European Centre for Development Policy ManagementCentre européen de gestion des politiques de développement

The good governance agenda of civil society:Implications for ACP-EU cooperation

Alisa Herrero Cangas

Early in 2004, the Government of Ghanaissued an ultimatum to the thousands ofnon-governmental organisations (NGOs)operating in the country: failure to provideaccurate records of activities and to submitannual reports and statements of accountsto the Social Welfare Department (as requi-red by law) would result in blacklisting. Themeasure was an expression of the govern-ment's desire to promote a credible, trans-parent and accountable civil society.However, many civil society representativesinterpreted it as a deliberate move tohamper participatory developmentprocesses.

During the CIVICUS World Assembly, cele-brated in Botswana in March 2004, 700delegates from 105 countries discussed 'theart of strengthening civil society'.Legitimacy, accountability, transparency,credibility and representation were majorcrosscutting themes. In recognition of thegrowing prominence of civil society organi-sations on the world stage, the Assemblyexplored new participative and accoun-table models for promoting individual andcollective governance within civil society.The Assembly's message was clear: in aclimate where civil society organisationsmust increasingly 'perform or perish', legi-timacy is a fundamental concern thatshould be systematically addressed, toensure that civil society organisations acteffectively and with integrity for the publicgood1.

These three examples - the CotonouPartnership Agreement, the crackdown onNGO reporting in Ghana and the CIVICUSWorld Assembly in Botswana - illustratehow different actors are addressing the'governance challenge' faced by civilsociety. This In Brief focuses on that chal-lenge. It has four objectives. The first is tohelp clarify some of the concepts putforward in the academic and non-academicliterature defining the 'good governance'agenda for civil society. The second is topresent the main operational challengesthat arise in implementing this agenda.The third is to present some strategiesused by civil society actors to tackle thegovernance challenge. The final objective isto draw some implications for ACP-EUcooperation.

The rise of civil society in thepolitical landscape

Participatory development has not introdu-ced radical changes in terms of who holdsthe monopoly on decision making andpower over resources. However, it hasdramatically changed the established poli-tical landscape: public action is no longerthe sole resort of public agencies and, bythe same token, central states are nolonger regarded as the only developmentagents.

Political liberalisation and the emergenceof new institutional mechanisms foradvancing the international poverty-reduc-tion agenda have created spaces wherecivil society actors can influence and parti-cipate in policy processes. Poverty reduc-tion strategy papers, budgetary support,the Millennium Development Goals and, inthe framework of ACP-EU cooperation, theCotonou Partnership Agreement, haveopened new dialogue forums wheregovernments and civil society actors arecalled upon to interact with official foreigndevelopment agencies in formulating,implementing and monitoring economic,political and social policies.

In this framework, most ACP governmentshave increased their efforts to include civilsociety in policy planning, often as a prere-quisite for receiving external support.Citizens are also mobilising around broadpolitical and socio-economic issues and areincreasingly willing to hold their govern-ment to account for policies, particularlyregarding good governance and povertyreduction. In step with these developmentscivil society organisations are boostingtheir numbers worldwide.

This evolution reflects a sustained trendsince the late 1980s of donor agencieschannelling more and more funds throughcivil society organisations as a means topromote democratic governance. The basicassumption hereby is that civil society and

No. 12 - december 2004

In June 2000, 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the European Union signed the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.One of the main innovations of this agreement was its endorsement of participatory development. The Cotonou Agreement openednew spaces for non-state actors to take part in formulating, implementing and monitoring development programmes and projects.Though the Agreement does not address in detail the question of who can participate, it does include a set of basic eligibilitycriteria: only non-state actors that address the needs of the population, have specific competencies and are manageddemocratically and transparently will be considered legitimate partners (Article 6.2).

InBriefInBrief

good governance are mutually reinforcing.On the one hand, the enforcement of goodgovernance opens up new spaces for citi-zen participation, since freedom of asso-ciation, expression and information arecrucial to the emergence of a vibrant civilsociety and the acceptance of pluralismand diversity. On the other hand, anenabling environment is key to allow civilsociety organisations to become changeagents that influence public policy infavour of democracy, popular empower-ment and public-sector accountability.Civil society organisations are thus expec-ted to fulfil several (non-exclusive) roles:as welfare service delivers, as advocatesand as 'watchdogs' (figure 1).

Main dimensions of the 'goodgovernance agenda' for civilsociety

As civil society becomes more visible andpowerful in the public sphere, nationalgovernments, international donor agen-cies, development theorists and civilsociety actors alike are coming to realisethat civil society's credibility can no longerbe taken for granted. Civil society organi-sations need to endorse the good gover-nance agenda if they are to earn publictrust. But what exactly does good gover-nance mean when applied to civil society?Drawing from both academic and non-academic literature, this section disen-tangles civil society's good governanceagenda, bringing clarity to the discussion,particularly regarding the following areas:

• ethics, performance and trust;• representation and voice;

• in-house democracy;• structured accountability mechanisms.

Ethics, performance and trustGood governance can be regarded as amoral stance: a supreme value that maxi-mises the common good and is thereforeto be pursued in public and privatespheres, including in civil society. In thisframework, civil society organisations thatclaim to be credible change agents areobliged to operate according to specificcivic norms.

As a result, the credibility of civil societyorganisations depends much on the percep-tion that they uphold the values they claimto represent, such as democracy, socialjustice, equity, transparency, accountability,effectiveness and the rule of law. All ofthese values are key components of thewider good governance institutionalagenda.2

Clear standards of governance can contri-bute to ensure coherence between a statedmission, values and goals; and the processesfollowed and outputs achieved, all of whichcontribute to ensuring public trust.

Representation and voice One of the most important factors deter-mining the legitimacy of a civil societyorganisation is its degree of embedded-ness in society. Associations that have aclear constituency and the capacity toadvance the interests of their membershave the greatest chance of becoming keypolitical players. At the same time, abilityto enter the policymaking terrain dependson organisations' capacity to make use of

well-founded research in advocacy campai-gns, to develop skills of persuasion and toaccess spaces, such a parliament, wherepolicy is formulated. In these ways organi-sations (e.g., professional associations,cooperatives and trade unions) are able torepresent their constituencies in a structu-red manner.

Civil society organisations are becomingaware of the need to set up a clear gover-nance agenda that effectively deals withissues of representation, both within theorganisations themselves and across thesector. Setting up and furthering thisagenda will increase the ability of civilsociety organisations to meet their consti-tuencies' demands and ensure their inde-pendence vis-à-vis externally imposedagendas.

