PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2012-13
EUU Alm.del Bilag 412
Offentligt

RepoRt June 2013

country

cSo

roadmapS

How EU delegations can strengthen

engagement with civil society

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

design: Anne mousten

ACKnoWLeDGeMentS

The report on country CSO roadmaps is a continuation of Concord Denmark’s work plan

for the Danish EU Presidency in 2012, which included a high-level EU Presidency confer-

ence ‘Engaging Civil Society and Local Authorities: Civil Society Organizations, Human

Rights and Development’, several lobby meetings in Denmark and Brussels around the

Council conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council in May 2012 and strong coordination

with the Cypress EU Presidency on the Council conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council

in October 2012. I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the follow-up.

Also thank you to partners and stakeholders in Ghana and Uganda for contributing with

their valuable insights and analysis. About 20 interviews with representatives from civil

society, donors, think tanks and private consultants, was conducted in Kampala and Ac-

cra during February and March 2013. The lack of up-to-date and comprehensive analysis

of civil society in Ghana and Uganda has been a major challenge and the report could not

have been made without their input.

Early conclusions of the report were summarized in a policy note on ‘EU Cooperation in

the Evaluation of Danish Civil Society Strategy’ (January 2013) and at a seminar on ‘EU

Development Cooperation after the Lisbon Treaty’ at the Danish Institute for Interna-

tional Studies (DIIS) and a workshop on “How civil society can strengthen its engagement

with the EU Delegations” organized by Concord Denmark (April 2013).

A special thank you to Mads Hove, Laust Leth Gregersen and Christian Juulsgaard Olsen

from Concord Denmark for their valuable support and comments to drafts versions.

AccrA, June 2013

Morten Emil Hansen

AUTHOR OF REPORT

[email protected]

www.policyadvice.dk

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

contEntS

rEcommEndatIonS

dEFInItIonS

LISt oF acronymS

ForEWord

1. IntroductIon

civil society in a new era

cSo funding trends

aid Effectiveness

2. BacKGround

Eu’s legal commitments

new institutions and new challenges

Lack of strategic civil society involvement

the complexity of Eu funding

3. a nEW Eu paradIGm

agenda for change

Eu’s engagement with civil society in external relations

4. cSo roadmapS

a joint Eu approach to civil society

5. Eu dELEGatIonS

6. Eu and cIVIL SocIEty In GHana

a weak and uncoordinated civil society

Eu delegations

multi-donor financing

conclusion and recommendations

Eu and cIVIL SocIEty In uGanda

civil society under pressure

rigid and inflexible civil society funding

opposing views on civil society dialogue

conclusion and recommendations

8. cIVIL SocIEty anaLySIS and dIaLoGuE

9. concLuSSIon

rEFErEncES

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

rEcommEndatIonS

European development actors; the European Commission (EC), EU Delegations, national Member States

and civil society organizations all have important roles to play in promoting a more strategic and systematic

collaboration at all levels between EU and civil society. Everyone must recognize that the EU’s new CSO

communication is a paradigm shift in EU development cooperation. The collaboration must take a human

rights based approach that ensures non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, transparency and ac-

countability for all actors at all levels.

european Commission (eC)



Must

urgently clarify the role of civil society

in the

process of developing country CSO roadmaps. The

lack of clarity risks undermining the CSO ownership

and thereby also the quality and impact of the coun-

try CSO roadmaps.



Must increase the financial and human resources at

the EU Delegations and ensure capacity building and

training of EU Delegation staff. Regular evaluations

of civil society involvement in specific policy process-

es must be undertaken in order to

facilitate a culture

of learning, which continuously improves the tools

and mechanisms for civil society dialogue.



Must

promote multi-stakeholder dialogue ap-

proaches,

which create a space for dialogue and

interaction between EU Delegations and Member

States, civil society and government. This approach

must be used in all areas of government policies and

must also include broader EU policies on e.g. trade,

migration and human rights.

eu Delegations

 Must

develop

clear and predictable schedules and

guidelines for consultations,

which ensure that

civil society gets the necessary documentation, suf-

ficient time for preparations and proper feedback and

follow-up. The institutional mechanisms for dialogue

must be described in the country CSO roadmaps.

 Must

share guidelines and toolboxes for country CSO

roadmaps in order to

build confidence, trust and

ownership

among local and national civil society ac-

tors. Ideally, EU Delegations should initiate civil soci-

ety-led assessments of the CSO context.

 Must

include Policy coherence for development

(Pcd) and human rights obli¬gations in its civil

society dialogue

and ensure that civil society views

are included in annual delegation reports, evidence-

based PCD reports and national human rights reports.

Civil society organizations



Must

demonstrate a strong commitment to the

country cso roadmaps

and engage in a constructive

dialogue with the EU Delegations, where CSOs them-

selves promote broad participation from local CSOs

and community-based organizations by providing

technical expertise and capacity building.



Must

contribute to the analysis of an enabling envi-

ronment for civil society

by monitoring key elements

such as fundamental human rights e.g. freedom of

opinion and expression, right to information and

freedom of peaceful assembly and association.



Must

monitor and evaluate national processes of

developing country cso roadmaps

in order to hold

EU Delegations accountable to its obligations, and

facilitate regional learning among CSOs as well as the

EU and Member States.

european Member States



Must

take active part in the development of country

cso roadmaps from the early stages

and support the

EU Delegations with analysis, contacts and simply

bring credibility to the process.



Must build partnerships with civil society organiza-

tions and

ensure an enabling funding environment,

which is long-term, predictable and supporting in-

stitutional capacity building.



Must be more vocal about human rights violations

and the shrinking policy space and

be supportive of

civil society views in the political dialogue with gov-

ernments.

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

dEFInItIonS

country cso roAdmAPs

are the basis for a new and more structured dialogue and strate-

gic cooperation between EU Delegations and civil society. Country CSO roadmaps must pro-

vide a sound understanding of a diverse local civil society, including their roles, capacities and

constraints, legitimacy, interests and dynamics. Country CSO roadmaps are in principle ‘EU

Country CSO strategies’ shared by the EU and its Member States and will be updated annu-

ally. It is the ambition to finalize country CSO roadmaps at all EU Delegations by the 1st of

January 2014 (EC 2012b).

Policy diAlogue

is an ‘open and inclusive dialogue on development policies’ (Accra Agenda

for Action 2008). But a genuine policy dialogue needs to be structured, institutionalized and

take place at all levels of government. Holding governments accountable is vital in order to

translate the principle of “democratic ownership” into practice.

civil society orgAnizAtions

(CSOs) include a wide range of formal and informal organiza-

tions created voluntarily by citizens, which can vary in structure, governance and scope. Their

aim is to promote an issue or an interest, either general or specific. In a broad sense, CSOs in-

clude all non-market and non-state organizations and structures in which people organize them

to pursue shared objectives and ideals (EC 2012b).

PArticiPAtory develoPment

recognizes civil society organizations as legitimate actors in

the development process. They should be enabled to express voice, participate in political, social

and economic dialogue processes, demand accountability and be involved in monitoring public

action (EC 2011).

enAbling environment

is a functioning democratic legal and judicial system that ensures

- in law and in practice - the freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly

and association, and the possibility to secure funding and to participate in public affairs with

the aim of effectively and freely contributing to the public sphere (EC 2012).

