The Civil Society Session took place on 23 May 2022 during the afternoon and evening in less formal settings in the downtown Bratislava. It was attended by representatives of the CSOs, namely development and humanitarian organizations. They included the national platforms of development organizations from CEE and other EU countries and from the EU partner countries (Global South) as well as their members. Other CSOs were welcomed in the event too, along with representatives of major EU-level associations and networks of CSOs as well as donor organizations working in the region.
The Session was divided into two 90-minute-long panels with a moderator and 3 to 4 panelists.
Venue: University Library Bratislava
Meeting Room: Lecture Room (entrance from Ventúrska str. 11)
Time: 14:30 -18:00
14:00 Registration
14:30 – 14:35
14:35 – 16:00
Panel Summary:
Empowering the environment for civil society is one of the most important preconditions for an open society. The EU has invested considerable funding in this respect to the EaP region through ODA. Despite these efforts the situation remains challenging for CSOs both in the CEE and in the EU neighbouring countries. With different intensity and forms, the pressure on civil society has been witnessed not only in authoritarian countries, but also in the formally democratic ones. How can we reverse this trend? Given its increasing importance, how can the enabling environment be facilitated by new partnerships with participants outside of the CSO ecosystem, particularly the institutions of state and local authorities? What kind of a partnership would be the most efficient? And would it allow us to pre-empt the negative trends and make the cooperation between the CSOs from the EaP and CEE more effective? What do the cases of Belarus and Ukraine teach us in this respect? Does the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine bring new challenges or does it only make the existing trends more visible?
The goal of the panel:
This discussion is relevant for: SDG 16 – Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Target 16.10 – Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. Migration perspective: Belarus civil society in exile and diaspora.
Format: Moderated discussion in cooperation with the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF).
Moderator:
Speakers:
16:00 – 16:30
Coffee Break
16:30 – 18:00
Panel Summary:
The tremendous surge of public solidarity that has occurred across the CEE and beyond with the people fleeing the horrors of the war in Ukraine was the highest one since the fall of Communism in 1989. This is also a big test for the CEE NGOs to see if they are mature enough to provide efficient humanitarian aid to the war-torn nation of Ukraine. Since the EU accession only a few of them are DG ECHO FPA holders. However, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine has demonstrated that the CEE and other bordering EU countries’ NGOs are crucial for handling the impact of any crises happening at the EU border. What is the comparative advantage of both local NGOs and INGOs? What are the incentives for coordination of the civil society to avoid working „in silos“ in tackling a mega-crisis like the one in Ukraine? How can the local NGOs both in CEE and Ukraine scale up and improve their operations? How can we make INGOs more aware of the needs and context in which the local stakeholders operate? How can we find the way to make more progress in the area of the localisation of aid?
The goal of the panel:
This discussion is relevant for: Migration perspective: localisation and coordination of civil society working with refugees and IDPs in a humanitarian context.
Format: Moderated discussion.
Moderator:
Speakers:
18:00 – 19:00
The Policy and Advocacy Forum was held at the Conference Center of the Slovak Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs in Bratislava, for the whole day on 24 May 2022.
The purpose of the Forum was primarily based on learning and networking, with a strong element of advocacy. As it was organized by civil society for civil society, most of the Forum’s participants were development and humanitarian civil society organizations. But, in order to fulfil the advocacy potential of the gathering, the Forum also hosted other categories of participants including experts and decision-makers. The latter included representatives from the state ODA from Slovakia and other CEE countries. Another category of attendees were senior officials from the relevant EU institutions (such as DG NEAR, DG ECHO) and major donor and implementation agencies supporting development and humanitarian work on the international level. Finally, participating CSOs were able to meet with their colleagues from CSOs from partner countries who are on the receiving end of the development and humanitarian aid efforts.
The Forum included three consecutive 75 minute-long discussion panels (with a moderator and 3 to 4 speakers) and three parallel workshops.
Venue: Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, Hlboká cesta 2, Bratislava
Time: 09:00 -19:00
8:15 – 8:50 Registration
09:00 – 09:15
Meeting room: Congress Hall
09:15 – 09:45
10:00 – 11:15
Panel Summary:
The conflict in Ukraine presents by far the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. According to the UN OCHA, as of March 21, 2022, some 3,6 million people have fled Ukraine and millions more are trapped inside the war zones. Both the system of humanitarian aid and development cooperation as well as the landscape of civil society in the CEE and beyond is expected to change as a consequence. This is a mega-crisis unfolding in the immediate vicinity of the EU, which is the richest part of the world, a major donor, and a stronghold for democracy.
After the fall of Communism, the CEE countries became the primary recipients of the development assistance, likewise the current crisis might be another tectonic shift for ODA. The EU is the world’s leading donor, however, the EU13 countries only account for 3,3% of the total EU ODA budget. How can we implement the shared responsibility of the EU and the CEE countries in this respect?
Also, although the EU has been the world’s leading humanitarian aid implementor providing for some 36% of global humanitarian assistance, the gap between humanitarian needs and the available funding has been increasing. According to UN OCHA over the past 10 years the number of people in need increased dramatically from 62 mil. to 235 mil. The war in Ukraine and other crises as well as the COVID-19 epidemic, present an additional challenge to the resources available.
This discussion is relevant for: SDG 17 – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development; Target 17.2 – Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries.
Moderator:
Speakers:
Format: Moderated panel discussion with three – four rounds of questions for 10 -15 minutes each. At the end there will be 30 minutes for participants’ Q&As.
