GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

Methodological note

Indicator Two of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC)’s monitoring framework: “Civil society operates within an environment

which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development”

This document describes the objectives, process and methodology to monitor, at country-level, how “Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development” (Indicator Two of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’s (GPEDC’s) monitoring framework).

This assessment approach was developed by the GPEDC’s Joint Support Team, in close collaboration with the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment (the Task team), including the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE).

The Joint Support Team is currently coordinating a light testing of the approach in a few countries, and is consulting - with the support of the Task Team - with stakeholders from developing country governments, CSOs and providers of development co-operation. Participants in the ICNL 2015 Global Forum on Shaping Civic Space are welcome to provide feedback and suggestions to help strengthen the questionnaire approach by 20 May 2015 (contact: yuko.suzuki@undp.org and julie.seghers@oecd.org). Kindly note that feedback should not add to the length of the questionnaire, but rather propose ways to sharpen/clarify the key questions.

Comments and recommendations will feed into further refinement of the assessment approach (methodology and process) ahead of the second GPEDC monitoring round.

INTRODUCTION

Busan commitments related to CSO Enabling Environment and development effectiveness

The Busan Partnership agreement called on stakeholders to “implement fully [their] respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximises the contributions of CSOs to development” (§22a).

In the Busan Partnership agreement stakeholders also “encourage CSOs to implement practices that strengthen their accountability and their contribution to development effectiveness, guided by the Istanbul Principles and the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness” (§22b).

Assessing CSO enabling environment through the Global Partnership’s monitoring framework

Upon agreeing on the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) in 2012, the Post-Busan Interim Group proposal endorsed at the final meeting of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness set out that the indicator related to the above commitment would assess how “Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development” (Indicator Two). It was agreed that this indicator would draw on a new Enabling Environment Index (EEI), which at the time was under development by CIVICUS, the World Alliance for

GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

Citizen Participation. The CIVICUS EEI, a global composite index using secondary data to understand the propensity of citizens to participate in civil society, was developed and piloted in 2013. It had been initially envisaged that the Global Partnership indicator on the enabling environment for CSOs would focus on sub-dimensions of the CIVICUS-EEI relating to the legal and regulatory framework for civil society organisations. However, CIVICUS encountered challenges related to availability of primary data from the country level, and eventually both these EEI sub-dimensions were based on a single source (USAID CSO Sustainability Index) with limited country coverage. This development made it difficult to rely on the CIVICUS EEI alone to build a Global Partnership indicator to assess progress on a country-by-country basis that would provide a robust basis for meaningful dialogue on the state of enabling environment for CSOs within the Global Partnership.

Alongside pointing to the lack of country-level primary data on CSO enabling environment, the experience from the first Global Partnership monitoring round highlighted the keen interest from countries to root the assessment at the country level, including by engaging developing country governments in the design and implementation of any assessment, and finding means to facilitate country-level multi-stakeholder dialogue on enabling environment. Furthermore, the process around the first monitoring round highlighted a clear need to ensure an inclusive and multi-stakeholder process for developing the indicator to ensure credibility and support for the assessment approach.

KEY FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS Many of the above challenges and lessons were highlighted in the first Progress report and in discussions around the Mexico High-Level Meeting. As immediate follow-up to the first monitoring round, the Joint Support Team undertook a stock-take exercise of the full monitoring effort to identify the challenges and consider ways forward, including on individual indicators. Related to this indicator, the Joint Support Team engaged in discussions with the multi-stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment (including the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness, CPDE) to identify options forward and possible synergies between ongoing work, including the Task Team’s Global Partnership Initiative 12 launched in Mexico on ‘CSO enabling environment framework and guidelines’.

The discussions have led to the development of an approach based on undertaking a preliminary assessment through a country-level questionnaire and, in parallel, conducting a desk review to complement the questionnaire approach. The purpose of the questionnaire is to convene dialogue between the developing country government, CSOs, and co-operation providers at country level. The joint exercise to complete the questionnaire is intended to spark dialogue – not to serve as an indicator per se at this stage. The questionnaire is structured around key elements of the enabling environment, with the aim to build multi-stakeholder agreement on the key elements, refine those elements, and, based on feedback, provide a basis for the development of an indicator for the second and subsequent Global Partnership monitoring rounds.