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

LISt oF acronymS

AAA

AcP

concord

csP

cso

csr

dAc

devco

ecA

ecdPm

edF

eeAs

eiti

eud

gbs

ingos

ldcs

mFF

ngos

nsA

odA

Pcd

PrsP

sPsP

sWAP

Accra Agenda for Action

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of Countries

European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development

Country Strategy Paper

Civil Society Organisation

Cooperate Social Responsibility

Development Assistance Committee

Directorate General for Development and Co-operation EuropeAid

European Commission

European Court of Auditors

European Centre for Development Policy Management

European Development Fund

European External Action Service

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

European Union

European Union Delegation

General Budget Support

International Non Governmental Organizations

Least Developed Countries

Multiannual Financial Framework

Non-governmental organizations

Non-state actors

Official Development Assistance

Policy Coherence for Development

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

Sector Policy Support Programmes

Sector Wide Approaches

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ForEWord

In October 2012 the EU Council adopted “The roots of

democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s en-

gagement with Civil Society in external relations”, also

known as the CSO communication. It was the culmina-

tion of a long dialogue and consultation process, called

‘Structured Dialogue’, organized by the EU Commission,

which involved more than 700 stakeholders and repre-

sentatives from civil society, partner countries, Member

States, the European Parliament and the European Ex-

ternal Action Service (EEAS), including EU Delegations.

The CSO communication has been positively welcomed

and acknowledged by European civil society organiza-

tions. CONCORD Europe called it ‘the most constructive

official EU document on CSOs in many years’ (CONCORD

Europe 2012). The ambitious goals and objectives are

shared and European civil society recognizes the signifi-

cant improvement in dialogue at Brussels level. But in

partner countries the implementation of the CSO com-

munication has not yet begun. Most southern civil so-

ciety organizations are not even aware of EU’s renewed

commitment and EU Delegations are still waiting for in-

structions and guidelines.

This report analyses the EU decision to promote a more

enhanced and strategic engagement with civil society or-

ganizations at EU Delegation level. It includes illustrative

case studies from Ghana and Uganda in order to identify

the challenges and opportunities arising from the EU de-

cision. While Ghana is relatively democratic, but has weak

and uncoordinated civil society structures, Ugandan civil

society is experiencing a narrowing of the political space,

but the CSOs are comparably better organized. Still, the

experiences with EU policy dialogue are comparable and

call for an urgent rethinking of current practices and in-

stitutional setups at EU Delegations.

It is the objective of this report to establish a solid foun-

dation for Concord Denmark’s member organizations and

European partners to support their southern partners in

the dialogue with EU Delegations on country CSO road-

maps. In addition, the report should build a solid and

evidence based contribution to a strong civil society per-

spective in Denmark’s future strategy on EU’s Develop-

ment Policy and incorporation of the EU dimension in

Denmark’s forthcoming policy on civil society in develop-

ment cooperation.

DG DEVCO is responsible for the implementation of the

CSO communication and has generally been open to dis-

cuss and meet with Concord representatives. But disap-

pointingly, this has not been the case in this study. Re-

quests for interviews and background information on

country CSO roadmaps have continuously been submit-

ted over a period of four months, but DG DEVCO has not

shared any materials. The lack of transparency seems to

be one of EU’s biggest challenges in order to enhance its

cooperation with civil society. A recent study from OECD

strongly recommends that donors promote a transpar-

ent and inclusive process on CSO strategies in order to

create trust and ownership among CSO stakeholders

(OECD 2011b).

Civil society organizations must naturally acknowledge

that it takes time to translate new policies into practice.

But the role of civil society in EU development coopera-

tion and the principle of participatory development has

been a formal mandate of EU Delegations since 2000.

There are consequently no good excuses for lack of per-

formance in the past – nor for delays in implementing a

genuine participatory process in the future. It is time for

action.

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

IntroductIon

Civil society in a new era

Over just a few decades, civil society organizations (CSOs)

have grown massively in size and numbers and are play-

ing an increasingly prominent role in international devel-

opment assistance due to their ability to serve the needs

of the poorest and most marginalized communities

through grassroots and participatory approaches. Civil

society organizations, movements, alliances and net-

works have also risen to become a global political power.

The global financial crisis and the spontaneous uprisings

and transformations during the Arab Spring have funda-

mentally changed the public perception of governments

and institutions, which needs to be more transparent,

accountable and inclusive.

A strong and vibrant civil society is generally regarded as

important in its own right and even a public good, which

promotes better democratic practices and policy out-

comes. Civil society organizations have therefore gained

official recognition as stakeholders, which need to be

consulted and involved at national, regional and interna-

tional levels. The aid-effectiveness agenda in the OECD

and the post-2015 process in the UN reaffirm the con-

sensus among governments and international agencies.

But at the same time the political space for civil society

is shrinking, in particular in Africa. Two-thirds of African

governments have introduced legislation that reduces

the space for civil society organizations, especially affect-

ing civil society organizations that are politically active

or receive international support. National civil society is

increasingly facing difficulties in accessing funding from

international donors, being legally registered as national

organizations or engaging in rights-based activities (CI-

VICUS 2013).

CSo funding trends

Global funding for civil society has increased substan-

tially in the last decade and reached 16.2 percent of total

Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2010. Accord-

ing to OECD, the total CSO funding for all DAC donors

increased by 25 percent between 2007 and 2009 (OECD

2011b). The increase has mainly been composed of aid

channeled through CSOs, while the volume of core aid

has remained relatively stable (Keijzer 2011). In many

countries the distribution of government funding for

CSOs has been ‘historically grown’. Bilateral donors have

supported CSOs that had long standing relationships and

based on a ‘privileged’ position with more or less auto-

matic or guaranteed funding (Keijzer 2011).

Still, many donors do not see civil society actors as stra-

tegic intermediaries in reaching their own development

objectives (INTRAC 2010), and CSO funding therefore

tend to follow changing donor policy preferences and

other opportunities (Keijzer 2011). Donors still prefer to

support the urban-based CSOs and networks, which can

meet the financial requirements. It also seems that there

is a growing tendency to favor big projects and funding

consortiums of CSOs at the expense of small-scale ac-

tions at grassroots level (Keijzer 2011). In the case of EU,

the calls for proposals clearly tend to favor the best-re-

sourced, mainly urban-based, organizations over under-

resourced and mainly rural-based organizations (ECA

2009).

The decentralization of donor funds has created a push

for stronger accountability and representation from the

national CSOs towards local partners and constituencies.

INGOs must prove their added value and comparative

advantage and many donors, especially the Nordic-plus

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

group, are engaged in southern based funding mecha-

nisms, which enable southern CSOs to access funds di-

rectly. But the southern-based funding mechanisms are

criticized for favoring the fewer, larger and urban-based

CSOs and thus undermining the donors’ own objectives

of supporting a sector-wide and diverse civil society. The

emerging consensus to support southern civil society

directly from local embassies and delegations could po-

tentially lead to more isolated and stand-alone activities

since ‘embassy funds’ are often small scale and targeted

at a wide range of local and often very small CSOs (IN-

TRAC 2010).

But aid effectiveness initiatives have largely been donor-

driven, state-centric and technocratic, most notably in

the case of general budget support. EU cooperation on

budget support often fails to include CSO consultation

and the EU communication on budget support describes

a limited role for civil society in monitoring and holding

governments accountable (CONCORD Europe 2012). The

aid effectiveness agenda may potentially lead to aid con-

centration as donors align priorities, which is a threat to

a diverse and vibrant civil society in the south (INTRAC

2011 and EC 2011).

