The Civil Society Working Group (CSWG) 2016

Quarterly meeting

MINUTES

DAY ONE (11 October 2016): CSWG Quarterly Meeting
Time / Topic / Person in charge
08.00 – 08.30 / Registration
Welcome and opening remarks, presentation of agenda / Daovone(INN)
08.30 – 10.15 /
  1. Updates since the last CSWG

08.30 – 08.45 / Summary of previous CSWG meetings and topics – what would you like to discuss next time? / Suzanna (INN)
08.45 – 09.00 / Global Fund Country Coordination Mechanism – CSO Representatives / Khamla (FRC)
Through their project supporting civil society participation in the Global Fund’s Country Coordination Mechanism in the Lao PDR, FRC have recently conducted a workshop with a number of groups and CSOs in order to select the LCSO representatives for the CCM. Khamla provided an introduction to the Global Fund and how they finance the health sector in Laos with the overall objective to support the eradication of 3 diseases (TB, HIV/AIDS and Malaria). Between 2015 and 2017 it plans to support the Lao health sector with USD 38m of funds, and since it started in 2003, the Global Fund has provided USD 167,904,043 in funds to the Lao PDR.
For the CCM, there are 11 seats allocated to CSO representatives out of a total of 24. Definitions were offered of PLWD (People Living with Diseases) and KAP (Key Affected Persons). As a result of the recent elections, the CSO representatives for the 2016-2019 CCM include:
  • CSO – LaoRed Cross Society (Alternate: People living with HIV)
  • Faith Based Organisation – MetthaTham (Buddhist Association)
  • PLWD – Mr. Korakan (Alternate: Soukhamxay)
  • TG & MSM – Metta (Alternate: maithaison)
  • TB – Vilat (Alternate:Bualai)
  • Malaria – Bounlieng (Alternate: Phonesavanh)
  • SW & drug – Phonesamai (Women who work on ethnic and gender) (Alternate: Phew davanh)
A discussion followed concerning the LRCS and the worry that 90% of them are government officials apart from project staff members. It seems this issue has been addressed and discussed many times, however the decision was taken to allow them as seat holder.
INN gave an update regarding the INGO representatives on CCM (2 seat holders), and that the mechanism is encouraged to be used as a means to transfer messages from the areas CSWG members are working in, to the higher levels coordinating the health sector.
09.00 – 09.15 / Overview of MOHA - CSOs annual meeting (July 2016) / Inthana(ADWLE)
Inthana from ADWLE provided a summary of the events and discussion that took place at the MOHA/CSO meeting on 26 July. There were more than 100 people in attendance, where the Ministry of Home Affairs chaired the meeting. The DG of CSO management presented a summary of the past 12 months, which included the mention that there is a lot of intention to set up CSOs (77 cases at central level, 43 at local), however none have yet been approved. Currently 147 Associations and 10 Foundations are registered at national level. MOHA launched a consultation process for Decree 115 in 2014, and it has since been revised/amended, however yet to be finalized. Inthana has participated in the MOHA consultation meetings – article 49-51 on the rights and benefits of the NPA remain under discussion. A maximum ceiling of funding is also being debated. There remain a number of articles that the NPAs are not yet satisfied with, and these have yet to be finalized.MOHA has drafted the implementation guidelines for the Decree, but they have not seen these yet.Overall, the proposed amendments to Decree 115 have now been sent to the Ministry of Justice and the Guidelines for CSOs have been drafted.
The agenda included a Q&A session along with updates from the APF Committee and those representing LCS at the HLRTM in November 2015. APF Committee who went to TL – experience was seen as a test, because in the past the GoL were not aware about who does what and what their intentions are. A GoLofficial accompanied the group to support and supervise – but he was young and inexperienced so did not have the capacity to support effectively.
A further summary of the meeting includes:
  • Fund mobilisation:
  • Among 43 NPAs, 22 received funding more than LAK 27bn that was reported, LAK 20bn has been used in implementation so far.
  • 2 foundations, received funding LAK 259bn, of which LAK 231 has reportedly been spent.
  • Only 13 out of 43 NPAs provided reports to MOHA
  • Lessons learnt:
Successes / Limitations
Government of Laos:
-Legislation is in place and being implemented
-Systematic data collection and record keeping
-Book of laws and regulations have been printed and circulated
-Good coordination took place during APF
-Government officials understand more about CSOs and their support / -Registration approval not active, receive many complaints regarding the limited number of registered NPAs
-Completion of work/action plans
-Do not fully understand the legislation content, coordination not systematic and have negative viewpoint towards CSOs
-District level do not understand about CSOs and their work
CSOs
-Implement activities with and in-line with plans
-Fund mobilization
-Vocational promotion to poverty alleviation (education, health and humanity)
-Workshops on gender and ethnic groups / -Established for own use / benefit
-No unity, solidarity and do not meet among CSOs
-Do not understand its regulations
-Some NPAs are not active to join the meeting
-Some NPAs do not implement / no movement
-Some NPAs do not have general assembly or annual meeting
-Some NPAs and foundation did not send report on due date. In the case of 2 years no report, the register would be cancelled / terminated
-Implement project without relevant parties (sole implementation)
-Some NPAs do not have office
-Some NPAs and foundation run along the fund / money
  • How CSOs work with MOHA – benefits of working with GOL is that they have a legal framework, they have a systematic database (UNDP supported) system to support CSO management; Considered that APF was a success; GoL understand more and more the work of CSOs.
  • Good work of CSOs: they implemented their work plans well and were able to mobilise funds; ADWLE listed some of their own success stories from the work they have implemented; advised NPAs to integrate gender into your activities in order to be successful in getting funding;
  • NPAs complained that MOHA had not achieved quicker establishment of Associations (registration) as promised.
  • A summary of other ‘complaints’ are as follows:
Mr. General Bounmy Senkhamgnong (Ministry of National Security)
  • Bad people using NGOs, CSOs to oppose local government, convincing community, comparison and measurement.
  • 13 NGOs, CSOs conducting espionages
  • Approaching to retired officials
  • Using NPAs, people and local authorities to request for funding
  • Using strategies to establish organization
  • Turning viewpoint and resign from GoLto work /establish NGOs and CSOs
  • Private schools provide negative models; do not follow the approaches of state party.
/ Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Report of the capacity development programs of CSOs to northern, central and southern parts as misunderstanding remained in the past. But now both GoL and CSOs had opportunity to disseminate the decree on NGOs 013/PM, decree 115/PM and 149/PM.
  • Building understanding with local authorities to be aware of bad people who trying to create disunity
  • Workshop on building understanding to the relevant divisions to drive to the same direction to support on the CSOs suggestions. And in the future more officials will be invited to join.
  • Continue to raise awareness on Sam Sang Policy to relevant stakeholders for sustainable development by creating taskforce to support on this.

