Royal danish ministry of foreign affairs - Go to the frontpage of   Publication  

6 CSO strategies on policy dialogue

This chapter assesses the strategies used by Civil Society across all three case studies in policy dialogue, especially those which have been effective and frequently applied. The more effective strategies include evidence-based research; capacity building, awareness creation and sensitisation; strategic alliances coalitions and networks; social mobilisation and alliances; media advocacy; public demonstrations and petitions; public interest litigation and sponsored private members bills. These strategies may be used in some dialogue processes more than others depending on the policy issue and the stage in the policy cycle.

6.1 Effectiveness of CSO strategies on policy dialogue

Effectiveness of evidence-based research

Box 5 Examples of Tools and Structures used in Policy Dialogue

Tools for monitoring service delivery

  • Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation System (CBMS)
  • Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)
  • Score Cards
  • Red Card-Green Cards for the Media

Community Structures for monitoring policy implementation

  • Community Monitoring Committees
  • Budget Monitoring Committees
  • Village Budget Clubs
  • Village Health Teams
  • Health Management Teams
  • Maternal Health Monitors
  • School Management Committees
  • Child Rights Clubs

Evidence-based research is growing in importance as a strategy which has been effectively used by CSOs to develop issue points for policy dialogue. For example, gender advocacy CSOs invested resources and time in collecting Gender Based Violence research and data, and generated the statistics that were used to inform the debate for enactment of the Domestic Violence Law. Evidence-based research has been used to inform the forestry governance debate, especially in preventing the degazettement of Mabira Forest. For example, CSOs such as Nature Uganda and Environmental Alert under the Forest Working Group (FWG) commissioned studies to inform the nation about the importance of Mabira Forest for the biodiversity and ecosystem of the Lake Victoria Basin. Some of this evidence informed the clauses for the construction of Bujagali Hydropower project agreement with the World Bank, which were used to argue the case to maintain the gazetted status of the forest. CSOs have also used research and analysis and prepared publications to inform the national budget process. The CSOs involved include NGO Forum, (on pro-poor budget processes), EA and ACODE on Environmental Governance and policies, FOWADE on gender budgets, UWONET, CEDOVIP and GBV Coalition on Gender Based Violence, Reproductive Health Network on Health Services and Reproductive Health Products, UDN and ACCU on Accountability amongst others. CSOs annually conduct an analysis of the budget using government data, to provide a respected and credible evaluation for use in counteracting or challenging the government position. CSOs also work in cooperation with national institutions on data and research. Examples include the Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Economic Policy and Research Centre. Some CSOs carry out independent research in partnership with other CSO’s on policy dialogue matters. For example, research carried out by the Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) and Oxfam UK revealed evidence that a forestry company that had been allocated land for tree planting in Uganda was planning to displace families in the area. As a result of the evidence and CSO advocacy, the company financing was withdrawn and the project halted. CSOs in Uganda have also carried out public consultations and research and published findings on a regular basis before election year, led by CSO Networks especially the National NGO Forum and DENIVA. The document, named the “Citizens Manifesto” has been published every election year since 2006, based on consultation with the citizens across the nation to collect views on expectations of political parties and leaders commitments to good governance. The Citizen’s Manifesto is a petition to commit political parties and parliament to various issues such as HIV/AIDS, anti-corruption and others, and is usually monitored by CSOs to assess government commitment to the needs of the citizens. The Citizen’s Manifesto has been successful in raising important questions, sometimes controversial among politicians and the public encouraging them to be more critical, and demanding accountability of the leaders.

In some cases government officials have used these critical demands to label CSOs as anti-government, or to accuse them of representing foreign interests and wanting to undermine the achievements of Government.

Effectiveness of capacity building, awareness creation and sensitisation

Capacity building, awareness creation and sensitisation are longer term strategies that are used by CSOs to change public attitudes, capacity of public/government institutions, capacity of CSOs and capacities and attitudes of community members and policy makers on various policy issues. Strategies to raise awareness of specific targeted interest groups and communities have been important in addressing issues that are in the invisible spaces. The strategies for changing minds and behaviour have widely used materials and campaigns, for example in the development of the Anti-FGM law, Sexual and Gender based Violence, Civic Education, changing cultural practices and attitudes towards gender equality, health education especially reproductive health and HIV/AIDS, and negative attitudes towards women.