Donors move toward joint funding to align with the Paris

Agenda principles of harmonization and alignment but

also due to cost-saving measures and reduced transac-

tion and administration costs. As a result, the burden

of coordination is pushed onto civil society, as CSOs are

expected to work in consortia with a lead agency tak-

ing the contractual responsibility (Keijzer 2011). Donors

acknowledge that the use of southern based funding

mechanisms and different types of intermediaries im-

pact negatively on the strength and diversity of southern

civil society and agree that the southern based fund-

ing mechanisms need to be better understood (INTRAC

2010). But a recent evaluation shows that the EC gener-

ally has a limited reflection on the impact of the new aid

architecture on civil society (EC 2011).

Aid effectiveness

The Aid Effectiveness Agenda has led to a renewed em-

phasis on ‘ownership’ and state-led development strate-

gies. This marks a radical shift from traditional project

approaches to sector approaches, implemented through

new aid modalities such as General Budget Support

(GBS), Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPs) or Sector Policy

Support Programmes (SPSPs).

The Aid Effectiveness Agenda recognizes the importance

of broad ownership of national development policies,

transparency and accountability to citizens. Article 20 of

the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) and article 22 of the

Busan Declaration explicitly refer to civil society organi-

zations (CSOs) as independent development actors in

their own right (OECD 2008 and OECD 2011).

Photo

JonAs leegAArd Andersen

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

BacKGround

eu’s legal commitments

The

cotonou Agreement

signed in 2000, was the first

major EU policy document which legally committed the

EC to civil society participation as a fundamental prin-

ciple of development cooperation. This changed civil

society from mere beneficiaries of EC funding to actors

in development processes and was seen as a major step

forward in EC approaches towards civil society (Keijzer

2011, EC 2008).

The EC communication on the

Participation of non-

state Actors in ec development cooperation

from

2002, covered all actors other than government, i.e. in-

cluding local government, private sector, trade unions

and economic partners (both profit or non-profit). This

communication was an attempt to clarify the principle of

participatory development agreed in the Cotonou Agree-

ment. The communication reaffirms that working with

non-state actors (NSAs) is a legal obligation for both EU

and its developing partners (Keijzer 2011).

non-discriminatory access to basic services, participation

in democratic political processes, transparency and ac-

countability, justice and the rule of law, and with a focus

on poor and vulnerable groups. And it acknowledges that

an empowered civil society is a crucial component of any

democratic system and is an asset itself (EC 2012d).

The

eu strategic Framework on human rights and de-

mocracy,

adopted in 2012, sets out principles, objectives

and priorities for Europe’s shared human rights work

and includes a strong commitment to develop a genuine

partnership with civil society. In order to respond to the

particular needs of individual countries, EU-delegations

will develop national human rights strategies for almost

160 countries worldwide. National human rights strate-

gies will establish country-specific priorities and objec-

tives in order to achieve stronger impacts on the ground

(EC 2012a).

the ec’s communication ‘the roots of democracy

and sustainable development: europe’s engagement

with civil society in external relations’,

adopted by

the Council on 15 October 2012, is EU’s new CSO strat-

egy which promotes a more strategic and systematic ap-

proach to EU’s engagement with civil society. It covers

EU’s engagement with local CSOs in developing, neigh-

borhood and enlargement countries (EC 2012b).

‘ … NSAs ought to be permanently and systematically in-

volved across the definition of country strategies and the

programming process’

(EC 2002).

The

european consensus on development

was agreed

on in 2005 by the EU Heads of States, the European Par-

liament and the EC and recognizes the vital role of civil

society in particular as promoters of democracy, social

justice and human rights. It also commits the EU to en-

hance its support for building capacity of non-state ac-

tors in order to strengthen their voice in the development

process and to advance political, social and economic dia-

logue (EC 2005a).

The

lisbon treaty

was signed by the Heads of States and

Governments and entered into force on 1st of December

2009. The Lisbon Treaty reinforces EU’s long-term objec-

tive to eradicate poverty and actively promote an open,

transparent and regular dialogue with civil society. It re-

quests the EC to undertake broad consultations with rel-

evant stakeholders in order to ensure that EU actions are

coherent and transparent (EC 2009).

The

Agenda for change

was adopted during the Dan-

ish EU Presidency in 2012, and calls for a human rights-

based approach, promoting the right to universal and

‘THE rooTs of

dEmocracy and sUsTainablE

dEvElopmEnT’:

‘The roadmaps should identify long term objectives

of EU cooperation with CSOs and encompass dia-

logue as well as operational support, identifying ap-

propriate working modalities. This exercise should be

linked to the programming of EU external assistance,

namely bilateral, regional and thematic cooperation.

The human rights country strategies currently being

developed by the EU will be an important reference.

The roadmaps should be developed taking into ac-

count the views of civil society, be regularly updated

and where appropriate, made publicly available and

shared with national authorities’ (EC 2012b).

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

new institutions and new challenges

The Lisbon Treaty has fundamentally changed the or-

ganization of Europe’s foreign policy, which has con-

sequences for EU’s development assistance and the

mandates and responsibilities of the European Exter-

nal Action Service, DG DEVCO, EU Delegations and EU

Member States.

The creation of the European External Action Service

(EEAS) was one of the most significant changes of the

Lisbon Treaty aimed at having a more unified and coher-

ent position on international affairs. EEAS is responsible

for the programming, planning, and implementation of

development assistance and is functionally autonomous

from other EU bodies - but has a legal responsibility to

ensure consistency with other EU policies (ECDPM 2012b).

The first evaluation on the functioning of the EEAS by

the High Representative in December 2011 had a narrow

focus on the immediate ‘Lisbon tasks’ and therefore no

mentioning of civil society (EEAS 2011).

DG DEVCO was created in 2011 (a merger between DG

DEV and DG EuropeAid) and is responsible for the man-

agement and implementation of EU development as-

sistance. DG DEVCO is likely to experience staff reduc-

tions and budget cuts, as a consequence of the new

Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (ECDPM

2011, APRODEV 2013). DG DEVCO and EEAS are supposed

to collaborate and develop joint programming, but EU

Member States have already raised concern about the

lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities between DG

DEVCO and EEAS. DG DEVCO is currently present in ap-

proximately 150 worldwide EU Delegations.

The Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the role of EU Del-

egations, which represent EU in third countries on e.g.

diplomatic issues, political relations, security, and trade

and development assistance. EU Delegations consist of

staff from EEAS, DEVCO, Trade and other directorates,

and while EEAS has the overall responsibility for the del-

egations, including programming, DEVCO has the admin-

istrative responsibility, including the implementation of

development assistance. But EU Delegations are often

understaffed to fulfill the role expected of them under

the Lisbon Treaty (ECDPM 2011).

cussions, both at country level and globally. Most bilat-

eral and multilateral donors recognize that consultations

with civil society bring added value to their policy making

and they generally believe that their dialogue with civil

society is satisfactory (OECD 2011).

But findings from the OECD peer reviews show that the

donor satisfaction is often not shared by civil society or-

ganizations (OECD 2012a). The inclusion of civil society

‘voice’ is mostly ad-hoc or tokenistic (INTRAC 2010), and

it appears as civil society consultations are tick-the-box

exercises which undermines the donor credibility (OECD

2011a).

In 2009 the European Court of Auditors found that the

EU Delegations did not systematically involve Non Stake

Actors (NSAs). Instead the EU Delegations typically in-

vited for one-shot consultations on their overall strategy

development, whereas CSO involvement in implementa-

tion, monitoring and evaluation was non-existing. The

European Court of Auditors therefore concluded that the

EC involvement of NSAs falls short of the sustained and

structured dialogue envisaged by the EU legislation and

the EC’s own guidelines (ECA 2009).