In-house democracyGradually as civil society organisations arebeing recognised as formal partners indevelopment, more attention is being paidto their internal governance and manage-ment structures. The expectation is thatorganisations promoting democracy andparticipation should practice what theypreach, if they are to be credible and effi-cient change agents in the wider politicaldomain. However, the right of civil societyto influence public policymaking withoutbeing an elected body is often called intoquestion, as few civil society actors (mainlythe trade unions and some NGO federa-tions) derive their legitimacy from demo-cratic election processes.

The literature warns against a too restric-tive reading of democracy. A comprehen-sive understanding of democraticmanagement would include organisationsthat translate the core values of goodgovernance into specific mechanisms ofdecision making, internal reporting andsupervision and staff management.Indeed, a keystone of transparent, respon-sible and democratic internal manage-ment can be a governing document thatsets out the following:

• the purpose of the organisation;• the highest governing body (e.g., an

assembly of members or governingboard) and its basic powers;

• the minimum number of times thegoverning body must meet;

• whether additional governing organs arerequired (e.g., a supervisory board, amanagement committee, an auditcommission);

• for membership organisations, the rulesfor membership acquirement andsuspension.

Page 2 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

www.ecdpm.org

Welfare Service Delivery

Civil society organisations canprovide the necessary institu-tional basis for service deliverywhen questions of effective-ness and responsiveness ofthe state arise.

At the local level, grassrootsorganisations can promotecollective action to improveaccess to basic services (e.g.,health and education).

Advocacy

Civil society organisations canplay a role in political life byreiterating the legitimateright of citizens to makedemands upon the state.Civic education programmescan help mobilise people andencourage previously margi-nalised groups to enter thepolitical arena.Civil society organisations areeffective vehicles for represen-ting and negotiating citizens'interests vis-à-vis the state.

Watchdog Role

Civil society organisations canpromote good governanceand social equity by monito-ring both state and marketperformance.Non-state organisationsincreasingly use the dissemi-nation of information - oncurrent legislation, publicexpenditure, policy implemen-tation, achievements anddrawbacks in promotion ofthe rule of law, good gover-nance, and respect of humanrights - as a tool to keep aneye on state performance.

Figure 1 Roles of civil society organisations

Participatory management practices cancontribute to the internal democracy ofcivil society organisations. Many suchorganisations replicate their commitmentto participatory development within theirworkspace by limiting autocratic leader-ship and involving their staff in the designof organisational activities, including deli-berations on policy, strategy and opera-tions.

Creative responses to the governance chal-lenge in-house can provide civil societyorganisations with concrete mechanismsto deal with issues of representation on alarger stage, within and across the non-state sector, and contribute to the demo-cratisation of society and renewed societalcommitment to public accountability.

Structured accountability mecha-nisms3

Accountability entails concrete mecha-nisms to hold an organisation responsiblefor its actions, through either rewards orpenalties. In general terms, accountabilityrequires that an organisation be fullycommitted to transparency in decisionmaking and external relationships, honestin accounting and have in place appraisalprocesses by which to judge whetherperformance is satisfactory. Also, people orother organisations affected by the organi-sation's actions should have means to legi-timately report concerns, complaints andabuses, and get redress if needed.

Democratic governments and the corpo-rate sector have structured accountabilitymechanisms: they respond to their electo-rate and their shareholders, respectively, ina fairly straightforward manner. Civilsociety organisations must respond toclaims raised by a wider range of actors:upward to their trustees, governments andresource providers and downward to theirpartners, networks of peer organisations,local communities, staff and supporters(figure 3). On this canvas, each stakeholderhas specific needs and expectations.

Upward accountability is to donors,governments, trustees and executiveboards 4In exchange for financial support, resourceproviders request civil society organisa-tions to prove they are making respon-sible, transparent and efficient use ofresources. Donors' expectations generallyfocus on organisational accountancy andthe short- and medium-term impact offunded operations. Donors' accountabilitydemands are therefore generally addres-sed through reporting, accounting andmonitoring.

Governments, in the form of public autho-rities, define the laws, rules and proce-dures to be observed by civil society andare therefore able to regulate the exis-tence and fiscal status of formal organisa-tions. Ideally, a national constitution wouldprotect freedom of expression, associationand assembly and confer to citizen asso-ciations the rights and powers they needto accomplish their mission. By the sametoken, an optimum regulatory frameworkwould authorise government, as the repre-sentative of the public at large, to overseethe activities of civil society organisationsand enforce the law so as to prevent anyabuse or fraud to the public interest.

Trustees and executive boards are formalgovernance agents that regulate the inter-nal functioning and external relations oflegally established civil society organisa-tions. Statutes establish these structuresand the processes by which they guide thedetermination of the vision, mission andstrategy of the organisation. Trusteesdefine the norms and values of institutio-nal functioning and they address issues ofpolicy in relation to internal programming,staffing and resource use. Moreover, gover-

www.ecdpm.org

InBrief 12 December 2004 The good governance agenda of civil society Page 3

board of trusteesmanagement committee

Internal

members (if membership organisation)staff

voluntary human resources

resource providersgovernment

External

partner civil society organisationsnetworkslocal population

supportersgeneral public

Upward

Downward

Figure 3 Accountability canvas of civil society organisations

Valuesdemocracy

transparencyaccountabilityresponsiveness

effectivenessequity

rule of law

Institutions and Processesleadership

decision makingresponsibility

information sharingsanctions

redress

Outcomespublic accountability

enhanced trustwider democratisation

Figure 2 An enhanced governance structure: Values, institutions/processes and outcomes

ning structures are expected to monitorthe organisation's performance and thelevels of accountability to different stake-holders.

Downward accountability is towards constituencies and the community 5Many NGOs (Northern and Southern) seekto establish partnerships with community-based organisations as a means toenhance their legitimacy vis-à-vis domes-tic and foreign donors. In turn, community-based organisations can often improvetheir access to external funding viacontacts with NGOs.

Fulfilling donor requirements has becomeincreasingly difficult for resource-poorcommunity organisations, as applicationand grant management procedures havebecome more complex and bureaucratic.This has increased the need for jointventures and partnerships between morecapacitated NGOs and their community-based counterparts. In such joint venturesNGOs generally play a facilitating role,acquiring funding for community-basedorganisations. High standards of down-ward accountability are generally associa-ted with NGOs that genuinely commit toparticipation, reciprocity and transparencywith their partner organisations (e.g., byestablishing contractual agreements withcommunity-based organisations, transfer-ring skills and building capacities). Figure 4summarises key indicators of downwardaccountability in partnerships betweenNGOs and community-based organisa-tions.