These strategies are also used in public education, for example on government programmes, civic education and on thematic areas such as benefits of sustainable management of the environment, anti-corruption, and access to services such as education and health and legal services. In the case of forestry, awareness and sensitisation has been used by CSOs to help communities understand the benefits of forests and how they can be sustainably used. The challenge with the strategy is that monitoring its effectiveness is very difficult given the time needed to change attitudes and to produce quantifiable results. In another example of sensitisation, while the Anti-FGM Act and the Domestic Violence Law are laws may be enacted and legally in force, continuous sensitisation is necessary during implementation of the law to help people understand the provisions, as well as change their behaviour. The study found that as Government closes dialogue spaces on important issues (especially on governance and accountability), CSOs are aware that sensitisation and awareness creation for communities at grass roots will in future become a very important strategy.

The key message here, according to CSOs interviewed across the three case studies is that training and capacity building, for example in advocacy skills, have been used to build public awareness on important governance and accountability issues, so that the communities themselves, rather than CSOs, are directly engaged in policy dialogue with Government, and are able to influence changes in governance practices at grass roots level. For example, the community monitoring structures set up by CSOs such as Uganda Debt Network for Poverty Action Fund Monitoring, Kabarole Resource and Research Centre monitoring resource use, FOWODE and others on monitoring budgets at local level have been successful because of the CSO investment in the community capacity. The community members trained by CSOs are able to analyse official plans, understand budgets, track expenditure, negotiate with leaders and hold them accountable as well as write reports of findings and share them with the public. In a further example, the communities living around Mabira Forest reported that their attitude towards the forest has changed after capacity building from CSOs, and that the community is now better equipped to defend the forest and link good forestry management to the sustainability of their livelihoods.

Effectiveness of building strategic alliances, coalitions and networks

In the past, CSOs were criticised for working individually, for not being organised and with only occasional contributions towards policy dialogue processes. However, the last five years have seen CSOs move from working in an ad hoc manner to deliberately engaging in joint actions through coalitions and networks on various policy issues to increase their voice and effectiveness in communicating the policy concerns. Each of the strategy components are elaborated below and summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Coalitions, Networks and their Effectiveness (from the three Case Studies)
Coalition/Network Effectiveness of the Strategies


  • Coalition on Domestic Violence Bill
  • Coalition on Domestic Violence Act
  • Sexual Offences Bill Coalition
  • Marriage & Divorce Bill Coalition
  • Successful dialogue leading to passing of Domestic Violence Law, Anti-FGM Law.
  • Have actively led to influencing development of Sexual Offences Bill and Marriage & Divorce Bill.


  • Uganda Forestry Working Group
  • Uganda Forestry Learning Governance Group
  • Success in prevention of degazettement of Forests, especially Mabira Forest
  • Built awareness of communities close to forests to resist abuse of forestry policies


  • Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda and respective regional Coalitions i.e.
  • Rwenzori Anti-Corruption Coalition
  • Teso Anti-Corruption Coalition
  • Apac Anti-Corruption Coalition
  • Exposure of corruption cases throughout the country.
  • Monitoring implementation of government projects from national to local levels
  • Monitoring implementation of policies especially quality of service delivery


  • Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group
  • Democracy Monitoring Group
  • Reproductive Health Supplies Advocacy Network
  • Coalition on Access to Information
  • Critique & contribute ideas to budget processes
  • Monitoring implementation of governance process
  • Influence budget increases in health & social sectors
  • Enactment of Access to Information Act

Coalitions: CSOs interviewed confirmed that working in coalitions has led to several successes in policy dialogue and advocacy (see above table). For example, the Coalition on Access to Information, according to CSOs, brought together human rights and anti-corruption CSOs, which in turn led to the passing of the Access to Information Act, 2005. The Coalition on the Domestic Violence Bill brought together CSOs working on women’s rights and elimination of sexual and gender-based violence, who through effective engagement in dialogue, contributed to the enactment of the Domestic Violence Act, 2010. Following this achievement, these CSOs formed the Domestic Violence Act Coalition which is monitoring policy implementation.

