Looking at the individual objectives and some indicators for the overall PF project it can be seen that while not all recipients have equally contributed to the achievement of each individual indicator, all have contributed to the overall success of the project and have the capability to sustain the capacity built.

The selected indicators to assess the NGDOs' and therebye the Fund's achievements are the following:

1. To increase the capacity of CSOs in new Member states to engage in, cooperate on and execute actions/activities (e.g. advocacy, public awareness raising, campaigning and lobbying) in order to contribute over time to a strengthened EU development cooperation

1.1/ Increased level of interaction between CSOs in NMSs and their MEPs, national governments and permanent representatives to EU

Although most of the recipients focussed mainly on national development policies, those in calls 3, 4 and 5 also integrated activities at the EU level. FOND set up and maintained its relationship with a Romanian MEP[1] after the 2009 EP elections. Likewise, both the Sisterhood Foundation and HAND maintained their contact with a Hungarian MEP[2], while PHO continued to work with Polish MEPs[3] after the 2009 EP elections.

All recipients report continued engagement with their Ministries of Foreign Affairs, albeit that very few manage(d) to get through to other ministries (e.g. Ministry of Finance). Some, such as Sloga, Hand, FOND[4] and SKOP, are officially recognised as partners by the MFA. FoRS is now acknowledged as an official observer and part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs drafting the Czech Mid-term Strategy

Sloga is also recognised as an important partner by the Slovenian Permanent Representative[5]. Likewise LAPAS had been invited to discuss issues with the Latvian Permanent Representative when in Brussels in December 2009, but more importantly had also been invited by the future Commissioner for Development Cooperation, Mr. Piebalgs, to discuss development cooperation.

1.2/ Increased media coverage within the New Member States on EU dvelopment policies

Many of the projects supported by the PF did not have an explicit activity focussing purely on mobilising the media. However, most of them include sending newsletters and posting activities, events and reports on their websites for consultation by the media and others. Analysis of these websites shows that many have maintained this activity (Glopolis, FoRs and others)

1.3/Creation of national consensus within the New Member States on EU Development Policies

Most of the NGDO platforms reported closer cooperation with the ministries of Foreign Affairs, whereby they are often invited to take part in the development of national development policies and longer term strategies

2. To facilitate the engagement of CSOs within the New Member states with CS actors in Developing countries, so that New Member States CSOs can include perspectives from the Global South in their actions and activities

2.1/ More direct and indirect interaction between the North and the South

While it is the tendency of the development community to think of development in terms of support for South in countries in South Asia,  Africa and Latin America, NGOs in new member states see development also as support for the near neighbourhood countries. Many of the NG(D)Os and NGDO platforms have close contacts with partners in the latter countries and this should be acknowledged as development cooperation in the context of this report.

FOND, for instance, reports that while their visit to Coordination Sud was very useful it did not really contribute to immediate cooperation for projects in the South between the members of both platforms because of their different geographical focus, but did offer the opportunity to explore potential cooperation with as a concrete example the collaboration between the French Association of Volunteers of Progress and the Romanian National Volunteering Center (Pro Vobis)[6]

Likewise Integra reports their continued cooperation with their partners in Kenya, Sudan and Serbia. EMLA also reported that although the twinning exercise was not very successful, the organised visits had resulted in more permanent contacts with partners in Tanzania.

2.2/ Increased engagement of official representatives of national initiatives organised by CSOs and their partners from the South

While financial resources usually play a role in the opportunity for official representatives from national initiatives in the South, the reports from those recipients that have specifically organised events with partners from the South, e.g. Sloga, Integra, the Sisterhood Foundation (focussing on the Near Neighbourhood) have succeeded in bringing representatives over. This is easier to be repeated for those organisations with a specific topic such as fair trade or gender, than for the NGDO platforms.  In how far this is therefore a valid indicator depends, therefore, on the situation of the individual grantees.

3. Build partnerships and coalitions with other CSOs involved in development cooperation or create new ones, so that they create a stronger voice when working with government and EU institutions or with CSOs from the ‘old’ EU Member states

3. 1/ Increase in working partnership establshed between CSOs from New Member States and more established EU CSOs

As stated above the earlier calls for proposals put less emphasis on the need to work at EU level. The later calls specified this and the proposals consequently focussed more clearly on cooperation of  ‘old’ member states’ NGDO platforms. The most prominent among these is obviously Concord. Most of the recipients report working with Concord. Some becoming members, others joining the Concord working Groups through their NGDO platforms such as Grupa Zagranica[1] ( NEWW, PHO and Polish Green Network) and BDIP (ECIP). The most prominent Working group mentioned is Aid Watch, whereby many of the platforms have contributed national reports to the 2009 Aid Watch report.

