occupied Palestinian territory: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT (“SHRINKING POLITICAL”) CSO SPACE STUDY FOR ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

ACT ALLIANCE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

ENABLING ENVIRONMENT (“SHRINKING POLITICAL”) CSO SPACE STUDY

FOR ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

July 2015

1.Background

Although civil society organizations (CSOs) have been recognized as independent development actors through a number of international treaties and conventions, there are many factors that impede the ability of CSOs to function as such and to work for the sustainable development of all.

People today are more connected, more informed of their rights, and probably more emboldened to seize those rights than at any time in history. Assembly, association and expression rights offer people the promise of this kind of control, and they offer it in a peaceful manner. The lure of this promise is what has inspired the courage, commitment and creativity of countless human rights defenders throughout the world today.

There is a lack of comprehensive studies of the analysis of civil society in Israel, WB, East Jerusalem and Gaza. What is the operative environment they are facing? Are there similar circumstances in these territories that are similar to the situation in other countries being studied by ACT Alliance in 2013[1] (

Consultations with ACT Alliance and their partners[2] indicate that certain civil society organizations working for Palestinian human rights, adherence to IHL and addressing the occupation as a root cause for breach of human rights – do face constraints in their operations.

The EU has in 2014 submitted a short analysis of civil society in Palestine – “EU COUNTRY ROADMAP FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH CIVIL SOCIETY 2014 – 2017”. The EU Roadmap does however not assess the level of the enabling environment for civil society organizations to operate in Palestine, but gives some valuable overall insight on areas such as: the legal Framework for the enable environment, organizational and financial sustainability, participation in public life, participation in public policy formulation, conflict prevention and peace-building and state-building.

To date few studies exist that actually analyze the level of the enabling environment for civil society organizations to operate in Palestine and Israel.

For instance a quite controversial rating has been published by Freedom House on the level of civic and political rights in different countries[3]: In this study Israel is performing well, and Gaza and WB the opposite, but there is no analysis to suggest which duty bearers are actually causing the situation in Gaza and WB. Whose actions actually limit political and civil rights in West Bank and Gaza according to Freedom House?

Furthermore, reports by Amnesty International highlight that the enabling environment for civil society organizations to operate in Palestine and Israel is challenging:[4]

The report highlights: "Authorities in the West Bank and Gaza restricted freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions, and tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity. “

While for Palestine, the report highlights that:” Authorities in the West Bank and Gaza restricted freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions, and tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity. Women and girls faced discrimination in law and practice, and were inadequately protected against gender-based violence.”[5]

The faith-based network, ACT Alliance is committed to, through its presence in the field and direct contact with organizations on the ground, to be monitoring the developments in the space for civil society. Globally this is witnessed through recent reports on this issue: “Shrinking Political Space for Civil Society Action” (2011) and in 2013 “How to Protect and Expand an Enabling Environment – Space for Civil Society”

2.Overall purpose

The overall purpose of the consultation is to provide an analysis of the dynamics of the civil society in Palestine and Israel working around Palestinian rights and the occupation as well as the factors that enable or disenable their ability to operate. It will take into consideration important elements such as censorship, alliances, policies, and freedom of CSOs to fulfill their mandate. To this end, the consultation will discuss with a wide range of CSO partners how actors can promote and protect an enabling environment.

The key aim of the consultation is to verify the situation from civil society organizations' perspective, to identify existing successes, best practices and positive actions; and to map the situation for protecting the space for CSOs

The final consultation will, based on identified best practices, develop recommendations for stakeholders on how to more effectively promote an enabling environment for civil society.

