How European NGOs can better engage the EU: A conversation with Concord’s Justin Kilcullen

In Brussels, the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development, or Concord, is well-known as an influential lobbyist. This stature stems from the group’s established relationship with the European Union as well as its large membership – more than 2,000 non-governmental organizations across the continent. Any European civil society organization would highly benefit from actively participating in Concord if it wanted to succeed in engaging EU institutions, Justin Kilcullen told Devex late last year. The group embodies “the legitimate voice” of European nonprofits and has the resources and expertise in dealing with the European Commission, the Concord president said. In this second and final part of our interview with Kilcullen, the Irishman discussed how civil society groups may help redefine the emerging partnership between Europe and China in helping Africa develop as well as how NGO networks can reduce inefficiencies of member organizations. >> For Europe’s Development NGOs, a Key Lobbyist>> Western Donors Embrace China for African Development EuropeAid’s process of devolving aid management functions to local offices is a pillar of the EU’s development program implementation. Do you think the dialogue at the local level has become more effective as a result of this practice? What is your opinion on the growing role of EU representatives in developing countries? We [at Concord] think that is a very good move. For all of us, being close to the scene of the action has got to be good. For us, the real advantage there is that [it] is an opportunity for the local civil society organizations to engage directly with the commission. While funding for ourselves is important, we don’t want to become a barrier between southern civil society and the commission, and we are more than happy to participate with our southern partners in dialogues at the local level where the delegations are – soon to be the embassies – and to be able to collaborate with our southern partners and, in the same way, help to strengthen their capacities to access funds directly from the commission. And we don’t see ourselves in competition necessarily at that basis with them. So, overall, I think that is a good move, and we welcome it. Budget support is becoming more and more crucial in the European Union development strategy. Does Concord have a specific position on it? In principle, we believe budget support is a very solid mechanism for providing assistance, particularly in the areas of education and health, which are two crucial pillars for social development. There are many frustrations by European governments in terms of … relations with their partner governments … that [have] issues of corruption or poor governance or whatever it is, [so] that they are hesitant about budget support. We would believe that we should stick with budget support and try to make it work better, rather than say there are too many difficulties, [so] we should withdraw [such form of assistance]. I think that becomes a step backwards. In the end, government-to-government assistance is what will move the development agenda forward. Of course, NGOs and civil society play a very key role in that process, but we don’t have the resources at the right level to really have the impact that is required. If we are going to move to 0.7 percent [share of the gross domestic product for aid spending], the volumes of the funding are going to be much larger even than they are now. It requires government ministries, technical agencies at [the] right level, to implement the proper expenditures of those funds. Budget support seems to us a logical way to do [aid], rather than going on a project-by-project approach. I don’t believe you could deliver proper aid programs at the level of funding that is promised on that basis. What is your opinion on the European Union’s engagement with Africa? Is the EU going in the right direction? >> EU Commits USD65B for Africa I think there are a number of issues around Africa that are important. One is the trade issue, and the second is, in terms of agriculture, food production [and] … nutrition, and the fact that Africa still remains the poorest continent. So, Europe has got to engage in a new and more dynamic way with Africa, particularly [by investing] in agriculture. We saw Europe withdraw aid from Africa right through the 1990s and even in this past decade. That has resulted in an extraordinary situation of food deficit, [of] rising food prices. Investment in agriculture went from over 20 percent to 3 percent of the European development budget, as after the fall of Communism, [Europe’s interest] went to the surrounding countries, [the] emerging states after the [dissolution of the] Soviet Union. We are paying the price now for that neglect of Africa. So, there has to be a real new engagement with Africa. [It has to be] around food security, food sovereignty, and working with African governments, so that Africa can become self-sufficient in food and even, as a report published in Harvard University last week pointed out, a food-exporting continent. We don’t give up that image of Africa in our minds: [When] European citizens think of Africa, it is always about people who are hungry, people who are impoverished. [Yet] the capacity of Africa to feed itself has been demonstrated time and time again. So, we need to see aid, [the] percentage of [the] aid budget focused on food production, focused particularly on nutrition, which is critical, focused on smallholders, on women farmers and on sustainable agricultural techniques. We have got to get away from the idea that we can solve Africa’s food problem though agribusiness, though the promotion of new crop