An EC evaluation from 2008 also found major gaps be-

tween the EC commitments towards civil society and

the actual implementation. The evaluation concluded

that there was limited strategic reflection and dialogue

with the various stakeholders on how best to use the

CSO channel in a specific country or sector context (EC

2008).

The official assessment of lack of performance of the

EC is generally shared by civil society. CONCORD Europe

recently described the EC staff in HQs and EU Delega-

tions as having an ‘instrumental or limited vision of civil

society that is not conducive to building confidence and

structured relationships’ (CONCORD Europe 2012).

CONCORD Europe also analyzed the on-going consulta-

tion on the next Multi-annual Indicative Programme

(2014-2020) and concluded that exercises involved lit¬tle

more than presentations from the delegations to civil so-

ciety of their plans and left civil society participants with

a feeling that they were part of a tick-the-box proc¬ess

(CONCORD Europe 2013). The lack of performance is gen-

erally explained by an absence of clear mechanisms for

managing consultations, late invitations, delays in dis-

tributing documents, consultations at a late stage in the

programming process, limited NSA participation, and in-

sufficient feedback to NSAs on the results of the consul-

tations (ECA 2009).

Lack of strategic

civil society involvement

Government and donor interest in civil society dialogue

and political advocacy has been growing substantially in

the last decade, and most donors have increased their

support for civil society to engage actively in policy dis-

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

KEy rEcommEndaTions from

Eca (2009) and Ec (2008):



Ensure political and managerial leadership (particu-

larly in ‘difficult partnerships’).



Adopt a country specific overall strategic approach to

working with NSAs.



Improve consultation mechanisms.



Mainstream participation across sectors and areas.



Invest in knowledge on civil society processes; and

identify more suitable procedures to engage strategi-

cally with NSAs.

to engage in domestic political processes. Donors gen-

erally allocate earmarked funding rather than core sup-

port (OECD 2012). But the strengthening of civil society

in democratic gov¬ernance and the defense of human

rights re¬quires a flexible set of funding modalities,

including small-scale grants and dedicated human re-

sources at the headquarters and delegation levels in

dia¬logue with their partners in civil society (CONCORD

Europe 2013).

EU requirements are exceptionally cumbersome. In

2008, only 404 applications under the thematic budget

line covering non-state actors were selected out of 5339

concept notes received, which is a success rate of only

7 percent (OECD 2012). The EU funding procedures and

administrative rules have evolved into an accountant

and administration based logic, to the detriment of an

approach oriented towards results. This leads CSOs to

dedicate a lot of time and resources to the management

of EU funding and to present projects without innovative

elements (CONCORD Europe 2012).

DG DEVCO is acknowledging the need for more flexibility

and one of the outcomes of the Structured Dialogue was

12 technical fiches on funding modalities, but it is doubt-

ful if the EC can become less control-orientated and rigid

in order to accommodate the needs from a fluid and con-

stantly evolving civil society (EC 2008).

Photo

yilmAz PolAt

the complexity of eu funding

The OECD Peer Review of the EC (2012) found that the

complexity of EU funding procedures is a serious obsta-

cle, which must be addressed if EU wants to fulfill its

goal of a stronger civil society (OECD 2012). In particular

the ‘Calls for Proposals’ regime is an inherent contradic-

tion as it supports and favor large international CSOs

with the ‘right’ set-up and institutional capacity rather

than small CSOs and NSAs, which are often times most

in need (ECA 2009).

But even worse, EU funding is viewed as a serious hin-

drance due to its lack of core funding, which is key for

advocacy CSOs who need legitimacy and independence

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

a nEW Eu paradIGm

A number of new EU policies and strategies have created

a new paradigm in Europe in terms of EU’s commitment

to promote and engage strategically with civil society.

proach to development and recognizes civil society as an

asset for any democratic system and its role in building

just, equitable and inclusive societies. EU encourages

and supports partner countries in promoting a meaning-

ful and structured participation of CSOs, in the context

of their domestic policies’ dialogue as well as budget pro-

cesses (EC 2012d).

According to the CSO communication, local civil society

is at the heart of EUs future development assistance

and EU will promote civil society participation in do-

mestic policies, although many governments in partner

countries is not necessarily sharing EU’s commitment to

‘transparent and accountable governance’.

An Agenda for Change

The EC communication on Agenda for Change (2011) has

a rather limited and instrumental understanding of civil

society mainly as ‘watchdogs’, when governments fail on

human rights and democracy. But the civil society per-

spective was even worse in the EC Green Paper on EU

development policy (2010) and it was mainly due to the

instrumental role of civil society during the Arab Spring

that the EC communication evolved from a narrow strat-

egy on economic growth to a broad development strat-

egy which included a focus on civil society (EC 2011).

During the Danish EU Presidency in the first half of 2012,

the role of civil society was strengthened remarkably in

the negotiations on EU Council conclusions on Agenda

for Change (May 2012), which calls for a human rights-

based approach, promoting the right to universal and

non-discriminatory access to basic services, participation

in democratic political processes, transparency and ac-

countability, justice and the rule of law, and with a fo-

cus on poor and vulnerable groups. And it acknowledges

that an empowered civil society is a crucial component

of any democratic system and is an asset itself. EU and

the Member States will also support and promote an

enabling environment for an independent, pluralistic and

active civil society (EC 2012d). EU Council conclusions

on Agenda for Change therefore include stronger state-

ments and commitments on civil society than in any pre-

vious EU documents.

EU’s THrEE prioriTiEs for sUpporT

(Ec 2012b):

Promoting a conducive and enabling environment for

CSOs



Strong focus on the country level and

empowerment of local actors



CSOs in regional and global settings

Promoting meaningful and structured participation of

CSOs in:



Domestic policy making



EU programming cycle



Policy processes and debates

Increasing the capacity of local CSOs to perform their

roles more effectively

Interestingly, the CSO communication, which affects the

EU’s external actions as a whole, was only issued by the

EC. This raises some concern that the European External

Action Service (EEAS) is not fully committed to the stra-

tegic inclusion of civil society and it is notable that the EU

High Representative has not yet taken a huge interest in

EU’s development policies and the role of civil society. In

the 2012 Peer Review of EU development assistance, the

OECD also recommends that EEAS build its knowledge

on CSOs and integrates this into its own agenda (OECD

2012).

The first reporting on progress and implementation of

the CSO communication is set for 2016.

eu’s engagement with

civil society in external relations

‘The roots of democracy and sustainable development:

Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external rela-

tions’ and the Council Conclusions, adopted on the 15th

October 2012, was a result of a 18 month dialogue and

consultation process, called ‘Structured Dialogue’.

The CSO communication promotes a more enhanced,

strategic and systematic approach to EU’s engagement

with civil society. It adopts a human rights-based ap-

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

cSo roadmapS

The CSO communication has a strong emphasis on civil

society at country level. The contribution of local CSOs as

partners in dialogue and oversight is ‘at the heart of the

EU engagement’. EU Delegations are therefore requested

to develop country ‘CSO Roadmaps’ - a new way of work-

ing for EU Delegations, allowing for a more structured

dialogue and a strategic cooperation with civil society (EC

2012d).

The CSO communication affirms that a sound under-

standing of local CSOs is a first step for a meaningful

engagement with CSOs and promotes CSO mapping as

a tool for gaining better understanding of a diverse lo-

cal civil society, including their roles, capacity and con-

straints, legitimacy, interests and dynamics. It may also

include an analysis of their relationship with the state

and other stakeholders and their enabling environment

(EC 2012b).

