Participation of CSOs in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues

Output

Outcome

number or % of target CSOs that regularly participate in [specify multi-stakeholder dialogues / platforms / fora] at [specify local / regional / national] level

This indicator measures the extent to which target civil society organisations (CSOs) engage in structured, inclusive, and continuous dialogue with other stakeholders - such as government institutions, private sector actors, and community representatives - at various levels. It reflects how well CSOs are integrated into decision-making and coordination mechanisms, and whether the project has strengthened their ability, confidence, and opportunity to contribute meaningfully to policy discussions and collaborative action.

1) Define what constitutes “regular participation” in the project’s context. For example, attending at least a defined proportion of dialogue meetings held during a given period (e.g., at least 50% of meetings within the past 12 months).

• Clarify whether “participation” refers to physical presence, active contribution, representation through networks, or virtual engagement.

• The minimum definition of “participation” should go beyond presence alone (e.g. at least one active contribution per period) to avoid reporting success based solely on formal attendance, which may not reflect empowerment or influence.

2) List and describe the relevant dialogue spaces and their level that fall within the scope of this indicator - e.g., local coordination committees, regional development fora, national policy platforms, or thematic working groups (e.g., gender equality, climate adaptation, social protection).

3) Collect data using one or more of the following approaches:

• Direct verification: Review official attendance records, meeting minutes, or membership lists to confirm which CSOs participated and how frequently.

• Key informant interviews or surveys: Ask representatives of CSOs and other platform members about their participation and level of engagement.

• Observation: If feasible, observe a sample of meetings to assess the degree of active contribution (e.g., making presentations, submitting inputs, co-chairing sessions).

• CSOs’ narrative reports: For cost-efficiency, include relevant questions into the reporting templates of the target CSOs.

4) Set the reference period for measuring participation (e.g., “in the past 12 months”) and ensure data collection coincides with a complete participation cycle (e.g., annual planning cycle, fiscal year, or reporting period).

5) To calculate the indicator’s value, divide the number of target CSOs that meet the project-defined minimum standard for “regular participation” (= step 1) by the total number of CSOs targeted by the project. Multiply the result by 100 to convert it to a percentage.

Disaggregate the data by geographic level (local, regional, national), type and size of CSO (e.g., CBO, network, NGO), sector or thematic focus (e.g., environment, youth, governance), as relevant and appropriate.

1) This indicator is intended to capture sustained and meaningful engagement, not one-off attendance. Clearly define what “regular” and “active” participation mean in your context, ensuring the definition goes beyond CSOs’ mere presence in multi-stakeholder platforms. When reporting on the indicator, consider including a short qualitative note describing how participation occurred to better reflect the quality of engagement and the extent of CSOs’ influence.

2) To assess quality of participation, consider complementary qualitative information such as the extent to which CSOs influence agendas, contribute inputs, or take leadership roles in dialogues.

3) Where multiple dialogue mechanisms exist, track separately the CSOs’ participation by level (local / regional / national) and topic area to highlight where engagement is strongest or weakest.

4) Participation can be verified through triangulation - combining self-reported data from CSOs with meeting records or testimonies from other stakeholders.

5) When working in fragile or sensitive contexts, ensure that participation data is collected and reported in a way that does not expose CSOs or their representatives to risks related to their advocacy or policy engagement.

6) For EU-funded projects, you can also consider the following OPSYS or sector specific Democracy indicators (more options can be found on Predefined indicators for design and monitoring of EU-funded interventions website):

• Number of Civil Society Organisations' (CSOs) representatives, participating in multi-stakeholder dialogues at global and regional level with the support of the EU-funded intervention

• Number of civil society organisations participating in national human rights dialogues

• Number of networks, platforms, dialogues, or mechanisms set up or supported by the EU-funded intervention