Working groups: CSOs in forestry have formed the Forestry Working Group which is a strategic alliance that helps them to address strategic and controversial issues in a more collective manner. According to the CSO members, the group is deliberately maintained as a loose coalition so that individual member organisations are not put in the spotlight. This approach was based on their experience of pursuing controversial issues in the past, which in some cases led to intimidation of individual member organisations. The loose coalition also has the advantage that it can come together or disband quickly. The coalition is able to engage with decision makers at national levels, religious leaders, and cultural leaders. But they have moved strongly towards empowering CBOs as a more effective route in influencing policy dialogue, after recognition that the real power to prevent abuse of policies in forestry rests with the people in the immediate vicinity of the those forests.

Effectiveness of social mobilisation, public demonstrations and petitions

At community level, CSOs have developed partnerships and alliances with communities, and supported the establishment of structures or strengthened existing formal community based structures such as Village Health Teams and School Management Committees. The community members are volunteers who monitor policy implementation and government programmes to ensure effective service delivery. The communities are trained in tools to monitor and report quality of delivery, as well as to increase their confidence to demand information and accountability from public officials. In the case of Mabira Forest, CBOs adjacent to the forest were involved in direct lobbying and negotiation with parliament and government not to degazette the forest for sugar cane plantation. ACODE for example, worked with communities and local leadership in Karamoja and stopped the degazettement of Pian Upe, an isolated wetland in the semi-arid Karamoja which is the only source of grazing pasture for the pastoralist communities in Karamoja. An independent study by CSOs indicated that the project would dry up Lake Opeta if the wetland was degazetted in order to grow commercial flowers. The people gained increasing awareness of the link between the wetland and the water in the lake and the implications for their livelihoods if the lake dried. Better equipped to communicate their concerns, the project was abandoned by Government and the investor.

Public demonstrations and petitions: These have been used by CSOs in situations where the public dialogue has stalled or CSOs want wider attention from the public. They have also been used where there has been extreme abuse and injustice in the system. Gender and women’s rights organisations have organised public demonstrations as part of a call to action on abuse of women’s rights and domestic violence following cases of wife murder or release of suspects. The demonstrations will usually carry a signed petition that is handed over to a senior official or decision makers, for example the Speaker of Parliament or a minister. More recently, CSOs have used more sophisticated means of petitioning, which include the use of the internet to gather support in the country and internationally. There is also increasing use of SMS media to communicate with the public, holding of debates on television and information dissemination through newspaper articles and press releases.

Demonstrations were found to be effective strategies, but held the risk of becoming violent. In the Forestry Case Study, CSOs organised a peaceful demonstration, which got out of control and turned into a violent protest in which innocent lives were lost. The demonstrations also became sporadic and resulted in running battles with police, and in the surrounding of some CSO premises. The Executive Director of NAPE for example, was arrested and imprisoned on charges of terrorism following the campaign on Mabira Forest. More recently, the CBOs adjacent to Mabira organised peaceful walks at the local level and participated in radio programmes and public hearings to save the forest. These CBOs have been trained and ’empowered’ by CSOs engaged in policy advocacy to engage directly in dialogue with government as part of the deliberate shift by CSOs towards local level engagement. Likewise, they said they have also realised that petitions do not bring immediate results so several strategies must be applied.

Public dialogue: CSO strategies to mobilise individuals, the public and communities include public participation in public dialogues and integrity pacts. Public Dialogue has also been used as a strategy to mobilise public opinion on public issues such as specific anti-corruption debates, national budget, political processes, gender rights etc. At the community level, a system of public accountability has been developed through organising community dialogue or what is now popularly known as ’Ebimeza’, or ’barazas’ the community ’round tables’ to engage communities expressing their voice on issues of concern such as education, health services, security and service delivery. Service providers, government officials, duty bearers and other leaders are invited to participation in a panel to answer public questions. The public and community dialogues help to exchange information, teach the public and increase exposure of different viewpoints including Government, opposition party and individual views.

Integrity pacts: These are official alliances with individuals, mainly leaders who sign commitment documents called ’Integrity Pacts’ developed by CSOs. Integrity Pacts are statements of commitment to agreed values signed by leaders and decision makers. CSOs have used Integrity Pacts as a system of demonstrating the leaders’ support and commitment to principals advanced for the common good in specific areas, for example on good governance and quality leadership.