3.Specific in-country objectives: Israel and Palestine

• Understand the nature and types of civil society actors and their relationships with each other and with the PA and Israeli authorities and how this may affect their respective space for action and influence
• Understand how CSO partners perceive developments over the last 5 years in their operational environment and the factors that enable and disenable their work. Where there appear to be differences in responses depending on the type of civil society actor or any other variable, this should be analyzed and reflected in the study. The specific experiences (challenges and opportunities) of faith-based organizations and civil society actors working on gender identity issues must be included in this analysis.
• Identify positive strategies and stakeholder approaches (CSOs and others) in supporting and protecting an enabling environment;
• Create a dialogue amongst in country CSOs on existing successes in positively shaping the enabling environment, based on a power analysis;
• Engage in country CSOs in developing recommendations to realize and protect positive conditions for an enabling environment in their country.

4.In-country methodology

The international consultant is responsible for implementing the overall project methodology in a manner that ensures the quality and rigor of the research findings. He/she will work together with 2 local consultants. The methodology for the country consultation consists of a multi-pronged approach:

i) An ACT Alliance steering committee is formed[6] and will undertake mapping and collect relevant materials supporting the consultancy/study. The steering committee will liaise with the consultants throughout the process.

ii) A “Broad” ToR will be developed.

iii) An international consultant will be hired to lead the process, and form a team with two national consultants.

iv) The international consultant will lead a process of consulting with partner CSO’s to refine the methodology for the final methodology/TOR

The civil society organizations selected for the studies, should be a wide variety of organizations, especially organizations who are defending the human rights of Palestinians, working against IHL violations who are engaged in the ending the occupation, and/or who work for equal rights for the non-Jewish population in Israel (including Palestinians) and/or organizations who are engaging with PA authorities and their obligations. However, the sample aims to be representative of civil society in the different contexts, so a sample representing a wide variety of organizations will be sought, with the aim of not ending up having a skewed analysis.

Initial draft TOR/Methodology

A series of focus group discussions concluding with a one day final consultation. The aim is to hold between 10 and 20 focus groups per geographic area, in different areas of each georgraphic area depending on local circumstances. The results of the focus groups will be brought together in one final consultation. Focus group guidelines will be provided by the lead consultant. For draft, s*ee Annex*

ii). An electronic survey of the experience of CSO leaders. The aim is to capture the views of a wide range of CSOs. In different locations, 1-2-1 interviews and/or relationship building may be necessary to ensure responses.

Where there appear to be differences in responses depending on the type of civil society actor or any other variable, this should be analyzed and reflected in the study. The specific experiences (challenges and opportunities) of faith-based organizations and civil society actors working on gender identity issues must be included in this analysis.

The consultant will adapt his/her methodology to the context in his/her inception report making sure that it adequately speaks or adds to Civicus and ICNL methodologies and studies. The consultant will focus on adapting the methodology so that it can be internationally recognized and comparable.

Furthermore, the consultant will undertake the following:

· Focus group of Act Alliance partners acting in Palestine and Israel

· Bilateral interviews with state actors and INGOs in Palestine and Israel about states regulation for protecting human rights defenders (Embassies, representation offices and development coordination of Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, relevant INGOs, ACT forum, PINGO and so on)

5.Scope of the consultation and tasks

The international consultant will develop a broad-based country consultation based on a uniform methodology described above and further developed by the lead consultant for all four geographical consultations.

The international consultant is expected to follow the country methodology working in close collaboration with the Steering Committee to ensure successful implementation. Any adjustments in the implementation of the methodology will be discussed and agreed between the international consultant and the steering committee. These discussions will need to take place at the start of the process to ensure both uniformity and initial guidance for the task ahead.

The international and local consultants – including the steering committee - are expected to understand local sensitivities and organize approaches that ensure no risks at personnel or organizational level at any time. The consultants are also expected to show perseverance and creativity by adapting approaches and communication in order to ensure successful research findings.

In carrying out the country consultation, the International consultant will:

§ Suggest a consultant team, comprising the international consultant as the team leader and 2 local consultants (including their names and CVs)

§ Identify and encourage diverse CSO leaders to input to the survey;

§ Identify diverse CSO partners to participate in a series of location based focus group discussions, and ensure participation in focus groups is as varied as possible;

§ Suggest number of focus group discussions, conduct focus group discussions and ensure these are completed within agreed timeframe;

§ Collect and synthesize outcomes from focus group discussions no later than 7 days before final consultation.

