Report submitted to the United States Agency for International
Development

**Nigeria**

**Civil Society Assessment**

Under the Analytical Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC),

Contract No. AEP-I-00-99-00041-00, Task Order 823

March 2004

![](media/image1.png){width="0.9166666666666666in"
height="0.9166666666666666in"}

Submitted to:

**USAID/Nigeria**

Submitted by:

![](media/image2.png){width="1.0909722222222222in"
height="0.5541666666666667in"}

**ARD, Inc.**

159 Bank Street, Suite 300

Burlington, Vermont 05401

Tel: (802) 658-3890

FAX: (802) 658-4247

##### Nigeria Civil Society Assessment

> **Final Report**
>
> March 2004
>
> Analytical IQC
>
> Contract No. AEP-I-00-99-0041-00, Task order 823

# Table of Contents

**Table of Contents [i](#table-of-contents)**

Acknowledgements [iii](#acknowledgements)

Acronyms and Abbreviations [v](#acronyms-and-abbreviations)

Executive Summary [vii](#executive-summary)

1.0 Background [1](#background)

1.1 Context [1](#context)

1.2 Scope of Work and Methodology [3](#scope-of-work-and-methodology)

2.0 Assessment against Objectives [5](#assessment-against-objectives)

2.1 Ongoing Activities [5](#ongoing-activities)

2.2 Completed Activities [7](#completed-activities)

2.3 Conclusion [8](#conclusion)

3.0 Findings and Lessons Learned [9](#findings-and-lessons-learned)

3.1 Overview [9](#overview)

3.2 Elections [9](#elections)

3.3 Relationships [11](#relationships)

3.4 CSO Capacity-building Activities and Needs
[13](#cso-capacity-building-activities-and-needs)

3.5 Participation and Women's and Youth Political Empowerment
[14](#participation-and-womens-and-youth-political-empowerment)

3.6 Synergy [15](#synergy)

3.7 Enabling Environment and Donor Coordination
[15](#enabling-environment-and-donor-coordination)

3.8 Future Directions Workshop Findings
[16](#future-directions-workshop-findings)

3.9 Conflict [17](#conflict)

3.10 Indicators [17](#indicators)

4.0 Future Directions and Recommendations
[19](#future-directions-and-recommendations)

4.1 Future Relationships [19](#future-relationships)

4.2 Building and Managing the Networks
[20](#building-and-managing-the-networks)

4.3 Sustainability [21](#sustainability)

4.4 Synergy in Support of Civil Society, Participation, and Women's and
Youth Political Empowerment
[22](#synergy-in-support-of-civil-society-participation-and-womens-and-youth-political-empowerment)

5.0 Recommendations [25](#recommendations)

5.1 General Recommendations [25](#general-recommendations)

5.2 Program Options [26](#program-options-1)

5.3 Expandable Model [29](#expandable-model)

Annexes A-[1](#annexes)

Annex 1: Contact List A-[3](#annex-1-contact-list-1)

Annex 2: Workshop Participants A-[11](#annex-2-workshop-participants-1)

Annex 3: CSO and Network Profiles
A-[17](#annex-3-cso-and-network-profiles-1)

Annex 4: Bibliography A-[25](#annex-4-bibliography-1)

# Acknowledgements

The report was produced by ARD, Inc. The Assessment Team consisted of
Ms. Jenna Luche, Dr. Darren Kew, Ms. Dawn Traut, Mrs. Chinwe Anowai and
Dr. Victor Adetula. ARD, Inc. would like to acknowledge a number of
people whose assistance on this assessment greatly contributed to its
success. First and foremost, we thank our ARD Assessment Team members
Mrs. Chinwe Anowai and Dr. Victor Adetula for their tireless efforts and
unparalleled knowledge of Nigerian civil society. The Team also
acknowledges Mr. Vincent Oligbo's efforts to facilitate contacts with a
number of key informants and handle the often very complicated
logistics.

Recognition also goes to the USAID Democracy and Governance Team,
especially Mr. Charles Cutshall, Ms. Minnie Wright, and Ms. Bose
Eitokpah who gave valuable guidance, support, and feedback to the Team.
Finally, our appreciation goes to the many Nigerian CSOs, USAID's
implementing partners, and the Nigerian officials who gave their time
and insights that form the basis for much of this assessment report.

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACFED Anpez Center for Environment and Development

AFRIGOV African Center for Democratic Governance

ASUU Academic Staff of Universities Union

CAN Christian Association of Nigeria

CEDPA Center for Development and Population Activities

CBO community-based organization

CSO civil society organization

CSP Country Strategic Plan

DG democracy and governance

ENABLE Creating an Enabling Environment for Women's Effective
Participation

FOI Act Freedom of Information Act

FOMWAN Federation of Muslim Women's Associations of Nigeria

JHU/CCP John Hopkins University/Center for Communications Programs

IDASA Institute for Democracy in South Africa

ILO International Labor Organization

INEC Independent National Electoral Commission

IP implementing partner

LADDER Labor Advancing Democracy, Development, and Economic Reform

Law Group International Human Rights Law Group

MAN Manufacturer's Association of Nigeria

MSI Management Systems International

NACCIMA National Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines,
and Agriculture

NCWS National Council of Women's Societies

NLC National Labor Congress

NGO nongovernmental organization

NSCIA Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs

PACE Partnership for Advocacy and Civic Empowerment

PROSPECT Promoting Stakeholder Participation in Economic Transition

SC Solidarity Center

SO Strategic Objective

TMG Transition Monitoring Group

# Executive Summary

## Introduction

Nigeria has earned a well-deserved reputation for having one of the most
diverse and complex polities on the African continent. Not surprisingly,
its vast civil society reflects this complexity, presenting a daunting
challenge to USAID/Nigeria and other donors committed to supporting the
role of civil society in democratic consolidation. The task is further
complicated by the diminishing availability of US funding for democracy
assistance in Nigeria. In order to achieve results at the highest level,
USAID/Nigeria has decided to focus its assistance to civil society on
advocacy, civic awareness, and transparency and accountability at the
national level.

As USAID/Nigeria considers priorities for its future civil society
program, the lessons learned from USAID's completed (2000-2002) and
ongoing (2002-2004) civil society programs constitute a critical input.
An accurate understanding of the priorities of Nigerian civil society
organizations (CSOs) in the area of democracy and governance (DG) is
likewise crucial to the success of future programs. This report is an
initial step in assessing opportunities to support civil society in the
pre-defined areas of advocacy, civic awareness, and transparency and
accountability. The report has two interrelated objectives. The first
objective is to review the performance of the DG Office's civil society
programs and assess their overall effectiveness; the second is to
identify opportunities for the design and implementation of USAID's new
civil society program (2004-2009).

## Assessment of USAID's Portfolio of Civil Society Activities (2000-2004)

USAID's ongoing activities contributed significantly to the conduct of
the 2003 elections. However, USAID's decision to focus program resources
on elections activities resulted in a postponement of other activities
in the areas of constitutional reform; transparency and accountability;
institutional strengthening of labor unions; and economic policy reform.
The Partnership for Advocacy and Civic Empowerment (PACE) activity
focused the majority of its efforts and resources on civil society's
initiatives to support a more free and fair national election. Through
civic awareness campaigns, domestic monitoring workshops, women's
leadership activities, and conflict mitigation initiatives, PACE
contributed to the success of Nigeria's 2003 elections. The Labor
Advancing Democracy, Development, and Economic Reform (LADDER) activity
implemented by the Solidarity Center (SC), also played a significant
role in the improved election environment. The SC supported labor unions
in their work to effectively monitor the elections and promote peace in
the post-election period. The LADDER activity made a significant impact
by strengthening the capacity of 4,000 monitors and ensuring that every
state was included in the domestic monitoring plan. Furthermore, the
absence of widespread violence in the 2003 election was due in part to
LADDER's post-election conflict mitigation activities. The Promoting
Stakeholder Participation in Economic Transition (PROSPECT) activity,
implemented by Management Systems International (MSI), has set the
groundwork to achieve results in the area of civil society's advocacy
for economic reform. However, there has been a significant delay in
implementation. Given this delay, impact in the area of economic policy
reform has not yet been made.

Based on self-assessments and outside evaluations of USAID/Nigeria's
completed civil society activities, both the Center for Development and
Population Activities (CEDPA) ENABLE activity and John Hopkins
University/Center for Communications Programs (JHU/CCP)'s media programs
were successful in meeting their objectives. The timing of the
activities was opportune, since they coincided with an overall expansion
in freedom of the press and an increase in women's participation in
civil society and political life.

## General Findings and Recommendations

Given the prospect of shrinking US budgets for democracy assistance in
Nigeria, USAID/Nigeria must target its resources carefully and
streamline its grant-giving process. The Mission has therefore decided
to focus its support in this sector on efforts to develop the capacity
of civil society groups to conduct advocacy (particularly in regard to
transparency and accountability) and to build civic awareness at the
national level**.** This programmatic focus will support a critical area
of civil society need. CSOs participating in the present assessment
consistently identified as priorities increased advocacy for
transparency and accountability, gender equity, women and youth
empowerment, and conflict mitigation. These CSOs also emphasized the
need to develop better relationships between the government and CSOs.
They further described a need for a neutral space in which CSOs and the
government can have a dialogue on areas such as elections, transparency
and accountability, and conflict.

## Conclusions

### Management of IP and CSO Networks

USAID grantees expressed a general satisfaction with USAID's support for
civil society in Nigeria, but also expressed a range of concerns
regarding the structure and content of the relationships among USAID,
its implementing partners (IPs), and the CSO networks. While USAID's
focus on elections proved fruitful in terms of election-specific
results, other sectoral objectives were not fully achieved. IPs lost
several months of 2002-2003 working with USAID to prepare for
initiatives related to the 2003 elections. However, if the IPs and CSO
networks are given proper advance notice, this may not prove to be a
problem in the future as USAID's focus areas---anticorruption and
advocacy---overlap with civil society's concerns.

The adoption of an effective structure to manage the networks will be a
determining factor in the establishment of effective coalitions among
civil society groups. Depending upon how a network is structured, civil
society groups themselves will gain critical democratic experience
simply by participating in the network. Moreover, since IPs absorbed
large portions of program funds, USAID may want to explore allocating a
larger portion of the funds directly to the CSO networks in order to
enable them to more effectively implement activities.

This leads to the recommendation that USAID consider desegregating the
functions of the IPs into several different roles so that Nigerian
groups can take greater part in management of the effort. Capacity
remains a critical problem for some organizations, but others are
capable of providing management functions. An international or American
IP can manage the funding and provide important oversight, but
programming decisions, network management, and skills training can be
managed by Nigerian organizations in democratically structured
coalitions. The driving force in the networks should be leaders elected
from the organizations involved in the network.

### Identification of Local Partners

Given its focus on supporting civil society's role at the national
level, USAID can explore the possibility of working with two types of
partners that are capable of some measure of national influence. The
first type is the "great federations" of Nigerian civil society. These
include the trade unions; the Bar Association; the academics; business
associations; and special interests like the Federation of Muslim
Women's Associations of Nigeria (FOMWAN), or perhaps even some of the
major religious organizations like the Christian Association of Nigeria
or the Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). Each of
these groups was formed of their own initiative to forward the interests
of a particular sector of society, and most are democratically
structured.

The many existing coalitions of NGOs and CBOs constitute a second type
of potential partner. Most of these groups focus on localized issues,
face significant capacity problems, and typically do not have the
ability to impact national policy on their own. Collectively, however,
their impact could be greater. USAID and other donors have encouraged
the formation of coalitions of these groups around several issue areas
of national importance (e.g., election monitoring) but these have faced
great problems in coordination and management, especially in terms of
funding.

### Program Options

In light of the deep power imbalance working against civil society in
Nigeria, USAID could support a broad advocacy network that would
organize some of the great federations of Nigerian civil society
together with the smaller and issue-targeted NGO coalitions. Prime
candidates for such an advocacy network include the NLC, FOMWAN, the Bar
Association, NCWS, the Nigerian Union of Journalists, business
associations, and others. These large groups could be linked with some
of the targeted NGO coalitions already built with USAID assistance to
work on USAID/Nigeria's priority sectors of transparency, and
accountability, civic awareness, and possibly conflict resolution and
elections. See Figure 1 on page 30.

Another option is for USAID to focus on developing the advocacy capacity
of NGO coalitions it has supported for the past several years. USAID
could select one IP, for example a strong partner within PACE and one or
two coalitions of local CSOs (such as the Transition Monitoring Group or
the Zero Corruption Coalition). The IP will then support the coalitions
of local CSOs in the identification, development, and implementation of
one or two issue-driven activities that will affect legislation at the
national level. See Figure 2 on page 30.

The third option is for USAID to build a larger advocacy network along
the lines of option #1, but reduce the role of some of the more
politically difficult partners such as the NLC, to one of observation or
as an invited participant at critical events. In addition, NGO
coalitions could also feature more prominently in such a network if the
number of great federations were reduced and/or given observer status.
If necessary, more executive control could also be allotted to the IP,
depending upon the network membership and needs.

The Assessment Team recommends that regardless which of the above
choices are considered, USAID should integrate the following components
into the overall activity:

1)  Build the capacity of a training committee within the selected local
    coalitions to provide advocacy workshops and technical assistance to
    other coalitions of CSOs working to achieve objectives in other SOs
    (e.g., HIV/AIDS);

2)  Support a government liaison committee within the supported
    network(s); and

3)  Reactivate a media component to support civic awareness and advocacy
    goals.

# 1.0 Background 

## 1.1 Context 

After decades of struggling with military rule, Nigerian civil society
has emerged as a vibrant, battle-hardened force for change in the
nation's young democracy. Yet civil society in Nigeria developed in
relation to the beleaguered State. Thus the diversity and many
complexities that characterize Nigerian politics are reflected in its
dynamic civil society, including the contradictions that result in
seeking to build a democracy out of a polity that is not a single
coherent nation.