varieties, and so on. We really need to be able to work with the smallholders to improve their agriculture [with] proper research. Yes, there is room for new technologies, but new technologies that do support small farmers and not [those] that leave them in debts, for instance, to agribusiness companies around new seed varieties and fertilizers. New donors, such as China and India, are emerging. The EU is engaging with China on development cooperation for Africa. Do you think this is an opportunity or a threat? What I would say is that China’s involvement in Africa, at the moment, is around economic relations rather than development. China has needs, and they are trading in a sense with Africa. But [what] they can bring … is capital. They bring workers. They can provide infrastructure. And, in return, they want access to raw materials, to oil and to lands. It is a very simple, even simplistic relationship. I don’t call it development as such. But it is a reality. You can see how for many African governments, [Chinese aid] is attractive. There is no talk about a [rights-based] approach, about the need of good governance, about respecting civil society — all these issues [that the] European Union [is] trying to introduce into the development dialogue with their partners in Africa. This is just a straightforward deal that is signed off. >> China’s ‘Noninterference’ Approach to International Cooperation Do you think that civil society organizations can play a role in pushing for a change in the status quo, for instance by implementing actions to raise attention on these issues? I think there are two things that can be done. Given that this is the reality, personally, I think that it is right for the European Union to engage with China on these issues because they are now a major player. The European Union is a major player, and I think if China can be brought into a development dialogue, through the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] perhaps or some other fora, then that is got to be good in terms of maybe encouraging China to think of its engagement in a wider way than [what it does at] present. Of course, the role of civil society should be to hold its government, its politicians, its ministers to account, and if deals are being done over the heads of citizens between governments and the Chinese, without any consideration to perhaps the human rights aspects of what is being done… For instance, the leasing of large tracts of land to the Chinese to develop their own farming to export food back to China, what has [that] done to the surrounding communities, especially to people that have been living on that land? Are these issues being taken into account? There are ways in which, if this is going to happen, it can be done in a way that could benefit everybody, and I would feel, at the moment, that isn’t the case. So, we need to work with our civil society partners on these issues to help them to deal with the issues of what some people are calling the land grab. And, of course, it is not only China on that issue. There [are] others in those countries also grabbing large tracts of land for their own enrichment. For the poor farmer and the field, it’s the same problem. It doesn’t matter who is grabbing the land. If it has been taken from them, [there is] the need [for someone] to be able to stand for their rights. What advice can you give to NGOs that want to be involved more effectively in the dialogue with EU institutions? First of all, I would encourage European civil society organizations to participate actively in the networks and in Concord and in the working groups because we have established clearly, as Concord, as indeed other networks, with the [European Commission] that we are a legitimate voice, we represent properly the NGOs, and that [we are] working together with our colleagues in Europe and sharing our resources and our knowledge and our expertise. We have a lot to say, and sometimes I think we don’t match the potential that we have. For instance, if you take the number of people working on food policies in different NGOs across Europe, and you put them all in a room, there is … a lot of policy people … a lot of experience and direct experience from the ground. We need to be able to bring all these experiences together … to make a very strong and clear statement about how we see these issues and to be able to present that to the European Union and to the [European Commission]. Can networks help to improve some inefficiencies in CSO work? Absolutely! One of the things we in Concord are trying to do is to build the capacity of our members in order to be more effective in the work that we do. We represent more than 2,000 NGOs across Europe. Our strength is our numbers, and our weakness is the fact that we have so many spreads so far. So, it is a real challenge. How do you get the best? Working together we can be greater. Sometimes, in fact, we are divided, we are dispersed, and there are often rival reasons, competition within NGOs, internationally and in the countries. We have to deal with all of that. So, this is work in progress. Concord is not the perfect instrument, no more than the United Nations with its 200 members … When we are 2,000 members, how are we supposed to act together? That is a constant struggle. Read Concord President Justin Kilcullen’s thoughts on the European External Action Service, value-for-money and how international development factors into national security. Read more EU business news: - How to Engage the EU on Development Business: A Primer - How to Win EuropeAid Funding: A Conversation with Koos Richelle - EuropeAid Pushes ‘Results-Oriented Monitoring’ - Macedonia Deputy PM: Rising EU Aid Requires Effective Management Read more international development business news.