Use of media advocacy

Use of the media in policy dialogue cuts across all CSO strategies at all levels and entry points of policy dialogue in the three case studies on gender, anti-corruption and forestry governance. The media has been used as a source of information or ’scoops’ on pertinent issues, as a partner in addressing policy issues, as a medium for advertising and advocacy and as an interlocutor of debates between the CSOs, the public and government information. The media has become a powerful tool through which CSOs share and validate evidence for policy advocacy. CSOs will often call press conferences to give statements on issues of concern. At the same time the media has become an important source of information in exposing some of the issues that CSOs follow up in advocacy. Media exposure has forced politicians to take more interest in issues when they come to public attention, in either a positive or a negative manner. For example, exposure of corruption cases and the forest governance issues has been first exposed in the media. CSOs working on gender issues have targeted the media with training and awareness-creating interventions to win them over to their side and help advance the gender agenda. For example, the media was an important ally in the exposure of domestic violence cases and sexual abuse, especially defilement[80] of minors. CSOs have held training programmes and set up incentive mechanisms to reward media organisations and individuals who advance their cause.

The media is influential to both Government and politicians and may stimulate immediate action once issues are raised including cases of corruption. Parliament has also on several occasions been reactive to media reports and demanded explanation from Government. Again, this was true for the case of Mabira Forest, with the Save Mabira crusade also using SMS text messages on mobile phones which were quickly circulated to the public. In this case the media was used to urge the public to boycott sugar produced by the Kakira Sugar Company which was at the centre of the controversy to turn the forest into a sugar plantation. Uganda Media Women’s Associations used a mechanism of distributing transistor radios to women’s listening groups to sensitise them on women’s rights and provide them with information on several developmental issues and government programmes. The CSOs also used internet based petitions with national and international outreach to collect signatures, which they used to petition government to stop the forest degazettement. However, with over 240 radio stations operational throughout the country, the biggest outreach is done through community radio stations.

In summary, the media has been used to raise public awareness about issues that affect people across the entire country, and has been a valuable means of maintaining debates on policy decisions, on increasing awareness and understanding of issues, as well as influencing policy decisions at local and national levels.

Public interest litigation and sponsored private members bills

CSOs in Uganda have successfully used public interest litigation to seek legal redress in situations of public interest where there is violation of laws or policies especially by Government, or where a law is discriminatory and does not provide justice to a section of the citizenry. Public interest litigation cases have been filed by CSOs where dialogue has stalled, where dialogue has failed to produce the desired results, where dialogue is not a solution or in cases where there is need to put an immediate halt on a violation, for example evictions of citizens.

  • Forestry Governance Case Study: Butamira Forest in Busoga, licensed for sugar cane to Kakira Sugar Company (Madivani Group). Yet, Government had issued permits to the community to plant trees, which they had done. Their permits were cancelled. The company took over the forest area and cut down the trees planted by the communities and planted sugar cane. A case filed by ACODE on behalf of 300 community members was won in court, which ruled that the Company Permit was null and void and did not comply with the law. By the time the court case was finalised, the trees had been cut down. Subsequently, the company and Government have ignored the court ruling and continued with the plantation.
  • Anti-Corruption and Forestry Governance: Another high profile Public Interest Litigation is on Prevention of Government to Degazette Mabira Forest. The case has asked the Court to put a temporary injunction on any allocation of the forest and challenges the provisions that give power to Government to degazette the forest. No ruling has been made on the case yet, because CSOs have strategically put a hold on it. According to the CSOs concerned, they will use a two-pronged approach that will also include policy dialogue with government to halt the process. The Forestry Governance Learning Group and other CSOs met with the President and presented him with the facts and studies arguing the case for the need to preserve the forest.
  • In the Gender Legislation Case: The Divorce Law in Uganda was challenged through a Public Interest Litigation Case sponsored by CSOs engaged in policy dialogue on gender rights. The case challenged the grounds[81] for divorce which were discriminatory against women and favoured men. The Court has since ruled that the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. This case has set a new precedent for grounds for divorce. However, due to delays in government systems, no new Marriage and Divorce Law has been written, hence the CSO engagement and demand for the enactment of a new Law. CSOs hope that the proposed Marriage and Divorce Bill will provide a positive outcome and will integrate the provisions in the ruling of the Public Interest Litigation Case on divorce.