Operational challenges toimplement this agenda

The governance agenda of civil society isindeed broad and diverse. To date, debatehas revolved around issues of trust, provedperformance, representation and voice,internal democracy and structured accoun-tability. Governments, donors and develop-ment theorists widely agree that onlywhen civil society organisations addressthese issues effectively will they qualify aslegitimate partners in development.However, a number of operational chal-lenges arise in this process: civil society'sdiversity can hamper efforts to define agood governance agenda for the sector asa whole; the right of governments to over-see civil society's operations can be hard toreconcile with the right of civil society toparticipate in the political landscape;assessing in-house democracy requirescomplex institutional analysis; upward anddownward accountability demands aresometimes antagonistic; and adopting amulti-actor approach to governancerequires that roles be redefined and powerrelations reconsidered.

Coping with civil society's diversityThe diversity that exists across civil societyorganisations is an obstacle to defining auniversal good governance agenda that isapplicable throughout the sector, particu-larly regarding criteria for accountabilityand internal democracy. For instance,certain standards of practice may bebeyond the reach of small, under-resour-ced organisations: few grassroots organi-

sations are able to afford annual auditingby independent professional auditors.

In this framework, it would be wise to allowsome versatility in the choice of tools andchecks that organisations can use tocomply with minimum standards. Peerreview, for instance, could offer a practical,cost-effective way for small organisationsto improve their accountability and trans-parency standards.

Most analyses of civil society consider fourorganisational levels (figure 5). The first,and broadest, level is composed of thegrassroots or community-based organisa-tions (such as neighbourhood committees,cooperatives, women and youth associa-tions, culture and sports clubs, and localchurches and Islamic brotherhoods). Theseare generally informal groupings that deve-lop coping strategies to address an imme-diate problem affecting the community. Bydefinition, community-based organisationsare limited geographically and in thematicfocus. They are mostly self-financed bymembers and staffed by volunteers.Although they work with a communitymandate, they do not necessarily representthe interests of the community as a whole.

The second level is that of formal and struc-tured civil society associations operating atthe local, national and international level(such as development NGOs) and geared bysocial responsibility. These associationsgenerally support community-based orga-nisations (e.g., through community facilita-tion and capacity building) and deliverservices (in partnership with or in substitu-tion of the state). In addition, formal orga-nisations may carry out research andengage in advocacy. They employ professio-nal and paid staff and are generally depen-dent on external funding sources.

The third level is made up of umbrellaorganisations and thematic networks,such as national associations, federationsand thematic groupings of organisationsmandated to defend common interests,share information, set up strategic plan-ning and vision and secure funding. Suchnetworks have emerged in response todemands by donor agencies and govern-ments to have a single interlocutor repre-senting 'the voice' of civil society.

Finally, the fourth level is constituted byplatforms, which are dialogue fora for theumbrella organisations and networksmaking up the third level.

Civil society organisations have a specificrole to play, depending on their focus andthe level to which they belong. In conse-quence, each responds to a different

www.ecdpm.org

Page 4 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

Figure 4: Indicators of downward accountability in partnerships between NGOsand community-based organisations (CBOs)

NGO

CBO• Is committed to adopting new

roles and responsibilities• Institutionalises accountability

mechanisms (contractualagreement with community-based organisations)

• Transfers skills and buildscapacity of community-basedorganisations to become self-reliant

• Has access to critical informa-tion

• Participates in strategic andtactic meetings

• Is involved in planning andmonitoring of activities

• Oversees the use of financialresources

• Gains access to political land-scape

• Builds capacity through skilltransfer

'governance logic' determined by the orga-nisation's nature and its institutional capa-city to address governance challenges.Figure 6 summarises some of the mainexpectations that these organisationsmust fulfil in order to be perceived astrustworthy. Of course, it is important tobear in mind that not all civil society orga-nisations respond to these criteria in thesame way or with the same tools.

Drawing the line between legalityand legitimacyDefining legitimacy only on the basis oflegality can be problematic in countrieswhere freedom of expression and associa-tion are not clearly protected by law orwhere there is mutual suspicion betweengovernment and civil society. For example,when civil society organisations movebeyond the 'service-delivery logic' andstart exposing the failures of unaccoun-table governments, the latter often feelthreatened and react by preventing orga-nisations from registering as legal entitiesor by imposing disproportionate checks ontheir activities and budgets. That is whygovernment decisions to suspend 'unlaw-ful' organisations from operating in acountry are often interpreted as a crack-down against participatory development

rather than as a measure to improve thecredibility, transparency and accountabilityof the civil society sector.6

Even in countries where mistrust betweenstate actors and civil society is less appa-rent, civic associations may not see formalrecognition as an advantage, eitherbecause informality is not sanctioned orbecause formality brings no clear benefits.

Furthermore, meeting legal requirementsdoes not necessarily imply that an organi-sation's mission, goals and strategyaddress the needs of a population in aparticular socio-economic context.

Assessing the internal level of democracyIn a growing number of ACP countries, theEuropean Union is planning to supportcivil society organisations, either for activi-ties related to (welfare) service delivery orfor advocacy purposes (e.g., participationin policy processes, promoting bettergovernance or human rights).

An institutional analysis of civil society isoften carried out as part of such assis-tance. This means 'mapping' the differentfamilies of non-state actors and assessingtheir eligibility to receive EU support. Inthe process, new tools have been develo-ped to assess internal levels of democracywithin organisations, if possible in closeconsultation with the actors involved.These studies are particularly useful forassessing umbrella organisations ornetworks of civil society actors.A number of criteria tend to be prominentin assessments of organisations' internallevel of democracy:

• Democratic management (as reflected inthe existence of statutes and regulations,existence and respect for criteria foraccepting new members, explicit roles forstatutory bodies, regular meetings of theboard, processes for renewal of member-ship/leadership and explicit power rela-tions within the network);

• Pertinence of the mission and coherenceof action (vision, number of

www.ecdpm.org

InBrief 12 December 2004 The good governance agenda of civil society Page 5

Figure 5 Four levels of civil society organisations

1st level

2nd level

3rd level

4th levelGrassroots organisations/community-based organisations

Informal groupings or ad hoc organisations working in the immediate local context. Limited geographical or thematic focus. Mostly self-financed through

members’ fees and contributions,( e.g. cooperatives, women’s associations, etc.).

Organisations formally constitutedLegally registered organisations with approved statutes,working mostly for the direct benefit of the populationor in service delivery, sometimes in collaboration with

grassroots organisations, (e.g. NGOs, associations).