§ Triangulate focus group findings with survey findings and explore, in conjunction with the lead consultant, anomalies and similarities. Conduct 1-2-1 interviews with the lead consultant to develop narrative and recommendations, seeking the views of at least 2 donor countries.

§ Further triangulate study findings with findings from other recent recognized international and national sources/studies (including ACT previous studies, State guidelines for protecting HRD )

§ Prepare a final consultation meeting with a selected group in Palestine and Israel to review the results of the focus group discussions and synthesize key points. Write up agreed outcomes.

§ Keep records of the focus group discussions, as well as the number and type of focus group discussions.

§ In addition to the country consultation, draft a country summary of the main obstacles for an enabling environment based on human rights principles and existing verifiable evidence already in the public domain, such as INGO reports & UN submissions. (1,500 - 2,000 words). The deadline for this draft will be no later than 10 days before the final consultation.

6.Key relationships

International consultant, local consultants, steering committee and key CSO partners in country.

7. Duration and Timeline of the Consultancy

The maximum number of days available for the consultancy will be 30 working days for international consultant and 25 days for a local consultant in West Bank/East Jerusalem/Gaza and 15 days for a local consultant for Israel.The distribution of the work should be considered when developing the work plan in the proposal to be presented. The assignment will begin from 1 September 2015 and can conclude by 30 November 2015.

A proposed timeline will be as follows:

TimelinesActions Outputs 30 June ICCO, HEKS, NCA and DCA meeting to finalise the TOR Finalise the TOR and timeline Between 1-7 July Advertisement of International Consultant Candidates apply for position 15 August Deadline for applications Applications received 25 August Procurement meeting to select International Consultant Selection of International Consultant 1 September International Consultant on board. Consultancy agreement for international consultant signed 1-6 September Skype discussions between steering committee and lead consultant; desk review; enlisting CSOs; planning events; electronic communication. Plan for activities in assignment in place; Mail sent out to CSOs; Meetings/ Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) appointments done 10 September Inception report due Inception report + adjusted methodology sent to Steering Committee 8 September to 31^st September International consultant to subcontract 2 local consultants (one for Israel, one for West Bank/East Jerusalem/Gaza). Selection of local consultants to be agreed with Steering Committee International consultant to have consultancy agreement for local consultants signed by 31 April1^st October to 30^th October FGDs and One Day Consultation with CSOs in Israel, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza FGDs and Consultation completed and documented1^st to 15 November Writing up Draft Report (initial and final) Initial draft shared for feedback and comments; final draft delivered to Steering Committee 15 November Submission of Draft report Steering committee receiving draft report 20 November Steering committee submits comments on draft report Int. consultant receives comments on draft report 30 November Submission of Final Report Submission of Final Report

8.Expected Profile/ Specification of the Consultants

The consultant is expected to fulfill the following specifications:

§ Masters degree in social or political science or human rights qualifications with robust experience in related research.

§ Proven experience of consultancy work, including ability to write for an external audience, in the area of human rights, governance and civil society.

§ Excellent knowledge human rights law and International humanitarian law and of the political and economic terrain and historical background of the country concerned.

§ Strong applied research and analysis skills, including experience of working in challenging conditions and working to agreed standards of consent and security.

§ Experience of conducting and moderating focus group discussions and proven awareness of the sensitivity required in such contexts.

§ Knowledge of methodologies used to assess the enabling environment for civil society and ability to lead and coach a team, also remotely.