While public interest litigation can be a powerful strategy for CSOs, it is a costly exercise and can take a long time to be resolved. Other challenges include the fact that while CSOs may win the cases, the court ruling may not be respected or enforced as seen in the case of Butamira Forest described above. CSOs have attempted to advocate for a Private Members Bill in Parliament, in the case of the Access to Information Bill. However, introducing a bill is an expensive venture and government can only accept it if it has the accompanying guarantee that funds will be allocated for implementation once the law is passed.

6.2 Legitimacy and accountability

This section explores whether the CSO engagement in policy dialogue is supported by their mandate, who they represent and the extent to which they are accountable to their constituencies and how they obtain legitimacy to speak on behalf of the people they claim to represent.

 In Uganda, CSOs participation in policy dialogue is seen by CSOs as a constitutional right. Those interviewed were aware of and mentioned the Constitutional Provision (1995 Constitution of Uganda) which recognises CSOs legitimacy and importance in the development process. Furthermore, they also mentioned the Local Government Act. Both central and local government institutions recognise the contribution of CSOs in the social, economic and political development of the country. The National NGO Policy observes that:

“NGOs have been a major contributor to Uganda’s social, economic and political development.[82] Their contribution is evident in the Social Development Sector including education, health, water and sanitation, environment management, infrastructure development and host of other important areas that impact the quality of life of Ugandans.”

However, an undercurrent of mutual suspicion between NGOs and Government still exists, especially on policy directions that CSOs may critique or disagree with. While officially government policies and principles of participation recognise CSOs as partners of Government, Government officials have publicly questioned the legitimacy of the NGOs as representatives of the poor and marginalised people. Some CSOs have been labelled as agents of foreign interests because of external funding provided by DPs. Examples include cases where CSOs have recommended the repeal of laws that undermine women’s dignity, such as polygamy. Some officials of government, religious and some cultural leaders questioned the CSO mandate and legitimacy in claiming to represent the interests of Ugandan women. According to the views, the proposed policy changes were instigated by ’elite women’ who did not consult the masses. Natural Resource advocacy CSOs have also been labelled as advancing foreign agenda or ’terrorist’ tendencies where they criticise Government where it deviates and undermines official policy by proposing to degazette Mabira Forest for example.

Some local government officials during the study indicated that CSOs are themselves not accountable. One district official put it as follows: CSOs do not want to share their budgets and plans with the Government. The money they spend is public money. The Government should know what it is being used for and where it is being spent.” [83] Some CSOs have also not been accountable, and transparent to their constituents. Critics have noted that some CSO leaders lead high-spending life-styles, and yet criticise high spending within Government.

CSOs legitimacy is questioned because of the lack of structured accountability mechanisms for CSOs for horizontal and vertical accountability. Vertical accountability would necessitate CSOs being accountable to their leaders, the Government and the communities and the wider public. Horizontal accountability is accountability of CSOs to each other and the CSOs holding each other accountable. However, some stakeholders hold the view that CSOs accountability is mainly to their donors and less to Government and the communities and citizens they ’represent’. Government officials argue that the NGO Policy and NGO Amendment Act were aimed at ensuring some form of order and structure into the sector.

To attempt to improve the CSO governance, a group of CSOs with support of DPs have developed the NGO Quality Assurance Mechanism (QuAM) aimed at strengthening vertical and horizontal accountability, which would increase credibility in the sector. Under the leadership of the national NGO Forum and DENIVA, the QuAM is a potentially useful governance tool to which CSOs voluntarily subscribe, and which can be used to weed out ’quack’ NGOs which would not pass the test. The qualifying CSO would receive a QuAM clean bill of health. DENIVA is the lead agency while the National NGO Forum is the fiduciary agency for implementation of the QuAM. QuAM has been criticised by CSOs as providing a basis for government and DPs to qualify the CSOs based on whether they adhere to the expected good governance practices and standards.[84] CSOs have not fully embraced the QuAM and it is yet to roll out fully across the country. Implementation of the QuAM and roll out is a very expensive and administrative exercise that would require increased capacity and monitoring to ensure compliance.