Umbrella Organisationsand thematic networksNational associations,

federations and thematicgroupings of organisations

mandated to defend commoninterests.

PlatformsCommon

dialogue forafor umbrella

organisations and networks of the

third level.

A civil society

organisation must…

Prove impact in terms ofoutcomes

Be managed transparently anddemocratically

Show added value

Address an important needaccording to social values

Comply with legal requirements

Embrace the values of democracy, transparency,accountability, effectiveness,equity and the rule of law.

Be embedded in societyor have a strong

societal base

Promote genuine participationof constituencies

Provide effective quality services

Figure 6 Expectations that civil society organisations must fulfil to be viewed as trustworthy

Page 6 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

active/passive members, levels of partici-pation across the network, obstacles toparticipation and degree of memberinvolvement);

• History and consolidation of structures(continuity of action, existence of a secre-tariat, organisational structure, collabora-tion with other organisations,managerial competencies/challenges,capacity building and training effortsundertaken and communication stra-tegy);

• Institutional dynamics and nature of theorganisation or network (whether it ishighly centralised or decentralised,working on a wide range of issues orspecialised, a broker or with a thematicfocus, and any added value for members,such as spin-off activities due to informa-tion sharing or awareness raising throu-ghout the network);

• Transparency, accountability and finan-cial management (external fundingversus membership contributions, availa-bility of activity reports and evaluationsand audits undertaken);

• Attitude towards programming and plan-ning (existence of a plan of action and abudget plan, respect for planning andsystems of monitoring and control).

Balancing upward and downwardaccountabilityGenerally speaking, accountabilitydemands stemming from upward stake-holders entail high practical costs: failureto respond to donors' requirements canlead to resources being withdrawn, accre-ditation revoked or collaboration reconsi-dered. Also, as illustrated by the Ghanaexample, upsetting the government bydisregarding legal requirements can trig-ger blacklisting and force organisationsout of development processes.

Downward accountability demands aremore easily forgotten, as there is no legalobligation to institutionalise downwardaccountability. Thus, in partnershipsbetween NGOs and community-based orga-nisations it is not unusual for the commu-nity organisations to direct most of theirefforts to addressing the accountabilitydemands of the NGO partner. Communityorganisations may be required to adoptstandards of practice and accountabilitymechanisms that satisfy the NGO's ulti-mate resource providers rather than theirown members. In the process, informalaccountancy mechanisms based on trustare often transformed into exact reporting,written accounts, banking and sophistica-ted monitoring. It remains important toascertain whether organisations claimingto represent the 'interests of the poor' and

'the voiceless' do have a well-definedconstituency or grassroots organisation.7

Failure to establish an effective link with,and downward accountability mechanismsto, a constituency can indicate that theorganisation is donor-led, urban-biased orrepresentative of the elites. It is alsoimportant to bear in mind that a 'consti-tuency' is not a homogenous entity thatnecessarily represents the interests of all.Particular caution must be taken not toreplicate power imbalances (e.g., gender,socio-economic status, age) in which orga-nisations are embedded.

Articulating civil society's role withother actors of governanceProcesses of political and economic libera-lisation have altered the role of the stateand created space for actors other thanthe central state to participate in develop-ment processes. Civil society, the privatesector and local governments are beinginvited to become full-fledged partners indevelopment initiatives and are beingoffered support to enable them to properlyassume their new roles (through capacitybuilding). The broadening of the politicallandscape reflects clear political and insti-tutional objectives: to support the consoli-dation of a viable civil society, to facilitateeffective decentralisation processes(consolidating the role of local govern-ments as development actors), and lastbut not least, to help build inclusive anddemocratic governance systems.

These transformations entail, above all, aradical reallocation of power. On the onehand, central governments must relin-quish resources and responsibilities infavour of local governments; they mustopen up genuine spaces for participationin political decision-making processes andlearn to accept criticism by civil societyorganisations that act as a watchdog ongovernment performance. On the otherhand, new actors must prove their abilityto play a complementary role, as a contri-butor to development processes, not inopposition to the central state, but inrecognition of each other's legitimacy,despite grievances.

Often efforts to promote democratic andinclusive systems of governance havetaken the form of programmes in supportof civil society, and these have not beensufficiently sensitive to the concept ofmulti-actor partnership. Strengtheningcivil society must not undermine the legi-timate role of the central state and localgovernments. This is particularly relevantin the field of welfare service delivery: in

the past, NGOs have been privileged overthe central state in the name of cost-effi-ciency, but this has often resulted in thebypassing of local governments, despitetheir constitutional mandate to be service-delivery agents.

A multi-actor partnership in developmentcan be achieved only with a clear task divi-sion that recognises the specific legitimacyand comparative advantages of each actorin the 'democratic governance' equation.This implies fostering joint action throughpublic-private partnerships and changingthe roles of Northern actors (i.e., theirmoving away from direct implementationof projects towards supporting policiesand governance).

What can civil society organisations do to improvetheir governance?8

The participation of civil society in thepolitical landscape is being increasinglynormalised in many ACP countries. Part ofthe institutionalisation of civil societyparticipation is the setting of norms bywhich to regulate participation in develop-ment processes. On the one hand, donorsare developing selection criteria to deter-mine which actors are most 'legitimate'and most likely to advance the governanceand development agenda. On the otherhand, civil society is taking steps to agreeon appropriate and acceptable accountabi-lity mechanisms within the non-statesector. This section explores some of thetools available to respond to the gover-nance challenge: self-assessment, self-regulation, accreditation and adherence tointernational standards.

Self-assessmentSelf-assessment is a first tool for monito-ring whether an organisation is using itsresources and capacities effectivelytowards its stated mission and objectives.One approach to self-assessment is for anorganisation to launch a critical surveyamongst key internal and external stake-holders, so as to reveal any substantialdifferences of perception. Thus implemen-ted, self-assessment has strong potentialto promote institutional learning, but ithas little external credibility since it lacksan independent monitoring mechanism. Inresponse, some organisations are makinguse of peer review mechanisms. But thedrawback here is the difficulties that peerorganisations might face in inducingcompliance and redress.

www.ecdpm.org

InBrief 12 December 2004 The good governance agenda of civil society Page 7

Self-regulationSince the late 1990s, civil societies in ACPcountries - particularly NGOs - have enga-ged in self-regulation schemes geared toimprove openness, accountability andpublic confidence in the sector.9Governments have widely encouragedthese initiatives. Indeed, self-regulationresponds to the need to balance, on theone side, the freedom of civil society orga-nisations to regulate themselves withoutexcessive political interference and, on theother, the duty of governments to protectcitizens from fraudulent, un-civic orunethical organisations.

