Concept Note on Policy for a Civil Society Policy
27 June 2013
Department for Humanitarian Action, Civil Society and
Personnel Assistance
This concept note describes the process through which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to prepare a new civil
society policy and outlines the scope and content of the new policy. Expected new developments in the new civil society
policy vis-à-vis the current Civil Society Strategy are: 1) Unfolding how civil society organisations can contribute to the
rights holder perspective in a Human Rights-based Approach (HRBA) and therefore the implementation of the
objectives of “The Right to a Better Life”; 2) Emphasise that support to civil society should be guided by a clear
intervention logic, but that this has to be context-specific; 3) Underline the need to articulate and validate the distinctive
contribution of Danish civil society organisations (value added) to a strong, independent and diversified civil society and
4) Strive to maintain and further develop, where possible, a mix of funding modalities that reflects the diversity of civil
society, including funding provided through the Danish Civil Society organisations.
Key strategic questions for the Programme Committee:



How to maximize ownership to the new civil society policy across all areas and units dealing
with development cooperation in the MFA? What are the lessons from similar situations of
mainstreaming other policy concerns? What works and what does not work? How to involve
external Danish stakeholders in the process?
The key strategic focus of the new civil society policy is to regard civil society as contributing
to representing poor groups of rights holders in the implementation of the HRBA. Is this the
right focus? Should there be more room for civil society organisations as direct implementers
of activities supporting human rights and democracy, green growth, social progress and
stability and protection?
One of the findings of the Evaluation of the Civil Society Strategy is that the absence of an
implementation framework has undermined MFA/Danida’s ability to communicate what
Danish support to civil society achieves. There has been little feedback, lessons learnt and
monitoring of implementation. What can we learn from this and do better? Could one way be
to integrate the civil society policy as a key part of implementing the rights holder part of the
HRBA? Should civil society analysis and concerns be integrated into general guidelines for
preparation of development cooperation? Likewise is reporting on civil society to be
incorporated in general reporting? And should there be targeted use of guidance notes on
concrete lessons learnt e.g. in relation to multi-donor funds?
1
Outline of structure of civil society policy:
0. Foreword by the Minister for Development Cooperation (½ page)
1. Introduction (1-2 pages)
1.1. Setting the scene – Development Assistance Act and the strategic framework “Right to a Better
Life”, and other strategies.
1.2. Our definition of Civil Society (CS) (non-state actor) – who is included? Important to spell out the
MFA definition of CS – i.e. as opposed to market and state.
1.3. Policy for all CS engagement – underline the fact that the policy will be valid for all types of
development cooperation and that drafting the policy will be a collaborative effort between all
relevant units of the MFA.
1.4. Previous and current CS strategies from 2000 and the revised strategy from 2008, as well as the
2012 evaluation – their main elements as well as lessons learned seen from MFA point of view,
referring to dialogue with CS.
1.5. Continuation of main elements of current strategy and the rationale behind these priorities – why
are flexible partnerships, capacity development and advocacy important.
2. Objective and Target Groups (1-2 pages)
2.1. A clear objective – why are we developing a policy (why do we focus on flexible partnerships,
advocacy and the partnerships mentioned below), i.e.: “To develop global and local CS capacity to
genuinely and democratically represent the issues and constituencies they serve in an accountable
and transparent manner”.
2.2. Theories of Change (ToC) – Not one universal ToC but emphasis on organisations to develop own
ToC.
2.3. Defining the scope of the policy – what does it cover and what does it not cover. The policy will
detail aims, intentions and expectations, but not go into details regarding specific funding
modalities and amounts of funding.
2.4. Implementation of policy through existing tools and guidance/screening notes - rather than use of
separate plans and reporting for different units and modalities.
2.5 Target groups for the policy will be identified and include all stakeholders at the MFA and Danish
civil society organisations (CSO) involved in Danish development cooperation as a direct target
group of the policy. The indirect target groups include civil society and rights holders in developing
countries both organised civil society and the women, men, girls and boys in the South who
currently cannot claim their rights and who are unable to fully influence their own lives.
3. Global Opportunities and Challenges (2 pages)
3.1. National level and international level debate and policy changes – how to operate in a globalised
world and with globalised CSO: Danida support to coordinated CS participation in international
processes, e.g. Busan (Open Forum and Better AID, Concord). Similarly important role for CS in
post-2015 process. Many Danish CSOs are part of international families or networks. This can
2
facilitate linkages between the various levels by using local and national level data as input to
international level fora and feeding back to national and local level partners.
3.2. Space of CSOs – shrinking or enhancing: Distinguish between ‘invited space’ / ‘claimed space’ and
between legal provisions / actual enabling environment. Political and legal conditions for CS to
flourish are deteriorating in some countries in the world although civil society activism continues to
grow. Shrinking space – is it a self-fulfilling fact? Some of the debate on this is about genuine
shrinking space, but it could also be a good sign that CS is challenging the governments more than
before and therefore have expanded closer to the borders for CS engagement, not that the borders
have moved. The shrinking space “fact” is in some cases being used too generally and is very
country specific.
