World Bank Consultation on Global Partnership for Enhanced Social Accountability

What has become clear from the consultation meeting held this morning in Brussels (with video conferences to London, Paris, Rome and Geneva) is that civil society has been recognised by the World Bank as a key stake holder in its agenda. This is why the World Bank is developing a Global Partnership for Enhanced Social Accountability to support civil society organizations (CSOs) in developing countries to hold governments accountable and improve development outcomes. It is supposed to come as a facility and will start on a small scale basis with $5million for 4 years for the MENA countries (Middle Eastern and Northern African) and the rest of Africa. The facility aims to increase capacities of CSOs and strengthening their knowledge in holding the government accountable but also in measuring the impact of their work. Therefore, the facility comes with two functions: The first one is research and knowledge sharing, which will include a global platform for capacity building provide by the World Bank. The second function will be the grant giving facility that allows civil society organisations to apply for calls for proposals that will be identified on a country by country basis in advance.

The purpose of the meeting today was to receive input from civil society organisations in order to consult the World Bank on the facility and the further steps. It has provoked an interesting discussion around modes of governance but also raised potential questions about the involvement of the Bank. After being asked to define civil society, the officials of the World Bank did not list social enterprises as belonging to civil society and a clear distinction was made between profit and not-for profit. On further investigation it turned out that the World Bank had not only not considered Social Enterprises as part of civil society, they also admitted to having no idea what it was. As one of the positive outcomes of the meetings the World Bank will now consider Social Enterprises as being eligible for the facility and is also aware of the existence of social enterprises as contributors to development. Let’s hope to see that reflected in the future actions of the bank.

Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary (you remember- Condoleezza Rice in a Blackburn Rovers shirt), grabbed the headlines at the IPPR after calling for the EU Parliament to be abolished. His speech was replete with personal agenda. It was classic former minister stuff.

There were three other interesting contributions too, sadly overlooked. At a think tank that plays a major part in setting Britain’s left wing agenda, Professor Simon Hix of the LSE offered a much more constructive programme, not least of all making some suggestions for fixing the parliament rather than abolishing it (or elections to it). Ann Pettifor was engaging although rather bleak in outlook, foretelling the collapse of economies and the undermining of democracy by banking institutions. Even Lord Kerr, in a speech determined to move our perception of the EU to nothing more than a treaty organisation, made the crucial point that people (read: MS governments) should stop knocking it for not being a state if they don’t want it to be one.

We were all there because, let’s face it, the programme to bring more democracy into the EU isn’t going as well as we might have hoped. Mr. Straw’s answer to that lack of engagement is to stop trying. Perhaps the almost 40% of Blackburn electors in his constituency who didn’t turn out to vote this time have been on the end of his apathy already?

More likely, they feel that in the current system, their voice doesn’t matter; but if this is true then better engagement is the way forward, not abandoning our structures. There is a widespread feeling that the EU is an elite project which has for too long ignored it’s voters, but that doesn’t make it beyond repair.

Simon Hix made a strong argument as to where the UK could start: by adopting an open list system, which is good for the electorate, but not for the parties which face a weakening of hierarchy and the prospect of working harder at elections. In an open list, the power moves away from the political class and back to real people.

Well, that sounds good to me. It is, of course, no small co-incidence that the cabinet responsible for plumping for our current closed list system contained Mr Jack Straw.

The EU is, as Kerr noted, what it is because member states made it that way. They have set up this project and now those who had the chance to help build a robust system when the going was good want to tear sections of it down because they weren’t set up well enough.

Perhaps a better way is gradual co-operative reform. The EU can, does, make positive changes every day in the lives of millions of citizens but they don’t necessarily realise it. They don’t realise it because the coverage that is read every day is not about the EU’s successes, rather it is Member States pointing the finger of blame at the EU for their problems. In the UK, it’s David Cameron on the news waving his little ‘veto’ around in Brussels. It’s George Osborne blaming the Eurozone crisis for our feeble economic situation.