Effectiveness in terms of process, intermediate and policy change outcomes:

The framework used by the team to assess the different outcomes in the three case studies, indicated notable achievement in process outcomes comprising the formation of networks and coalitions to support the causes. In the governance, accountability and anti-corruption coalitions were successfully established at national, regional and local levels. Similarly for policy engagement on gender issues, some four coalitions were formed to influence the various legal provisions in domestic violence, sexual offences and marriage and divorce policies. In forestry, two successful networks were established, the Uganda Forestry Working Group and the Forestry Learning Governance Group. The Governance, accountability and anti-corruption case study CSOs made presentations to Parliament on sector spending priorities and were co-opted onto health policy advisory committees. On the gender issue case study, increased cooperation between CSOs and Government was noted. All three policy process case studies contributed to policy change outcomes in one way or another, although it was in the gender responsive legislation case study with the enactment of the Domestic Violence Bill and the success in preventing the degazettement of the Mabira Forest, that the contribution of CSOs was seen as a major contributing factor. CSOs did make a contribution to the Access to Information Act in the governance and anti-corruption case study (see Table 4 below).

Table 4 Summary of CSO achievements and outcomes in policy process case studies in Uganda
case study
Policy Change Outcome
at formulation stage
Policy Change at
tation & M&E stages
Governance, accountability and anti-corruption Networks/ Coalitions

Anti-corruption: Coalitions formed to enhance effectiveness: Anti-corruption coalition (ACCU) established working at national, regional and local levels
CSOs under the CSBAG network umbrella, made numerous presentations to Parliament on sector spending priorities; CSOs attend the annual Public Expenditure Review as invitees Contribution to Access to Information Act CSOs contribute to the Health sector budget formulation process; Official at MOH attributes increased spend on maternal health care to CSOs Monitoring of government processes Not available
  Education: Forum for Education NGO established to head up Education for All (EFA) CSOs (e.g. UHNHCO) co-opted as members of Health Policy Advisory Committee   In Health Sector, National CSOs (sometimes with INGOs) use service delivery projects a basis for engaging in policy dialogue; Also share their strategic plans with District Local Government and incorporate CSO budget into District budget.  
  Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group Forum for Education NGOs is member of Education Sector Consultative Committee   No policy change resulting from survey: Education Sector: A CSO in conjunction with National NGO Forum conducted first country wide education survey to assess performance. However this was not accepted by the Ministry and therefore no policy change resulted  
Gender Responsive legislation:

Overall Objective to eliminate laws that discriminate against women

Increased level of networking and cooperation between CSOs:

  • Coalition on Domestic violence bill;
  • Coalition on Domestic Violence Act
  • Sexual Offences Bill Coalition
  • Marriage & Divorce Bill Coalition
Improved collaboration between CSOs and government departments

Active influence on legislation by CSOs:

  • Domestic Violence Bill enacted 2010; note DPs acknow-
    ledged contribution of CSOs
  • Sexual Offences Bill and Marriage and Divorce Bill
CSOs facilitate implemen-
tation by improving awareness of new legislation
Not available
Forest management and governance Effective networks/ coalitions established:

Uganda Forestry Working Group;

Uganda Forestry Learning Governance Group
  National Forest Policy (2001) developed in consultative manner including with CSOs

Success in Prevention of degazettement of Forests, especially Mabira Forest
Communities empowered by CSOs to resist abuse of forestry policy  

[80] Under Ugandan law, defilement refers to sexual molestation of children 18 years and below. The media has exposed cases of children as young as three months to 12 years sexually molested.

[81] Under Ugandan Law, men have different grounds for divorce from women. Adultery is a ground for divorce for both men and women. However, for men, adultery is interpreted as having a sexual relationship with only a married woman and a sexual relationship with an unmarried woman is not interpreted as adultery for men. For a woman, adultery is interpreted as having a sexual relationship with a man that’s not her husband, married or unmarried. While a husband has to prove only one ground to get a divorce, a wife has to prove adultery plus other grounds such as desertion, negligence, torture etc.

[82] Government of Uganda (2010), The National NGO Policy: Strengthening partnership for development.

[83] Field interview, in Soroti and Lira.

[84] The QuAM is a voluntary mechanism and does not have enforcement mechanism to compel all the CSOs to subscribe to it. However, both Government and DPs seem to be buying into the idea. The first phase of the initiative was rolled out with funding from Deepening Democracy Programme (DDP), the predecessor to the Democracy Governance Facility (DGF) currently being set up by DPs as a CSOs basket fund.

This page forms part of the publication 'Support to Civil Society Engagement in Policy Dialogue' as chapter 9 of 19
Version 1.0. 07-01-2013
Publication may be found at the address


  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark © |