1. General comments on the overall approach

ØThere is a strong focus on inclusive economic growth.  The promotion of inclusive economic growth should not be environmentally harmful and the Commission should ensure environment is mainstreamed in its development programmes, including in the CSO programme. We believe that the term “sustainable development” is a more appropriate objective. Poverty eradication cannot be achieved only via economic growth but because of the multidimensional aspects of poverty, the EU should consider other types of indicators such as empowerment, respect of human rights, access to resources, voice and participation etc.

ØDifferentiation should not be applied to thematic programmes. During the last Policy Forum in May the EC clearly stipulated that the thematic programmes would be available for the Middle Income Countries as well. The EU delegations in the Middle Income countries should continue to have the necessary capacity and human resources to handle the management of projects funded under the thematic programmes.

ØThe CSO programme should recognize the specificity and added-value of family organisations for their global coverage, their effectiveness, their roles in convening multistakeholder alliances, , their experience and ability to make local, regional and global connections to address drivers of global problems

ØThe CSO programme should recognise and promote the important contribution of EU CSOs in holding the EU to account, in the same way as the EU wishes to support civil society actors in other parts of the world to hold their governments to account.

ØIf the EU decides to remove the multi-country envelope promoting cross-border multistakeholder partnerships, then they should ensure that the Global Public Goods programme will include such approaches in order to fill the gap. We believe that multi-stakeholder partnerships are highly important to achieve development objectives.  Triggering dynamic and innovative partnerships to work on complex integrated issues. The EC should encourage and support the creation of such partnerships.

PLATFORMA COMMENTS

A consultation process is underway for local and regional governments, which outcomes expected for December 2012 should impact the programme’s strategy. Therefore, we would like the detailed timeline for the strategy’s approval to be clarified.

·PLATFORMA represents 24 partner organisations of local and regional governments, which have demonstrated interest in contributing to this consultation on the CSO-LA thematic programme. UCLG, CPMR, CUF, AFCCRE and the cities of Paris and Lyon have contributed to this draft note. However, quality work requires time and proper mechanisms. A window of opportunity of about 2 weeks in total is not appropriate enough for a consultation with networks.

·An indication of the budget share allocated to CSOs and to LRAs would be helpful at this point, with a confirmation that 2 distinct lines are foreseen for each type of actors. Regarding funding, further observations are made throughout the document. For instance, we would like to have a clarification regarding the budget line dedicated to the priority 1.3 “territorial approach to development”.

·Following the adoption of the “Agenda for change”, clarification would be necessary regardingthe application of the differentiation principle in this thematic programme. We call on the EC to ensure that LRA from countries no longer recipient of EU bilateral aid be eligible to the CSO-LA thematic programme. 

·We call on the EC to enlarge the list of eligible countries to the first objective focusing on country level, in comparison with the last programming period. Eligible countries for LAs should be as numerous as the ones eligible for CSOs.

·As proposed in the CSO consultation, country roadmaps should be established by EU delegations for LRAs. Following the results of the structured dialogue, we could even imagine the development of joint country roadmaps for CSOs and LAs.

·We request that, in the EU partner countries, all levels of governance (particularly LRAs and their representative associations) be consulted by the EC delegations during the programming stage, as the European Parliament put forward in its negotiating position on the proposal for a regulation establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (title IV, article 11, 3).

·PLATFORMA reiterates the need for an evaluation of the NSA-LA programme in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the programme. A better visibility of the financed projects would benefit to all the potential applicants.

·The EC should maintain the publication of calls for proposals forecasts.