It isn’t necessarily in our control to change that. Publics are more sceptical of EU projects now than they have been for many years; that is the side effect of a recession. What is in our control is the ability to engage better with the EU, and to build and give constructive advice  and to keep ensuring that real people have a positive experience and see the benefits of our political system. That is what Euclid Network provides.  We have worked on the PRActical Guide (PRAG) which covers EU contracting procedures for EU external actions, to help to make them more accessible to Civil Society Organisations. Our Social Business Consultation will present DG Internal Market with cohesive quantifiable feedback on their plans to support Social Business in the EU and beyond. We send young entrepreneurs across Europe to make business connections with the Erasmus programme and we have run workshops and make available information to ensure that civil society is informed about developments and funding opportunities.

The EU isn’t perfect, but it does have a substantial amount to offer. Where it fails, we should reform it. There is no doubt that the democratic credentials of the union are not great, but this will require Member States and their political parties performing a stunning volte -face if we wish to change it. When you start tearing out huge chunks of the union structure and repatriating and undermining swathes of powers though, you run the risk of reverting to a system that is out-dated and isolationist. It is perhaps a relief that Jack Straw represents the Labour Party’s past and not their future. 

- Dan

Global Instruments of Finance and the Folly of Economic Growth (Part 1)

Is the social usefulness of financial instruments misunderstood in a similar way to how, in the darkness, the aspiring animal musicians in the folktale Town Musicians of Bremen are mistaken for being a witch?

Financial language is confusing at the best of times, sometimes the same term means different things to various people and on other occasions different terms have the same meaning – depending on an individual’s perspective. We should not banish a whole class of financial instrument, like derivatives, just because some have been abused as contraptions of greed.

Context and motive are important. For example, not everyone wearing stockings is a bank robber – but walk into a bank with a stocking covering your face and you are certainly worthy of suspicion!

I decided to write this blog (it’s turned into an essay) after an energetic email exchange with colleagues who work in finance and the social economy across Asia, Europe and the USA. The distribution list expanded to include officials at the European Commission who, refreshingly, found the exchange interesting and informative. (All names withheld to protect the innocent – except mine, I’m guilty of well-meaning provocation)

The discussion was started by a corporate banker at a multinational retail and investment bank, who was writing in her personal capacity. She rightly said that “a serious obstacle to the development of social finance is the lack of standards and common language around the concept”, and that “in a decade of low rates and low average returns, that defining social finance as a ‘poor cousin’ of ‘mainstream finance’ is an inappropriate over-simplification”.

Quite right, and exactly what Rupert Evenett and I argued in Making Good in Social Impact Investment. For example, financial returns are not the top priority of investors who have a capital preservation strategy, for them it is vital that they don’t loose money – and returns in excess of inflation may even suggest that their portfolio has too much exposure to risk.

A new hybrid equity, debt and derivative instrument – you mean Social Impact Bonds for short?

The corporate banker continued to point out that the Social Impact Bond, a new financial instrument being piloted in the UK and explored globally as a means of funding the social economy, is “not strictly a bond [i.e. debt instrument] at all, but rather a structured product of the type that would not be deemed suitable for mass market distribution in many jurisdictions due to use of complex derivatives, limited liquidity etc.” So why are governments, social enterprises, NGO’s and charities around the world so excited about it? Simple, because it is perceived to offer a win-win (and a bit of a compromise) for all stakeholders.

If we unpack Social Impact Bonds based on the individual perspectives of different stakeholders, we see that it cleverly offers to different people exactly what they want:

• Social purpose organisations get access to a steady stream of funding over the timeframe of a few years, and on terms that suit their immediate cashflow requirements. They are freed of the ‘hamster wheel’ of continuous grant fundraising cycles.
• Governments are able to pick winners through only paying for success and can demonstrate that they are not wasting taxpayers money, but ‘transferring risk to the private sector’.
• Investors with some risk appetite have the opportunity to make investments that can pay well, currently capped at 13% in the UK (perhaps not the most attractive ROI in the UK, but French investors I have spoken to think it is attractive).
• Most importantly (for social economy types) there is explicitly a social objective at the heart of the transaction that dictates the flow of all financial returns. This makes it a potential flagship for the social economy and means that financiers always have a participatory position that is contingent on the success of the underlying social intervention.