The Nigerian State began as a colonial imposition on a wide range of
polities existing within Nigeria's current boundaries, making it in many
ways a nation of nations. Several decades of irresponsible military
rule, after the exit of the colonialists, left the country as deeply
divided as it was prior to independence. Military leaders and their
civilian allies exploited ethnic differences to prolong their stay in
power and to capture the vast oil revenues that had been centralized
under state control since the 1970s. As the mismanaged economy
nose-dived with oil prices in the 1980s, the handful of elite with
access to the State grew fabulously rich while the number of Nigerians
living in poverty rose shockingly from a quarter of the population in
the 1970s to three-quarters of the population in the 1990s. The
elite---known as the "Big Men"---have massive networks of clients
dependent upon them for channels to state largesse.

Nigerian politics is primarily a game of Big Men seeking to recoup their
election investments and to expand their access to state resources; it
often has little to do with improving the lot of the vast majority of
Nigerians. The great promise of civil society for democratic development
in Nigeria, therefore, is that the sector as a whole has the potential
to reverse this growing political distance between the powerful elite
and the largely disenfranchised masses. Civil society's strength is in
preserving a plurality of aggregated interests to balance those of the
elite and to check the elite's excesses on specific issues on occasion.
The latter role, however, depends upon a unanimity among civil society
groups that is difficult to forge and even harder to maintain beyond the
political moment.

The political elite has long recognized both the promise and problems of
civil society, and since the 1960s they have used a combination of
repression and co-optation to bring the most powerful and representative
of these groups into the orbit of the state. Trade unions, for instance,
bear heavy state regulation and are partially dependent upon the state
for funds. Nonetheless, unions and other great associations like the Bar
Association fought military rule throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and
suffered as a result.

As these massive civil society groups were hobbled by military
interference, many Nigerian activists turned to a new type of
organization that began to proliferate in the late 1980s, the NGO. It is
important to remember that NGOs are one sub-category of CSOs. NGOs at
first were often small and structured undemocratically in that their
executives were not elected by the members of the organization or by the
populations they sought to serve. Yet NGOs offered services and skills
to replace those abandoned by the receding state, and provided critical
platforms for dissent against the military that international donors
could readily recognize and support.

Thus civil society in Nigeria has come to include a vast array of
associations playing an intermediary role between the State and its
citizens. These include trade unions; business associations;
community-based organizations (CBOs) such as town unions; professional
associations like the Bar; ethnic associations; religious institutions;
and the vast array of NGOs such as human rights groups, conflict
resolution NGOs, women's interests groups, health and education
organizations, development NGOs, and so on. CSOs "balance the strength
and influence of the state; they are supposed to protect citizens from
abuses of state power; they play the role of monitor and watchdog; they
embody the rights of citizens to freedom of expression and association;
and they are channels of popular participation in governance."[^1]
Moreover, the end of military rule in 1999 opened political space and
provoked a civil society renaissance. The older, massive, interest-based
associations like the trade unions and professional associations have
rebuilt their structures and reasserted their former dominance of the
political scene. Meanwhile, NGOs have proliferated across the country,
and many have begun the process of democratizing their own structures
and developing mechanisms of representation and accountability. Some
NGOs have also formed coalitions and networks to advance a variety of
issues.[^2]

Civil society has the potential to reverse the growing political
distance between the powerful elite and the largely disenfranchised
masses. However, CSOs are not of one mind on issues, nor do they speak
with one voice. CSOs represent issues from nearly all sides and speak
with a cacophony of interests and demands that overlap, compete, and/or
contradict one another. In this context, can CSOs bring the government
to reflect citizens' interest? Support for civil society's role in
building democracy in Nigeria thus raises three fundamental questions:

1.  How can civil society's meta-role in restoring the interests of the
    public on the priority agenda of the political elite be
    strengthened?

2.  How can the centrifugal forces among civil society groups be best
    managed so that coalitions advocating priority public issues can be
    maintained?

3.  How does the structural division within civil society between
    interest-based organizations and the NGOs impact USAID strategy for
    assisting civil society's role in building democracy in Nigeria?

USAID and other donors seeking to support the role of civil society
groups in building democracy in Nigeria face a daunting task. Given the
challenges of supporting civil society with a sharply reduced budget,
USAID has decided to focus its support in this sector in a manner that
develops the ability of civil society groups to conduct advocacy
(particularly in regard to transparency and accountability) and to build
civic awareness at the national level. With these goals in mind, the ARD
Assessment Team was asked to evaluate past USAID support for Nigerian
civil society and to make recommendations that identify opportunities
and appropriate modalities for the design and implementation of USAID's
2004-2009 civil society program.

## 1.2 Scope of Work and Methodology 

The essential objective of this assignment, as outlined in the Scope of
Work (SOW), was the completion of two interrelated tasks:

1.  An assessment of USAID's completed (2000-2002) and ongoing
    (2002-2004) portfolio of civil society activities; and

2.  Recommendations for the design and implementation of future civil
    society interventions (2004-2009).

The purpose of the assessment is to answer USAID's key questions
contained in the SOW through an analysis of USAID's past civil society
program in order to incorporate lessons learned into future programming.

The analytical and research methodology undertaken for the assessment
and future directions included the following complimentary efforts:

-   a literature review encompassing the documents as requested by
    USAID, as well as Nigerian publications and background reading from
    academic sources;

-   interviews with CSOs in Lagos, Pt. Harcourt, Kaduna, Kano, and
    Abuja;

-   interviews with donors and USAID staff;

-   a Future Directions for Civil Society Workshop with Abuja-based
    representatives from national-level CSOs and members of CSOs from
    different regions of Nigeria; and

-   a fully participatory, team-based approach to methodology
    development, problem solving, analysis and synthesis, and logistics.

The Assessment Team members had unique as well as overlapping and
complimentary skills and experiences; this contributed to making the
team approach a highly efficient, cross-fertilizing, and motivating mode
of operations. Both interview questions and workshop sessions were
derived from the original nine SOW questions, and included some
additional key interest areas as expressed by the USAID Mission.

The 44 CSOs participating in the research and analysis were very
diverse, and included CSOs that had not received USAID support. The
sampling included professional associations, federated structures,
faith-based organizations, sectorally focused CSOs, special interest
groups, and CSOs in regional and/or national networks. The Future
Directions Workshop used the "open space" and "marketplace"
participatory methodologies to gear three sessions specifically to USAID
needs and open up discussion on topics of interest to the 22
participating CSOs.

# 2.0 Assessment against Objectives 

The Assessment Team reviewed the following USAID-sponsored activities to
determine whether they met their objectives:

-   Partnership for Advocacy and Civic Empowerment (PACE);

-   Labor Advancing Democracy, Development, and Economic Reform
    (LADDER);

-   John Hopkins University/Center for Communications Programs
    (JHU/CCP);

-   Promoting Stakeholder Participation in Economic Transition
    (PROSPECT); and

-   The Center for Development and Population Activities' Creating an
    Enabling Environment for Women's Effective Participation program
    (ENABLE).

In the activities where measurable impact was not achieved, obstacles to
their achievement are identified. The results of this assessment will
lead to an analysis of lessons learned in order to provide sound
recommendations for USAID's future civil society program.

## 2.1 Ongoing Activities

### 2.1.1 Partnership for Advocacy and Civic Empowerment

The PACE consortium (2002-2004), implemented by Global Rights: Partners
for Justice (formerly International Human Rights Law Group), the
Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), and the Center for
Development and Populations Activities (CEDPA), has worked toward
results in four focus areas:

1.  elections and electoral reform;

2.  constitutional reform;

3.  transparency and accountability; and

4.  conflict management.

PACE identified the crosscutting themes of women's participation and
organizational and technical capacity building, and aimed to integrate
them into the overall program. The Assessment Team found that PACE
achieved solid results in the areas of elections monitoring and civic
education, voter registration, and conflict prevention and mitigation
during the election period.

PACE supported the training of 2,800 monitors and deployed 4,620
monitors in 19 of Nigeria's 36 states. In four of the five critical
states identified by USAID as the primary focus for conflict management
interventions, the 2003 elections recorded no major incidence of
violence. Community mobilization against violence encouraged voter
vigilance and mitigated destabilizing factors. Additionally, PACE
increased the participation of women in the elections. Although women
did not reach the goal of representation within the Nigerian population
or as a percentage of the voting population, the number of women in the
State Houses of Assembly almost doubled and there were significant gains
in the House of Representatives.

The shift to the elections focus, which included a conflict component,
resulted in delayed implementation of two of the four focus areas. Much
of the work on transparency and accountability shifted from legislative
issues to focus on transparency in the conduct of the general elections.
PACE was unable to deliver meaningful results in the areas of
constitutional reform, transparency, and accountability, as well as the
crosscutting theme of capacity building.

One exception to this overall finding is the efforts of PACE working
with the National Assembly to pass a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
and a "Whistleblowers" bill. The FOI bill was the first bill sponsored
by a CSO since the restoration of democratic rule in 1999. The FOI Act
nearly passed in 2002. However, it was stopped on procedural
technicalities in its final reading in the House. Then on April 12, more
than 80 percent of incumbents in the National Assembly were voted out of
office. PACE responded by reconstituting the civil society coalitions
supporting these bills and has resubmitted them to the new legislature.

Results were not achieved in the area of constitutional reform, again
for reasons beyond the PACE consortium's control. The American Embassy
requested that PACE not focus on constitutional reform during the
national elections. The urgency of the election work required that many
key organizational capacity-building activities be delayed. Weak gains
were made in the area of capacity building of CSOs and networks as less
resources and time were committed to this area.

### 2.1.2 Promoting Stakeholder Participation in Economic Transition

PROSPECT (2002-2004), implemented by Management Systems International
(MSI), aims to identify and prioritize stakeholder participation in key
economic policy reform; and to improve capacity of selected economic
stakeholder organizations to participate in economic policy dialogue.
PROSPECT has set the groundwork to achieve these results through an
assessment that selected five CSOs and provided some capacity building
to these organizations. Additionally, PROSPECT has assisted in the
research and development of reports related to economic reform.
According to the Anpez Center for Environment and Development (ACFED),
PROSPECT's capacity-building workshop improved their internal governance
and organizational structure. However, the Assessment Team believes that
the nine remaining months of the PROSPECT activity is insufficient time
to achieve results and measurable impact. Based on interviews with USAID
Strategic Objective (SO) teams and PROSPECT staff, this time constraint
was a result of absent activity leadership and a one-year delay in
approval of the annual plan and related disbursements.

### 2.1.3 Labor Advancing Democracy, Development, and Economic Reform

LADDER (2002-2004), implemented by the Solidarity Center (SC), focuses
on four objectives in its work with labor unions:

-   Strengthen the capacity of selected labor unions to play a more
    effective role in public policy development, implementation, and
    oversight of public institutions;

-   Increase gender equity in selected labor unions;

-   Assist labor unions in the promotion of free and fair elections and
    in the mitigation of conflict;

-   Increase institutional and financial viability of select labor
    unions.

The SC is on track and has made impact at the national level, especially
in the area of elections monitoring and peace building.

The SC promoted greater gender equity through workshops and conferences
that resulted in the development of a sub-group in both federations of
women leaders, called the National Women's Commission. The Commission
developed gender policy for labor unions and is currently working on
action plans to implement and monitor gender policies in all labor
organizations. In light of the gender policy, the Nigerian Labor
Congress (NLC) has increased the percentage women of its staff to 30%.
In addition, the NLC elected its first woman to national office as
National Auditor of the NLC.

In the area of economic reform policy, the SC is assisting in the
development of a simplified manual to explain economic policy to labor
unions. The SC is also active in the development and advocacy for
individual economic policies, including fuel policies and pension
issues. Capacity-building activities address internal democracy and
issues through workshops and fora on gender equity, information sharing,
and consensus building. According to the SC, the LADDER activity
improved the internal communication system of several labor unions
through more effective collection and dissemination of relevant
information. However, several local organizations believe that much more
needs to be done to promote internal democracy of labor organizations
such as the NLC.

## 2.2 Completed Activities

### 2.2.1 John Hopkins University/Center for Communications Programs

The media activity implemented by JHU/CCP (1997-2002) worked to fulfill
the following objectives:

-   Educate women about democratic participation;

-   Empower women to participate in politics at the local, state, and
    national levels;

-   Educate women about their fundamental human rights;

-   Facilitate and motivate advocacy on key reform issues; and

-   Enhance civil society's participation in governance and public
    debate.

Based on MSI's evaluation of the media activity, JHU-sponsored
activities were successful in meeting their objectives, and
recommendations were made for future media activities.

JHU/CCP worked with several Nigerian NGOs to use media-based programming
as a means of achieving several DG objectives, including women's
empowerment and advocacy. The program was implemented in four distinct
phases and evolved with the easing of restrictions on conducting
explicit pro-democracy activities. Many CSOs such as the National
Association of Women Journalists played a pivotal role both in the
success and the sustainability of the program. JHU assisted in
increasing the capacity of local NGOs to improve and expand coverage of
women's issues in the media as well as in assisting other NGOs in
accessing the media and establishing networks among grantees and other
NGOs. According to MSI's evaluation, the activity would have been even
more successful if JHU/CCP had focused more attention on building the
institutional capacity of the CSOs with which they worked.

### 2.2.2 Creating an Enabling Environment for Women's Effective Participation

ENABLE (1998-2001), implemented by CEDPA, had the following activity
objectives:

-   Strengthen civil society to increase democratic participation;

-   Promote increased respect for fundamental human rights and the
    rights of women;

-   Increase women's political participation and empowerment through the
    agency of "100 Women Group."

Based on CEDPA's self-assessment, CEDPA reached their objectives and
supported civil society's contribution to sustainable democracy and good
governance in seven states. The activity's nine key CSO partners worked
to promote women's representation and engagement in governance through
the use of multiple approaches including workshops, television, radio,
publications, drama, and advocacy. Media efforts---including over 256
radio and 64 television programs, as well as the dissemination of
thousands of publications---is estimated to have reached approximately
two million people. CEDPA's efforts contributed to increased political
participation by marginalized groups in the following elections.