A first step towards self-regulation issetting up standards for moral, social andethical behaviour in the form of a code ofconduct. This lays out guidelines appli-cable not only to civil society organisa-tions, but also to their members, officials,employees and volunteers. Although codesof conduct vary in terms of structure, stra-tegy and the way they relate to govern-ment regulations, all set high standards ofpractice by defining the ethical principlesthat guide civil society as a change agent.

Most codes of conduct acknowledge thatto ensure 'good governance' within civilsociety, organisations require appropriateinstitutions through which the principlesof accountability, transparency, fairnessand equity can be implemented.

Consequently, they stress the importanceof promoting transparency and accounta-bility in dealings between civil society

organisations and governments, donors,constituencies (or beneficiaries) and staff.They encourage professional standards ofaccountancy and audit procedures, provideguidelines for fundraising, promote demo-cratic management structures, specify howhuman resources should be managed andfoster a culture of dialogue and communi-cation. Last but not least, such codes setup mechanisms by which rules and prin-ciples can be monitored and enforced. Box1 summarises key reasons to adopt a codeof conduct.10

Umbrella organisations can play a role inenforcing a code of conduct by makingmembership conditional to meeting basicstandards of governance, conduct andperformance. The umbrella organisationwould be empowered to audit organisa-tions and investigate complaints. By publi-cising membership and expulsions, as wellas standards, being member of theumbrella organisation could become a sealof integrity and even an eligibility criterionfor selecting a civil society organisation aspartner.11

However, in a context where enforcementmechanisms are not sufficiently strict,there is a risk that public confidence in thesector could be undermined as a result ofmedia coverage of non-compliance cases.Though complaint procedures and redressmechanisms (e.g., expulsion frommembership, a requirement to makepublic apologies) are designed to discou-rage organisations from violating the code,these preventive measures are seldomsufficient. This shortcoming could beaddressed by embedding codes of conductin national legal frameworks so thatinfringements can be prosecuted as a legaloffence (as in Kenya). Another option is toencourage civil society organisations tocomply with the conduct code by offeringrewards for good practice (e.g., access togovernment grants).

Accreditation Moving one step further is the setting upof an independent and professional bodythat verifies compliance with a widelyrecognised code of conduct.12 Such a certi-fication agency would be in charge ofmonitoring that civil society organisationsendorse the code and certifying that theymeet minimum criteria with regard tofinancial management, accountability,programme delivery and internal gover-nance. To be effective, accreditation wouldneed to be voluntary and subject to mini-mum eligibility criteria. The exerciseshould be recognised by key actors - inclu-

ding governments, donors, the generalpublic, networks and the civil society orga-nisations themselves. The ultimate aimwould be to guarantee that certified civilsociety organisations are reliable, efficientand soundly managed. To encourage orga-nisations to apply for accreditation,rewards should be foreseen (e.g., access totax benefits, donor assistance, privatefunds).

International standardsRecent years have witnessed increasedpressure for organisations to demonstrategood practice in accountability and mana-gement. The result has been a proliferationof standards and guidelines to supportand enhance stakeholder dialogue, socialand ethical reporting, organisationalculture, working conditions, humanresources management, planning, accoun-ting, auditing and reporting. ISO stan-dards,13 the Global Reporting Initiative14and the AccountAbility (AA1000) series15are three interesting initiatives that applygenerally to the corporate sector butwhich can be useful to civil society as well.An extensive analysis of the internationalstandards available is beyond the scope ofthis paper. What is important to note isthat international standards play a key rolein supporting an organisation's gover-nance by providing common measurementmethods for accountability processes.

Implications for ACP-EU cooperation16

Ensuring good governance in civil societyis first and foremost the responsibility ofthe organisations involved. Now that poli-tical space for participation has been crea-ted for civil society organisations in mostACP countries, the onus lies on these orga-nisations to prove they are legitimateactors that can add clear value in develop-ment cooperation processes andprogrammes. Yet the official parties (EUgovernments and donors and ACP govern-ments) can help to promote good gover-nance amongst non-state actors byadopting a constructive role that respectssome basic guiding principles.

www.ecdpm.org

Box 1: Key reasons to adopt acode of conduct in civil society

A code of conduct can serve a number ofpurposes in strengthening civil societyorganisations' role as development actors:• highlighting the role of civil society as a

change agent by identifying sharedvalues,

• setting standards of excellence in publicresponsibility,

• building capacity within the sector byestablishing best practice benchmarks,

• contributing to an enabling environmentby pre-empting the threat of restrictivelegislation from government,

• improving trust and credibility amongdonors, governments and the generalpublic,

• preventing reputation damage anddefending against criticism.

Avoid quick fixesAssociating civil society with ACP-EUcooperation was long overdue. However,while the Cotonou Agreement provides aconducive legal framework, it would be amistake to 'rush' into partnerships withany and all non-state actors. It would beequally detrimental to improvise civilsociety participation in policy processes(e.g., by 'handpicking' actors deemed to berepresentative), to press for the constitu-tion of a single umbrella organisation ofnon-state actors or to suddenly make hugeamounts of funding available to civilsociety. Quick fixes are a recipe for failure.Such approaches tend to generate situa-tions whereby the space for participationis confiscated by urban-based elite NGOs(used to play the donor tune) or by oppor-tunistic organisations claiming legitimacy.Too much interference may also hamperthe organic growth of a viable civil societywith genuine local roots. These dangersare already evident in several ACP coun-tries.

Understand the dynamics of civilsociety developmentCivil society is not only a nebulousconcept. In practice, it represents a hugelycomplex, diverse and dynamic arena ofactors. There is no shortage of conflictwithin civil society, including competitionfor positions and funding. Lines betweencivil society and the state are often blurredas well. It is not always easy to understand'who's who' in civil society and to identifyorganisations that have the potential andcommitment to be effective changeagents. Nor is it evident how institutionaldevelopment strategies and supportprogrammes can be designed for civilsociety organisations. All this means thatofficial parties need to invest time andresources to properly understand civilsociety's nature and internal dynamics, aswell as the intended or unintended effectsof growing availability of funding to theseorganisations. In this logic, the practice ofcarrying out mapping studies of civilsociety should be encouraged as an essen-tial tool for devising appropriate strategiesto support relevant civil society actors.

