Democratizing governance for development: LDC civil society engagement

The relevance of the project is questionable, however, in relation to the capacity building and empowerment of constituent CSOs who participated in the project. Insufficient attention was paid to the capacity-building needs of the CSO partners.

The evaluators believed that the grantee cannot simply continue advocacy actions but must put in place a strategy and work plan that reflect the needs of its members and that might include actions – like training and information processes – that donors would consider funding.

The value of the grantee as a coordinating body is not in dispute, however its members do not pay fees and it has no way to raise funds other than through projects submitted to donors.

Over-reliance on one person’s credibility and profile is a risk. Succession planning, especially in between major events – like the international conferences on Least Developed Countries –  should be a priority.

The impact of the project activities on the LDC-IV outcome document is questionable. Few respondents considered that CSO efforts had translated into impact on the outcome of LDC-IV (the IP0A), which is essentially a political outcome decided by governments.

The reality is that CSOs/NGOs have more influence on policy and practice at national level, and that their major contribution to international and UN processes most often comes when their advocacy has been effective on their national government whose delegation will then carry this into governmental debate and processes such as outcome documents.

There is no doubt that organized contributions from coalitions of CSOs and NGOS to UN processes carry more weight than individual participation. In the case of CSOs from the LDCs, the cost of attending UN conferences or even the preparatory regional meetings is likely to exclude most organizations from attending, so some mechanism for capturing their views and representing them in the meetings is essential.