3.3. Economic growth and inequality: Number of poor countries decreasing, but increasing inequality,
especially in middle-income countries. Danish development policy will continue to focus on poverty
reduction.
3.4. Social movements and social media – the role of new media taking over the role of CSOs as
representing communities: This is an increasing reality, especially in middle income countries, e.g.
during ‘Arab spring’, and should be taken into account.
3.5. Acknowledgement of a diverse and vocal CS as an aim in itself: Studies show that most donors now
see CS strengthening as an end in itself. Donors have increasing focus on results. For small and
medium-sized Danish CSOs measurable outcomes will realistically in many cases not go beyond
increased capacities of local CS. But all organisations should, however, seek to go a step further and
show more concrete results related to advocacy for rights of poor groups.
3.6. The policy will increase the emphasis on documentation of the effects of the cooperation and
support provided. This is both an opportunity and a challenge because it is important to remain
focussed on the role of CSO as legitimate rights holders representing poor groups and the value
added by Danish CSO in building capacity of partner organisations in these areas as well as
facilitating their access to international fora even though these areas are more difficult to measure
and document than e.g. delivery of services.
4. Civil society and development (4 pages)
4.1. Unfolding the human rights-based approach to development – how to engage with rights holders
and their organisations (1 page). “Right to a better life” introduced the HRBA into Danish
development cooperation. The focus has been on duty-bearers because our partners usually are
states and governments. CS is formed when people get together around a shared purpose - for
example, to claim their rights from duty bearers. Support to CS is therefore a key driver of HRBA.
The policy will address how to engage with rights holders and their representatives.
4.2. The policy will give guidance on how to engage with CS when working with the four priority areas
of Right to a Better Life - human rights and democracy, green growth, social sectors, and stability
and protection. What specific issues are to be considered when including CS actors in processes
that strengthen HR/democracy, green growth, social sectors and fragile states.
4.3. Theories of Change (3-4 pages)
2 scenarios: 1) Stable states with responsive governments and 2) Fragile states
3
-
Input from NGO-forum’s conference and internal MFA workshop – visual representations of
the ToC.
Need for context specific theories of change
5. Main elements of the Policy (4 pages)
The new policy will build on the strengths of the previous strategy (partnerships, capacity
development and advocacy) and renew the support to civil society in response to the current
opportunities and challenges for civil society in development countries.
Partnerships – flexible and committing partnerships – as recommended by the evaluation,
partnerships should be at the centre of the civil society engagement. But what should be the nature
of these partnerships – away from funding mechanisms as primary reason for partnership and
move onto more equal and mutually benefitting partnership. The partnerships should be
innovative, re-balanced and could be across sectors.
Capacity development – including internal democracy (PANT – participation, accountability, nondiscrimination and transparency), strengthening of partners in terms of advocacy, management
and organisational capacity, monitoring and reporting, networking, as well as on each one of the
priority areas of Right to a Better Life. The capacity development will emphasize the partnerships
between Danish and Southern organisations – Southern organisations may to a higher degree
request support from Danish organisations when these are the most qualified to deliver the
capacity development needed, but also seek other partners to ensure the best option. Thus, civil
society in development countries will assume full ownership for their capacity development needs.
Advocacy – Support to civil society’s ability to engage in a critical policy dialogue with authorities at
local, national and international levels is central to achieving rights. Promotion of watchdog role of
civil society representatives and ensuring the voices of rights holders are heard systematically.
Alliance building and networking for policy change, as well as research-based advocacy are included
here.
CSOs in fragile states – Need for context specific theories of change/intervention logics which leave
more flexibility for advocacy combined with delivery of services in more fragile situations, but
increases the role of CSO as representatives of rights holders, incl. watchdog functions as the
situation evolves. Special opportunities exist for better coordination and synergy between
humanitarian assistance and CS support, and flexibility is required for organisations which have
both humanitarian strategic partnership agreements and CS framework agreements.
6. Types of Partnerships (7-8 pages)
Describe the partners and the purpose of the partnership:
6.1. Country programmes (1-2 pages). Outline of different types of partnerships used by country
programmes stating different purposes, e.g. sector programmes (service delivery and watchdog),
HR and GG (advocacy, watchdog and diversified CS in own right). Some CSO in the South are
4
increasing their capacity, but at the same time the diversity of CS is also increasing. It is important
to develop a mix of funding modalities suited to local partners which for some will entail more
direct access to increased funding and for some smaller flexible pools of funding. It will remain a
challenge to develop and maintain a suitable mix of flexible funding modalities. –Input from upcoming study on multi-donor funds, including management mechanisms.
6.2. Framework organisations and international alliances (1-2 pages) - Recent streamlining of CSO
support has resulted in more than doubling of number of framework organisations. The aim of the
framework agreements is to enable the organisations develop long-term strategic programmes
based on their own visions and goals in cooperation with partners in developing countries. Over
recent years an increased trend of Danish CSOs becoming members of international
con/federations accentuating the need to demonstrate the added value of Danish organisations in
relation to overall strategic influence and contributions to country-level programmes. Furthermore
the framework organisations should document how they work with flexible instruments for
partnerships in order to find new ways of collaborating with Southern CSOs and new emerging civic
actors.
6.3. Danish pooled funds and CSO networks (1 page) - Overall purpose of pooled funding is to increase
capacity in smaller organisations to engage in development cooperation activities and enhance
interest for/knowledge of development issues of CSOs in Denmark and developing countries
through collaboration between a broad segment of small and medium-sized Danish CSOs and their
partners in the South. Streamlining the CSO administration increased the pool funding modality.
CSO networks contribute to strengthening the cooperation between the Danish organisations and
facilitate active engagement between Danish civil society organisations, politicians and
governmental bodies as well as the media.
6.4. Regional programmes (½-1 page) e.g. Danish-Arab Partnership Programme and Danish
Neighbourhood Programme. Outline different types of partnerships with different purposes.
6.5. Multilateral partners (½-1 side) – include support to CSOs in policy dialogue with multilaterals,
recognition of agenda setting role of multilaterals, when to enter into partnership with them, and
collaborate with them when mapping space of civil society, i.e. in the case of EU road maps for civil
society (EU, WB, UN, etc.).
6.6. Humanitarian Action (1 page) – links, coordination and synergies to the Strategy on Humanitarian
Action; links between humanitarian and development agendas. Special opportunities and
expectations to organisations with both humanitarian strategic agreement and framework
agreements: analysis, flexibility and change evolving in implementation. Different theories of
change for fragile states and more stable states with responsive governments. How service delivery
in fragile states is considered.
6.7. INGOs, think tanks, research institutions (½-1 page). Linking local CSOs with international advocacy
networks and platforms. Helping evidence and research based advocacy to link to international
platforms.
6.8. How to make all the modalities work in harmony (½ page).
5
7. Popular foundation and information activities (1 page)
7.1. Why is this important for CSOs in the South? Importance of people to people linkages. Sharing of
common human challenges breaks isolation and promotes solidarity. Youth to Youth, disabled to
disabled. DK can learn from equals in developing countries.
7.2. Popular foundation of organisations in DK and information activities important for broad base
understanding of need for development assistance. DK organisations with credibility in their local
areas and special interest groups have comparative advantage.
8. Monitoring and reporting (1-2 pages)
8.1. Review mechanisms.
The Policy: could run till 2020 with a review in 2017.
Country programmes;
Framework agreements: Capacity assessments (reviews) every 4th year.
Organisations with pooled funding: Capacity assessments at regular intervals.
8.2. A resource allocation model (RAM) for organisations with framework agreements developed in
collaboration with Danish CSOs with high value on documentation of results reporting of real
change and added value and determining the proportional share of the total allocation for
framework organisations. Based on minimalistic scoring model with 3-5 performance areas with
few indicators and adapted to already existing tools for monitoring and reporting. The RAM will
prioritize predictability and stability in funding adjustments and be effective from Finance Act 2016.
8.3. CSO policy marker in PDB.
6
Date/timing
Activities
22 May 2013
Internal meeting in the Policy Reference Group to discuss draft process plan
and draft concept paper outline
27 May 2013
Internal meeting with HCP management on process plan and draft concept
paper outline
30 May 2013
UPR: Discussion of changes in modalities for support to civil society
31 May 2013
Submission of Concept Note for new Civil Society Policy for discussion in
Programme Committee (27 June – meeting)
12 June 2013
Public Meeting presenting evaluation of Civil Society Strategy to a broad
external audience (EVAL in charge)
27 June 2013
Programme Committee meeting on Concept Note
1 July 2013
Deadline for identification of researchers to conduct study on multi-donor
funds and management mechanisms (contract to commence in August 2013)
1 August 2013
Start-up of study on multi-donor funds and management mechanisms
6 August 2013
Submission of revised version of Concept Note to Council for Development
Policy (UPR)
23 August 2013
Discussion of Concept Note in UPR
September – October
Presentation of Concept Note in URU
Mid-October 2013
Presentation of Concept Note to MFA Corporate Management Forum
October 2013
NGO Forum conference on value added of DK NGOs and theory of change
(organised by NGO Forum)
End-October 2013
Internal MFA workshop with reference group on theories of change
October - November
Drafting of policy
End - November
Internal UM hearing/comments to draft policy
Before year end 2013
Draft policy paper presented to the Minister
First quarter 2014
Presentation of final policy paper to UPR
7