Adopt a governance approachtowards civil societyOfficial parties are well advised to them-selves apply the principles of good gover-nance when dealing with civil society.In practice this can mean different things.First, official parties are entitled todemand quality governance from civil

society organisations (or at least clear stra-tegies to further develop internal gover-nance systems). Second, official partiesmust be highly transparent in all aspectsrelated to ways and means of organisingcooperation with civil society. Informationon available opportunities should circulatewidely (also at a decentralised level).Clarity should be provided on processesand criteria used to select partners andallocate funding. Third, adopting a gover-nance approach in dealing with civilsociety requires respect for the legitimaterole to be played by central and localactors. The design and implementation ofcivil society support programmes shouldseek to promote better governance byensuring the appropriate division of rolesbetween the public and private sectorsand by encouraging partnerships. In SouthAfrica, for instance, the EU has madeefforts to reorient its cooperation withNGOs involved in local development toensure that its support is consistent withthe governance model promoted by thenational decentralisation process, whichgives local governments a key role instimulating local development.

Support civil society efforts toimprove governanceIn most ACP states, civil society is a recentphenomenon, particularly in terms of buil-ding up truly representative, functioningand accountable organisations. While offi-cial parties should insist on proper internalgovernance amongst civil society actors,they should also accept that many organi-sations will need time and capacity buil-ding to develop such governance systems.A role of ACP-EU cooperation programmesshould be to provide incentives for partici-pating civil society organisations tostrengthen their governance.

Engage with civil society in difficultpartnerships The above-mentioned guiding principleswill be useful in countries where bothparties (the ACP government and theEuropean Commission) are committed toinvolve civil society constructively in thedevelopment process. Yet national govern-ments in several ACP countries are stillreluctant if not opposed to applying theprovisions on non-state actor participationthat they have legally accepted by signingthe Cotonou Partnership Agreement. Thisis reflected in their imposition of allmanner of restrictions on effective non-state actor participation, especially withrespect to those actors with a legitimatebasis in society and a capacity to challenge

government. Needless to say, civil societyis also likely to be weak in such difficultpolitical environments. The limited spaceavailable is generally occupied by organi-sations closely linked to government (ifnot co-opted by it).

This raises major challenges for EC delega-tions seeking to promote civil societyparticipation in 'difficult partnerships'.Experience suggests that Commission offi-cials tend to adopt a rather low-profileattitude in such situations. This is a riskyapproach however. Particularly in countrieswith poor governance, genuine andproperly supported civil society actorshave a key role to play. Pressure frombelow is often the most promising road tobetter policies, better government andbetter accountability. It would thereforeseem useful for the Commission to deve-lop solid strategies - with a menu of(tested) options - to support civil society inthese cases.

Page 8 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

www.ecdpm.org

Notes 1 Refer to CIVICUS Legitimacy andTransparency Programme athttp://www.civicus.org. Multiple workshopsdealing with legitimacy, accountability andrepresentation were organised during theCIVICUS World Assembly, e.g., by OneWorldand the Aga Khan Foundation (IncreasingOrganisational Accountability: Towards aNGO Reporting Standard?), the InternationalCouncil on Human Rights Policy (ExploringIssues of Legitimacy and Accountability forHuman Rights NGOs), the InternationalCenter for Not-for-Profit Law (Accountabilityand Transparency in Hostile Environments)and the World Bank (Social Accountability).

2 International Council on Human RightsPolicy, Humanitarian Accountability Project,Geneva, Switzerland.

3 Key readings: Edwards and Hulme, 1995a, b,c; Covey, 1995; De Berry, 1998; Newell andBellour, 2002; articles in Alliance Vol. 8,Brown et al., 2003; HumanitarianAccountability Project, 2003; Kovach, 2003.

4 Key readings: Edwards and Hulme, 1995a, b,c; Tandon, 1995; Newell and Bellour, 2002;International Center for Not-for-Profit Law,1998; Irish and Simon, 1999; Fowler, 2003;Covey, 1995; Zadek, 2003a, b.

5 Key readings: Tandon, 1995; Gariyo, 1995; DeBerry, 1998; Browne and Moore, 2001; Husy,2002; Shiras, 2003; articles in Alliance Vol. 8;Kovach et al., 2003. See also the CARE BasicEducation Fellowship, Participatory CapacityAssessment Tool.

6 The CIVICUS World Assembly workshop onaccountability and transparency in hostileenvironments, organised by theInternational Center for Not-for-Profit Law,discussed the following cases: India,Bangladesh, Turkey and the Pacific Islands.Recent developments in Ghana are alsoillustrative.

7 It is not always possible to create solid linkswith a constituency if it is composed byatomised or particularly vulnerable popula-tions (e.g., the case of human rights groupsdefending victims of torture).

8 Key readings: Tandon, 1995; Irish and Simon,1999; Yaanshah readings (under Ethiopiacountry information in the bibliography);Philips, 2001; Harris-Curtis, 2001; EthicalCorporation January 2003, Chadha et al.,2003. See also NGO codes of conduct avail-able on the Internet http://www.codesof-conduct.org/interest.htm

9 Some examples are Belize, Botswana, theDemocratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia,Kenya, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, South Africaand Zambia. At the regional level, theAfrican Union drafted a code of ethics andconduct for African civil society organisa-tions in June 2003.

10 See Philips, 2001; Harris-Curtis, 2001.11 See International Center for Not-for-Profit

Law, 1998.12 The Philippines and Pakistan have devel-

oped such certification programmes, thoughso far no ACP country has established acertification agency.

13 The International Organization ofStandardization released ISO 9000 in 1987and ISO 14000 in 1995. Both are manage-ment system standards that can be appliedin any industry. ISO 9000 is primarilyconcerned with quality management, whileISO 14000 focuses on environmentalmanagement. See http://www.iso.org/

14 The Global Reporting Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process and independent insti-tution whose mission is to develop anddisseminate globally applicable sustainabil-ity reporting guidelines. Seehttp://www.globalreporting.org/

15 AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) is a systemfor managing and communicating socialand ethical accountability and performance.See AccountAbility Standards, Guidelines andProfessional Qualification, Exposure Draft,November 1999. See http://www.accounta-bility.org.uk/

16 This section relies more on in-house knowl-edge on ACP-EU cooperation.

InBrief 12 December 2004 The good governance agenda of civil society Page 9

www.ecdpm.org

Page 10 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

www.ecdpm.org

On civil societyBelucci, S. 1999. Governance, civil society and NGOs in Mozambique.

Geneva: Management of Social Transformations (MOST)Programme, UNESCO.