Some of the recipient networks have also joined Eurostep, taking part in the GA in December 2009 and contributing to its advocacy activities.

In addition contacts have been made with national NGDO platforms for instance in Austria and France (Coordination Sud). Special issue NGDOs on e.g. fair trade, have also joined global and EU networks on the specific issue and continue to facilitate raising awareness on their issue at national level with the input from the EU level and bringing their experience to national level to the international level (e.g. Integra Foundation and EMLA). Although not supported by the PF it is a sign of its sustainability that an organisation such as AKU in Estonia plays an important role as the Estonian representative in the organisation for Global Development Education, GLEN (www.glen-europe.org) as is PHO for Poland.

3.2/ Shown/proven effectiveness and sustainability of structures and mechanisms set up through these networks

A complication with this objective is that while the recipients have developed an interesting working relationship with both Concord and Eurostep, full membership, the best way to sustain close cooperation, is often too expensive for the new NGDO platforms. Where the PF has helped build capacity and facilitated in creating the contacts with those networks, it will be crucial to offer the new platforms a helping hand by modifying their memberships over a longer period of time.

3.3/ The degree in which partnerships/coalitions have been clearly/identifiably established with the help of the Presidency Fund

It should be clear from the above that the PF has facilitated, promoted and improved the building of coalitions and networks of NGDOs in the new member states. This was not only done at national level, but also across borders when the recipients met at international meetings or organised regional events such as the Baltic meeting (LAPAS). At the meeting on the PF organised for the recipients in December 2009, the participants agreed that their participation in the PF project had allowed them to develop working relationships which, although not really intended by the donors of the PF, had the side effect of the joining of forces to submit proposals to the EC.

As a clear example, it is interesting to note that since January 2008 Glopolis, the Polish Humanitarian Organisation and KOPIN are partners in an EU funded project called ‘Great’ focussing on Human Rights Based Approach to development and global interdependency, lead by Action Aid and Terres des Hommes, Germany. When discussing the PF with the recipients in December 2009, it became clear that while they were very grateful for the support to capacity building offered by the PF they would need continued funding if they were to sustain and increase their efforts on development cooperation. Applying for funding from the EC was seen as an important tool to achieve this objective and the relations developed in the PF project facilitated the creation of joint project proposals. While the recipients were thankful to Trialog, for the technical support and skill building offered by them, the PF recipients wondered whether there was no possibility  to set up a follow-up fund focussing on building their skills to cooperate and develop joined projects.

4. Promote the active participation of CSOs from New Memberr states in Europe-wide networks with the particular focus of enabling their fair representation at and access to the different EU institutions in order to facilitate opportunities for these CSOs to influence EU policies

4.1/ Level of participation of CSOs from New Member States in Europe-wide networks

As stated above many of the NMS national platforms joined Concord working groups playing different roles, sometimes taking the lead in certain WGs, e.g. NEWW in the Gender working Group, ensuring important contributions on the national state of development cooperation to Concord’s Aid Watch. Others play an important role in Eurostep not only by becoming observers or full members (e.g. Sloga, PIN, NEWW, KOPIN/SKOP), but joining Eurostep’s Board as of January 2010 ( Sloga, NEWW and PIN (in fact already a member of the Board before 2010) to ensure that the voice from the New Member States will be heard in the policies and activities developed and implemented by the Europe-wide network.

4.2/ Number/level of inputs from CSOs from New Member States into this cooperation

As Working Groups presuppose collective inputs, discussion and conclusions, it is difficult to ascertain the individual contributions from the various members. Within the context of this report suffices it to note that the NMS’s platform organisations are partaking in the Working groups and others oriented towards specific topics such as fair trade (e.g. Integra) are also cooperating closely at a European and even global level. It is still too early to analyse what the effect has been of the participation of all the recipients of the PF, but the fact that LAPAS has been consulted by the new Commissioner for Development, that Sloga, NEWW and PIN are part of Eurostep’s Board and that MEPs such as Ms. Gabriela Cretu consult their national CSOs (in this case FOND) indicates an increased awareness and involvement of the PF grantees.

[1] Gabriela Cretu

[2] Zita Gurmai

[3] Filip Kaczmarek and others

[4] See also http://www.mae.ro/index.php?unde=doc&id=14282

[5] At the PF assessment meeting on 16 December 2009

[6] Source: Adela Rusu, National Platform Coordinator of FOND, 11 January 2010

[7] www.zagranica.org.pl)