  • “NPAs are only running after funding… NGOs still have bad people, and ask NPAs to conduct their espionage work. NGOs use beneficiaries and NPAs to mobilise money but then don’t end up spending the money in their communities.”
  • “MOD believes NGOs use people to believe them rather than the GOL.”
  • MOFA reported on capacity building that took place – dissemination of different decrees at local/regional level (Decrees 115, 13 and 149).
  • Overall, understanding remains very low about what CS is, what they do, and why they do it. They want to have a taskforce to work with CSOs and district levels to support understanding about roles and what they do.
Following the final pointthe discussion that followed included the following points and observations:
  • District Governor Offices remain unfamiliar with CSO work – therefore presented as how NPAs could address this.
  • Bong – not a lot of lessons learnt from this meeting. Still clear misunderstandings – perhaps MOFA could lead more on these topics, since overall the comments remain very negative. The Ministries themselves don’t even coordinate on their own legislation, so how can they expect their local counterparts to coordinate. Such an environment isn’t conducive to CSOs doing good work.
  • Khampa – offered a warning comment regarding solidarity. We listen to them, they don’t listen to us. Suggested to present more figures about their contributions and # people trained/benefited from their activities.
  • Dao – how can we put all this into action points? How can we improve our solidarity? If the criticisms are true, how to fix, if they are not, how to prove/show this?
For follow up – How can these misconceptions/challenges be overcome and addressed by CSWG participants?
09.15 – 09.30 / What happened during the APF 2016 in Timor Leste? Summary by Lao CSO participants / Mrs. Khankham (CIDSE)
Khankam (CIDSE) offered a personal report from her experience in Timor Leste – she did not want to speak on the part of all those who took part. She said that she was afraid during the APF – whether the government was aware of her participation, what could happen, but also what could she do. She was weary of Lao overseas groups, and the limited language capacities of the Lao participants. The NOC convinced her to go despite her fear, and when she arrived, she was impressed and happy to be there. 17 people went (including 4 APF Committee members). 3 representatives received funding (2 from UNRC, 2 Helvetas, 1 Women Focus (ADWLE), 9 from IRI. She made specific mention of Khammouane at LDA for supporting this process). She was assigned as team leader of representatives with support from IRI. Khammouane was instrumental in raising funding for the participants. They didn’t participate in the strike at the Australian Embassy in Dili – the Lao NOC advised them not to. Khankham presented on racism and youth work.
Atmosphere – a lot of introductions and saying who they were and what they do. Cultural literature exchange/performance. She noticed that the representatives from other countries ‘were braver than us, and willing to fight more’. Braver to achieve social justice – her Cambodian colleague asked why the Lao were afraid, and she had to explain the lao culture of non-violence, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t fight.
Lessons learnt were abundant – how to solve problems in different sectors. Need to work on how they present – needs to be more concise and to the point. She was concerned about racism? Felt she wasn’t prepared – did she choose the subject matter? They met with the Lao overseas groups – preferred that they approached them, than they came to them here in Laos. NOC asked them to be less negative and aggressive in their presentations, and tried to tell them more about the reality inside the country (they are aware of the issues, but the circumstances in which they can communicate these). Overall they had no issue with them.
Ways forward: Logistics and organisation was good, felt safe. The Lao participants should focus more on preparation and apply earlier and timely. Need to know in advance what they are to present, and prepare beforehand. English language level was challenging and regional accents – would like to bring a translator next time. Overall was happy to have participated and there was good solidarity. Need to present about national level issues rather than their own projects…
09.30 – 10.00 / General updates from the Lao Civil Society Network and Day 2 agenda (LCN) / Souvanpheng
