earlier today.

Relevant context issues re. the policy environment Tevan: Two major processes: (1) Associations Agreements and (2) Visa facilitation. In some countries it’s on a fast track, in other countries a slow track. Each WG should have its own focus on the the visa issue – the first WG looks at it in terms of politics, for us in terms of real cases such as artist exchanges.

Andrzej – big interest in EaP in Poland, but there is no idea on how to implement projects on a big scale. The different ministries are not coordinated.

Tsveta – similar things in NL, as there are many donors Proposals to for the CSF event agenda 1) information sharing, asking all national platforms to present a report.

2) objectives (rather than recommendations), with specific proposals that can be differentiated 3) challenging brainstorming of how we can develop some consistency between country approaches 4) offer each other roles in our projects, and explore developing new joint projects 9. Developing project ideas in 4 small groups Participants gathered in four groups to discuss specific projects that they would like to develop, or existing projects that they may be able to synergise. The four areas were: 1.Education and research [Add notes from discussion] 2.Youth

6

Selected priorities of our micro-group. Work in the micro-group "Youth" was around next points: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Mobility of youth Exchanges within youth NGO's of different countries Research of youth Youth participation in decision-making Promoting of the volunteering

3.Mass media [Add notes from discussion] 4.Culture [Add notes from discussion] 10. Final comments There was a brief discussion about methods of communication within the working group, and it was agreed that there should be a monthly update from the co-coordinators to the WG4 google group, or to produce monthly newsletter of WG4, which could include inputs from members of the group.

There was great interest in the wider question of the overall aims of the CSF, and BR explained that these issues will all be addressed when the CSF Concept Paper is revised, (the original can be read at http://www.eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/docs/concept_en.pdf) following a discussion on the topic at the final steering committee meeting on 23 September. After this a draft will be sent to the Berlin participants in order to get comments and feedback before the event.

11. Conclusions and closing of the meeting

Natalia outlined the conclusions based on the objectives of the meeting.

• • • •

Participants were informed about the progress of the Platform 4 and of the Steering Committee, as well about the funding opportunities for CSOs Participants discussed the structure of the second CSF event and agreed on the main outcomes of the event The successful lobbying activities towards national EaP and EU national governments and EC were discussed.

Participants had the opportunity to develop project ideas and to establish cooperation.

BR and NC thanked to all participants for their valuable contribution to the discussions and closed the meeting.

7

8

-

Participants’ details

1 DANIELYAN Norayr 2 KALASHYAN Vache

European Movement in Armenia Union of Armenian government employees

Armenia Armenia

5 NASIBOV Elnur

International Centre for Human Development (ICHD) Internews Media Support NGO "Praxis" Support to Social Development public union

6 ALIYEV Gursel

Caucasus Research Resource Center

Azerbaidjan

7 GULIYEV Ahmad

"Bilik" Ganja Regional Organization of the Educational Society

Azerbaidjan

8 RASHIDOV Seymur

DEVAMM - Center for Protection of Conscience and Persuasion Freedom

Azerbaidjan

RADA National Council of Youth and Children's Public Assosiations of Belarus

Belarus

Public Union "Education Center" POST"

Belarus

Ecoproject

Belarus

Centre for Social Innovations

Belarus

Civil Forum "34 Multimedia Magazine"

Belarus Belarus

Institute for European Studies Tbilisi State University

Georgia

3 POGHOSYAN Tevan 4 SARGSYAN Noune

KARALIOVA 9 SVIATLANA KARPIYEVICH 10 Dzmitry MARTSINKEVICH 11 Galina POSHEVALOVA 12 Tatiana VARANKIEVICH 13 Siarhei 14 VIDANAVA Iryna 15 LAPIASHVILI Nino 16 KVATADZE Ramaz 17 VAKHANIA Ucha 18 BALTAG Dorina 19 20 21 22 23 24

COJOHARI Natalia LITRA Leonid VRABIE Radu ANDREEVA Tsveta KOSTEK Andrzej RATTENBURY Ben ZHYVOTOVSKYI 25 OLEG

Georgian Research and Educational Networking Association - GRENA Coalition Homecare in Georgia PROMO-LEX Association National Youth Council of Moldova CNTM IDIS Viitorul Foreign Policy Association European Cultural Foundation Polish Robert Schuman Foundation Euclid Network

Armenia Armenia Azerbaidjan

Georgia Georgia Moldova Moldova Moldova Moldova Netherlands Poland UK

EUROPEAN CHOICE

Ukraine

26 BORENKO Yaryna

European Dialogue

Ukraine

27 DUKHNICH Olga

Integration and development Center (Crimea, Ukraine)

Ukraine

9

28 29 30 31

GNATENKO IRYNA HEREVYCH Ivan KOHUT Andriy PALYVODA Lyubov

European Youth of Ukraine XXX Civic Assembly of Ukraine CCC Creative Centre

Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine

10