9. Outputs

The International consultant will deliver:

• An inception report with adapted methodology.
• A final report in English within the length of 1-3-25 pages; one page recommendations, 3 pages executive summary and 25 pages presentation of the findings – outlining as well the overall evaluation methods, their appropriateness and evaluation constraints faced, if any. The annexes should contain any literature consulted, data collection instruments, the ToR, list of interviewees and any additional information required.
• Consultant’s Proposal

The consulting firm shall submit a study proposal including:

• Study proposal of no more than five pages with a one page budget sent in one document.
• CVs of consultants that will carry out the evaluation.
• The proposal must be sent by email to DCA Procurement department at info.palestine@dca.dk, by 1600 on 15^th of August 2015.

The timeframe for the Study will be preferably between September - November 2015

11. Criteria

The evaluation of the applicants will be based on 70 % technical and 30 % financial scoring.

Any technical offer collecting less than 80 points will be considered not compatible with the technical criteria of the contract and thus be excluded.

Technical CriteriaScore (points) 1 2 3 Availability of quality assurance procedures Candidate’s relevant academic qualifications Candidate’s relevant experience in the field of assignment Candidate’s experience in the region/country e.g. knowledge of local language, culture, administrative system, government etc. Subtotal on expertise To what degree does the proposal show understanding of the task and have the Terms of Reference been addressed in sufficient detail? Is the conceptual framework adopted appropriate for the task? Is the sequence of activities and the planning logical, realistic and promising efficient implementation to the Contract and is the work plan adequate in responding to the Terms of Reference Subtotal on Organisation and MethodologyTOTAL TECHNICAL SCORETechnical Score70%Complíance under 80 points is considered not compliant (Yes or No)

Furthermore, please find below the following annexes:

Annex 1: Methodology

Annex 2: Proposal Submission Form

Annex 3– Suggested Survey

Annex 1: Methodology

To be filled-in by the candidates, in compliance with the following instructions:

Rationale

· Any comments on the Terms of Reference of importance for the successful execution of activities, in particular its objectives and expected results, thus demonstrating the degree of understanding of the contract. Any comments contradicting the Terms of Reference or falling outside their scope will not form part of the final contract.

· An opinion on the key issues related to the achievement of the contract objectives and expected results

· An explanation of the risks and assumptions affecting the execution of the contract

Strategy

· An outline of the approach proposed for contract implementation

· A list of the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the contract objectives

· The related inputs and outputs

Timetable of activities

· The timing, sequence and duration of the proposed activities, taking into account mobilisation time

· The identification and timing of major milestones in execution of the contract, including an indication of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports, particularly those stipulated in the Terms of Reference

· Include an Outline Programme

· Include a budget

Annex 2: Proposal Submission Form

To be completed by candidates:Programme:DCA Palestine Country Programme

Contract:Proposal submitted by:

Name:

Address

Telephone number:

Fax number:

E-mail address:Date of proposal:

1.Scope of services

I include my comments on the Terms of Reference, a description of my proposed strategy and approach, and an outline programme in the attached “Methodology”.

2.Financial proposal

My proposal for remuneration of my services is as follows:

CurrencyAmount Global Remuneration (fees only) Other Expenses (and details) VAT or other professional tax on services

If the consultant fails the present VAT invoice, the contracting authority will deduct a specific percentage according to Palestine income tax law.

It is a must that you complete this form as per the indicated costs. Any offer submitted not in this form will be excluded.

3.Information

General InformationPrincipal area of specialization Years of experience in principal area of sp. Other areas of specialization Years of experience in other areas of sp. Years of study / degrees obtained

Academic institutions Experience in the region of Contract Last three assignments in the field of the contract (evaluations) Other service contracts in hand and/or future commitments Languages

(indicate level on a scale from 1 to 5, for understanding, speaking and writing) Membership in professional organizations Experience in working in cooperation with local partners/participatory approaches Experience working with merger organisations

ReferencesName & country of customer Type of services Periods Contact person name Phone and Email

4.Documents

Please find attached the following documents:

a) Methodology document

b) Budget

c) My CV

(*Note to the candidates: include as attachment all documents you consider especially relevant to give evidence of your qualifications – copies of your diplomas and language proficiency certificates will be requested only if the contract is awarded to you)*

Signature

Signed by:

Annex 3– Suggested Survey

Preamble

The purpose of the survey is to understand the enabling environment that CSO leaders experience at first hand, the aspects that work well and those that need more attention.