## 2.3 Conclusion

Based on the USAID documents and interviews with Nigerian CSOs, the
LADDER and PACE activities were successful in contributing to the
achievement of USAID's strategic goal of "Transition to Democratic
Civilian Governance Sustained." In the context of the LADDER activity,
trade and labor unions have shown significant ability to consistently
influence government policy, primarily concerning the pricing of
petroleum products and workers' wages. Through PACE, a network of
coalitions managed to get the FOI Act through several readings in the
National Assembly. The progress of this advocacy process shows some
success, despite falling short of the final objective. Both LADDER and
PACE activities achieved significant impact in the areas of elections
monitoring, civic education, and conflict management. Many CSOs that
work with PROSPECT are involved in cost sharing, an element that
promotes commitment and sustainability. However, given a one-year delay
in implementation, the PROSPECT activity has been less successful in
contributing to USAID's SO.

# 3.0 Findings and Lessons Learned 

## 3.1 Overview

Few of the Nigerian organizations that USAID supported in the past have
demonstrated the power or capacity to influence the national government
on par with their civil society counterparts in South Africa, Kenya, or
Ghana. However, the Nigerian legislature and to some extent the
judiciary have been notably more accessible to civil society groups than
the executive has so far been, although overall many officials remain
reluctant to recognize a substantive role for civil society. Only the
trade unions under the mantle of the NLC have shown the ability to
influence government policy consistently, primarily in terms of the
minimum wage and the price of fuel. NLC strikes forcing the government
to revise these policies have gained much attention in the press, but
the unions have also sought to regularize their relationship with the
government through bargaining and improved expertise in economic policy.
USAID-sponsored coalitions of NGOs through PACE managed to get a FOI Act
through several readings in the National Assembly, but the Act remains
frozen in committee. USAID-sponsored election monitoring networks were
effective in providing elections oversight and defusing local
election-related conflicts, but generally did not succeed in influencing
policies regarding the electoral system. These setbacks are less the
fault of USAID's hardworking CSO grantees, however, and more a function
of the elite character of Nigerian politics. Nigerian political outcomes
at the national level are determined primarily by the clashes and
bargaining among the Big Men at all levels who are not generally
interested in the priorities of their formal constituents.

These limits on the impact of civil society activity at the national
level pose some challenges for USAID objectives, especially in light of
dwindling budgets. Most of the success stories from the grantees are
found at the local level, particularly in terms of election monitoring
and election-related education. Yet USAID's focus is shifting to
national advocacy, where organizations such as the trade unions among
USAID grantees have had substantial influence. A review of these lessons
learned filtered through USAID priority issues offers some direction for
addressing this dilemma.

The Assessment Team finds the current civil society objectives still to
be valid. However, USAID's decreased budget for civil society activities
requires that the Mission sharply target its resources and increase SO
program synergy. The Assessment Team believes that the Mission's Country
Strategic Plan (CSP) for 2004-2009, which focuses support to the ability
of civil society groups to conduct advocacy---particularly in regard to
transparency and accountability---and to build civic awareness at the
national level, is a reasonable and achievable goal as long as
limitations of civil society impact are kept in mind.

## 3.2 Elections

Given the intense USAID focus and subsequent flow of resources to
support this objective over the 2002-2003 period, it is not surprising
that work in this sector achieved much of the intended goals in terms of
election education, monitoring, and conflict mitigation. Yet these
successes came with a significant cost, changing the focus and timing of
PACE and LADDER's non-election objectives. Both PACE and LADDER agreed
that the sudden focus on elections affected the other objectives of
their activities. Although the shift of focus created difficulties for
implementing partners (IPs) with local CSOs and delays in work plan,
budget, and performance monitoring plan approval, elections activities
achieved the ultimate result of an improved election context with higher
participation and decreased post-election violence.

PACE focused the majority of its efforts and resources toward supporting
the 2003 national elections. Through PACE, USAID contributed to the
success of Nigeria's 2003 national elections and relatively peaceful
transition to a civilian government. Capacity-building assistance to
CSOs fostered their ability to support and participate in the electoral
processes. Increased engagement of CSOs with electoral bodies, notably
the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), contributed toward
improved electoral administration, increased domestic monitoring, and
reduced electoral violence. The absence of widespread violence in the
2003 elections was due in part to conflict mitigation activities
supported by USAID. This was especially the case in volatile states
where USAID supported civil society engagement of security agencies and
community-based initiatives for conflict mitigation. USAID's assistance
for voter education and coordinated voter-mobilization campaign covered
over 45% of the country's population.

USAID-supported CSOs engaged the National Assembly to advocate for
electoral reforms. However, few electoral reforms have occurred.
Specific emphasis was made to increase voter turnout among women, the
number of women and women-focused organizations monitoring the
elections, and the number of women elected and appointed to public
office. Assistance to women's organizations resulted in political
parties expanding support for women. Additionally, through a voter
registration exercise, the number of voters registered in 2003 increased
by close to three million voters (or 5%) compared to the 1999 level. The
shift in focus to elections affected the PACE consortium's other
objectives, especially in the area of transparency and accountability
and capacity building.

The LADDER activity assisted labor unions to play a significant role in
elections monitoring during the election and conflict mitigation in the
post-election period. The SC strengthened the capacity of approximately
4,000 domestic monitors and ensured that every state of Nigeria was
included in the monitoring plan. Labor unions were trained in how to
effectively monitor and report on electoral manipulation. In the
post-election period, the SC played a key role in the areas of conflict
management and mediation. The SC assisted the monitors in compiling
information on election mismanagement and presenting the information to
tribunals. This outlet for post-election participation decreased the
likelihood of mass protests. Although the focus on the election and
post-election activities did not seem to significantly divert attention
from other objectives, they will need more time to achieve desired
results.

The late start on planning by the donor community and the CSOs and much
confusion among Nigerian election officials regarding election processes
and resources made the environment for election-related programming very
challenging. Information, education, and communications messages and
materials need to be developed in advance of elections events to avoid
last-minute logistical problems and decisions that increase costs and
reduce effectiveness of voter education and mobilization activities.

## 3.3 Relationships 

### 3.3.1 USAID and IPs

USAID grantees expressed a general satisfaction with the thrust of
USAID's support for civil society in Nigeria, but many expressed a range
of concerns regarding the structure and content of the relationships
among USAID, its IPs, and the networks.

In terms of USAID's role in the process, two chief criticisms surfaced.
The first encompasses a range of concerns that could be summed up as a
tension over civil society autonomy and leadership. Depending upon the
organization and the issue in question, a number of groups---including
the IPs but among the networks as well---expressed concern that USAID
had too much influence regarding setting organizational objectives and
related work. Under each organization's cooperative agreement, USAID has
"substantial involvement" responsibilities, including approving annual
work plans. In general, groups acknowledged USAID's contractual role and
that it had a right to its own priorities, but that once the general
objectives of projects were negotiated, some groups felt that USAID
should refrain from changing them. Some of these frustrations resulted
from USAID's midstream shift to election issues in 2002, but other
projects also reported some frustrations over autonomy.

One element of these autonomy concerns centered on USAID's communication
policy with its grantees. USAID insisted that all communications from
grantees be channeled through their respective IPs. This created two
problems:

1.  Grantees had to rely upon their IP to forward their concerns to
    USAID, even though the IP might not have shared the same interests
    as the grantee on the matter or have had the technical expertise to
    properly convey the issue (the latter was particularly an issue
    within PACE).

2.  USAID occasionally broke its own rules and communicated directly
    with grantees, but then insisted that the grantee still communicate
    through their IP.

These breaches raised concerns of unequal treatment and left some
grantees feeling under-represented in the network.

On the other hand, USAID faces the problem that some of its grantees do
in fact need to be monitored. Several of the organizations performed far
less than they promised, and the constant concern remains that some
groups were primarily "contract chasing" rather than providing optimal
services or activities. Several of the grantees expressed doubts about
the credibility of other organizations in the networks, and even called
for USAID to take more of a hands-on role.

A second criticism raised regarding USAID was that its grant-planning
process proved particularly burdensome. For instance, groups lost five
to six months (or more) of 2002-2003 working with USAID to prepare for
monitoring the 2003 elections. The SC, on the other hand, was able to
arrange its agreement with USAID within a week, indicating that some
measure of streamlining is possible. Critical elements in the SC's
relative efficiency in this regard were its larger staff and the fact
that its partner groups are the trade unions, which are themselves large
structures capable of producing reports and other data fairly quickly.

Different IPs have different views on whether Mission support and
managerial oversight contributed to effective implementation. These
views depended upon their previous experiences with funding agencies.
Those that have worked with bilateral organizations were comfortable
with the support, and those that had a history limited to multilateral
and foundation funders found USAID to be demanding. However, most groups
interviewed said they would like to have more regular contact with their
USAID counterparts.

Regarding the IP consortium members, one fundamental problem undermining
network efficiency is that large portions of the funds allocated to the
IPs are absorbed by the IPs themselves, rather than enabling the
grantees to do the targeted work.

The PACE consortium had a number of unique issues to address given its
structure of three equal implementing partners, with only CEDPA having
management responsibilities. The other members commended CEDPA for its
great efforts to keep harmony and efficiency in the consortium, but both
Global Justice and IDASA felt that the different functional expertise
and orientations of the three partners kept the consortium as focused on
internal management issues as on the substantive projects. In addition
to the communication problems mentioned above, the different interests
of the organizations created tensions over programming priorities and
funds management. CEDPA was responsible, as leader of the consortium,
for collecting data from all partners to meet USAID's accounting
requirements. This was not an easy task, because consortium partners did
not always respond in a collaborative manner to requests for
expenditures and financial projections as they might have with USAID. On
the other hand, some of CEDPA's partners felt that CEDPA had too much
control.

USAID selected the IPs primarily because their specific talents and
skills matched the proposed activity. Their technical skills, however,
are applied less within the context of the administrative demands that
make up their key roles as IPs. IPs have thus primarily served as
intermediary bodies that have expertise in meeting USAID monitoring,
evaluation, and accounting requirements. The IPs' functional expertise
(e.g., in economic policy or human rights) became of secondary
importance to their network management skills, which was not their
primary strength, although some brought more experience than others and
all learned on the job. The IPs in turn built their consortiums more on
the strength of having a common source of funding rather than a common
interest among the selected CSOs, most notably in regard to PACE's
partners. 

### 3.3.2 CSOs and IPs

Regarding CSO and IP partnerships, many USAID-supported CSOs could not
trace themselves to their USAID-funded consortiums, like PACE. Most do
not describe their activities with any knowledge of or links to USAID
project indicators. Furthermore, there is little evidence of networking
between CSOs within the consortium, such as documentation of meetings
between network members and IPs.

Overall, most CSOs engaged in IP activities require more technical
assistance to achieve the desired project results. Some coalitions have
great problems in coordination and management, especially in terms of
funding. Often the coordinating secretariat of the coalition itself
becomes a CSO, creating problems of competition and funds management
with the members.

## 3.4 CSO Capacity-building Activities and Needs

A near-universal theme among USAID grantees' assessments of their own
activities was the need for assistance in building their organizations'
capacities to do their work. Poverty, infrastructure problems, and needs
for specific skills frequently limited the capacity of groups to achieve
desired goals. Most of these groups looked to USAID for some help in
this regard.

It is interesting to note that many local CSOs are concerned with their
own sustainability. Several CSOs requested assistance on independent
financing in order to sustain activities beyond the period of donor
funding. Additionally, few CSOs interviewed have integrated transparency
and accountability into their activities.

The three IPs have had limited progress in introducing skills or
leadership that did not already exist in Nigerian civil society. The IPs
have instead served more as grant managers, with expertise in meeting
USAID accounting requirements and oversight. They built their coalitions
as much on the strength of having funding as on the fact that the
network shared a common interest in the targeted issue. IDASA brought
experience in conflict resolution training---although it also relied on
local expertise---and MSI brought a useful self-assessment process,
while Global Justice has recently trained partners in a "report card"
assessment of local officials. Overall, however, the IPs have spent the
majority of their time managing the relationships with USAID and the
specific network in question. Some of the IPs made promises to the
networks that were not fulfilled, and there was little follow-up to
ensure sustainability of the projects or to determine if subsequent
actions were necessary once the primary project goals were completed.

In order to provide activities in advocacy, transparency and
accountability, and civic awareness, these organizations share several
capacity needs:

-   **Management consulting**: Many of the organizations in the networks
    expressed a desire for consulting assistance in the management of
    their own organizations (e.g., how personnel decisions could best be
    handled, finances managed, and clerical work best distributed).

-   **Revenue-producing activities**: Many of the groups have
    interesting ideas on how their organizations can arrange business
    activities on the side to produce increased revenues, and they all
    could use additional guidance on the matter.

-   **Accounting assistance**: Some groups expressed the need for
    accounting skills overall, and training in USAID accounting
    practices and requirements in particular.

-   **Budgetary skills**: Transparency and accountability work in
    particular demands intricate budgetary knowledge in order to "follow
    the money." Even the trade unions expressed a need for assistance in
    this regard, as did several groups with an invitation to join
    President Obasanjo's due diligence officer in monitoring government
    procurement.

Civic awareness and advocacy needs centered primarily on developing
relationships with the media and with targeted government offices. The
media itself has critical skill and infrastructure needs that could be
addressed, and its links with civil society groups have gone largely
unattended since the JHU project ended.

Advocacy with government officials, however, typically requires an asset
many civil society groups do not have: power. The power of a good idea
can sometimes open doors in government for some organizations, but given
the poor credibility of the election system in Nigeria, most groups
cannot rely on public pressure to move favored policies forward. The
support of formal constituents was not and still is not the primary
determinant of how most nominally elected officials attained their
offices. The trade unions' power to bring the economy to a halt is the
principal reason that its advocacy has been the most successful, and
when union strikes are unable to be sustained or remain consistent,
union-advocated policies or issues fall to the wayside.

Regarding sustainability, one critical finding was that the
democratically structured groups representing a particular interest
sector (the great federations as well as some of the NGOs and CBOs)
tended to continue the implementation and development of projects even
after USAID funding ceased. In contrast, groups and coalitions that
provided specific expertise or services (primarily NGOs) tended to work
only when donor funds were available. Projects would cease when funds
dried up, and the NGOs would wait until more funds arrived or would move
to new donor-supported projects.