Many donors mention the importance of conducting CSO

mapping exercises in order to make more informed part-

ner choices (INTRAC 2010). But CSO mapping is seldom

done as an exercise in itself and is often linked to specific

sectors or programmes. CSO mapping exercises may also

have a limited scope and will not necessarily grasp the lo-

cal dynamics between CSOs or between local and north-

ern CSOs. It takes ongoing dialogue to understand a fluid

and rapid changing civil society sector.

In the 2009 evaluation of the 9th EDF it was highlighted

that the EU needed to view the civil society sector ‘from

a systems perspective’ rather than the classical project

approach (INTRAC 2010). A civil society analysis must

therefore consider the entire landscape and enabling en-

vironment, including the relationship between different

actors, rather than mapping individual CSOs indepen-

dently.

GUidinG principlEs for

coUnTry cso roadmaps

(dG dEvco 2012):



Sound understanding of the CSO arena



Dialogue schemes are country-, sector-

and actor-specific

 Dialogue

happens at all levels



Dialogue must be timely, predictable,

transparent



Importance of multi-stakeholder dialogue

EU Delegations must enhance their dialogue beyond the

usual actors or ‘top of the pyramid civil society’ (ECDPM

2012c), e.g. faith-based organizations, unions, and the

less formalized groups such as social movements. A

sound understanding of the civil society landscape must

derive from a broad dialogue with various categories of

CSOs, which include both local and international CSOs.

New operational guidelines on “how to engage more

strategically with civil society” are currently being de-

veloped to support the EU Delegations. The plan is to fi-

nalize templates and guidelines as soon as possible and

have country CSO roadmaps ready at all EU Delegations

by the 1st of January 2014.

Roadmaps are intended to

be updated annually in parallel with the annual program-

ming process. It is still being discussed if and how coun-

try CSO roadmaps can be made publicly available. DG

DEVCO argues that the country CSO roadmaps are likely

to have analysis of sensitive issues and must be handled

with care.

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

‘The roadmaps should be developed taking into account

the views of civil society, be regularly updated and where

appropriate, made publicly available and shared with na-

tional authorities’(EC

2012b).

The process has already been seriously delayed, due

to the delay in the programming process and concerns

from EU Delegations that the country CSO roadmaps

are to comprehensive and resource demanding. DG

DEVCO therefore recently changed the language on

country CSO roadmaps and now talks about a lean ex-

ercise which focuses on mainstreaming and synergies

and capitalization of existing programming cycles. It

might be a pragmatic and practical solution, but it will

not deliver the more comprehensive paradigm shift

envisaged in ‘The Roots of Democracy and Sustainable

Development: Europe’s Engagement with Civil Society

in External Relations’.

There still seems to be a lack of clarity of roles and re-

sponsibilities between DG DEVCO and EEAS on the im-

plementation of country CSO roadmaps. While the de-

velopment of country CSO roadmaps is being supported

and guided by DG DEVCO staff in Brussels, the overall

responsibility at EU Delegations lies with the staff from

the EEAS. This raises concerns, since the EEAS has not

yet shown any interest in a more strategic inclusion of

civil society in its policymaking. Moreover, EU member

state staff at embassies is generally not aware of the EU

process for country CSO roadmaps and due to the lim-

ited timeframe, this raise serious concern about national

member state involvement.

From a donor perspective a joint CSO analysis and strat-

egy would bring significant efficiency gains, reducing

transaction costs and administration, and increase coor-

dination, coherence and capacity. EU Country CSO strat-

egies are therefore likely to get strong political support

from EU Member States at country level. But staff at na-

tional embassies is not yet updated on neither the CSO

communication nor the envisaged process on country

CSO roadmaps.

While CSO roadmaps can potentially improve the coor-

dination, synergy and impact of EU support, they need

CSO ownership in order to work. Lessons from reviews of

CSO strategies from OECD members are clear; the design

of CSO strategies must take place in close consultation

with CSOs and donors must foster understanding and

ownership, identify common goals and opportunities for

partnerships, and ensure matching expectations. In addi-

tion, civil society strategies must be based on analysis of

the civil society sector and an understanding of how civil

society organizations contribute to development (OECD

2012).

The concept of national CSO studies already featured

in the guidelines to the EC communication on the ‘Par-

ticipation of Non-State Actors in EC Development Co-

operation’ (2002), which recommended that the EC del-

egations undertook a detailed situation assessment or

mapping study to assess the capacity, constraints and

potential of local and national NSAs, as well the work of

other donors (EC 2004).

It naturally takes time to translate new policies into prac-

tice. But the role of civil society in EU development co-

operation and the principle of participatory development

has been a formal mandate of EU Delegations since 2000,

and the previous CSO communication also encouraged

the EU Delegations to undertake CSO mappings, which in

the accompanying guidelines appear comprehensive and

detailed, similar to the country CSO roadmaps.

In a period of 10 years the EU Delegations have been en-

gaged in a total of 64 CSO mappings, of which 70 percent

took place in ACP countries (EuropeAid 2012). This raises

a serious concern about resources, since Europe now has

more than 160 EU Delegations which must develop coun-

try CSO roadmaps before the end of 2013 and be updated

on an annual basis. The EC must therefore substantially

increase the financial and human resources at the EU

Delegations and ensure capacity building and training of

EU Delegation staff. The EC must also urgently clarify the

role of civil society in the process of developing country

CSO roadmaps. The lack of clarity risks undermining the

CSO ownership and thereby also the quality and impact

of the country CSO roadmaps.

A joint eu approach to civil society

Most donors have a more comprehensive understand-

ing of civil society than previously and see the develop-

ment of strong civil societies in the south as an end in

itself. But the new EU consensus on increased support to

southern civil society demands a more in-depth analysis

and understanding of the civil society landscape.

A more structured and strategic EU cooperation with civil

society will potentially improve the impact of EU actions

and ensure consistency and synergy. Country CSO road-

maps are in principle

‘eu country cso strategies’

shared

by the EU and its Member States. Country CSO roadmaps

are therefore likely to replace individual donor analysis

and strategies and could potentially lead to an in-country

division of labour and even joint CSO programming and

joint CSO funding mechanisms.

‘Civil society participation in public policy processes

and in policy dialogues leads to inclusive and effective

policies’(EC

2012b)

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Photo

yilmAz PolAt

Eu dELEGatIonS

The European Commission is among the few donors,

which legally requires delegations to involve civil society

in developing and monitoring programmes, and EC has

for years requested delegations to consult civil society on

the development of national strategies and has provided

guidelines and instructions. But the guidelines give the

Heads of Delegations maximum flexibility in the design

of such a dialogue (EC 2004).

Until this date, the EU Delegations have mainly consulted

civil society in the development of national strategies,

policy dialogue on sector-interventions, implementation

of programmes and monitoring and evaluation. The Court

of Auditors concludes that the EC has not yet invested the

sufficient time and resources to really engage EU Delega-

tion staff with NSAs at all levels (ECA 2009). The DAC Peer

Review from 2012 also notes that the EU Delegations dia-

logue with CSOs has increased, but is not yet sufficiently

structured, systematic or strategic (OECD 2012).

‘Colleagues in Delegations are overburdened by paper-

work; they are so concerned about doing things right

(procedures), that they have little time to think about

whether they are doing the right thing’

(from EC online

consultation 2012).