The questionnaire now consists of four core modules: 1. Space for multi-stakeholder dialogue 2. CSO development effectiveness 3. Official development co-operation with CSOs4. Legal and regulatory environment for CSOs

While module 1, 3 and 4 are directly related to CSO enabling environment, module 2 seeks to gauge progress in the implementation of the Istanbul Principles and the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness to strengthen a mutually engaging

GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

approach that underpins the commitments of different stakeholders (national government, co-operation providers and CSOs) to implementing the development effectiveness agenda.

In order to refine the proposed questionnaire ahead of the second GPEDC monitoring round (planned to kick-off in the second half of 2015), the GPEDC Joint Support Team is co-ordinating a process to gather wider input from CSOs, providers and recipients of development co-operation, in particular through a light testing in a few countries. Country level multi-stakeholder dialogues under the Task Team’s Global Partnership Initiative 12 will complement this effort by providing a space to share views on the assessment approach.

QUESTIONNAIRE

MODULE 1. Space for multi-stakeholder dialogue [Incorporates approaches from CPDE Working Group on Enabling Environment and Task Team on Enabling Environment and Development Effectiveness]

a) Are there inclusive and accessible mechanisms and processes for multi-stakeholder dialogue / engagement in designing, implementing and monitoring national development policies? Are these institutionalised (i.e. regular, predictable, transparent), at national and local levels? Are there feedback mechanisms on how stakeholder input has been taken into account? Are marginalised groups included in these processes? (Examples of such groups might include trade unions, women’s rights organisations, human rights organisations, organisations of indigenous people, environmental or land rights organisations, LGBT organisations, etc.) Do these processes allow for equal and active participation?

b) Do CSOs have the right to access relevant government information, 1) by law and 2) in practice?

c) Are there means for addressing capacity building of all stakeholders (including government, CSOs and co-operation providers) to engage meaningfully in multi-stakeholder dialogue? Are these adequate?

MODULE 2. CSO development effectiveness [Consistent with Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness] Note: For a questionnaire approach there would be a technical aggregation challenge to consolidate feedback from a multitude of CSOs at country level

a) Are CSO development effectiveness principles / [Istanbul Principles] being discussed at country level? Is there a dedicated action plan? In practice, are there CSO-managed frameworks/mechanisms in place to address/assess transparency and multiple accountability in CSO operations? If so, which level of accountability do they address (accountability to donors, governments, constituencies)? What is the degree of uptake of CSOs to these mechanisms (what proportion of CSOs has signed up)? Are CSOs working with these frameworks to address current weaknesses in CSO practices? If so, in what ways? Are marginalised groups accounted for in these frameworks/mechanisms?

b) Do CSO-initiated co-ordination structures exist to facilitate consolidated and inclusive CSO representation in policy dialogue (e.g. umbrella organisation, CSO network, consultation practices), based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, and organisational autonomy?

GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

c) Do mechanisms exist to facilitate coordination on programming among CSOs (collaboration to optimise impact and avoid duplication), and with other development actors, at sector level or more broadly as appropriate, to realise sustainable outcomes and impacts of CSOs’ development actions?

MODULE 3. Official development co-operation with CSOs [Consistent with OECD/DAC approved 12 Lessons for partnering with CSOs]Note: For a questionnaire approach there would be a technical aggregation challenge to consolidate feedback from a multitude of co-operation providers for one developing country

a) Do providers consult with CSOs on their development policy/programming in a strategic and organised way? Are consultations institutionalised (i.e. regular, predictable, announced on time for CSOs to prepare a qualitative dialogue, transparent)? Are there feedback mechanisms on how CSOs’ inputs have been taken into account? Do consultations take place at relevant levels (i.e. providers’ headquarters, country offices)?

b) How are providers promoting a CSO enabling environment in their co-operation with civil society?

through a civil society policy? Do providers have an overarching civil society policy? If so, does it explain the purpose and modalities of supporting civil society and working with CSOs?

through financing mechanisms ? Do providers offer a mix of funding mechanisms that balance support to CSO-defined objectives (CSO “right of initiative”) that are demonstrably locally owned and demand-driven, with complementary objectives defined by development co-operation recipient and provider country governments? Is CSO funding reliable, transparent, easy to understand, and disbursed impartially?

and in their administrative requirements? Are transaction costs for CSOs minimised? Are administration and reporting requirements strategic, standardised, and, where possible, harmonised across providers?

c) Is the promotion of a CSO enabling environment, including legal frameworks, for a free, open and capable civil society and space for CSO engagement in policy processes an agenda item in providers’ policy dialogue with partner governments and part of the government-to-government support?