## 3.5 Participation and Women's and Youth Political Empowerment

Findings on how CSOs supported broad-based participation were reviewed
to better link common concerns to future national advocacy efforts.
Documentation did not provide detailed information on the rates and
quality of participation by the populations in the CSO activity areas.
However, interviews and the Assessment Team's combined experience in
Nigeria generated some important considerations regarding support to
participation and its potential for national influence.

The CSOs that determine their own issues, find funding outside of
donors, are membership structured, have internal democratic processes,
and include a livelihoods element have the most consistent and most
broadly based rates of participation. This includes CBOs that focus on
localized issues and nationally federated structures. In some cases,
these types of CSOs have implemented innovative approaches for
influencing national policy and legislation. For example, after
conducting participatory rural appraisals, some environmental CSOs in
the Niger Delta region successfully sought funding from Shell Oil and
through E-mails and letters gained national and international support
for these popularly held concerns. A local CSO initiative on
environmental education was brought to the attention of a national
decision maker in the education sector and ended up influencing national
policy. Another CSO created two boards. One is a functioning board to
guide the organization, and the second board is made up of public
figures that help the CSO to gain access to and influence state and
national law and policy makers. These approaches are replicable and
deserve attention under the advocacy focus of the new CSO programming.

CSO interviews and a review of activities indicate that ensuring
participation by women and youth requires a direct and targeted effort,
as the larger activities do not "naturally" address obstacles to their
participation. For example, PACE's assistance to women's organizations
resulted in political parties expanding support for women (e.g., waiving
registration fees for women candidates). Likewise, the LADDER activity
undertook a specific effort to develop gender equity in selected labor
institutions. The African Center for Democratic Governance (AFRIGOV)
advocated passing legislation to have Al Majarris (an unemployed and
under-educated youth in Kaduna) integrated into the educational system.
[^3] This does not suggest a women or youth only component for future
activities; it indicates that all activities need to make better effort
to address those obstacles and create incentives that support
participation by youth and women.

## 3.6 Synergy

The CSP highlights the importance of synergy among the entire SO
programs. Interviews with various SO teams indicated a range of
engagement with CSOs and attention to women and youth. The health sector
largely targets women and children and works with CSOs to successfully
implement grassroots outreach for prevention, treatment, and public
education. The economic development efforts partner with government
institutions. Unfortunately, most state institutions under-represent and
under-address the concerns of civil society, youth, and women.

The Assessment Team noted that synergy support for advocacy and
transparency and accountability needs wider Mission attention. USAID's
interpretations of its own budget categories also occasionally stifled
synergy among civil society activities. Transition Monitoring Group
(TMG), for instance, was prevented from taking IDASA funds for election
violence prevention because TMG was already receiving assistance. In
other cases, synergy was identified when activities are co-funded by
SOs. Synergy needs to move beyond co-funding and be supported by
organizational practices and incentives.

Synergy can be supported at many levels, from efforts at the activity
level to supportive coordination practices within USAID. Findings from
activities-level synergy research note that a livelihoods component,
complimented by a limited set of additional objectives, is a very potent
and successful approach. Examples of such approaches follow under
Section 4.4.

## 3.7 Enabling Environment and Donor Coordination 

The Constitution of Nigeria creates the legal rights and duties of civil
society in terms of governance and development of the nation. National
policy implementation of these laws, however, has not seen the same
spirit of partnership. Broad civil society gains and consolidation have
yet to occur. However, relative to many donor development activities,
the donor budgets and support for civil society as a functioning aspect
of an emerging democracy remains low. These budgets and supports do not
correlate with the status of CSOs in Nigeria's democracy. In addition,
donor funding is less than 4% of Nigeria's national economy. Low levels
of donor funding create a particular challenge in terms of donors being
able to leverage government. This has significance regarding improving
the enabling environment for a vibrant and thriving civil society.

Donor coordination on democracy and governance (DG) has been largely
episodic (e.g., coordination on elections). However, the coordination
around elections proved to be effective in terms of donor leverage and
focusing CSO efforts. The Assessment Team was unable to find a set of
"donor reference tools," (e.g., lack of a legitimate Poverty Reduction
Strategic Plan). The United Nations Development Program is finalizing a
governance paper intended to guide donor DG coordination. Donors and
development partners do not yet have a coordinated strategy for their
support to Nigeria's civil society. Such a strategy is critical to
ensure that scarce resources are allocated efficiently, to prevent
redundancy, to minimize uncreative competition among civil society
recipients over the funds, and to pass lessons learned by one donor on
to the others.

## 3.8 Future Directions Workshop Findings 

Outcomes from the Future Directions Workshop provide nuances and some
divergences to the findings from the interviews and literature review.
These workshop findings express the views and experiences of a wide
range of CSOs and were derived spontaneously and independently of the
assessment focus questions through open space methodology.

For example, CSOs do not view civic education as a separate activity,
but as a methodology to enhance all areas of knowledge regarding rights
and responsibilities under a democratic system. This awareness is
targeted to specific concerns (i.e., rice growers' access to
fertilizer), or broader concerns (i.e., access to information with
regards to government budget allocations).

CSOs had a number of issue areas they are supporting in their work; they
believe these are critical issues regarding the future of democracy and
development in Nigeria. These issues are:

-   the future of youth,

-   the rights and representation of women,

-   conflict,

-   special interest group rights,

-   the environment,

-   transparency and accountability of government, and

-   HIV/AIDS.

The highest priority was youth---particularly as it linked with
conflict---followed by women, then transparency and accountability, with
the environment ranking last. There was no clear consensus on the
priority given to HIV/AIDS. However, many said that this issue requires
civil society leadership such as religious leaders, school
administrations, and teachers and parents in order to be properly and
fully addressed. In other words, the government role in HIV/AIDS was not
detailed as central to addressing the problem. All participants agreed
that the environment was extremely important for the quality of life of
Nigerians, but that this ranks lower than other concerns because there
is a lack of understanding regarding how it is linked to other
development concerns.

As with civic education, advocacy was not seen as a separate activity
for the successful CSO or CSO network. It is seen as another method by
which to achieve the desired results. The understanding of advocacy and
its various methods was high and well articulated, whereas concrete
definitions and examples of engagement regarding transparency and
accountability were low and generalized.

It should be noted that many of the workshop findings dovetail with
USAID's interest in transparency and accountability, advocacy on
specific issues, and national impact. However, the CSOs do not see
themselves as prioritizing budget and financial transparency and
accountability above other concerns. Furthermore, participants told
stories and expressed concerns on backlash as it relates to pushing for
government transparency and accountability. Divergences between USAID
foci and CSO interests do not outweigh the areas of overlap; these
provide sufficient opportunity for partnership and success under the new
directions.

## 3.9 Conflict

The potential for conflict in Nigeria remains high. USAID-supported CSOs
have worked to mitigate conflict in the post-election period. Many local
CSOs emphasized that transparency and accountability interventions will
more likely increase conflict between the government or other powerful
parties and CSOs. Therefore, there is a need to merge conflict-related
activities into transparency and accountability activities in order to
reduce, rather than increase, this potential for conflict.

Additionally, the demilitarization process is far from completed. CSOs
activities have helped to mitigate the militaristic legacies (e.g.,
CSOs' efforts have opened up a space for dialogue between citizens and
the State). Donors tend to overlook the continuing role of civil society
in dismantling the legacy of military rule.

## 3.10 Indicators

The transitional CSP and 2004-2009 CSP indicators selected for
monitoring program implementation and measuring progress towards results
have differing levels of applicability. Of the different DG
measurements, the elections indicators ("number of reported electoral
irregularities," "number of reported infractions," and "numbers and
percentages of voters correctly registered") are most easily captured
and best indicate progress. The indicators for transparency and
accountability are the most removed from the planned and implemented
activities. Review of government budgets by CSOs is a long way from the
law enforcement suggested by the indicator "numbers of corrupt officials
prosecuted." The indicator "citizen awareness of public officials' roles
and responsibilities" will be difficult to measure without a rather
expensive survey instrument. The conflict indicators need a baseline to
show gains. The advocacy indicators will make use of an advocacy index
and capture "the numbers of targeted policy reflecting CSO input." The
second indicator is quite reasonable; however, the advocacy index is an
unwieldy tool that uses abstract mathematical weights to measure real
actions. A more appropriate and realistic milestone indicator for
advocacy should be adopted. Milestone indicators measure gains in
process, which is essential in capturing progress in the areas of
advocacy and transparency and accountability.

# 4.0 Future Directions and Recommendations

## 4.1 Future Relationships

### 4.1.1 USAID and CSOs

The tight window for civil society access to national policy has
expanded somewhat since 1999 as democratization has brought more actors
into the policymaking process and other levels of government have begun
the long struggle to wrest power from the presidency. Nonetheless, the
window remains narrow, and only the groups who are able to impact the
interests of the political elite in some manner will be able to see
their groups' issues on the national agenda.

Thus, if national advocacy is the centerpiece of USAID's 2004-2009 civil
society strategy, then several paths forward, based on the experience of
USAID's grantees in 2001-2003, appear most likely to enable civil
society groups to succeed.

First consideration must be given to the power imbalance between civil
society and the State. Civil society has made important gains in the
political space that has opened since 1999, but these groups remain
largely marginal players at the national level. Legal frameworks are
developing but weak. Elected officials are only remotely accountable to
their formal constituents, and Nigerian politics remains dominated by
the power struggles among the Big Men. Thus the typical tools of civil
society influence---legal challenges and raising public awareness
through issue advocacy---are for the short term likely to be useful for
incremental change at best. Such change is still very important and
deserving of support, but civil society groups must also be able to tip
the balances among the Big Men in order to have some influence. The
trade unions have the powerful tool of strike actions, but these blunt
instruments are difficult to organize, sustain, or focus on more than a
handful of issues.

In the larger picture of Nigerian political development, the real
solution to the dominance of the Big Men is the development of a stable
balance of power among them, with most of their struggles fought within
the contours of the political system, primarily through the vehicle of
formal political parties. Thus the critical "next step" for the nation's
political development is the rise of a viable, loyal political
opposition movement, as has happened in African nations further down the
democratic road such as South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana. Without such an
opposition, voters do not have a viable alternative at the ballot box,
which is in part why Nigerians supported the military in the past. A
strong opposition is the most important vehicle for transparency and
accountability in any democracy because it is an institutional actor
with great interest in exposing the corrupt practices of the party in
office and in balancing its powers.

An essential link in such a movement will be with civil society groups.
As governing and viable opposition parties battle for voter support,
they will have to produce policies that better serve the interests of
the public, and civil society groups will play important roles in
informing the public---and government---whether those interests are
being served.

This ideal competition among the Nigerian political parties to woo the
favor of civil society groups and, by extension, the voters, has begun
to take some shape in national politics, but only in rudimentary forms
lacking the deeper substance of serious public service. In the short
term, therefore, civil society groups have only one remaining solution
to correct the power imbalance between them and the Big Man-dominated
State: they must build broad coalitions among themselves and with actors
in political society, particularly the political parties. Some groups
may have limited success on their own at the national level based on the
strength of their skills and good ideas, such as in regard to
constitutional reform. However, as the fate of the FOI Act has so far
demonstrated, politicians view such initiatives as far secondary
priorities compared to efforts to capture state largesse.

Technical support to improve the capacity of civil society groups to
engage in issue advocacy and other activities that foster incremental
changes remains central to any sound democracy promotion strategy, but
it must be viewed through the lens of how they impact the political
power structure of policymakers. Without vast financial resources, civil
society groups must turn to the numbers of people they can represent,
sensitize, and mobilize. Thus USAID support should move into the realm
of building relationships among civil society groups and between civil
society and the State, particularly in terms of the political parties.

## 4.2 Building and Managing the Networks

Central to building effective coalitions among civil society groups will
be the structures chosen for these networks. In considering how to
structure its networks, USAID should weigh not only the impacts such
networks have on their target policies or communities, but also the fact
that the participation of these groups themselves in the networks can
serve USAID's DG goals. Depending upon how a network is structured,
civil society groups themselves will gain critical democratic experience
simply by participating in the network. Thus, networks based on
democratic structures and principles should be a high priority.

The first step that USAID should consider is to disaggregate the
functions of the IPs into several different roles so that Nigerian
groups can take greater part in management of the effort. Capacity
remains a critical problem for some organizations, but others are
capable of providing management functions, such as leading trade unions,
the Bar Association, some of the business associations, or (in some
contexts) think tanks like the Development Research and Projects Center
in Kano or NGOs like the Center for Democracy and Development. An
international or American IP can manage the funding and overall
activity, provide an important oversight role, and communicate with
USAID, but programming decisions, network management, and skills
training can be managed by Nigerian organizations in democratically
structured coalitions. IPs can play advisory roles in these coalitions
and oversee their work, while local consultants can be hired for skills
training and management development. The driving force in the networks
should be leaders elected from the organizations involved in the
network. In addition, network partners can advise and train each other
on a wide range of skills and activities. In the first stages of the
activity, USAID, the IP, and the network should define roles and
responsibilities in a collaborative manner, such as through a
stakeholder workshop.

In addition to democratically structured coalitions, USAID is left with
two possible types of partners to choose for these coalitions that are
capable of some measure of national influence.

### 4.2.1 Great Federations of Nigerian Civil Society

The first type of possible coalition partners is the great federations
of Nigerian civil society. These are dominated by the trade unions under
the aegis of the NLC. They also include the other longstanding
associations that have dominated critical sectors of the economy and
society for a generation:

-   the Bar Association,

-   the academics (ASUU),

-   business associations (NACCIMA, MAN, and others), and

-   special interests like the Federation of Muslim Women's Associations
    of Nigeria (FOMWAN) or perhaps even some of the major religious
    organizations like the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) or the
    Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA).

Each of these groups was formed of their own initiative to forward the
interests of a particular sector of society, and most are democratically
structured.

Because of their size, these groups help to address the power imbalance
between civil society and government, and the prevalence of democratic
structures helps to address concerns over sustainability and civil
education through democratic participation. Yet working with these
interest-based groups would pose some challenges for USAID. First, their
size makes these groups powerful, which means they are politicized to
some extent. Second, because these organizations represent specific
sectors of society or communities, USAID support for them risks
association with these interests.

