Do Europeans Care About the Rest of the World?

2. Do Europeans Care About the Rest of the World? Auditorium 400 7 December 2010 – 10:00-12:00

3. M. Samuel BIESEMANS Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Co-operation,  European Development Education Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group

4. Do Europeans Care About the Rest of the World? Andreas Unger Moderator RilliLappalainen CONCORD Franziska Keller MEP HelmuthHartmeyer GENE Rama Naidu Democracy Development Programme AhtoLobjakas Journalist Spencer Henson Institute of Development Studies

5. M. Angelo Baglio EuropeAid, Unit F1 Relations with civil society, central management of thematic budget lines NSA-LA under DCI and coordination, European Commission 5

6. Do Europeans Care? • European citizens continue to show resolute support to aid provided to developing countries. • One week before the UN High Level Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals, the survey shows that 89% of respondents consider development aid is important or very important. • Two in three Europeans believe that the EU should honor, or even improve, on its promises to increase development aid to 0.7% of GNI by 2015, the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goal. • This support, shared by a vast majority of citizens regardless of the nationality, has remained consistently high despite the financial crisis and the economic situation in Europe. • In this context, three quarters (76%) of Europeans believe that there is added value in EU countries working together which contributes to avoid duplication and ensureaid effectiveness

7. The DEAR study ’’Study on the Experience and Actions of the Main European Actors Active in the Field of Development Education and Awareness Raising’’

8. Why the DEAR study? • The European Commission is an important financial player and dedicates approximately 30M€ to DEAR projects every year • The European Commission support has so far been exclusively demand-driven (calls for proposals) • The study was launched in 2010 to offer a clear picture of DEAR policies and activities in the EU 27 and the EC involvement in the field • A major opportunity to consult & dialogue with all stakeholders

9. What is in the report: • An analysis of 268 DEAR projects financed by the EC between 2005 and 2009 • A detailed State of Play of DEAR in each of the 27 Member States • Conceptual frameworks of DEAR Member State policies throughout Europe and practices of major actors • Examples of good practices in DEAR • The voice of stakeholders • The consultants’ recommendations for a more strategic EC approach to DEAR

10. What the consultants are telling us Some main points of the study

11. What the study says:Strengths of EC DEAR Programme European partnerships, integration of European civil society Partnership between European NSALA & actors from the South EC funding to CSOs complements national funding, or provide funding where national resources are not available

12. What the study says:Weaknesses of EC DEAR Programme The EC lacks a clearly stated strategic objectives and policy statement for DEAR Lack of coordination and knowledge sharing at EU, national, and local levels between DEAR actors Lack of “lessons learnt” and sharing of results Perceived disadvantage of smaller NGOs compared to established international NGOs in the grant allocation process The relationship between EC and grant recipients lacks intensity No increase in the overall DEAR budget

13. What the study says:Recommendations regarding the overall objective of EC DEAR The EC’s DEAR efforts aim: • (a) to develop European citizens’ awareness and critical understanding of the interdependent world and of their own role, responsibilities and lifestyles in relation to a globalised society; and • (b) to support their active engagement in local and global attempts to eradicate poverty and promote justice, human rights, and sustainable ways of living

14. EC’s view: • The vast majority of projects currently co-financed by the European Commission actively pursue these objectives • This is a good summary of the theoretical grounding of EC intervention in DEAR

15. Setting clear strategic objectives • The current, purely demand-driven programme, stems from the EC’s sole reliance on Actor’s Right of Initiative in the field of DEAR • This principle was widely supported by both EU decision-makers and CSOs • However, what was once considered a strength has now been shown to be a weakness of the EC DEAR programme

16. EC-funded DEAR project themes • Annex A p.18, DEAR study

17. EC-funded projects target groups • Annex A p.19, DEAR Study

18. Possible EC options • There may be benefits to determining a number of priority themes in each Call for Proposals • The objective would be to build critical mass on certain issues and focus the EC funding • This would also benefit capitalization of projects and lessons learnt

19. What the study says:Recommendations regarding the EC approach a. Add value to Member State and Civil Society initiatives b. Engage different sectors in society c. Encourage partnerships between people and organisations/local authorities across the EU and between the EU and the South d. Enable learning from experience

20. What the study says:Recommendations regarding the role of the EC in supporting DEAR To support and facilitate: • Coordination mechanisms • Dialogue among stakeholders and policy makers • Learning and quality improvement • Capacity building • European and global partnerships

21. Possible EC optionsaCoordination mechanisms • Coordination with Member States will be reinforced with regards to projects in the formal education sector • Member States will be asked to provide an annual update of State of Play of DEAR • Demonstration of complementarity with MS will be a criterion in the selection of formal education DEAR projects

22. Possible EC optionsb Supporting dialogue • EC will continue to strengthen its dialogue with Member States and DEAR practitioners • Possible annual meeting with all MS and major actors in the field of DEAR (including academic researchers)

23. Possible EC optionsc Learning and quality improvementd Capacity building • Organization of initial meeting with all new grant recipients to support networking and common understanding • Organization of annual meetings with grant beneficiaries aimed at the capitalization of results and exchange of experience • Strengthening CISOCH: creation DEAR resource page, including good practices and sector highlights

24. Possible EC optionse. European and Global partnerships • Emphasis on European and multi-country dimensions will be required of EC-financed projects • EU 15/ EU 12 Member States partnerships will continue to be strongly encouraged • Partnerships with Southern organizations will be strongly recommended • Multi-actor dimension: strengthened

25. The Way Forward

26. What to expect in 2011Transitional year • AAP 2011 will be presented in the first semester of 2011. It will include DEAR, and will be discussed with MS and EP. • The Decision will likely come out in June 2011 at the earliest. • If there is a Call for Proposals (which is likely), it will take place in the 1st semester of 2011 (with suspensive clause).

27. Beyond 2011 Links with the ongoing Structured Dialogue • Minor changes could be introduced as early as 2011 • The shape of future Call for Proposals will be informed by the ongoing discussions on New Aid Modalities in the Group 3 of the Structured Dialogue • But modifications to the system are most likely to be introduced in 2012-2013

28. New Financial Perspective • Results of Structured Dialogue • Green Paper on Sustainable Development and Inclusive Growth • Ongoing consultation on 2014-2020 Financial Instruments

29. Also up to you to act/react!

30. Thank you The DEAR study is now available on CISocH: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/DEAR_Final_report

31. How to empower Europeans to care more? Andreas Unger Moderator RilliLappalainen CONCORD Franziska Keller MEP HelmuthHartmeyer GENE Rama Naidu Democracy Development Programme AhtoLobjakas Journalist Spencer Henson Institute of Development Studies

32. M. Denis Huber North South Centre of the Council of Europe

33. World Aware Education Awards 2010

34. Rui Duarte Project: “Africa-Europe National Youth Councils Training Cooperation”

35. Ines Klemm • Project: “Awareness for Fairness: joint action of public administration & NGO for the advancement of Global Education in Europe”

36. Cathryn Al Kanaan • Project “Education for Rural Livelihoods and Food Sovereignty (ERLAFS)”

37. Thank you! www.deeep.org/msh0.html