One can see the attraction. But if the appeal of Social Impact Bonds is that they are all things to all people, then equally this aspect makes it difficult to put them in a box of financial classification. Social Impact Bonds are:

• Part debt instrument – because financial returns are capped, returns are not open-ended like true equity investments. This is good for social purpose organisations because their cost of capital is limited and surpluses can be reinvested towards their social purposes.
• Part equity instrument – because of the higher risk exposure and ‘participating’ elements of the investment in the underlying activity. This is good because it means risk is shared. It is also not usury. (It is import to note that in the UK charities are prohibited from directly issuing equity because they are not permitted to have private ownership, which is an intrinsic aspect of equity capital.)
• Part derivative instrument – because the financial returns to investors are not derived directly from the enterprising activity that is funded, but from a contract between government and financial intermediaries i.e. returns are based on a contract between two parties that pays out based on the performance of a third-party.

Different things to different people

In the Town Musicians of Bremen folktale, the animals inadvertently frighten away the original occupiers of the house. In the darkness, one of the orginal occupiers is confronted in quick succession by the cat’s glowing eyes, the dog’s bite, the donkey’s kick and the rooster’s screech  – he concludes that it can only be a witch that has all those attributes. As a result they flee and the animals stay in the house till the end of their days.

We should not allow ourselves to be bewitched (nor seduced for that matter) by Social Impact Bonds, or any other financial instrument. At the end of the day, it’s not how complicated or simple the instrument is that matters, but how it is used, whether the risks are transparent, whether both investor and investee understand the instrument, and whether it is the best instrument to serve the interests of both the investor and investee (not just one party).

The good, the bad and the ugly confusion

In the email exchange I refered to earlier, it was interesting to see the broad variation in opinion amongst social economy practitioners about the pros and cons of debt, equity and derivatives. All were argued for by some, and all were criticised by others as having elements that where not consistent with the values of the social economy.

In Making Good in Social Impact Investment we explained that if one analyses most equity or debt transactions, there are very few that could be classified as ‘pure equity’ or ‘pure debt’. In fact, most have overlapping characteristics of both equity or debt, quasi-equity and preference shares are two examples. We resurrected the financial term ‘intermediate capital’ – financial instruments with overlapping characteristics of different types of capital – to describe these instruments. More importantly, we wanted to make the point that a vibrant, thriving and efficacious capital market will be comfortable in reflecting these overlapping and sometimes contradictory characteristics. And if we take a step back, we can see how they could all function together in a way that is mutually reinforcing and that supports the fundamental principles and values of the social economy.

After all, diversity and pluralism contribute positively towards reducing systemic  risk in financial systems.

So I suggest that if we are debating whether debt, equity or derivatives are good or bad – then we are having the wrong debate and using the wrong language.

In the email exchange, an alternative financier operating in Eastern Europe summed up the position very well, she said “I think social finance is defined by what the purpose or motivation of your investment is, not necessarily what instrument you use. I thought that was fairly clear to most of us, perhaps we need to communicate it better.”

We should accept that the social economy in the various corners of the world reflects the nuances and intricacies of local culture, legislation, economic factors, history and financial sector prowess. We should also accept that there will be different opinions about the detail  – and that this is healthy.

There is no good or bad when it comes to specific instruments – just good or bad implementation.

We need smart legislation

Why are the complex financial instruments of Social Impact Bonds considered good for society but CDO’s and CDO Squared’s are bad?

It’s not the legal instrument that should be evaluated but to what purpose it is put and how it is implemented. Yes, this unfortunately means harder work for legislators and regulators who need to enact smarter and more dynamic legislation and regulation. The rules should not discriminate at the level of the legal instrument or definition, because clever people will always devise workarounds. We need rules that recognise intent and purpose, that filter out the bad and allow the good – whatever it looks like.

Is this possible? Yes, absolutely. For example, the European Commission, in defining what constitutes a Social Business, could have said that for-profit organisations are nasty and excluded, whereas mutuals, charities and cooperatives are good and therefore all are included. But not all of the latter are good for society and not all of the former are bad. So instead the Commission has come up with a set of criteria that defines guiding principles and characteristics by which one can identify social businesses, such as:

• social purpose is mandated
• is pro-market – must be competitive, entrepreneurial and innovative
• surpluses are reinvested for social purpose (does not preclude reasonable profit)
• is transparent and accountable
• decision-making involves workers, customers and people affected by its business

Think that’s fluffy and easy abuse? No it isn’t. To use an extreme example to test the definition: it certainly would not be possible to set up a charitable foundation – so far nothing wrong  – that offers a small but wealthy family a tax dodge, does no good for society at large, with no one able to find out about its source of funds because they are channelled via a nefarious tax haven.