### 4.2.2 NGOs and CBOs

The many coalitions of NGOs and CBOs are the second type of partners.
Most of these groups focus on localized issues, face significant
capacity problems, and typically do not have the ability to impact
national policy by themselves. USAID and other donors have encouraged
the formation of coalitions of these groups around several issue areas
of national importance (e.g., election monitoring) but these have faced
great problems in coordination and management, especially in terms of
funding.

In addition, all the networks interviewed indicated the critical
importance of personal relationships in the effective management of the
networks. Work with the trade unions in particular required that the IP
have a longstanding relationships with union activists, but all the
networks were facilitated when groups with strong personal ties to
others in the networks took leadership roles. USAID should consider any
future IPs in this regard and consider supporting Nigerian groups for
leadership roles that already have built ties and good reputations with
others in the networks.

## 4.3 Sustainability

One critical finding in terms of sustainability was that the
democratically structured groups representing a particular interest
sector (the great federations as well as some of the NGOs and CBOs)
tended to continue the implementation and development of projects even
after USAID funding ceased. In contrast, groups and coalitions that
provided specific expertise or services (primarily NGOs) tended to work
only when donor funds were available. Projects would cease when funds
dried up, and the NGOs would wait until more funds arrived or would move
to new donor-supported projects.

Given the current limits of USAID assistance, these findings indicate
that democratic groups serving the interests of specific constituencies
are more likely to build on the initiatives that USAID provides well
past the specific confines of supported projects. This is not to say
that service or skill-oriented NGOs do not have a role to play, but that
the driving force in advocacy and civic awareness initiatives should be
the interest-led groups. The skill providers are more likely to be
effective in providing technical expertise for coalitions or other
groups leading these initiatives.

## 4.4 Synergy in Support of Civil Society, Participation, and Women's and Youth Political Empowerment

USAID has numerous opportunities through which to promote synergy.
Beyond the important ripple effect of maximizing impact through synergy,
the synergy rationale includes a holistic view of civil society's unique
niche in promoting democracy and the rights of the under-represented.
These opportunities include activities and operational modalities,
management of mission programs, and monitoring and evaluation frameworks
and practices.

Broad-based promotion of democratic practices could be enhanced by
developing a clear set of selection criteria describing CSO internal
democratic practices. This filter could be applied across all the SO-CSO
partnerships and CSO networks. In addition, since civil society is the
governance area that most readily lends itself to participation by and
representation of youth and women, selection criteria for all CSOs and
networks should include concrete demonstrations of this commitment. An
indicator capturing the numbers of CSOs employing democratic practices
across SOs would provide an impressive reporting figure, underscore CSP
linkages, and capture issue-based advocacy impact.

USAID's partnership with CSOs is being realized in a very particular
political context that demonstrates fluctuations in the enabling
environment and political will. In this context, strengthening civil
society is an ongoing need. USAID could support a more systematic
strengthening of civil society by ensuring that technical expertise
related to key themes (e.g., CSO representation in policy development
through advocacy, its roles in transparency and accountability
engagement with the Government of Nigeria, and revenue raising and
allocation) is regularly shared among its CSO partners across the SOs.

CSO partners and networks could integrate a "Grameen Bank-type" modality
in many activities supported by the SOs. The Grameen Bank model captures
the scope of the 2004-2009 CSP on a replicable micro scale, is extremely
cost-effective, and has been successfully adapted to many different
cultural contexts. Its clients address poverty through income-generating
activities and group savings and loans, and training and support for
internal DG practices, particularly those related to representation,
decision making, gender equity, and transparency and accountability. The
model reinforces attention to the myriad conditions that create poverty
and supports grassroots problem-solving skills. For example, members
adopt a core set of behavioral practices in order to address health and
hygiene; the education of children, particularly girls; the promotion of
natural resource management, particularly sources of water and trees;
and, among its membership, the abolishment of key cultural practices
that plunge families into economic straits and/or discriminate against
females. Worldwide, these empowerment strategies have led to many groups
mobilizing for political representation and advocating change at a
national level.

The modality just described is not limited to the Grameen Bank. The
Grameen Bank has been cited because its modalities for empowerment are
widely recognized by development practitioners. In fact, many women's
CSOs in Nigeria are practicing elements found in the integrated Grameen
approach; these groups could add certain components and maintain their
sectoral or target groups focus. Variations of the Grameen model could
be rather easily integrated across all SO-CSO efforts and multiply
impacts related to the CSP program goals.

In Nigeria, the majority of demonstrations have been over economic
pressures and losses. Improving participation by poor people across all
the SO-CSO activities would be much enhanced if economic incentives were
built into all mobilizing frameworks. The emphasis on the generation of
more resources and employing them effectively remains a necessary and
core aspect of supporting community-level DG, provides an economic base
for future political empowerment, and promotes the self-sufficiency of
communities to initiate and respond to their own needs. Increased
support for self-governing, revenue-generating, community-based
approaches will also assist in conflict prevention.

# 5.0 Recommendations

## 5.1 General Recommendations

The Assessment Team recommends the following actions for USAID's
consideration:

1.  Disaggregate current functions of the IPs in the current consortium
    arrangement in order to create a new consortium model that provides
    leadership and implementation roles for Nigerian CSO members. For
    example, these new CSO coalitions should be structured
    democratically, with all the members electing the lead groups, and
    the lead groups themselves sharing important checks and balance
    powers. Other civil society groups or consultancy outfits can be
    employed to provide specific skills training or activities. IPs
    should primarily play accounting and financial oversight roles, and
    be able to "speak USAID's language." Elected network leaders should
    be the key communication points with USAID, but a network
    ombudsperson (or organization) should be elected who can also be a
    communication channel to USAID in case a member group has a dispute
    with one of the lead organizations. See Figure 1 on page 30.

2.  Increase support to the great civil society federations made up of
    trade unions under the aegis of the NLC and other longstanding
    associations that have significant influence in critical sectors of
    the economy and society (see Section 4.2.1: "Great Federations").
    Each of these groups was formed of their own initiative to advance
    specific interests of a particular sector of society. They could
    provide the backbone of sustainable civil society coalitions.

3.  Work with national level cross-sector forums that already exist and
    are not donor-driven. Three formal civil society forums already
    exist to facilitate coordination and cooperation across different
    sectors of civil society. The NLC has a civil society forum designed
    to coordinate labor activities with other non-labor organizations.
    In addition, the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria has started a civil
    society forum that includes many human rights and other
    pro-democracy groups. More recently, a business association, the
    Convention on Business Integrity, has started an innovative "civil
    society club" as a vehicle for linking businesses and CSOs in
    coalitions to fight government corruption.

4.  Identify and support activities in the area of advocacy that are
    issue-driven and limited to one or two goals (e.g., passing the FOI
    Act).

5.  Assist local initiatives that establish sustainable forums and
    processes to promote government-CSO relationships and the roles of
    CSOs in advocacy and transparency and accountability. Critical
    governmental actors in this regard are the political parties and
    their members in the National Assembly. For example, provide
    assistance for an organization that could serve as a neutral "space"
    where government officials and CSOs could dialogue and prioritize
    issues on politicized matters of dispute. Nigeria's burgeoning
    number of think tanks could possibly provide such neutral forums.

6.  Promote coordination between the DG and other SO teams to enhance
    capacity for synergy on crosscutting DG elements (e.g., civic
    awareness, transparency and accountability, and advocacy). A
    training committee from the Nigerian coalitions could serve as
    "advocacy trainers" for other SO-supported groups interested in
    getting their issue (such as HIV/AIDS) on the national policy
    agenda.

7.  Provide advocacy skills to the CSOs supported under the HIV/AIDS
    initiative. This might be done as a buy-in to the DG civil society
    portfolio to access this assistance.

8.  Identify and develop indicators that further promote synergies
    across SOs, as well as transparency and accountability and advocacy
    indicators that measure gains in process, which is essential in
    capturing progress. Milestones on progress should be used. Internal
    democratic and accountability reforms encouraged in DG grantees
    should also be encouraged among the grantees of other SOs.

9.  Provide clear guidance regarding criteria for internal democratic
    practices for IP and CSO selection across all SOs.

10. Focus transparency and accountability activities on specific
    financial oversights. These may include the budgeting process in the
    National Assembly, the work of anticorruption units that have been
    established in some of the ministries (such as the Finance
    Ministry), or the anticorruption units in the bureaus (most notably
    the Bureau of Public Enterprises---the vehicle for privatizing
    state-owned industries---and the President's Budget Monitoring and
    Price Intelligence Unit).

11. Provide capacity building to CSOs with substantial experience in the
    areas of civic awareness and advocacy, and to those that have
    internal democratic practices. Where appropriate, encourage civil
    society groups to democratize their own decision-making processes
    and provide greater transparency and accountability to their target
    communities.

12. Integrate civic awareness and conflict mitigation components into
    CSO transparency and accountability activities to prevent backlash
    and assist victims of backlash.

13. Borrow CSO empowerment approaches from other countries that have
    successful models that promote synergy at the CSO activity level.
    For example, the Grameen Bank approach integrates income-generation
    and savings activities with improved health and hygiene practices,
    reform of harmful traditional practices, and civic and voter
    education.

14. Explore the possibility of continuing support to media activities
    that promote civic awareness for transparency and accountability and
    advocacy.

## 5.2 Program Options

The following options are based on the findings and parameters defined
by USAID/Nigeria. The Assessment Team recommends that USAID/Nigeria
consider choosing one of the following options. The first outlines a
strategy for engaging the powerful civil society groups, the second
focuses on the technical, issue-oriented work of the NGOs, while the
third is a pick-and-choose hybrid of the first two options.

### 5.2.1 Program Option #1

In light of the deep power imbalance working against civil society in
Nigeria, USAID could support a broad advocacy network that would
organize some of the great federations of Nigerian civil society
together with the smaller and issue-targeted NGO coalitions. Prime
candidates for such an advocacy network include the NLC, FOMWAN, the Bar
Association, the National Council of Women's Societies (NCWS), the
Nigerian Union of Journalists, business associations, and others. These
large groups could be linked with some of the targeted NGO coalitions
already built with USAID assistance to work on USAID/Nigeria's priority
sectors of transparency, and accountability, civic awareness, and
possibly conflict resolution and elections. An international or American
IP could partner with a Nigerian technical advisor such as one of the
democracy-building think tanks (for example the Center for Democracy and
Development or the Development Research and Projects Center in Kano).
The partners would work together to organize the network until proper
governance structures were in place (see recommendation #1 above, and
Figure 1 on page 30), and then the IP should recede to an advisory,
management, and financial oversight role.

The first effort of such a network should be to link with coalitions
such as the Zero Corruption Coalition and the FOI Coalition to push the
National Assembly to pass an FOI Act. Second, this network should accept
the open invitation to civil society groups given by the head of
President Obasanjo's Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit to
monitor her office's oversight of the government's public procurement
process. Although her office only reviews a small percentage of the
overall budget (she cannot review the massive reoccurring expenditures),
this opportunity is unprecedented and, if successful, could lead to
greater civil society oversight of the executive's management of public
finances. The network could also focus advocacy initiatives on other SO
priorities such as a comprehensive Nigerian HIV/AIDS policy.

Such an advocacy network composed of both the great federations and
issue-driven NGO coalitions would doubtless be in need of expert
facilitation and management skills in order to navigate the powerful
interests that would not always overlap, even though they will
presumably organize along several issues of common interest. Local
business and management consultants or NGOs with relevant experiences,
recruited and managed by the IP, could provide such expertise, although
leadership in the network will naturally have to come from the members
themselves. The NLC's great size and proud organizational culture will
compel it to seek a dominant position in any network, which USAID will
have to consider and address when fostering network development.

Many Nigerian organizations have experience in rallying diverse
organizations around specific advocacy issues. The NLC has a "civil
society forum" that went dormant when donor funds expired, but it could
perhaps provide a model for building such a network. Two other civil
society forums also exist. The Catholic Secretariat has organized one
with a broad range of human rights and CBOs, while a business initiative
to fight corruption, the Convention on Business Integrity, has a civil
society "club" designed to provide a similar networking vehicle. Just as
the NLC will dominate any forum it joins, these other two will naturally
be strongly influenced by the interests of their organizers.
Alternatively, an IP could perhaps facilitate merging these three fora
into *one* comprehensive forum.

### 5.2.2 Program Option #2

USAID could instead choose to focus on developing the advocacy capacity
of NGO coalitions it has supported for the past several years. USAID
could select one IP, for example a strong partner within PACE and one or
two coalitions of local CSOs (such as the Transition Monitoring Group or
the Zero Corruption Coalition). The IP will then support the coalitions
of local CSOs in the identification, development, and implementation of
one or two issue-driven activities that will affect legislation at the
national level. The coalitions will work in the areas of advocacy,
transparency and accountability, and civic awareness to advance toward
their goal. Additionally, the IP could assist the coalition in
facilitating government-CSO relations in order to improve communication
practices between CSOs and government on the issue-driven campaign. See
Figure 2 on page 30.

### 5.2.3 Program Option #3

USAID could build a larger advocacy network along the lines of option
#1, but reduce the role of some of the more politically difficult
partners such as the NLC to one of observation or to an invited
participant at critical events. In addition, NGO coalitions could also
feature more prominently in such a network if the number of great
federations were reduced and/or given observer status. If necessary,
more executive control could also be allotted to the IP, depending upon
the network membership and needs.

### 5.2.4 Additional Program Options

The Assessment Team recommends that regardless which of the above
choices are considered, USAID also undertake the following options:

-   Build the capacity of a training committee within the selected local
    coalitions to provide advocacy workshops and technical assistance to
    other coalitions of CSOs working to achieve objectives in other SOs
    (e.g., HIV/AIDS). Again, the IP could recruit and manage a local
    organization to develop a training program, train the trainers, and
    monitor their performance. Additionally, the training committee
    could facilitate fora to share lessons learned in the areas of
    advocacy, transparency and accountability, and civic awareness among
    CSOs working with other SOs. The outcome of such a forum could be
    the development of criteria for internal democratic practices for IP
    and CSOs working across sectors.