We want to know about your experience. Basing the survey on your experience will enable us to build a collective picture. Nonetheless, the survey is completely anonymous and secure, it will not be traceable or associated with any individual or organization.

The survey does not require written responses. Rather the survey will ask you to scale responses. This information will indicate where action has had a positive impact and where there is still work to be done.

The word CSO may be interchanged with NGO as in some countries or contexts one maybe more customary than the other.

The questions are based around principles contained in international treaties and conventions, as well as existing civil society indexes and indicators.

The first few questions (1-3) will enable disaggregation of the data to determine if there is a difference in the experiences of certain types of organizations.

1. What is the size of your organization? (please tick one)

o 1 employee

o 2-10 employees

o 11- 20 employees

o Over 21 employees

1. What is the main focus of your organization’s work ? (You may tick more than one)

o Education

o Health

o Farming

o Advocacy

o Women and girls

o Human rights (All- P, C, E, S & C)

o SMEs/Cooperatives

o Other

1. Where is your organization based? (Please tickone)

o Capital city

o Regional city/town

o Rural

Please tick one answer between the scale of 5 (positive) and 1(negative)

1. Based on your experience, to what extent has the PA and or Israeli authoritiest ensured the participation and coordination of CSOs in drafting and implementing a national development plan?

5= There is full CSO participation and coordination

4= There is a lot of CSO participation and coordination

3= There is some CSO participation and coordination

2= There is poor CSO participation and coordination

1= There is no CSO participation and coordination

0= Don’t know

1. Based on your experience, how supportive is government strategy on CSOs working on development matters?

5=It’s very supportive

4=It’s quite supportive

3=It achieves the minimum, but does not obstruct

2= It’s unsupportive

1= It’s very unsupportive

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent would you say the enabling environment for your organization is more supportive and inclusive than it was five years ago?

5= It is much better than 5 years ago

4= It is better than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is worse than 5 years ago

1= It is much worse than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent has your organization been able to expand its activities and impact over the last five years?

5=We have expanded activities and impact by over a half

4= We have expanded activities and impact by up to a half

3= Our activities and impact are the same

2=We have decreased activities and impact by less than half

1=We have decreased activities and impact by more than half

0= Don’t know

1. How safe, in respect of your physical integrity, do you feel working on development related issues in your region?

5= I feel safe all the time

4= I feel safe most of the time

3= I feel unsafe sometimes

2= I often feel unsafe

1= I feel unsafe all the time

0= Don’t know

1. In some countries, CSO leaders are at times referred to publicly by the authorities in derogatory terms on account of their work. If this has occurred to you in the last year, how often has it occurred?

5=never

4=occasionally

3=sometimes

2=frequently

1= Very frequently

0=Don’t know

1. In some countries, CSOs are at times pressed by state authorities or other actors to desist from some or all of their activities. If this has occurred to you or a member of your organization in the last year, how often has it happened?

5=never

4=occasionally (once or twice)

3=sometimes (three or four times)

2=frequently (Five or more times)

1=Very frequently (more than once a month)

0= Don’t know

1. In some countries, CSOs are at times required to seek permission or permits from the authorities to carry out some or all of their activities. If this has happened to you, to what extent would you say such permission was reasonable?

5= It was very reasonable

4= It was reasonable

3= It was unreasonable

2= It was very unreasonable

1= It was obstructive

0= Don’t know

1. Currently, how easy is it for your organization to travel throughout your region or country for purposes of work without experiencing some form of official control of your movements by the authorities or other actors?