11:15 – 11:30
Coffee Break
11:30 – 12:45
Panel Summary:
Social innovations combined with new technologies have a great potential to address many of the problems the world faces. However, their impact is often limited to a few areas, innovation is often restricted to prosperous urban areas and the risk of failure can be enormous. Development CSOs have a duty on the one hand to adopt some innovations for their work and on the other hand to help spread other innovations among the people and groups they work with. This panel will address both sides of the innovation predicament. For example, should we be worried that investors rather than donors and small start-ups rather than traditional political activists might become the pioneers of social innovation, thus leaving CSOs behind and making their activities less relevant? What role is left for CSOs and their state and EU partners? Are the CSOs we know today ready to reinvent themselves in order to not become obsolete?
This discussion is relevant for: SDG 9 – Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Moderator:
Speakers:
Format: Moderated panel discussion with three – four rounds of questions for 10 -15 minutes each. At the end there will be 30 minutes for participants’ Q&As.
12:45 – 13:45
Lunch
13:45 – 15:00
Panel Summary:
The Eastern Partnership has been playing an increasingly important role for the EU and the CEE. Against the backdrop of the Association Agreements and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs) between these countries and the European Union, what is it the CEE can offer in development cooperation and human rights to the EaP? How has the role of civil society changed and what new paradigms can be thought about in the light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Does CEE with its historical, cultural and other ties to Moldova and Georgia have any special significance in the EU development cooperation policies?
This discussion is relevant for: SDG 10 – Reduce inequality within and among countries; SDG 16 – Proomote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Moderator:
Speakers:
15:00 – 15:15
Break
15:15 – 16:45
Workshop 1: Development Finance Facing the Mega-Crisis
Facilitator: Nerea CRAVIOTTO (Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer – Aid Effectiveness, Eurodad) & Oskar CHMIEL (CASE Research, Poland)
Venue: Congress Hall
Focus: What are the funding challenges and solutions in light of a mega-crisis like the one unfolding in Ukraine? What implications does this crisis have when considering the shifts of funds from development work to humanitarian aid, from other regions to Ukraine, and from aid budgets to in-donor refugee costs, to mention just the most serious issues? How can we find a balance between the solidarity and humanitarian support to the people of Ukraine, while remaining faithful to the long-term development processes in the Ukraine and elsewhere, as well as to other urgent humanitarian crises and conflicts? What can be done to mobilise the EU member states to reach the commitment to provide 0.33% or 0.7% of gross national income for official development assistance including humanitarian aid? What innovative humanitarian financing is out there, and can it provide a major leap forward?
This discussion is relevant for: SDG 17 – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development; Target 17.2 – Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries.
Workshop 2: Humanitarian Aid Logistics and Humanitarian Access in Ukraine
Facilitator: Guido SCHANZ (Logistics Expert, The Johanitter, Germany; United Nations Global Logistics Cluster, Krakow, Poland) & Marián CEHELNÍK (People in Need Slovakia)
Venue: Meeting Room AKAD
Focus: One of the most pertinent and pressing issues of today is how to ensure that EU humanitarian aid can be delivered swiftly and efficiently to those in need in Ukraine. Moreover, the legitimate worries over the humanitarian principles including impartiality, neutrality and accessibility have been haunting many humanitarians since the outbreak of the war. What can be done on the side of the donors, governments, and NGOs to fill in the current gaps of the European Humanitarian Response Capacity in terms of logistics and accessibility? What are the lessons learned from different areas of logistics such as transportation, warehouses, assessments, procurement, deployment, or distributions? How can the dialogue between humanitarian and military actors be improved as a key to bringing the aid through humanitarian corridors and safe passages to CARs and IDPs? How can the donors and the NGOs find a proper balance between the humanitarian principles and control over the whole aid delivery cycle on one side and humanitarian access and the effectiveness of the aid on the other?
This discussion is relevant for: Migration perspective: Logistics and humanitarian access to beneficiaries in humanitarian settings including refugees and IDPs.
Workshop 3: Innovations and Adaptability in Humanitarian Assistance
Facilitator:Peter GLERUM (Team Leader, PPRD East 3 – (Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Natural and Man-Made Disasters in Eastern Partnership Countries – phase 3)
Venue: Meeting Room DIPLOMAT
Focus: We need to promote the development and acceptability of innovative solutions that deliver more efficient, cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and climate-proofed aid. For example, the use of cash transfers – although internationally recognised as a prospective approach – is not used widely among the CEE donors. In the case of Ukraine to what extent were early warning systems for disasters, displacement monitoring and remote needs assessments in place, as opposed to being just wishful thinking rather than the reality? How can we improve data access, data volatility and communication via different platforms? What are the preconditions for NGOs and donors to adapt successfully rather than reinventing the wheel? In the conflict in Ukraine some local authorities use paper documents primarily, rather than online tools. How can we support and make use of the existing infrastructure (bakeries, laundries etc.) and systems (habits and culture) in order not to overburden the local capacities of humanitarian institutions? Where shall we draw the line between helping the communities and making them more resilient and independent? To what extent can innovations help to ease the bureaucratic requirements placed on NGOs and donors by the local authorities in the recipient countries?
This discussion is relevant for: Migration perspective: Adaptability of innovations in the context refugees and IDPs.
These workshops are not meant to be training or educational events for the participants, but rather an exercise in intense reflection, pooling together the expertise of participants in order to propose appropriate approaches to the topical problems identified in advance in the short briefing material. The expected practical output of workshops is to produce a set of recommendations pertaining to strategic processes and documents in the area of development cooperation on the national as well as EU levels. Thus, the outputs and recommendations can be further used in the policy and advocacy work of participating CSOs after the ADF concludes.
16:45 – 17:15
17:15 – 19:00
Copyright 2024 Ambrela - Platform for Development Organisations. This site is funded by the EU via Stronger Roots and SR via SlovakAid. Ambrela is solely responsible for its content and does not necessarily reflect the views of the donors.