-   Build a government liaison committee within the supported
    network(s). This could be part of the technical committee above, or
    a separate group of organizations with specific expertise and/or
    political connections to build relationships between the network(s)
    and executive officials, members of the National Assembly, and
    political party leaders. This committee could play a dual role of
    expert political advisor/strategist for the network and
    communication facilitator with government officials targeted for
    advocacy.

-   Finally, no civil society coalition with advocacy and civic
    education goals is complete without a strong media component. The
    Nigerian media has been one of the staunchest advocates for
    democracy promotion and transparency and accountability, but it is
    in dire need of capacity-building assistance. Several Nigerian NGOs
    are working on media development issues and could provide important
    training roles in networks such that media participation and
    assistance is assured. One of the sub-grantees should have
    experience working with the media and focus on the media.

## 5.3 Expandable Model

In the event USAID acquires supplementary funds to support civil society
activities in the areas of elections and conflict, the Assessment Team
recommends the following program options.

### 5.3.1 Elections

USAID could support a local coalition of CSOs that already have the
capacity to conduct successful civic/voter awareness campaigns. It is
critical that USAID build on the past success of the PACE consortium and
work with the most successful of the local CSOs. It is recommended that
this coalition be different than the coalition working on the
issue-driven activity to avoid the implementation problems of the past.
Additionally, USAID should explore the possibility of continuing support
to local organizations that worked with the JHU/CCP media activities and
use media activities in these campaigns.

### 5.3.2 Conflict

It is recommended that USAID sustain a good working relationship with
labor unions---if not through direct support, at least through the
organization of fora to discuss past and future election activities---to
implement a domestic monitoring activity. Capacity building could
include workshop on conflict mitigation for both during and
post-election periods. Based on the findings of the Assessment Team, the
LADDER activity was the most successful and provided the most coverage
in the area of domestic monitoring and conflict mitigation.

###### Figure 1. Program Option #1

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.2375in" height="4.009722222222222in"}

###### Figure 2. Program Option #2

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.4625in" height="4.160416666666666in"}

# Annexes

## Annex 1: Contact List

## Annex 2: Workshop Participants

## Annex 3: CSO and Network Profiles

## Annex 4: Bibliography

# Annex 1: Contact List

Please see the following table for a list of contacts made during this
assessment.

+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| Name /      | Orga     | Address       | E-Mail       | Telephone  |
| Position    | nization |               | Address      | / FAX /    |
|             |          |               |              | GSM        |
+=============+==========+===============+==============+============+
| ### Ms.     | US       | Metro Plaza,  |              | Tel:       |
| Dawn Liberi | Agency   | 3^rd^ Floor   |              | 09-2343048 |
|             | for      |               |              |            |
| Mission     | Inter    | Central       |              | FAX:       |
| Director    | national | Business      |              | 09-2342930 |
|             | Dev      | District      |              |            |
| ### Ms. Mi  | elopment |               |              |            |
| nnie Wright |          | P.M.B. 519,   |              |            |
|             |          | Garki         |              |            |
| DG Team     |          |               |              |            |
| Leader      |          | Abuja, FCT    |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ##          |          |               |              |            |
| # Mr. Charl |          |               |              |            |
| es Cutshall |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Senior      |          |               |              |            |
| Civil       |          |               |              |            |
| Society     |          |               |              |            |
| Advisor     |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ### Ms. Bo  |          |               |              |            |
| se Eitokpah |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Program     |          |               |              |            |
| Manager     |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ### Dr. A   |          |               |              |            |
| ndrew Levin |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Agriculture |          |               |              |            |
| Development |          |               |              |            |
| Officer     |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| **Mr. Frank |          |               |              |            |
| Okafor**    |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Program     |          |               |              |            |
| Manager     |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Office of   |          |               |              |            |
| EG and      |          |               |              |            |
| Agriculture |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ### Ms. A   |          |               |              |            |
| nne Fleuret |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Senior      |          |               |              |            |
| Strategic   |          |               |              |            |
| Analysis    |          |               |              |            |
| Advisor     |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ### Ms.     |          |               |              |            |
| Lynn Gorton |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Health Team |          |               |              |            |
| Leader      |          |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Pat     | De       | The British   | p-sterl      | Tel:       |
| sy Sterling | partment | Council       | ing@dfid.gov | 09-        |
|             | for      |               |              | 4137710-12 |
| Ag.         | Inter    | Plot 607 Bobo |              |            |
| Health/DG   | national | St., off Gana |              | FAX:       |
| Advisor     | Dev      | St.           |              | 09-4137396 |
|             | elopment |               |              |            |
|             | (DFID)   | Maitama       |              |            |
|             |          | District      |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | Abuja FCT     |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Rahe    | De       | Euro House    | <Rah         | Tel:       |
| emat Momodu | legation |               | eemat.momudu | 09-4133144 |
|             | of the   | Plot 63 Usuma | @cec.eu.int> |            |
| ### A       | European | Street        |              | FAX:       |
| detokunbo G | Co       |               |              | 09-4133147 |
| eorge-Coker | mmission | Off Gana      |              |            |
|             | in       | Street        |              |            |
| ### Mario   | Nigeria  |               |              |            |
| n Sikierski | (EU)     | Maitama       |              |            |
|             |          | District      |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | PMB 280       |              |            |
|             |          | Garki, Abuja  |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Dr. Fr  | Canadian | 3A Bobo       | Frank.b      | Tel:       |
| ank Boahene | High     | Street        | oahene@dfait | 4139953;   |
|             | Co       |               | -maeci.gc.ca | 4139931    |
| First       | mmission | Off Gana      |              |            |
| Secretary   |          | Street        |              |            |
| (D          | (CIDA)   |               |              |            |
| evelopment) |          | Maitama Abuja |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Cleme   | C        | 556A Borno    | <ca          | Tel: +234  |
| nt S. Wasah | ommunity | Street, Area  | p@email.com> | (09)       |
|             | Action   | 10, Garki,    |              | 234-7593   |
| Executive   | for      | Abuja,        |              |            |
| Director    | Popular  | Nigeria       |              | Cell: +234 |
|             | Parti    |               |              | (0804)     |
|             | cipation |               |              | 410-7786   |
|             | (CAPP)   |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ###         | Tr       | Off Cairo     | <Tmg-ni      | Tel:       |
| Angela Odah | ansition | Street, Wuse  | g@yahoo.com> | 09-6705240 |
|             | Mo       | Zone II,      |              |            |
| Coordinator | nitoring | Abuja.        |              | FAX:       |
|             | Group    |               |              | 09-4131937 |
|             | (TMG)    |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Joyc    | CEDPA    | 3255, IBB Way | <Darlingmer  | Tel:       |
| e Mangywat  |          | (Next to      | c@yahoo.com> | 41330424   |
|             |          | (BP'E)        |              |            |
| Ag. Project |          | Maitama Abuja |              |            |
| Director    |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| A           |          |               |              |            |
| gricultural |          |               |              |            |
| Program     |          |               |              |            |
| Officer     |          |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| **Derrick   | IDASA    | Same location | <J           | Tel:       |
| Marco**     |          | as above      | oseph_shopad | 4133040-1  |
|             |          |               | e@yahoo.com> |            |
| Country     |          |               |              |            |
| Director    |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| ### Joseph  |          |               |              |            |
| Ola Shopade |          |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
| Program     |          |               |              |            |
| Coordinator |          |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Chr     | NDI      | Plot 364 Off  | <Cowre       | 0          |
| istine Owre |          | Aminue Kano   | ndi@aol.com> | 9-523-3341 |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | Crescent By   |              |            |
|             |          | L.O.C. Office |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | Wuse, Abuja   |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Glen    | IRI      | Plot 3215,    | <Ggioka      | 0          |
| n Giokaris  |          | Off Euphrates | ris@iri.org> | 9-413-3252 |
|             |          | St.           |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | Maitama,      |              |            |
|             |          | Abuja         |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Cha     | IFES     | Plot 757      | <Ch          | 0          |
| rles Lasham |          | Panama Street | arleslasham@ | 9-413-6294 |
|             |          |               | hotmail.com> |            |
|             |          | Maitama,      |              |            |
|             |          | Abuja         |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### D       | National | C/o USAID     |              |            |
| r. Adebayo  | Ori      | Office        |              |            |
|             | entation |               |              |            |
|             | Agency   | Metro Plaza   |              |            |
|             |          | Abuja         |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ###         | MSI      | Block A, Flat | Pk           | Tel:       |
|  Paul King  | (P       | 5, Plot 1047  | ing@prospect | 08         |
|             | ROSPECT) | Cairo Street, | -nigeria.org | 037261300, |
| Chief of    |          | Off Ademola   |              | 6717312    |
| Party       |          | Adetokunbo    |              |            |
|             |          | Crescent,     |              |            |
|             |          | Wuse 2, Abuja |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### An      | So       | Plot 1678 off |              | Tel:       |
| thony Jones | lidarity | T. Y. Danjuma |              | 08         |
|             | Center   | Asokoro       |              | 033014040, |
| Chief of    |          |               |              | 3143913,   |
| Party       |          |               |              | 3149412-3  |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| #           | African  | 12 Crescent,  | <afrigov@    | 0          |
| ## Prof. Aa | Center   | Flat 93, Kado | skannet.com> | 8033142434 |
| ron T. Gana | for      | Estate, P.O.  |              |            |
|             | De       | Box 10416,    |              |            |
|             | mocratic | Garki, Abuja  |              |            |
|             | Go       |               |              |            |
|             | vernance |               |              |            |
|             | (        |               |              |            |
|             | AFRIGOV) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ###         | Movement | 27 Odu        |              | Tel:       |
| Ledum Mitee | for the  | Street, Post  |              | 0          |
|             | Survival | Harcourt      |              | 84-233907, |
|             | of Ogoni |               |              | 0          |
|             | People   | River State   |              | 8033140764 |
|             | (MOSOP)  |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             | (IDASA   |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Oro     | Envir    | 10 Iba Street |              | Tel:       |
| nto Douglas | onmental | Off Okomoko   |              | 0          |
|             | Right    |               |              | 8034070550 |
|             | Action   | Port Harcourt |              |            |
|             | (ERA)    |               |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             | (IDASA   |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Rober   | Niger    | Block 3B,     |              | Tel:       |
| th Azibaola | Delta    | Road 10       |              | 0          |
|             | Human    | Federal Low   |              | 8034070550 |
|             | and      | Cost Housing  |              |            |
|             | Envir    | Estate,       |              | 0          |
|             | onmental | Rumueme, Mile |              | 8033433355 |
|             | Rescue   | IV,           |              |            |
|             | Orga     |               |              | 084-233736 |
|             | nization | Port Harcourt |              |            |
|             | (        |               |              |            |
|             | ND-HERO) | Rivers State  |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             | (IDASA   |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| **Mr.       | Entrepr  | No. 6/7 Woji  | <endip200    | Tel:       |
| Benjamin    | eneurial | Estate Road   | 1@yahoo.com> | 084-482693 |
| Ovi         | Dev      | -- Woji       |              |            |
| o-Onoweya** | elopment |               |              | 0          |
|             | In       | P.O. Box 260  |              | 8033091445 |
| Executive   | itiative | Woji Post     |              |            |
| Director    | (ENDIP)  | Office        |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             | (        | Port Harcourt |              |            |
|             | PROSPECT |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Ever    | Anpex    | 27 Andrews    | ev           | Tel:       |
| est Nwankwo | Center   | Street        | erestnwankwo | +234(      |
|             | for      |               | @hotmail.com | 084)234191 |
| Director    | Envir    | Rumuobiakani  |              |            |
|             | onmental |               |              | Cell:      |
|             | and      | Beside Shell  |              | +234(080   |
|             | Dev      | I.A.          |              | 5)517-0512 |
|             | elopment |               |              |            |
|             |          | Port Harcourt |              |            |
|             | (        |               |              |            |
|             | PROSPECT |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### Patr    | Save the | 20 Joinkrama  |              | Tel:       |
| ick Chiekwe | Earth    | (Ogwa) St.    |              | 0          |
|             |          |               |              | 84-332532, |
|             | (        | Box 2149,     |              | 232110     |
|             | PROSPECT | Diobu         |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              | 084-230240 |
|             |          | Port Harcourt |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             |          | Rivers State  |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+
| ### M       | Inter    | 121 Victoria  |              | Tel:       |
| rs. Hariba  | national | Street        |              | 0          |
| Dagogo-Jack | Fe       |               |              | 8033068828 |
|             | deration | Port          |              |            |
| Chairperson | of Women | Harcourt,     |              |            |
|             | Lawyers  |               |              |            |
|             | (FIDA)   | River State   |              |            |
|             |          |               |              |            |
|             | (CEDPA   |               |              |            |
|             | partner) |               |              |            |
+-------------+----------+---------------+--------------+------------+

  --------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ----------
  Group Name            Sector Type              Presence        Location

  Muslim-Christian      conflict resolution      local, state,   Kaduna
  Dialogue Foundation                            occasionally    
                                                 national        

  Federation of Muslim  women's interests,       local, state,   National
  Women's Associations  religion                 and national    office
  of Nigeria (FOMWAN)                                            Abuja,
                                                                 branches
                                                                 in 34
                                                                 states

  Development Research  think tank               local, state,   Kano
  and Projects Center                            national        
  (DPRC)                                                         

  Conflict Resolution   conflict resolution      national        Kaduna
  Network (CRESNET)     network                                  

  CEDPA/Kano            women's interests;       national        Kano
                        development                              

  Youth and             youth empowerment,       local, state    Kano
  Environmental         environment, elections                   
  Development           and conflict                             
  Association (YEDA)                                             

  Democratic Action     youth empowerment;       local, state    Kano
  Group (DAG)           elections and conflict                   

  National Council of   women's interests;       state affiliate Kano
  Women's Societies     election monitoring      of national     
  (NCWS), Kano                                   organization    

  Nigerian Labor        trade union              state affiliate Kano
  Congress (NLC), Kano                           of national     
                                                 organization    

  Center for Research   think tank               local, state,   Kano
  and Development (CRD)                          occasionally    
                                                 national        

  Academic Associates   conflict resolution      local, state,   Abuja
  Peaceworks                                     national        
  --------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ----------

# Annex 2: Workshop Participants

Please see the following table for a list of the workshop participants.