Carothers, T. and Ottaway, M. 2000. The burgeoning world of civilsociety. In: Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promo-tion, edited by M. Ottaway and T. Carothers. Washington, D.C.:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Edwards, M. 2000. Civil society and global governance. Paper presen-ted at On the Threshold: The United Nations and GlobalGovernance in the New Millennium, 19-21 January, Tokyo.

Floridi, M. and Sanz Corella, B., 2003. Mission d'appui et d'étude pourl'organisation d'acteurs non étatiques et leur association dansl'exercice de programmation et de mise en oeuvre dans le cadredes Accords de Cotonou en République Démocratique du Congo(Final Report), September.

Floridi, M. and Sanz Corella, B. 2003. Etude de faisabilité d'unprogramme d'appui a la bonne gouvernance. (Mission conjointeUE-PNUD, Rapport Provisoire). Renforcement de la culturedémocratique et participative : renforcement des plates-formesde rencontre des acteurs non-étatiques, April.

Gariyo, Z 1995. NGOs and development in East Africa: A view frombelow. In: NGOs: Performance and accountability, beyond themagic bullet, edited by Michael Edwards and David Hulme.London: Save the Children, Earthscan, pp. 131-141.

Hearn, J. 1999. Foreign aid, democratisation and civil society in Africa:A study of South Africa, Ghana and Uganda. Brighton: Instituteof Development Studies, Sussex University.

Howell, J. 2000. Making civil society from the outside: Challenges fordonors. In The European Journal of Development Research, 12 (1)June, pp. 5-22.

Howell, J. and Pearce, J. 2003. The concept of civil society: A criticalinterrogation. In: Changing expectations? The concept and prac-tice of civil society in international development, edited by BrianPratt. (INTRAC NGO Management and Policy Series No 16).Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre, pp. 11-30.

Husy, J. 2002. Civil society consultations on EU MIP for South Africa.(Discussion Document). Braamfontein: INTERFUND, UmhlabaDevelopment Services, 24 May.

Manor, J. et al. 1999. Civil society and governance: A concept paper.Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University.

Mbgori, E. 2003. African civil society: Coming to terms with globaliza-tion. London: Foreign Policy Center.

Oakley, P. 2003. Strengthening civil society: Concept andapproaches. In: Changing expectations? The concept and practiceof civil society in international development, edited by B. Pratt(NGOMPS Management and Policy Series No. 16). Oxford:International NGO Training and Research Centre, pp. 31-42.

Orji, N. 2003. Conventional notion of civil society, international civilsociety organisations and the development of civil society inAfrica. Nigeria: Ebonyi State University. Seehttp://www.gdnet.org

Pratt, B. 2003: Changing expectations? The concept and practice ofcivil society in international development (NGOMPSManagement and Policy Series No. 16). Oxford: InternationalNGO Training and Research Centre.

On legitimacy, internal democracy and accountability

Adam, I. 2004. Ghana to blacklist NGOs. BBC Africa Live, NorthernGhana.

Baig, Q. 2003. Beyond governance. NGO Resource Center OnlineJournal. Karachi: Agha Khan Foundation.

Baker, M. 2003. Comment: The accountability of NGOs. EthicalCorporation Online, 17 November.

Blair, H. 1997. Donors, democratisation and civil society: Relatingtheory to practice. In: NGOs, states and donors: Too close forcomfort? London: Macmillan Press, pp. 23-42.

Brown, D.L and Moore, M.H. 2001. Accountability, strategy and inter-national non-governmental organisations. Boston: The HauserCenter for Nonprofit Organisations, Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University.

Brown, D.L et al. 2003. Strategic accountability for internationalNGOs. Boston: The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organisations,Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Burall, S. 2003. NGO accountability: Yes, but not on these terms. (OneWorld Guest Editorial, 1 July). London: One World Trust.

Christensen, J. 2003. Asking the do-gooders to prove they do good.New York Times, January 3.

Cohen, J. 2003. Governance by and of NGOs. London: AccountAbility.

Bibliography

InBrief 12 December 2004 The good governance agenda of civil society Page 11

www.ecdpm.org

Covey, J.G. 1995. Accountability and effectiveness of NGO policyalliance. Boston: Institute for Development Research, IDRReports, 11 (8).

Correa, M.E. 2003. Gaining public trust. Alliance, 8(4), p. 33.

Davis, A. 2003. Accountability and humanitarian actors: Speculationsand questions. Humanitarian Practice Network, November-December. See www.globalpolicy.org

De Berry, J. 1998. Exploring the concept of community: Implicationsfor NGO management. (CVO International Working Paper No. 8).London: Centre for Voluntary Organisation.

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. 1995a. NGOs: Performance and accounta-bility, beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications.

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. 1995. Introduction and Overview. In:NGOs: Performance and accountability, beyond the magic bullet.London: Earthscan Publications, pp. 3-16.

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. 1995. Beyond the magic bullet? Lessonsand conclusions. In: NGOs: Performance and accountability,beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications, pp.219-228.

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. 1998. Too close for comfort? The impactof official aid on NGOs. Current Issues in Comparative Education,1 (1) November 15.

Fowler, A. 1995. Assessing NGO performance: Difficulties, dilemmasand a way ahead. In: NGOs: Performance and accountability,beyond the magic bullet. London: Earthscan Publications,pp. 143-156.

Faustino, J. and Baron, B., 2003. Hearing the voices of communities:Governance, accountability and fundraising. Alliance, 8 (4),pp. 29-31.

Hartnell, C. 2003. Governance and resource mobilization: Themissing link. Alliance 8 (4), pp. 2.

Holloway, R. 1997. NGOs: Losing the moral high ground; corruptionand misrepresentation. Paper presented at the 8th InternationalAnti-corruption Conference, 7-11 September, Lima, Peru.

Humanitarian Accountability Project. 2002. The accountable organi-sation. (HAP Report, 20 March). Geneva: HAP International.

International Council on Human Rights. 2003. Deserving trust: Issuesof accountability for human rights NGOs. (Draft Report forConsultation, April). Geneva: International Council on HumanRights.

Kovach, H. et al. 2003. Power without accountability? (The GlobalAccountability Report). London: One World Trust.

Marschall, M. 2002. Legitimacy and effectiveness: Civil society orga-nisations' role in good governance. Transparency International,November 1. See http://www.globalpolicy.org

Minc, A. 2002. 5eme épître : aux zélotes des ONGs. In: Epîtres a nosnouveaux maîtres. Paris: Grasset.