5= very easy

4= easy

3= Some routes need to be avoided

2= quite difficult

1= very difficult

0= Don’t know

1. In the past year, how often have you had to pay a bribe to get work done?

5=never

4=occasionally (once or twice)

3=sometimes (three or four times)

2=frequently (Five or more times)

1=Very frequently (more than once a month)

0= Don’t know

1. Do you feel that the treatment of your organization by the authorities is the same as that of other CSOs?

5= It is the same

4= It is almost the same

3= It is not the same

2= It is less favourable

1 = It is very unfavourable

0= Don’t know

1. How likely is your organization to be stigmatized if it collaborates with other peaceful organizations perceived to hold unconventional views on human rights, religion or sexuality?

5= It never happens

4= It is unlikely

3= It is likely

2= It is very likely

1= It is always the case

0= Don’t know

1. In your experience, how reasonable are the requirements and processes for legal registration of CSOs?

5= very reasonable

4= reasonable

3= uncertain

2= unreasonable

1= very unreasonable

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent is it now easier for your organization to comply with and fulfil legal processes and requirements than it was five years ago?

5= It is much easier than 5 years ago

4= It is easier than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is more difficult than 5 years ago

1= It is much more difficult than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. In some countries CSOs are threatened with closure. If your organization has been threatened with closure by the authorities in the past year, how often has this occurred?

5=Never

4=Occasionally

3=Sometimes

2=Frequently

1=Very frequently

0=Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to call a peaceful public meeting in the community (either rural or urban)?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= It’s difficult

2= It’s very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to organize a peaceful public protest or other form of gathering against government policy?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= It’s difficult

2= It’s very difficult

1= It’s impossible

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent is it now easier to organize a peaceful public protest compared with five years ago?

5= It is much easier than 5 years ago

4= It is easier than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is more difficult than 5 years ago

1= It is much more difficult than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to access timely information about government budget and policy decisions regarding development issues?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= It’s difficult

2= It’s very difficult

1= It’s impossible

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent is it now easier to access timely information about government budget and policy decisions compared with five years ago?

5= It is much easier than 5 years ago

4= It is easier than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is more difficult than 5 years ago

1= It is much more difficult than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. If you have lodged formal access to information requests in the past five years, how often have they been successful?

5= Always successful

4= Usually successful

3= Successful about half the time

2= Rarely successful

1= Never successful

0=Don’t know

1. In some countries CSO records are at times tampered with by the authorities or by other actors. If this has happened to you in the past year, how often has it occurred?

5=Never

4=Occasionally

3=Sometimes

2=Frequently

1=Very frequently

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to have its opinions published in the local or national newspapers?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= It’s difficult

2= It’s very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. During the past year, how often have you been asked to give an interview or opinion to the mainstream media (National T.V. or radio) on a relevant development issue?

5=Frequently

4= Quite often

3=Sometimes

2=Occasionally

1=Never

0=Don’t know

1. How concerned would you be about making explicit criticism of government on development matters in public?

5= Not at all concerned

4= A little concerned

3=Concerned (and would modify my statements)

2=Very concerned (and would substantially limit what I say)

1=Extremely concerned (and would not comment)

0= Don’t know

1. To what extent is it now easier for you to be openly critical of government policy and practice on development compared with five years ago?

5= It is much easier than 5 years ago

4= It is easier than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is more difficult than 5 years ago

1= It is much more difficult than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. In some countries, CSO leaders have been formally accused of defamation on account of public statements. Over the past five years, if this has occurred to you or a member of your organization, how often has it occurred?

5=Never

4=Occasionally

3=Sometimes

2=Frequently

1=Very frequently

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to meet with relevant ministers, authorities or senior government officials to discuss issues and/or how they can support your organization’s work?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= It’s difficult

2= It’s very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. Over the past year, how often have you been invited to give feedback to or participate in government bodies or working groups on government policies, current programs or new initiatives in support of development?