+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Name /       | Org       | Address     | E-Mail        | Telephone |
| Position     | anization |             | Address       | / FAX /   |
|              |           |             |               | Gsm       |
+==============+===========+=============+===============+===========+
| Animashaun   | AFRIGOV,  | 3, Abeokuta | [Afrigov@s    | 09 --     |
| Adekunle,    | Abuja     | Street, Off | kannet.com](m | 6708396   |
|              |           | Kwara       | ailto:afrogor |           |
| Program      |           | Drare,      | @skannet.com) | 0803 --   |
| Officer,     |           | Gwarinpa    |               | 5877109   |
| Civil        |           | Estate,     |               |           |
| Society      |           | Abuja       |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Agudu        | Rice      | 5/6 Anyisan | [Ricefa       | 08        |
| Daniel. E.,  | Farmers   | Wodi        | rmersden@yaho | 055160494 |
|              | As        | Shopping    | o.com](mailto |           |
| Head of      | sociation | Complex,    | :ricefarmersd | 09-       |
| Marking And  | Of        | Gwagwalada, | en@yahoo.com) | 670292929 |
| Processing   | Nigeria   | Abuja       |               |           |
|              | (RIFAN)   |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Dauda Brenda | Women     | Suite 1 & 2 | <Wep@usa.com> | 09 --     |
| Andrew,      | Envi      | People      |               | 2345338   |
|              | ronmental | Shopping    |               |           |
| Program      | Prog.     | Complex     |               | 080       |
| Coordinator  | (WEP)     |             |               | 35996211  |
|              |           | Plot 1263   |               |           |
|              |           | Jere St.    |               | 234 -- 9  |
|              |           | Behind Rita |               | -- 234    |
|              |           | Lori Hotel  |               | 1553      |
|              |           | Garki,      |               |           |
|              |           | Abuja       |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Ekoh         | WRAPA     | WUSE II,    | <Ekoh2001     | 09 --     |
| Nicholas,    |           | Behind Rock | ng@yahoo.com> | 4131438   |
|              |           | View, Abuja |               |           |
| Librarian    |           |             |               | 4132932   |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Imiruaye     | TUC       | Plot 610,   |               | 09 --     |
| Friday       |           | Abiriba     |               | 2342615   |
| Omabowavwe,  |           | Close, Area |               |           |
|              |           | 7, Garki,   |               |           |
| State        |           | Abuja       |               |           |
| Secretary    |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Julius Tola, | Nigeria   | NUT         |               | 09 --     |
|              | Union of  | National    |               | 8822107   |
| Assistant    | Teachers  | Head Office |               |           |
| Secretary    | (NUT)     | Along       |               | 08        |
| General      |           | Lo          |               | 035903654 |
|              |           | koja/Kaduna |               |           |
|              |           | Road Gkada  |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Mokwunye,    | National  | Board Of    |               | 08        |
| Theresa N.,  | Council   | Internal    |               | 033170574 |
| Treasurer    | For Women | Revenue     |               |           |
|              | Society   | Asaba Or    |               | 08        |
|              |           | Nnebuesi    |               | 034027398 |
|              |           | Road Opp.   |               |           |
|              |           | Konwea      |               |           |
|              |           | Shopping    |               |           |
|              |           | Plaza Asaba |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Mowah,       | National  | No 3        | Tek           | 08        |
| Valentina    | Council   | Stadium     | mokglobalserv | 035531894 |
| O.,          | For Women | Road, Asaba | ice@Yahoo.com |           |
|              | Society   |             |               | 08        |
| Editor       |           |             |               | 033170574 |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Maxwell      | T         | Plot 98a    | [Ma           | 080       |
| Machill      | ransition | Off Cairo   | cmaninigco@ya | 833071309 |
|              | M         | St. Wuse 2, | hoo.com](mail | / 09 --   |
| Senior       | onitoring | Abuja       | to:macmaninig | 4131937 / |
| Program      | Group     |             | co@yahoo.com) | 6705240   |
| Officer      | (TMG)     |             |               |           |
|              |           |             |               | 08        |
|              |           |             |               | 033071309 |
|              |           |             |               |           |
|              |           |             |               | 4133839   |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Mankilik,    | Cocin     | No 5 Noad   |               | 073       |
| Naomi John,  | Women     | Avenue, Pmb |               | 453679    |
|              | F         | 2127, Jos   |               |           |
| Leader       | ellowship |             |               | 08        |
|              |           |             |               | 037139516 |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Moruoh Abaj. | FOMORAN   | Plot 477    | <Reckybest    | 080       |
| (Hajia)      |           | Newlayout,  | 02@yahoo.com> | 33499200  |
| Rekiya,      |           | Lokoja      |               |           |
|              |           |             |               |           |
| National     |           |             |               |           |
| Coordinator, |           |             |               |           |
| Electric     |           |             |               |           |
| Project      |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Nwanguma     | Nigerian  | 4a Suez     | [             | 08        |
| Ndidi,       | Bar       | Crescent,   | Constiaka@jus | 023318530 |
| Constance    | As        | Ibrahim     | tice.com](mai |           |
|              | sociation | Abacha      | lto:constiaka |           |
| Member       |           | Estate,     | @justice.com) |           |
|              |           | Wuse Zone 4 |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Nweze        | Medical & | Plot 92,    | [Ezebunac     | 080       |
| Raphael      | Health    | House 2,    | hiokwii@yahoo | 33395272  |
| A.O.,        | Workers'  | Blu Close,  | .com](mailto: |           |
|              | Union Of  | Area 2      | ezebunachiokw |           |
| Hod          | Nigeria   | Section 1,  | ii@yahoo.com) |           |
| (            |           | Garki --    |               |           |
| Organization |           | Abuja       |               |           |
| & Women      |           |             |               |           |
| Affairs)     |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Obahiagbon   | Iesada    | National    | [iesada@      | 234 09    |
| Bolarinwa    | Y         | Center For  | hotmail.com]( | 2901818   |
| E.S., Chief  | ensystems | Women       | mailto:iesada |           |
| Facilitator  | Nigeria   | Development | @hotmall.com) | 080       |
|              | En        | Africa      |               | 34514090  |
|              | terprises | Peace       |               |           |
|              |           | Mission     |               |           |
|              |           | Hall Stand  |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Okpara       | Coalition | C/O Cirdoc  | <ceng         | 042       |
| Claribel N., | Of        | 16 Fifth    | os@yahoo.com> | 459969    |
|              | Eastern   | Avenue      |               |           |
| Regional     | Ngos      |             | <n-cog        | 083       |
| Secretary    | (Cengos)  | 4^th^       | ep-d@usa.net> | 231391    |
|              |           | Dimention   |               |           |
|              |           | Upper Chime |               | 0         |
|              |           | Avenue      |               | 803329302 |
|              |           | Enugu       |               |           |
|              |           |             |               | 080       |
|              |           |             |               | 331324494 |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Othman       | Agr       | C/O 54      | <Yasminothm   | 08        |
| Yasmin,      | ibusiness | Yaounde     | an@yahoo.com> | 044129673 |
|              | --Network | Street,     |               |           |
| National     |           | Wuse Zone 6 | <awaniger     |           |
| President    |           | Abuja       | ia@yahoo.com> |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Ordu Rachel  | FIDA,     | Danyadado   | <rachor       | 08        |
| K.,          | Abuja     | House, Area | du@yahoo.com> | 033499115 |
|              |           | Ii, Abuja   |               |           |
| Assistant    |           |             |               |           |
| R.R.O.       |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Onukwuli,    | FIDA,     | Area II,    |               | 08        |
| (Mrs.) Uju   | Abuja     | Garki,      |               | 033372588 |
|              |           | Abuja       |               |           |
| Member       |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Okedi Bassey | Abantu    | Y.A. Ahmed  | n             | 062 --    |
| Anita,       | for       | Building,   | coeabantu.org | 247066    |
|              | De        | F6 Ahmadu   |               |           |
| Program      | velopment | Bello Way,  |               | 062 --    |
| Officer      |           | Kaduna      |               | 218890    |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Peter Ugoh   | Center    | No 22 Kofo  | <thaddiu      | 01 -      |
| Thaddeus     | For       | Abauom      | su@yahoo.com> | 6708816   |
| T.P.,        | Const     | Street      |               |           |
|              | itutional | Lagos       |               | 08        |
| Program      | G         |             |               | 033321226 |
| Officer      | overnance |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Pofi Gyarta  | Cocin     | Cocin Hq.   |               | 09 --     |
| D.,          | Women     | P.M.B.2127, |               | 458853    |
|              | F         | No. 5 Noad  |               |           |
| Coordinator, | ellowship | Avenue,     |               | 0803 --   |
| DG-PACE      |           | Jos,        |               | 3522278   |
|              |           | Plateau     |               |           |
|              |           | State       |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Shoyombo     | NACCIMA   | Plot 701 B, | <onecube      | 09-       |
| Yinka,       |           | Central     | @hotmail.com> | 6708119   |
|              |           | Area, Abuja |               |           |
| Principal    |           |             |               | 08        |
| Economist    |           |             |               | 023072376 |
|              |           |             |               |           |
|              |           |             |               | 01 --     |
|              |           |             |               | 4964737   |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Taiwo Ganiyu | NULGE     | Sky         | <Jurobtrust   | 08        |
| Adedayo,     |           | Memorial    | 03@yahoo.com> | 055353531 |
|              |           | Complex,    |               |           |
| State        |           | Wuse Zone 5 |               |           |
| Secretary    |           |             |               |           |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Wasah        | Community | 556a Borno  | <ca           | 09 /      |
| Clement S.,  | Action    | St. Area    | pp@email.com> | 2347593   |
|              | For       | 10, Garki,  |               |           |
| Executive    | Popular   | Abuja       |               | 08        |
| Director     | Part      |             |               | 033737253 |
|              | icipation |             |               |           |
|              | (CAPP)    |             |               | 09 /      |
|              |           |             |               | 2347593   |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Yakubu Iliya | Rahama    | No 3 Darazo | <R            | 077,      |
| Miriam,      | Women     | Rd Behind   | ahamabauchi20 | 5419      |
| Program      | Bauchi    | Kobi Nite   | 03@yahoo.com> | 40;542137 |
| Officer      |           | Club Bauchi |               | RS        |
|              |           |             |               | 0         |
|              |           |             |               | 77/540804 |
+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+-----------+

# Annex 3: CSO and Network Profiles

Please see the following table for a list of CSOs and networks.