A blog post from ECDPM called the new CSO communica-

tion for ‘Innovative on paper, conservative on the ground’

(ECDPM 2012c), and this might be EU’s biggest challenge.

Without a transformation of the mindset of civil servants

at the EU Delegations, new comprehensive and resource

demanding approaches are likely to be met with skepti-

cism and reluctance. In addition, the lack of clear guid-

ance could even generate institutional divergence and

potentially weaken civil society support to the process. It

is thus of fundamental importance to create transparent

and structured dialogue in relation to country CSO road-

maps to avoid ‘consultation fatigue’ and to build trust

and confidence in EU Delegations among CSOs.

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Eu and cIVIL SocIEty In GHana

With economic growth rates consistently above 6 per-

cent, and six democratic elections, including two peace-

ful transitions of power since 1992, Ghana is being pro-

moted as an African success story. Ghana scores high on

participation in the 2012 Mo Ibrahim Index and is ranked

as the seventh most democratic country in Africa.

The rule of law and the principles of participation, trans-

parency and accountability are generally recognized and

the space for participation and policy influence has in-

creased substantially in recent years. Civil society is in-

creasingly invited to contribute in policy and legislation

processes and government and donors send invitation

letters and sometimes even make follow-up phone calls

for civil society to attend meetings (Alliance 2015 2011).

CSOs are free to publish research reports and comment

or criticize government policy and interventions without

fear of being harassed. And the Ghanaian government

must be commended for its commitment to improve

transparency and accountability, e.g. the Freedom of In-

formation Bill and the signing up to the Extractive Indus-

tries Transparency Initiative (STAR Ghana 2013).

Still, government accountability and responsiveness is

generally directed towards the donors rather than the

public. Ghana’s public service is exceptionally weak and

suffers from poor capacity, lack of resources and inef-

ficiency. The accountability at district and municipality

levels is also very weak (STAR Ghana 2013).

Despite the enabling environment for participation, civil

society organizations are generally not actively involved

in policy and decision-making processes. Even when

civil society participation is institutionalized, e.g. in the

policy formulation, planning and monitoring of Ghana’s

decentralized planning system, civil society has not fully

utilized the space for participation (IMF 2012 and STAR

Ghana 2013).

A major challenge for Ghanaian civil society is the frag-

mented nature of CSOs and the lack of overall coordination.

INGOs have tried to establish national umbrella networks

in the past, but not very successfully. In addition, the link-

ages between the urban-based policy networks and the

grassroots organizations are very weak and governments

and donors often question the legitimacy of organizations

talking on behalf of the poor and excluded. It is evident

that civil society is missing key policy opportunities due to

the lack of a structured and strategic collaboration.

eu Delegations

CSOs are being invited for meetings with the EU Delega-

tion in Accra, but often do not have time or simply do

not prioritize the meetings. Many CSO representatives

characterized the EU dialogue as ad-hoc and the window

for influencing was almost non-existing. The dialogue

is often demand driven, e.g. when high-level EU repre-

sentatives are visiting Accra. Civil society typically does

not receive background information before meetings and

seldom receives feedback or follow-up.

Many CSOs stress that the EU Delegation is not their

first choice of donor and expressed serious reservations

against the EU Delegation taking a lead role in the EU civil

society dialogue. They described the EU Delegation as be-

ing focussed on the government, whereas civil society is

mostly under their radar. The EU Delegation in Accra has

not undertaken any recent analysis or mappings of Gha-

naian civil society and some CSO representatives warned

A weak and uncoordinated civil society

There are about 3,600 organizations registered with the

Department of Social Welfare and the majority of or-

ganizations is found in the rural areas, and have limited

financial resources, few staff and considerable capacity

building needs. Still, visibility of urban-based CSOs’ is

high and they generate the bulk of civil society activity

that is visible to the public (STAR 2013).

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

against a speedy process on the country CSO roadmaps,

arguing that ownership takes time and cannot be rushed.

Conclusion and recommendations;

The space for Ghanaian civil society to participate in

national policy processes has expanded in recent years.

But due to weak civil society structures and the lack of

national umbrella networks (e.g. a national NGO-forum),

Ghanaian CSOs are generally not actively engaged in pol-

icy processes and the limited policy capacity among local

civil society organizations impacts on CSOs’ participation.

Although Ghanaian civil society is being invited for meet-

ings with the EU Delegation in Accra, most CSOs do not

prioritize the meetings and many CSOs stress that the

EU Delegation is not their first choice of dialogue part-

ner. The EU dialogue is described as demand driven and

civil society typically do not receive background infor-

mation before meetings and seldom receives feedback

or follow-up. Some civil society organizations directly

warned against the EU Delegation taking the lead and

raised concerns about a rushed process on the country

CSO roadmaps.

EU Member States must actively contribute to the de-

velopment of country CSO roadmaps and as a pilot coun-

try for EU joint programming, the harmonization and

alignment among EU donors is already fairly advanced.

The chances for a successful EU Ghana CSO strategy

are therefore relatively high. But the EU Delegation and

EU Member States must seriously consider establish-

ing a formal EU-civil society dialogue forum, to ensure

a strong civil society participation in the development of

country CSO roadmaps.

European civil society organizations must provide tech-

nical expertise and capacity building to partner organi-

zations in order to strengthen their policy dialogue on

country CSO roadmaps, including the impact of other EU

policies on e.g. trade, migration and human rights.

Multi-donor financing

Funding remains a key challenge and civil society organi-

zations are heavily dependent on international donors.

Donors are increasingly pooling their support in basket

funding arrangements for civil society, e.g. the Business

Sector Advocacy Challenge (BUSAC), the Ghana Research

and Advocacy Programme (G-RAP) and the Strengthen-

ing Transparency, Accountability and Responsiveness in

Ghana (STAR-Ghana). Many civil society organizations

felt that they are implementing donor priorities instead

of their own and they have limited influence on the pri-

orities. Civil society has tried to introduce core-funding in

STAR Ghana but donors disapproved.

limiTEd cso ownErsHip

in sTar-GHana (sTar 2013):

STAR Ghana is a multi-donor pooled funding mechanism

funded by EU, DANIDA, DFID and USAID to increase the

influence of civil society. It has rightfully been criticized

for being donor-driven, since the priorities and work plans

for STAR Ghana were developed exclusively by the donors

without prior consultation. Consequently, civil society

views STAR Ghana as a funding facility rather than a po-

litical platform. The EU delegation acknowledges the lack

of civil society involvement in the start-up and agrees

that it has affected the CSO ownership. A mid-term re-

view of STAR Ghana in mid-2013 intends to address the

issue of local ownership.

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Eu and cIVIL SocIEty In uGanda

Uganda scores medium on participation in the 2012 Mo

Ibrahim Index and is ranked number 19 among African

democratic countries, however Freedom House’s annual

report on political rights and civil liberties only ranked

Uganda as ‘partly free’. Freedom House expresses its

concern about the governments increasing harassment

of the opposition and the systematic campaign to ob-

struct and shut down civil society groups that engage

the government on sensitive issues such as gay rights,

corruption, term limits, and land rights (Freedom House

2013).

Donors are increasingly harmonizing their CSO funding in

different basket mechanisms, e.g. the Democratic Gov-

ernment Fund (DGF), Independent Development Fund

and the Civil Society Fund (UM 2012). This limits the ex-

posure of individual donors and can potentially create a

stronger platform for CSO agendas.

in the Uganda NGO-forum, the international organiza-

tions have created their own forum.