MODULE 4. Legal and regulatory environment [Incorporates approaches from CPDE Working Group on Enabling Environment]

a) CSO formation, registration and operation – Are CSOs required to register in order to operate? Is there an enabling law on CSO registration, and in practice are CSOs able to easily register? Are the grounds for denial of registration and for de-registration clear, with recourse mechanisms in place? Are CSOs able to pursue a broad-range of self-defined objectives? Are CSOs enabled by law and practice to regulate their internal governance and affairs? Are CSOs protected from unwarranted interference with their privacy?

b) CSO access to funding – Are there legal, regulatory, policy or political barriers to seek, secure, and use resources, including foreign resources, for CSOs? Are there legal or policy incentives to promote local resource mobilisation and financial sustainability among CSOs?

GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

c) Are there CSOs representing particular groups that receive less favourable treatment due to their specific mandate or activities under the legal and regulatory environment, and in practice? (Examples of such groups might include trade unions, women’s rights organisations, human rights organisations, environmental or land rights organisations, organisations of indigenous people, LGBT organisations, etc.)

The engagement of parliamentary actors (e.g. committee on legal affairs) in this module is desirable. The focal point for the country government, in close collaboration with the Global Partnership monitoring national co-ordinator (usually located in the Ministry of Finance/Planning) is encouraged to bring participation of parliamentarians in this process.

DESK REVIEW

In order to make optimal use of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence, the Joint Support Team, with the support of partners such as the TT, CPDE, ICNL and CIVICUS, will identify main existing studies ahead of the monitoring, and will share them with country level stakeholders along with the questionnaire.

The studies could focus on the country level, or bring more international perspectives, where relevant. Issues covered could relate to the four modules, according to country contexts. In particular, available information for the following elements may be explored: relevant questions related to the political context; the recognition of CSO rights (freedoms of association, assembly, and expression) in the constitution, laws and regulations; the existence of appeal processes/conflict resolution mechanisms around the exercise of CSO rights; the existence of significant ambiguities in the law, or significant aspects that the law does not address (e.g. timelines for the government to respond to registration applicants).

Information gathered through identified studies should feed into the country-level dialogue around the questionnaire, in order to provide relevant background analysis and to spark relevant dialogue. This means the desk review could not be detached from the country-level process, but should be sequenced to feed maximally into the questionnaire and dialogue process at country level.

PROCESS

The process will be coordinated at country-level by the Global Partnership monitoring national coordinator. The questionnaire will be filled by three designated focal points:

- a focal point for the country government in close collaboration with the Global Partnership monitoring national co-ordinator (usually located in the Ministry of Finance/Planning). This focal point is encouraged to bring participation of parliamentarians in this process.

- a focal point for CSOs (involving the main CSO platform when it exists). This focal point should ideally represent and capture views for local and international CSOs in the country. Where perspectives for these two differ significantly in country, this should be flagged in the responses.

- a focal point for providers. While the questionnaire seeks responses from country-level actors, providers may wish to consult with their head-quarters, in particular regarding questions in module 3.

Focal points will be requested to a) consult with and consolidate views from their constituency, and b) jointly convene a discussion at country-level with representatives of different stakeholder to fill in the questionnaire and engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue around the findings and questionnaire outcomes. If multi-stakeholder dialogue is not

GPEDC – Joint Support Team – APRIL 2015

possible, the focal points will fill in the questionnaire individually (in consultation with their constituency).

When possible, the monitoring process will build on mechanisms which already exist at country level either for multi-stakeholder dialogue or mutual accountability around enabling environment.