Newell, P. and Bellour, S. 2002. Mapping accountability: Origins,contexts and implications for development. (IDS Working Paper168). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, SussexUniversity.

Ndiaye, M. 2003. Accountability in the NGO sector. Draft paper prepa-red for the One World Trust workshop Increasing Accountabilitythrough External Stakeholder Engagement, 23-24 October 2003,London.

New York Times. 2003. Holding civic groups accountable. Editorial.New York Times, July 21.

Ospina Robledo, R.I. 2003. The accountability challenge. Alliance,8(4), pp. 31-32.

Philips, K. 2001. Ethics and standards for civil society: Steps to trust-worthiness. NGO futures presentation at CIVICUS WorldAssembly, 21 August, Vancouver.

Sheehan, J. 1996. NGOs and participatory management styles. (CVOInternational Working Paper No. 2). London: Centre for VoluntaryOrganisation.

Shiras, P. 2003. The new realities of non-profit accountability.Alliance, 8(4), pp. 25-28.

Slim, H. 2002. By what authority? The legitimacy and accountabilityof non-governmental organisations. Geneva: InternationalCouncil on Human Rights Policy.

SustainAbility. 2003. The accountability and governance of NGOs inthe 21st century. Issues paper for workshop Who Guards theGuardians? See http://www.sustainability.com/programs/pres-sure-front/accountability/3%20April%20Issues%20Paper.pdf

Tandon, R. 1995. Board games: Governance and accountability inNGOs. In: NGOs: Performance and accountability, beyond themagic bullet. London: Earthscan, pp. 41-50.

The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29 .

Page 12 The good governance agenda of civil society December 2004 InBrief 12

European Centre for Development Policy ManagementOnze Lieve Vrouweplein 21NL-6211 HE MaastrichtThe Netherlands

Tel +31 (0)43 350 29 00 Fax +31 (0)43 350 29 02info@ecdpm.org www.ecdpm.org

ISSN 1571-7437

'InBrief' provides summarised background information on the main policy debates and activities in ACP-EC cooperation. These complementary summaries are drawn from consultative

processes in which the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) engages withnumerous state and non-state actors in the ACP and EU countries. The Centre is a non-partisan organi-sation that seeks to facilitate international cooperation between the ACP and the EC. Information may

be reproduced as long as the source is quoted.

The ECDPM acknowledges the support it receives for the 'InBrief' from the Department for InternationalDevelopment in the United Kingdom, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Sweden, Finland and the

Netherlands, the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation in Belgium, the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation and the Instituto Português de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento in Portugal.

Zadek, S. 2003. Analysis: In defense of non-profit accountability.(Ethical Corporation Online, 19 September). Seehttp://www.ethicalcorp.com

Zadek, S. 2003. From fear and loathing to social innovation. Alliance,8(4), pp. 21-24.

On self-assessment, self-regulation, accreditation and legal frameworksBazaara, N. 2002. Legal and policy framework for citizen participa-

tion in East Africa: A comparative analysis. Unpublished report.Center for Basic Research, LogoLink Research, Uganda, October.

CARE. 2002. Participatory Capacity Assessment Tool (PCA). BasicEducation Fellowship, South Africa.

Chadha, P. et al. 2003. Organisational behaviour: A framework forNGOs. Delhi: Center for Youth and Social Development.

Ethical Corporation Online. 2004. Analysis: Accountability andcontrol, the debate on NGO codes of conduct. Seehttp://www.ethicalcorp.com

Fowler, A. 2003. An enabling environment for civil society: What doesit mean and how does law fit in? (Research Report 7). Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society.

Hartnell, C. 2003. Self-regulation on trial. Alliance, 8 (4), pp. 39-40.

Harris-Curtis, E. 2001. NGO codes of conduct: An exploration of thecurrent debate. (Informed No. 5). Oxford: International NGOTraining and Research Centre.

Heap, S. 2001. Building trust in NGOs. Oxford: International NGOTraining and Research Centre.

International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. 1998. 'Regulating not-for-profit organisations' and 'Integrity good governance and trans-parency: Rules for self-regulation''. See www.icnl.org

Irish, L.E. and K.W. Simon. 1999. The role of a good legal framework:Capacity building and sustainability. Paper presented at theNGOs in a Global Future Conference, January 11-13, Birmingham,UK.

People in Aid. 2003. Code of good practice in the management andsupport of aid personnel. London: People in Aid.

Simon, K.W. 1999: The role of law in encouraging civil society.Washington, D.C.: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.See www.icnl.org/gendocs/arabconf.htm

Yaansah, E.A and K.W. Simon. 1998. Summary legal report.Washington, D.C.: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.See www.icnl.org/library/africa/docs/safrica/htm

Country InformationAfrican Union: 'Draft Code of Ethics and Conduct for African Civil

Society Organisations', June 2003.

Belize: 'An act for regulating NGOs', Draft bill prepared by ANDA forthe Government of Belize, with approval of the Belize Coalitionof Networks.

Botswana: 'National Policy for NGOs', Ministry of Labour and HomeAffairs, February 2001 and 'NGO code of conduct: A standard formoral, social and ethical behaviour for civil society in Botswana',Botswana Council of Nongovernmental Organizations(BOCONGO).

Democratic Republic of Congo: 'Le code d'éthique', presented by the'Follow-up Committee, 20 October 2003.

Ghana: 'Comprehensive Policy Framework for the Non-Profit Sectorin Ghana', Draft Discussion Document, Nyaniba Estate, Institutefor Democratic Governance, 2000; 'Draft National Policy forStrategic Partnership with NGOs', Ghana, National ConsultativeGroup, October 2000.

Ethiopia: 'Code of Conduct for NGOs in Ethiopia' and 'Code ofConduct for NGOs in Ethiopia: A review article' by E.A. Yaansah,Washington, D.C., International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.Also see 'National conference adopts new national NGO policy',International Journal of Not-for Profit Law, 3(2). Nigeria: 'Draftcode of standard practice for NGOs in Nigeria' (2000) by E.Iheme, Transition Monitoring Group, International Journal ofNot-for-Profit Law, 3 (3).

Tanzania: 'National Policy on NGOs in Tanzania', National SteeringCommittee for NGO Policy, Dar-es-Salaam, January 2000.

Tuvalu: 'Consultations toward legal reform in Tuvalu' (2004) by M.Saitala, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 6(2).

The author thanks the ECDPM for providing the opportunity to attend the CIVICUS World Assembly in Botswana in March 2004.Special thanks also go to Jean Bossuyt, for his encouragement, unstinted support and so many excellent ideas.