5=Very frequently (More than once a month in the year)

4= Frequently (More than 5 times in the year)

3= Sometimes (3 or 4 times in the year)

2=Rarely (once or twice in the year)

1=Never

0 = Don’t know

1. To what extent do you feel consideration of your views has improved during official meetings and working groups compared with five years ago?

5= It is much better than 5 years ago

4= It is better than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is worse than 5 years ago

1= It is much worse than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to challenge, either individually or in coalition with other CSOs, a legal act or bill relating to development issues?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to propose legal reforms relating to development issues?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. Over the past five years, how willing has the ombudsman’s office, or similar body, been to handle complaints or issues your organization may have raised?

5= very willing

4= quite willing

3= unwilling

2= very willing

1= completely unwilling

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for you to receive and share knowledge with other organizations nationally or internationally?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to work with UN human rights bodies without fear of reprisals?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it to access the internet without restrictions on web-sites or restrictions on accessing messages?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. In your experience, to what extent has sharing information with both national and international organizations become easier compared with five years ago?

5= It is much easier than 5 years ago

4= It is easier than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is worse than 5 years ago

1= It is much worse than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. If you have had to raise a complaint with the authorities about your treatment (either as an individual or on behalf of a member of your organization) by the authorities or other actors during the past year, how good was the response?

5= very good

4= good

3= average

2= poor

1= very poor

0= Don’t know

1. In some countries CSO leaders are at times wrongfully detained during the course of their work. If this has happened to you or a member of your organization during the past five years, how quickly was their unconditional release secured?

5= Almost immediately

4= Within half a day

3= Within 24 hours (they spent a night in detention)

2= Within a week

1= Over a week

0= Don’t know

1. Have experienced discrimination (for instance by an unexplained denial of housing, employment or education), over the past year, and if so to what extent do you feel this was related to your involvement in development work?

5=I have not experienced discrimination

4=I have experienced discrimination, but am not sure it relates to my work

3=I have experienced discrimination, and feel it was related to my work

2=I have experienced discrimination, and can prove it was related to my work

1= I have experienced discrimination, and was told it was related to my work

0= Don’t know

1. In your experience, are the authorities or other actors more or less tolerant of those working on development compared with five years ago?

5= They are much more tolerant than 5 years ago

4= They are more tolerant than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= They are less tolerant than 5 years ago

1= They are much less tolerant than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. Have you had to request protection from the authorities because you have been subject to threats or harassment on account of your development work? If so how good was the protection?

5=I have not requested protection

4=I have requested protection, and it was good

3= I have requested protection, and it was average

2= I have requested protection, and it was poor

1= I have requested protection, and it was very poor

0= Don’t know

1. How easy is it for your organization to receive funds from abroad?

5= very easy

4= quite easy

3= difficult

2= very difficult

1= Impossible

0= Don’t know

1. Compared to five years ago, to what extent have government policies improved your organization’s ability to generate financial resources?

5= It is much better than 5 years ago

4= It is better than 5 years ago

3= It is the same

2= It is more difficult than 5 years ago

1= It is much more difficult than 5 years ago

0= Don’t know

1. What will be the main obstacle to your work over the next 12 months?
2. Are there any important issues you would like to raise that have not been covered?

Appendix II

Focus Group Guide

This guide is part of the Enabling Environment CSO research methodology being carried out by CIDSE/ACT Alliance. Running parallel to the focus group discussions with CSO partners is a survey/questionnaire for completion by CSO leaders.

The purpose of this consultation is to understand how actors promote an enabling environment. To this end the consultation will discuss with a wide range of CSO partners in different countries, how actors can promote and protect an enabling environment. The aim of the consultation is to identify existing successes, best practice and positive action.

The consultation will, based on identified best practices, develop recommendations for stakeholders on how to effectively promote an enabling environment for civil society.

Defining and running a focus group

A focus group is usually a small group of six to ten people led through an open and free discussion by a moderator. The group needs to have sufficient people to generate a good conversation, but not so large that some people’s in put may be left out.