Rigid and inflexible

civil society funding

It is estimated that 95 percent of civil society funding

comes from international donor agencies and with the

harmonization and rationalization of funding facilities,

civil society organizations are likely to become even more

dependent on donor priorities (UM 2012).

Donor funding in Uganda is commonly described as over-

ly programme specific or linked to particular policy agen-

das rather than core funding for organizations or for CSO

capacity building (UM 2012). The lack of strategic funding

for civil society was highlighted in a 2009 evaluation of

EC aid to Uganda which concluded that ‘the interventions

and sub-projects of the EC are overly spread out over too

many recipients and will not, in all likelihood, have much

of a long-term effect’. The evaluation also noted that the

EU Delegation has overly-limited formal working rela-

tionships with civil society (EC 2009a).

CSO representatives describe the EU Delegation as very

technocratic and some CSO representatives even found

it difficult to become a close partner with the EU, as long

as the financing instruments are so rigid and inflexible.

INGOs explained that their local partners were not capa-

ble of administering EU financing and pointed out that

they often considered other donors before applying for

EU funding due to administrative burdens.

Civil society under pressure

Uganda is experiencing a narrowing of political space,

both legally and in practice. There have been several ex-

amples of political intimidations of national civil society

organizations that oppose the government position on

controversial issues such as corruption, gay rights or oil.

Many civil society representatives described the policy

environment as undermining the rule of law and the

freedom to exercise civil and political rights in important

areas and used expressions such as ‘disenabling’ and

‘disempowering’.

Government involvement of civil society in policy mak-

ing is generally weak. Civil society and other non-state

actors are represented in thematic donor coordination

committees, but their level of influence is fairly limited

(EC 2009a). Government sees civil society as part of the

opposition and a close partnership with international

organizations is perceived by government as foreign

agents promoting non-Ugandan interests. The Uganda

NGO Act is by many CSOs seen as directly undermining

the right to full and meaningful civil society participation.

The collaboration between local and international civil

society is a challenge and while local organizations meet

opposing views

on civil society dialogue

Most CSOs argue that they are hardly ever invited for

meetings with the EU Delegation in Kampala and the

dialogue are mainly demand driven, e.g. when high-level

EU representatives are visiting Kampala. Most CSO rep-

resentatives characterized the EU dialogue as ad-hoc and

one-way. Even CSOs with long-term financing relation-

ships with EU described the EU dialogue as unstructured

and not institutionalized. Civil society is typically asked

to present their views at EU meetings, but never receives

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

feedback and there is no preparation or follow-up. When

civil society participates in meetings with the EU and

members states, they feel that the EU Delegation is not

always acting constructively and some feel that the EU

Delegation dominates the discussion. Generally, CSOs

were of the clear opinion that the EU Delegation’s dia-

logue with CSOs had to be taken to a new level.

This is in stark contrast to statements from the EU Del-

egation in Kampala. The EU Delegation has an open-door

policy and all meetings with CSOs are welcomed. EU

Delegation representatives characterized their dialogue

with civil society as both structured and institutional-

ized, in particular in the thematic working groups on e.g.

Northern Uganda. But the EU Delegation believed that

the government policies on CSOs might have impacted

on the general CSO dialogue. They acknowledged that

the dialogue could improve, but could not identify spe-

cific areas which needed improvement. The EU Delega-

tion has not undertaken any recent analysis or mappings

of Ugandan civil society.

CSO representatives also criticize other donors for their

lack of civil society involvement but the EU Delegation

was highlighted for its particular poor performance.

None of the CSO representatives interviewed described

their dialogue with the EU Delegation as a partnership

and most did not see the EU Delegation as an obvious

dialogue partner and preferred bilateral donors like Den-

mark, Sweden and the UK. Many pointed to the lack of

civil society background and knowledge as an explana-

tion for the EU Delegation’s limited understanding of civil

society.

global process, which was well received by CSOs in

Uganda. After the meetings, the Uganda NGO-forum, a

national CSO platform with over 400 members, devel-

oped a concept paper for a structured dialogue process

in Uganda and even committed to allocate own funds

and resources to engage in the process. The concept note

was sent to the EU Delegation in 2011, but they never re-

ceived any response. When we asked the EU Delegation

about the NGO-forum proposal, they could not recognize

the lack of response and suggested that it was a misun-

derstanding. Whatever the cause, the stranded proposal

seems like a missed opportunity for the EU Delegation to

revitalize its dialogue with civil society.

Conclusion and recommendations

Ugandan civil society is not consistently invited for dia-

logue meetings with the EU Delegation in Kampala and

dialogue is generally characterized as ad-hoc, one-way

and demand driven. CSOs do not receive information be-

forehand and rarely receive feedback after meeting with

the EU Delegation in Kampala. Many CSOs expressed a

lack of trust and confidence in the EU Delegation in Kam-

pala, which is a serious challenge on the brink of a more

enhanced and strategic cooperation.

There is clearly a need for more self-reflection among

donors and CSOs. A mutual partnership is a two-way re-

lationship and both parties must invest in order to gain.

It is necessary to rethink the CSO dialogue at the EU Del-

egation in Kampala and introduce institutional changes

and mechanisms. An obvious first initiative would be

a discussion on the Uganda NGO Forums proposal for

a new Structured Dialogue forum, formed and steered

jointly by the EU Delegation and the Uganda NGO Forum,

e.g. with the support from the Democratic Government

Fund (DGF).

EU Member States must take active part in the develop-

ment of country CSO roadmaps from its early stages and

support the EU Delegation in Kampala with analysis, con-

tacts and simply bring credibility to the process. Ugandan

civil society is facing enormous challenges from a repres-

sive government which is likely to worsen in the run up

to the national elections in 2016. This reemphasizes the

need to strengthen the policy dialogue between civil so-

ciety and donors.

European CSOs can potentially play a pivotal role in pro-

viding technical expertise and capacity building on EU

development assistance and responsibilities of EU Del-

egations. But support must be responsive to CSOs needs

and requests.

blacK monday movEmEnT

Ugandan civil society was recently invited to a donor

meeting to present the Black Monday movement, which

promotes anti-corruption by wearing black clothing every

Monday. The meeting was hosted by the Dutch embassy,

but after the presentation, civil society representatives

were thanked and asked to leave the room. They never

received feedback or follow-up.

Trust and confidence building is a common feature in civil

society responses and even small things could potentially

make a considerable change. Some CSO representatives

e.g. suggested that dialogue meetings were hosted on

neutral ground or rotated among donors and civil society.

The EU Delegation in Kampala hosted a series of three

Structured Dialogue meetings in 2011 inspired by the

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

cIVIL SocIEty

anaLySIS and dIaLoGuE

The EC is eager to identify good practices and success-

ful examples on policy dialogue. But there are few shared

guidelines, benchmarks or documented good practices

that donors can learn from when partnering with civil

society (OECD 2012). Internal monitoring and evaluation

systems are therefore vital to improve the dialogue. But

until now, the EU has conducted no formal evaluations

or lessons learned on civil society involvement, although

CSO involvement has been a legal commitment for more

than 10 years (ECA 2009).

In order to avoid a repetition of previous tick-the-box dia-

logues, future dialogue sessions must be evaluated on

the basis of formal evaluations of the quality of the dia-

logue, which could include issues such as modalities and

format of consultations, predictability and timing, access

to background material etc. Indicators should ideally be

developed and monitored in collaboration with civil so-

ciety.