Compare it to the following.

… dumb legislation

In the hiatus following the credit crunch and the ensuing blame game, short selling and complex derivatives were blamed as either causing or exacerbating the effects of the crisis – they certainly couldn’t be useful for society, surely? In a knee-jerk reaction, many European Countries banned ‘short selling’ of certain equities. Notwithstanding these bans, the Financial Times recently reported that Credit Suisse is offering its clients products that replicate the hypothetic gains as if they had been short selling European stock indices, including equities covered by eurozone short selling bans.

So what does that tell us? That the taxpayer money spent on those pieces of legislation was wasted. And some clever financial engineers in Switzerland got rich.

We need to turn this tide and make finance work for society and the social economy. It will be a fine balancing act.

What lessons can we draw for creating an efficacious capital market for social investment in Europe

If different types of capital such as debt, equity and derivatives can have overlapping characteristics then defining what is good or bad simply by its headline categorisation is meaningless and keeps the debate in the dark. We should move beyond the trap of defining certain financial instruments as good or bad, and instead focus on evaluating their implementation.

We should welcome financial innovation and not blame it or stifle it, as effectively argued by Bishop & Green in their book Road from Ruin. To quote them describing the Tulip Bubble of the 1630′s, “to blame financial innovation [for the bubble] would be like blaming the tulip”.

We need to work out how we recognise finance that is good for society compared with that which is not. This is easier than people think. As the corporate banker said in our email exchange, we must start with developing standards and a common language.

And the start has been made. See the guiding principles developed by the Task Force for a European Social Investment Facility. It reveals how plurality and diversity can be accommodated, so too can the nuances of differing best practice in different nations and regions.

P.S. there’s always another perspective

In our trans-continental email debate, a contributor from the USA highlighted that Social Impact Bonds remind him of another mechanism in the USA that allows the social economy to raise private capital from the public.

Regular savers are offered Certificates of Deposit (CD) by a well-known bank, these deposits are pooled together and used to guarantee loans to Fair Trade organisations. It’s slightly more high-risk that a regular CD, but the social impact is substantially greater – and there is demand from both savers and borrowers. There are a number of reasons why such a guarantee is preferable to lending the money directly. For example, guarantees help develop the market more broadly by attracting new capital providers, they allow more efficient use of capital by the guarantors, and they provide borrows with the opportunity to demonstrate their credit worthiness by building a track record.

Needless to say, it highlights that sometimes, for some social enterprises, the best way to support them is by providing guarantees.

Coming soon: Part 2, focusing on the folly of economic growth…

~ By Karl Richter: Euclid Network’s advisor on Social Impact Investment

Looking East: EU Foreign Policy Roundtable at LSE

The series of excellent roundtables arranged by the LSE’s European Foreign Policy Unit took a turn to the East last week, as a panel of experts assessed the impact of the EU in its Eastern European neighbourhood post Lisbon.

No prizes for guessing that it wasn’t all positivity. On the day of yet another scathing attack on Baroness Ashton, this time from the Economist’s Charlemagne column, it was obvious that there were going to be criticisms.

The panel, though, consisting of Hiski Haukkala of the University of Tampere, Stefan Wolff of the University of Birmingham and Nicu Popescu of the European Council on Foreign Relations, weren’t just laying the blame at Cathy Ashton’s door. Haukkula pointed to a number of issues in the eastern neighbourhood countries that have caused the process to stall irrespective of any direct failing of policy. The neighbours, he said, are less able (or willing) to integrate than previously. The member states have an enlargement fatigue, and there is an economic crisis taking up everyone’s attention. It isn’t the ideal time for engaging in potentially expensive foreign programmes, and as Popescu pointed out much later, foreign policy has declined in relative importance.

The EU, Popescu acknowledged poetically, has less shine, less time and less dime for foreign entanglements. The success of the EU as a trading partner in the Eastern partnership should not be overlooked though, he noted, as it has replaced Russia as the key trading partner to much of the Eastern Partnership (although he reminded us that the cost of implementing the acquis makes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) less attractive than many in the EU assumed).

The EU and the EEAS (European External Action Service) did take some flak for the failures to make a meaningful impact in the East. The Action Service, noted Birmingham University’s Stefan Wolff, is staffed largely with Commission people:  decent at running projects, but not much experience of hard security issues. The EU can’t break into stronger and more stable countries, rather it has more pull when countries are weak and have no alternatives, which is not the case with many of the countries in the Eastern Partnership, wedged as they are with the opportunity to court either the US or Russia.