The role of the moderator is to nurture an open and spontaneous discussion and to generate diverse ideas and opinions from different people.

A focus group should last between 45 – 2 hours.

Focus groups should be made up of a mixed group of people from CS partner organizations representing different areas of civil society, e.g. CSOs working on women’s issues, on children’s issues, on health issues, on education or farming. If this is not possible, because of geographical and travel constraints, then the focus group should be made up of people as diverse as possible in the locality.

The focus group is not:

• A debate
• A conflict resolution session
• A problem solving session
• An opportunity to collaborate
• A promotional opportunity
• An educational session

Consent and participation in the focus group

The information participants share during the focus group is confidential, and individual names will not be associated or attributed to anything said during the focus group.

CSOs participating in the consultation are asked to consent to being listed as organizations that participated in the focus groups in the overall consultation findings.

The moderator will ask participants to respect the confidentiality of other’s contributions during the focus group. The moderator will also ensure everyone participates freely.

Participants may withdraw from the discussion at any time, if they wish.

The focus group questions

The aim of the questions is not to produce an exhaustive list of every aspect of the issue, but to focus on the key issues and discuss them in depth.

1. To start the discussion, you may like to introduce your work.
2. What are the main obstacles your organization has encountered during the last five years in carrying out its work?
3. Discuss the actions taken to overcome these obstacles, emphasizing who or which institution was crucial in helping overcome the obstacle.
4. Discuss the most successful actions taken and the outcomes.
5. Discuss the reasons why these actions were successful.
6. Prioritization: what five actions, steps or measures would help improve delivery of your organization’s work? (Consider whether local, regional or national action is needed. Also consider which stakeholders are most important).

Record keeping

• A record of the discussion should be made by a recording or note keeper during the focus group.
• No individual names are attached to the record, but the participating organizations will be listed.

References

Cohen, Louis; Manion, Lawrence; and Morrison, Keith, 2000. Research Methods in Education, 5^th Ed. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

De Toma, Constanza 2012. Advocacy Toolkit, Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, [Available at: http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/-toolkits.082, accessed 21/5/2013]

Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities, Educational and Psychological Measurements, 30:607-10.

UNDP. 2008. “Capacity Development – Practice Note.”

[1] Colombia, Rwanda, Nepal, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe and Malawi), such as: exclusion from participation in development policies and plans ,CSO staff Feeling unsafe and stigmatized , limitations in freedom of expression, leading at times to self-censorship, peaceful protest restrictions and restriction of access to funding

[2] ACT Alliance is a coalition of more than 140 churches and affiliated organisations working together in over 140 countries to create positive and sustainable change in the lives of poor and marginalised people regardless of their religion, politics, gender, sexual orientation, race or nationality in keeping with the highest international codes and standards. Members are associated with the World Council of Churches or the Lutheran World Federation. ACT Palestine Forum (APF) is composed of three local ACT members, eight international ACT members and one observer organisations. The ten ACT members are in addition to NCA; Dan Church Aid, Christian Aid, International Orthodox Christian Charities, East Jerusalem YMCA, Middle East Council of Churches/Department of Services to the Palestinian Refugees, Lutheran World Federation, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land, Finn Church Aid, Church of Sweden, Diakonia Sweden and as observer Finish Evangelical Lutheran Mission (FELM).

[3] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2015/table-country-scores#.VMj7VU0cSM-.

[4] http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-2013

[5] https://www.amnesty.org/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/

[6] The committie consists of memebers from ; Norwegian Church Aid, DanChurch Aid , HEKS and ICCO.

The consulting firm shall submit a study proposal including:

• Study proposal of no more than five pages with a one page budget sent in one document.
• CVs of consultants that will carry out the evaluation.
• The proposal must be sent by email to DCA Procurement department at info.palestine@dca.dk, by 1600 on 15^th of August 2015.

The timeframe for the Study will be preferably between September - November 2015