It seems relatively straightforward to improve EU’s per-

formance on CSO consultations based on the experiences

from Kampala and Accra. But EU Delegations must de-

velop systematic and harmonized engagement mecha-

nisms which cover all aspects of the EU Delegation man-

date, so that civil society involvement is not dependent

on individuals.

analyTical ElEmEnTs of

coUnTry cso roadmaps:

Mapping of the legal and regulatory framework

Mapping of funding resources for CSOs to

engage in policy dialogue

Analysis of government dialogue and

responsiveness to policy interaction

with civil society

Analysis of coalition building and

collaboration among civil society actors,

both local and international

Analysis of donors dialogue with civil society

In order to ensure the necessary political focus and

support, CSO dialogue must be a key indicator in the

EU Delegations’ annual performance review and a key

objective for all staff at EU Delegations, most impor-

tantly the Head of Delegation and the governance and

civil society teams.

The main objective of the country CSO roadmaps must

be civil society involvement in key policy issues and

processes, such as development of country CSO road-

maps, development of national development strat-

egies (e.g. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers), EC

programming processes (either national development

strategies or Country Strategy Papers), EU Delega-

tions reporting on Policy Coherence for Development

(PCD) and human rights and development of EC sup-

ported capacity building programmes.

A strategic and systematic inclusion of civil society

must always be founded on a comprehensive analysis

of the challenges and opportunities for strengthening

the civil society involvement in key policy issues and

processes.

fUndamEnTals in an

insTiTUTionalizEd civil

sociETy dialoGUE:

Clear institutional mechanisms

Inclusion of all relevant civil society actors

Jointly agreed agendas

Rotating venues for dialogue meetings

Sufficient time provided for participation

Preparatory resources delivered timely beforehand

Feedback on results from dialogue

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

concLuSSIon

This study clearly shows that the

eu delegations are not

consistently involving civil society in a strategic dia-

logue beyond aid-programming.

The civil society con-

sulted criticized the EU Delegations for being too ad-hoc,

one-way and demand driven. CSOs did not receive rel-

evant information on time and rarely received feedback

from the outcome of consultations. This is far from the

‘strategic and sustained political dialogue’, which is en-

visaged in EUs new CSO communication.

A strategic civil society support must always start from a

comprehensive context analysis of the diversity of roles

and agendas in civil society. But the EC and most EU Mem-

ber States apparently do not undertake regular analysis or

mappings of civil society. As pointed out in a number of

evaluations,

donors lack a nuanced understanding of the

civil society landscape,

which consequently affects the

overall impact of their civil society support.

Working with civil society is no longer an option – but a

prerequisite for development. EC and the EU Member

States must recognize that the

cso communication

signals a paradigm shift in eu development assistance

and demands a change in the mindset at all levels.

The

genuine improvement in the dialogue at HQ level in Brus-

sels must be translated to the EU Delegations.

There is generally a

lack trust and confidence in eu as an

institution

among CSOs in Uganda and Ghana and if the

development of country CSO roadmaps does not improve

the dialogue there is a serious risk of ‘consultation fa-

tigue’. This is a major challenge and to restore trust, the

EU Delegations must allow civil society to take an active

part in the development of country CSO roadmaps from

its early stages. In some instances civil society organiza-

tions must even be allowed to lead the analysis, e.g. in

self-assessments of the CSO context.

There is clearly a need for more self-reflection among do-

nors and civil society organizations. A mutual partnership

is a two-way relationship and both parties must invest in

order to gain. It is necessary to rethink the civil society

organization dialogue in both Kampala and Accra and EU

donors and civil society must jointly introduce

institu-

tional changes and the establishment of new dialogue

forums.

The capacity constraints at the EU Delegations is a seri-

ous hindrance for a more systematic and strategic CSO

involvement. The EC must therefore substantially in-

crease the financial and human resources at the EU Del-

egations and ensure capacity building and training of EU

Delegation staff. The EC must also

urgently clarify the

role of civil society

in the process of developing country

CSO roadmaps. The lack of clarity risks undermining the

CSO ownership and thereby also the quality and impact

of the country CSO roadmaps.

Civil society dialogue must become

a key indicator in

the eu delegations annual performance review

and a

key objective for all staff at EU Delegations, most impor-

tantly the Head of Delegation and the governance and

civil society teams. Civil society dialogue should not be

assigned to a CSO focal point, but must be a key priority

and responsibility for all.

Despite the poor track record, EC and EU Member States

have a common interest in making the country CSO road-

maps a success. Europe has a long tradition in supporting

civil society and EU civil society cooperation could poten-

tially become a

comparative advantage

which would con-

tribute immensely to EUs development objectives.

Photo

Peter høvring

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

rEFErEncES

Alliance 2015 (2011); Towards Democratic Ownership in Ghana

APRODEV (2013); The EU and Civil Society: what to be expected?

CIVICUS (2013); State of Civil Society 2013: Creating an enabling environment

CONCORD Europe (2012); Response to the EC Communication on CSOs in Development Cooperation

CONCORD Europe (2013); Concord position; EEAS Review 2013

DG DEVCO (2012); several power point presentations from Schmidt, Baglio og Manzitti

EC (2002); Participation of Non-State Actors in EC Development Cooperation

EC (2004); Guidelines on Principles and Good Practices for the Participation of Non-State Actors

EC (2005a); European Consensus on Development

EC (2005b); GHANA: Country strategy evaluation

EC (2008); Evaluation of EC aid delivery through civil society organizations

EC (2007); Treaty of Lisbon

EC (2009); Country Level Evaluation Uganda

EC (2011); increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change

EC (2012a); EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy

EC (2012b); The roots of Democracy and sustainable development

EC (2012c); EuropeAid Annual Report 2012

EC (2012d); Council conclusions, ‘an Agenda for Change’, Brussels, 14 May 2012

ECA (2009); The Commission’s Management of ‘Non-State Actors’

Involvement in EC Development Cooperation, Special Report No. 4.

ECDPM and Particip (2008); Study on the Legal Instruments and

Lessons Learned from the Evaluations Managed by the Joint Evaluation Unit

ECDPM (2011); EU development cooperation after the Lisbon Treaty

ECDPM (2012a); Gearing up for the 2013 EEAS Review

ECDPM (2012b); Reprogramming EU development cooperation for 2014-2020 (Discussion Paper 129)

ECDPM (2012c); Blog post - Innovative on paper, conservative on the ground?

EEAS (2011); Report by the High Representative

EuropeAid (2012); Mappings and Civil Society Assessments

Freedom House (2013); Freedom in the World 2013

IMF (2012); Ghana: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

INTRAC (2010); Civil Society Policy and Practice in Donor Agencies

Keijzer and Spierings (2011): Comparative analysis of EU donor policies

towards working with Civil Society Organizations

Mo Ibrahim Index (2012); 2012 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG)

OECD (2011a); Partnering with Civil Society – 12 Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews

OECD (2011b); How DAC members work with CSOs in development co-operation

OECD (2012); OECD DAC Peer Review of European Commission 2012

STAR Ghana (2013); Strengthening Democratic Governance in Ghana

Van Reisen (2011a); EU policy on South-South cooperation

Van Reisen (2011b); EU policy on civil society organizations

UM (2012); Support to civil society engagement in policy dialogue- Uganda country report

World Economic Forum (2013); The Future Role of Civil Society

country cso roadmaps

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CONCORD Denmark

Fælledvej 12, Global Platform, 4. th.

DK - 2200 Copenhagen N

[email protected]

www.concorddanmark.dk

country cso roadmaps

telephone: +45 61 70 49 72