The Union has also been guilty of arrogance in its assumption, noted Haukkala, that anyone wants to join for the ideals or the wonderful architecture in Brussels. They want to join for success, and since 2008, the EU has hardly been a beacon of that. Yet, in the current financial crisis, the Union is still pumping money into India and China. Perhaps a re-allocation to the Eastern neighbourhood would be a better use of that cash?

Indeed the latest plan for the establishment of a Civil Society Facility to provide 22 million Euros to European Neighbourhood Partnership countries represents a path for the future. The Union would do well to note the value of civil society.

In particular, one area that could stand to be addressed is the place of social enterprise in the Eastern Partnership. As has been commented on before on this blog, social enterprise and social business are able to reach areas where state and international aid regularly fails. Filippo, Euclid Network’s Executive Director, (blogging over at Dating4Good) has seen the impact of social enterprise first hand in Pakistan, and recently the Euclid Network has called on Cathy Ashton to recognise its value in ENP countries, and to harmonise the innovative internal policies towards social business and innovation into the European Neighbourhood and the broader external relations agenda.

The EU may struggle to agree a common position at Member State level, and traditional expansion into foreign policy meets set-backs from both member states and competition from other DGs. Where the EU could make real headway though, is in promoting innovative new ways to tackle problems, not only, but perhaps particularly, in the East

Dan

---

A new perspective on Greece’s troubles

Greece’s problems, well documented in their severity and scale, set an intriguing premise for the LSE’s Hellenic Observatory seminar last week. Entitled ‘Social Policy and Social Justice in Greece: the unfair deficit’, it saw speaker Professor Dimitris Venieris go as far as to attribute the country’s dire financial situation almost wholly to these long-standing inefficiencies in the social justice system, believing them a mere symptom of a profound and damaging lack of social justice. In the current environment, a substantial and compelling argument would be required to convince his audience that anything other than bad economic practice is to blame, and indeed he left his audience perhaps only partially convinced.

Venieris’s boldest criticisms were of imbalanced politics, an inefficient and poorly conceived welfare system and administrative incompetency – but also of the national mentality. He cited a need to change perception of the state and recognise duties as well as rights. Though heavy with social justice theory, his argument was both simple and primarily aspirational: in the midst of crudely liberalising reforms, what is truly required is a responsive social policy and nuanced welfare state, in stark comparison to the aggressive market liberalisation of the hour. By strategically redistributing both wealth and non-economic rights (such as dignity, power, autonomy), it can emerge positively from troubled times.

The speech was sharp on the analysis of the problem, deeply committed in its call for radical structural change. That Greece’s system has been entirely flawed was undisputed by the audience; how and by whom this change will be implemented, however, proved less conclusive. Not only are politicians stuck in the system they created but the ruling classes more widely have no interest in reform – they are the beneficiaries of the inequalities which are affecting the country. But it’s possible the citizens themselves will provide the impetus, these first steps towards rectifying the social situation in turn influencing the country’s political and economic crises.

To some extent, the void left by the retreating state must be filled by new forms of civil society, currently a weak sector in Greece. Whilst the politico-economic crisis in the country fixates the other drivers of change (the state and private sector), it is civil society which has the opportunity to think and act creatively. Social innovation can thrive in the most difficult, unsettled times and seemingly restrictive conditions (Filippo’s last blog post relating to Pakistan provides an excellent example of this concept in practice). When citizens feel that the institutions in place to ensure their welfare have failed to do so, it can unearth dedicated social entrepreneurs and instil a national solidarity and collective will for improvement. It is this that can often be the true agent of change, before political and legislative amendments. Maybe this is the necessary shift in public mentality that Dimitris Venieris spoke of with such urgency.

As Greece’s government struggles to persuade its creditors into a deal to halve €206bn of Greek debt this week, the cost of ludicrous decision making and inefficiency caused by systemic inequality could prove to be insurmountably high. Yet it is social business that may provide a lifeline. Euclid Network’s underlying principle puts the sector at the structural heart of social betterment, and although the path for Greece is far from clear, it would be fair to suggest this will be an essential component for success. A strong civil society provides not only an essential infrastructure but the element of sustainability, which can only aid stability and robustness in times of change.