Souvanpeng gave presentation about (Lao CSOs Network) LCN (former LHD), the presentation includes short history of LCN and its vision, mission improved and future mission for the new committees who will be selected in the following day, the presentation also clearly showed the donors how the network managed fund and generate extra fund from service by showing analysis graph of annual finance. Additional, he also clarified on the confusion between network committees and APF committees.
He runs a Social Enterprise and wanted to thank Helvetas for supporting LCNs costs. He went on to present LCN and how it can be relevant in the ASEAN context. Their strategic plan addresses some of the points raised by Inthana, and how they plan to do this at Provincial level. He defended the name of LCN and stated that it had been voted for by their 33 members, and 14 observers. Role of the Network:
  • Provide information to other associations
  • Facilitate members and newcomers
  • Offer advice and support if fundraising
  • Want them to use their facilities in order to maximise the donor resources available
Goals and objectives have been improved from the older version – ensure they are relevant to the GoL plans and the 3 pillars of the AEC:
  • Develop capacity of members
  • Improve solidarity amongst members
  • In order to pass transitional phase will elect a new committee to further elaborate a new strategy
He mentioned that during he stepped in the committee seat at LHD (LCN at the present time). It was during an activist disappearance and the situation was full of stress and even no one wanted to seat on theLCN committee and The roles of LCN created based on their promises to MOHA once they came to inspect and had VDO record interview, thus LCN could not do more than its current roles, but from now on, things are changing and the situation better, the new committee might be able to handle more work. the Achievements in the last 3 years are few and members (CSOs) should realize that LCN contributes indirectly to your organization, however they are:
  • Sharing info (meeting, fund, capacity dev and general)
  • Study tours and exchange meetings overseas
  • APF participation
  • Participation at public events – blood donation?
He said that some criticise them for not offering per diem or capacity building – but he added that LCN are not staying still and they are doing work externally that is counting towards the overall status of the Network. He then presented their financial report and income sources. Support some members stay for free on their accommodation because they know they need the support. LAK 148m was earnt from the meeting room facilities ~50%. Expenditures – rental fees are 50% covered, so are not fully self-sufficient. Running on a 6% deficit. Helvetas contribute 10% to their overall income.
  • HR is lacking – how to develop this? This leads to discredit amongst members.
  • Give us a building then we can be self-sufficient.
  • How can we solve misconceptions amongst GoL? I leave this to the new Steering Committee…
  • Some members could not see the important of LCN work and did not pay the member fee
  • We are broken, many have left since SS disappearance – so it’s true there is no solidarity amongst CS.
In the new phase, LCN will play roles on:
  • Improving internal structure
  • Building Internal and members solidarity
  • Building trust to GoL
  • Capacity dev for members
  • Create manuals for capacity dev,
  • Sharing info
Want to be a hub for donor funds – that they could then pass on to their members. This could be a good incentive for membership. Leadership training manual needs to be created, governance structure should be clarified. Politburo members to be trainers? LCN wants to become a service provider for training? Charge external stakeholders for their expertise? Create best practice manuals that they could then sell and earn income.
How to improve the Network to make it sustainable?
Does the Network have any benefits?
Do you think LCN should finish or continue to improve? Why? Too many networks?
10.00 – 10.15 / GSWG: Public Service Improvement SSWG - Update and follow up;
SDG 17: Partnerships for Development. / Mr. Bong (Helvetas) and Ms. Viengmala (UNDP)
Bong provided an update about this UNDP/MOHA Meeting that took place in August. The agenda talked about the participation of different stakeholders – private sector, CS, Government and DP contributions to achieve the SDGs, 8th NSEDP and 2030 Agenda for Laos. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, >70% are integrated in the NSEDP MEP. In order to achieve this there needs to be a platform on which these groups can partner.