Dan Ridler and Emily Lim

BEWARE the Vikings are coming – Danish Presidency 2012 challenges and opportunities

The Danish presidency offers many opportunities for this new year. Holding the presidency in this time of crisis holds a lot of challenges but also many opportunities for CS to advocate an alternative future for Europe.

It comes at no surprise that their absolute priority is to tackle the economic, financial and

Logo of the Danish Presidency

debt crisis. However, known for their cold, plain, efficient yet forward-thinking design the Danes include several important aspects and notions in their 2012 programme for the Council of the EU (basically the stuff they want to achieve, and their benchmark of a successful or unsuccessful presidency).

Things to watch:

-          The Danes will have a strong focus on sustainability, the digital agenda (especially e-health) and innovative and creative solutions for the single market.

-          The Multiannual Financial Framework: In the Danish opinion the current budget does not reflect the need to create sustainable growth and employment. The funds need to create greater benefits for the citizens. One area of reform under the MFF is supposed to be the structural and cohesion policy (the negotiation are commenced by the Danes and will be finished by the end of 2012)

-          Public procurement: The Danes urge a simplification for public procurement rules especially for green and innovative public tenders. Their focus however is on SMEs (which of course can include SEs) but could expand on the CS side.

-          Modernisation of European accounting rules and better access for companies to venture capital. However, it is unsure what “modernisation” really means. If it is a simplification it could mean a simplification for CSOs in terms of financial reporting and could be something to look forward to. However, again the focus is on private companies

-          Reform of the Cohesion policy: Needs to support the Europe 2020 priorities! To strengthen employment and promoting intelligent, sustainable and inclusive economic growth. à link to MFF

Other issues:

-          The social dimension of the Single Market is stressed by the Danes but is rooted in strengthening and enhancing the rights of workers and companies in regards to the 4 freedoms

-          Innovation in Health is a big topic for the Danes

-          Green Growth – the way forward for Denmark!

-          Focus on Neighbourhood countries (mostly economic and trade related)

Overall I would say the Danes urge for sustainable solutions and reforms from within to make the EU a more effective body. However, my feeling is that this is done more through private and public sector institutions. Maybe we have to remind them about the role CSOs can play in reaching their goals. Find the whole 6 months programme here: http://eu2012.dk/en/NewsList/Januar/~/media/C7302481785E4F9A876B0EAEC29F9A11.ashx

Lucas

PS: Comments and corrections are of course welcome

Two upcoming Euclid Network Events in 2012

European Years: What do they mean for us?

When? 27 Jan, 13:30-17:00
Where? Europe House, London

2011 has been the European Year of Volunteering and 2012 will be the European Year of Active Aging.

Both Euclid Network and NCVO have been active, with Euclid Network advocating to get Volunteering recognised as in-kind financing and NCVO’s partners including Volunteering England. Hear from volunteer, Anjelica Finnegan, who joined Sir Stuart Etherington and a UK-wide delegation at the EESC for a special hearing on the European Year of Volunteering in Brussels.

Join us at our next joint Strategic Partners event with NCVO and Volunteering England.

What were the successes and challenges? How do civil society organisations make the most of European Years and what can be done to ensure a full cross-section of organisations are able to engage?

Full programme and online booking

A European Spring? Social Innovation and Social Business at the core of the future of Europe

When? *Late February* – final date to be confirmed shortly
Where? Europe House, London

The review of the Single Market Act has led to a significant increase in interest from the European institutions on the future of social enterprise and the broader social economy, including a changing role for civil society organisations in service delivery and social investment. Euclid Network currently provides the UK Cabinet Office with recommendations on Social Business and will also soon launch a public independent publication on the EC’s Social Business Initiative.

On 18 November European Commission President Barroso and Internal Market Commissioner Barnier outlined their proposals for a Social Business Initiative which included a number of key recommendations on how to stimulate a wider entrepreneurial role for civil society.

Join us at our third Strategic Partners event with NCVO. The launch of the Social Business Initiative in November renewed the commitment of Brussels to a new agenda combining economic and social priorities. This event will explore the new opportunities for civil society and social enterprise in the UK to engage with European agenda to foster an enabling environment for the sector.

Email Kate Duffy to register your interest