+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Name of    | Acr  | Sector     | Profile                | Level of |
| CSO        | onym |            |                        | O        |
|            |      |            |                        | peration |
+============+======+============+========================+==========+
| Movement   |      | Grassroots | The group was founded  | Niger    |
| for the    |      | Movement,  | in 1990 with a vision  | Delta    |
| Survival   |      | Mob        | to engage the          | Region   |
| of Ogoni   |      | ilization, | government in better   |          |
| People     |      | Awareness  | resource management    |          |
|            |      | Creation,  | and control. Till date |          |
|            |      | Governance | most of its activities |          |
|            |      |            | center on peace        |          |
|            |      |            | building, civil        |          |
|            |      |            | awareness and          |          |
|            |      |            | grassroots             |          |
|            |      |            | mobilization           |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Niger      | ND-  | Env        | ND-HERO is located at  | Niger    |
| Delta      | HERO | ironmental | Block 3b, Road 10,     | Delta    |
| Human and  |      | Education  | Federal Low -- Cost    | Region   |
| Env        |      |            | Housing Estate Rumueme |          |
| ironmental |      |            | Port -- Harcourt. Its  |          |
| Rescue     |      |            | activities revolve     |          |
| Or         |      |            | around promoting the   |          |
| ganization |      |            | general well being of  |          |
|            |      |            | the Niger Delta people |          |
|            |      |            | using issues of        |          |
|            |      |            | environmental          |          |
|            |      |            | conservation in        |          |
|            |      |            | addressing broader     |          |
|            |      |            | development problems.  |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Entre      | E    | Income     | ENDIP focuses on       | Niger    |
| preneurial | NDIP | G          | providing skills       | Delta    |
| D          |      | eneration, | needed to start and    | Region   |
| evelopment |      | Livelihood | run successfully       |          |
| Initiative |      | Security,  | small - scale business |          |
|            |      | Education  | to unemployed youths   |          |
|            |      | and        | in the Niger Delta. It |          |
|            |      | Research   | was established in     |          |
|            |      |            | 2000 and is more       |          |
|            |      |            | concerned with         |          |
|            |      |            | developing the         |          |
|            |      |            | organization.          |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Anpez      | A    | E          | The center began as    | Local,   |
| Center for | CFED | nvironment | Anpez Environmental    | State,   |
| E          |      | & Research | Law Center in 1992. It | Niger    |
| nvironment |      |            | focuses on             | Delta,   |
| and        |      |            | environmental law,     | national |
| D          |      |            | provision of services  | and      |
| evelopment |      |            | needed for economic    | Inter    |
|            |      |            | growth, environmental  | national |
|            |      |            | education and          |          |
|            |      |            | research. ACFED is a   |          |
|            |      |            | consultant NGO         |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Save the   | SEN  | E          | SEN addresses the      | Niger    |
| Earth      |      | nvironment | challenges of over     | Delta    |
| Nigeria    |      |            | thirty years of        | Region   |
|            |      |            | environmental neglect  |          |
|            |      |            | associated with the    |          |
|            |      |            | oil extraction in the  |          |
|            |      |            | Niger Delta. Through   |          |
|            |      |            | education, advocacy,   |          |
|            |      |            | research, networking   |          |
|            |      |            | and approach SEN works |          |
|            |      |            | to protect and         |          |
|            |      |            | preserve environment.. |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Int        | FIDA | Women's    | FIDA advocates for     | National |
| ernational |      | Human      | women's rights using   |          |
| Federation |      | Rights     | legislative process,   |          |
| of Women   |      |            | paralegal training and |          |
| Lawyers    |      |            | legal counseling.      |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Int        | IPC  | Media,     | Media resource center  | State /  |
| ernational |      | democracy, | for advocacy           | Regional |
| Press      |      | and        |                        |          |
| Center     |      | governance |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Citizens'  | CFCR | Cons       | Coalition of NGSs for  | National |
| Forum for  |      | titutional | advocacy on            |          |
| cons       |      | reform     | constitutional reform  |          |
| titutional |      |            |                        |          |
| reform     |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| African    | AFS  | Conflict   | Action-oriented        | Intern   |
| Strategic  | TRAG |            | research group on      | ational/ |
| and Peace  |      |            | security and           | National |
| Research   |      |            | development            |          |
| Group      |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| National   | NCWS | Women's    | Coalition of women     | National |
| Council of |      | Human      | society                |          |
| Women      |      | Rights     |                        |          |
| Societies. |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Zero       | ZCC  | Tr         | Network of NGOs        | National |
| Corruption |      | ansparency | advocating for         |          |
| Coalition  |      | and        | transparency and       |          |
|            |      | Acco       | accountability         |          |
|            |      | untability |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Socia      | SRI  | Economic   | NGO with strong        | National |
| l-Economic |      | reform,    | research base on       |          |
| Rights     |      | tr         | advocacy for           |          |
| I          |      | ansparency | transparency on        |          |
| nitiatives |      | and        | reforms.               |          |
|            |      | acco       |                        |          |
|            |      | untability |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Coalition  | CE   | Commu      | Coalition of a broad   | Areas of |
| of Eastern | NGOS | nity/Rural | variety of NGOs with   | coverage |
| NGOS       |      | D          | strong women's rights  | include: |
|            |      | evelopment | focus                  | South-   |
|            |      | En         |                        | Eastern  |
|            |      | vironment, |                        | Region/  |
|            |      | Human      |                        | National |
|            |      | Rights,    |                        | eg.      |
|            |      | Democracy  |                        | Covering |
|            |      | &          |                        | states   |
|            |      | G          |                        | of       |
|            |      | overnance, |                        | Anambra, |
|            |      | Youth and  |                        | Abia,    |
|            |      | E          |                        | Imo,     |
|            |      | ducational |                        | Enugu,   |
|            |      | De         |                        | Ebony,   |
|            |      | velopment, |                        | Cross    |
|            |      | Public     |                        | Rivers,  |
|            |      | Health,    |                        | Bayelsa, |
|            |      | Micro      |                        | Rivers & |
|            |      | Credit,    |                        | Akwa     |
|            |      | Poverty    |                        | Ibom     |
|            |      | A          |                        |          |
|            |      | lleviation |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Rahama     | RWDP | Re         | Women's Rights,        | Regional |
| Women      |      | productive | Democracy and          | e.g      |
| Bauchi     |      | Health,    | Governance             | Ba       |
|            |      | Education  |                        | uchi,Yob |
|            |      | Micro      |                        | e.Gombe. |
|            |      | Credit,    |                        | Adamawa, |
|            |      | Good       |                        | Borno,   |
|            |      | G          |                        | Taraba,  |
|            |      | overnance, |                        | Kano,    |
|            |      | Mob        |                        | Plateau, |
|            |      | ilization, |                        | Jigawa,  |
|            |      | Youth      |                        | N        |
|            |      | Programs & |                        | asarawa. |
|            |      | Dev        |                        |          |
|            |      | elopmental |                        |          |
|            |      | Work which |                        |          |
|            |      | benefits   |                        |          |
|            |      | women and  |                        |          |
|            |      | families   |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Nigeria    | N    | Public     | Union of local         | National |
| Union Of   | ULGE | Sector     | government employees   |          |
| Local      |      |            |                        |          |
| Government |      |            |                        |          |
| Employees. |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| African    | AWAN | Ag         | Women's Rights and     | Intern   |
| Women      |      | ribusiness | Agriculture            | ational, |
| Ag         |      |            |                        | National |
| ribusiness |      | Ag         |                        | &        |
| Network    |      | ricultural |                        | Regional |
|            |      | Production |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Ag         |                        |          |
|            |      | ricultural |                        |          |
|            |      | Processing |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Ag         |                        |          |
|            |      | ricultural |                        |          |
|            |      | Export     |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| National   | NCWS | Child      | Women's Rights and     | National |
| Council Of |      | /Mother    | Empowerment            |          |
| Women      |      | Care,      |                        |          |
| Societies  |      | De         |                        |          |
|            |      | velopment, |                        |          |
|            |      | Mi         |                        |          |
|            |      | cro-credit |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Community  |                        |          |
|            |      | D          |                        |          |
|            |      | evelopment |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Federated  | FA   | Women      | Women's Rights         | National |
| Anglican   | WWOG | Em         |                        | mostly   |
| Women's    |      | powerment, | Democracy and          | C        |
| Groups     |      | Public     | Governance             | hristian |
|            |      | Health     |                        | states   |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Vocational |                        |          |
|            |      | Skill      |                        |          |
|            |      | Training,  |                        |          |
|            |      | Child Care |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Micro      |                        |          |
|            |      | Credit,    |                        |          |
|            |      | Democracy  |                        |          |
|            |      | and        |                        |          |
|            |      | Governance |                        |          |
|            |      | and Moral  |                        |          |
|            |      | Training   |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Rice       | R    | A          | Agriculture            | National |
| Farmers    | IFAN | griculture |                        |          |
| A          |      | Grassroots |                        |          |
| ssociation |      | E          |                        |          |
| Of Nigeria |      | mpowerment |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Center For | CCGD | Women      | Women's Rights         | 2/3      |
| Cons       |      | Rights &   |                        | States   |
| titutional |      | E          |                        |          |
| Gov. &     |      | mpowerment |                        |          |
| Dev.       |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Child      |                        |          |
|            |      | Right &    |                        |          |
|            |      | Care Dev.  |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Youth      |                        |          |
|            |      | E          |                        |          |
|            |      | mpowerment |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Nigerian   | NAC  | Business   | Economic Growth        | West     |
| A          | CIMA | Advocacy & |                        | Africa & |
| ssociation |      | Economic   |                        | Nigeria  |
| Of         |      | E          |                        |          |
| Chambers   |      | mpowerment |                        |          |
| Of         |      |            |                        |          |
| Commerce,  |      |            |                        |          |
| Industry,  |      |            |                        |          |
| Mines &    |      |            |                        |          |
| A          |      |            |                        |          |
| griculture |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Nigeria    | NBA  | Legal      | Legal                  | National |
| Bar        |      | Services   |                        |          |
| A          |      |            |                        |          |
| ssociation |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Transition | TMG  | Civil      | Elections              | National |
| Monitoring |      | Education  |                        |          |
| Group      |      | Election   |                        |          |
|            |      | Monitoring |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Women      | WEP  | Gender     | Women's Rights         | National |
| E          |      | Imbalance  |                        |          |
| nvironment |      | In         |                        |          |
| Program    |      | E          |                        |          |
|            |      | nvironment |                        |          |
|            |      | Issues,    |                        |          |
|            |      | Social &   |                        |          |
|            |      | Economic   |                        |          |
|            |      | Rights Of  |                        |          |
|            |      | Women Of   |                        |          |
|            |      | Women And  |                        |          |
|            |      | Youths.    |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Women      | WDPC | Income     | Democracy              | R        |
| D          |      | G          | andGovernance          | egional- |
| evelopment |      | eneration, |                        | South    |
| Project    |      | Public     | Health                 | Eastern  |
| Center     |      | Health,    |                        | States   |
|            |      | Democracy  | Environment            |          |
|            |      | &          |                        |          |
|            |      | G          |                        |          |
|            |      | overnance, |                        |          |
|            |      | Human      |                        |          |
|            |      | Rights and |                        |          |
|            |      | E          |                        |          |
|            |      | nvironment |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Int        | FIDA | Legal      | Women's Rights         | Inter    |
| ernational |      | Services   |                        | national |
| Federation |      | for the    |                        |          |
| Of Women   |      | less       |                        |          |
| Lawyers    |      | privileged |                        |          |
|            |      | especially |                        |          |
|            |      | women &    |                        |          |
|            |      | children.  |                        |          |
|            |      | HIV AIDS   |                        |          |
|            |      | Awareness  |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Abantu for | AFD  | Gender and | Women's Rights         | National |
| D          |      |            |                        |          |
| evelopment |      | -          |                        |          |
|            |      |    Poverty |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | -          |                        |          |
|            |      |  Conflicts |                        |          |
|            |      |     &      |                        |          |
|            |      |     Peace  |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      |   Builders |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | -          |                        |          |
|            |      | Governance |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | -   I      |                        |          |
|            |      | nformation |                        |          |
|            |      |     &      |                        |          |
|            |      |     Com    |                        |          |
|            |      | munication |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Technology |                        |          |
|            |      |     (ICT)  |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Church Of  | C    | Democracy  | Democracy and          | National |
| Christ In  | OCIN | &          | Governance             |          |
| Nigeria    |      | Governance |                        |          |
| Women      |      | (Pace)     |                        |          |
| Fellowship |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Micro      |                        |          |
|            |      | Credit     |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Community  | CAPP | Advocacy   | Advocacy, Democracy    | National |
| Action For |      |            | and Governance         |          |
| Popular    |      | Training   |                        |          |
| Par        |      |            |                        |          |
| ticipation |      | Research   |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | P          |                        |          |
|            |      | ublication |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | (Pace &    |                        |          |
|            |      | Prospect)  |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| African    | AFR  | Advocacy & | Advocacy, Democracy    | Abuja    |
| Center For | IGOV | Research   | and Governance         |          |
| Democratic |      | On         |                        |          |
| Governance |      | Governance |                        |          |
|            |      | Democracy  |                        |          |
|            |      |            |                        |          |
|            |      | Ge         |                        |          |
|            |      | nder/Human |                        |          |
|            |      | Rights     |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Medical &  | M    | Labor      | Labor                  | National |
| Health     | HWUN | Activities |                        |          |
| Workers    |      |            |                        |          |
| Union Of   |      | Advocacy   |                        |          |
| Nigeria    |      | For        |                        |          |
|            |      | Workers    |                        |          |
|            |      | Rights     |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Nigeria    | NUT  | Education  | Education, Labor Union | National |
| Union Of   |      |            |                        |          |
| Teachers   |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Federation | FO   | Religious  | Democracy and          | N        |
| OF Muslim  | MWAN | & Non      | Governance, Women's    | ational, |
| Women      |      | Formal     | Rights                 | mostly   |
| A          |      |            |                        | Muslim   |
| ssociation |      |            |                        | States   |
| In Nigeria |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+
| Women's    | W    | NGO        |                        | National |
| Rights     | RAPA |            |                        |          |
| A          |      |            |                        |          |
| dvancement |      |            |                        |          |
| And        |      |            |                        |          |
| Protection |      |            |                        |          |
| Al         |      |            |                        |          |
| ternatives |      |            |                        |          |
+------------+------+------------+------------------------+----------+

# Annex 4: Bibliography

Africa Bureau Anticorruption Initiative (2003). "Strengthening
Transparency and Accountability in Nigeria's Democracy (STAND) Project:
Five-year Action Plan."

Agbaje, Adigun (1993). "Beyond the State: Civil Society and the Nigerian
Press under Military Rule," *Media, Culture and Society*, 15: 459-460.

Agbaje, Adigun (1997). "Mobilizing for a New Political Culture," Larry
Diamond, Anthony Kirk-Greene, and Oyeleye Oyediran (Eds.) *Transition
without End: Nigerian Politics and Civil Society under* Babangida,
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Ake, Claude (1993). "Points of Departure," O. Onoge (Ed.), *Nigeria: The
Way Forward*, Ibadan: Spectrum.

Ake, Claude (Winter 1991). "Rethinking African Democracy," *Journal of
Democracy*, Vol. 2, No. 4.

Bingel, B.T. (1997). "Understanding Trade Unionism in Nigeria:
Historical Evolution and Prospects for Future Development," Funmi
Adewumi (Ed.), *Trade Unionism in Nigeria: Challenges for the 21^st^
Century*, Lagos, Nigeria: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

CAPP (2003). "Community: CAPP at 10," 2nd Quarter, Vol.6, No. 2.

CAPP (2002). "SOS: Hydropower Communities Cry Out: Hyppadec to the
Rescue," 4th Quarter, Vol.6, No. 1.

CAPP (1996). "Figures of Marginalization: Women in Plateau State Public
Service."

CAPP (1996). "A Manual for the Public Complaints Commission Adapted From
UN Handbook on the Establishment and Strengthening of National
Institutions."

CAPP and International Human Rights Law Group (June-July 2003).
"Legislative Mandate Advocacy: Civil Society Maps Fresh Strategies,"
Vol. 3, No. 10.

CEDPA (2003). "PACE Annual Report May 30, 2002-September 2003."

CEDPA (2003). "Linkages between Women's Participation in Democratic
Activities and Reproductive Health Behaviors: A Case Study of Plateau
State, Nigeria."

CEDPA (2001). "CEDPA/Nigeria R4 Report for the Enable DG Project:
October 1, 1999-September 30, 2001."

CEDPA (2001). "Women's Empowerment."

CEDPA. "Memorandum to the Technical Committees on the Review of the
Structure of Local Government Councils in Nigeria: Gender Implications."

CFCR (2002). "Memorandum Submitted to the Presidential Committee on
Provisions for the Practice of Citizenship and Rights in Nigeria."

DevTech Systems, Inc. (2003). "Gender Assessment Report."

Diamond, Larry (1999). *Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation*,
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.

Ekeh, Peter (1976). "Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A
Theoretical Statement," *Comparative Studies in Society and History*,
17, No. 1: 91-112.

Forrest, Tom (1994). *The Makers and Making of Nigerian Private
Enterprise*, Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books Ltd., 25-28; 37-40.

Government of Nigeria (1999). *Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria*.

IDASA (2003). "Political Essays and Occasional Papers."

IDASA (2003). "Communications HUB Documentation."

Igbuzor, Otive and Banidele, Ololade (2002). "National Conference on the
Constitutional Reform Process in Nigeria," Citizens' for Constitutional
Reform (CFCR), Lagos.

Imam, Ayesha M. (1993). "The Dynamics of WINning: An Analysis of Women
in Nigeria," in R. Robson (Ed.) *Women in Nigeria: The First Ten Years*,
Lagos: Women in Nigeria, 20-21.

JHU/CCP (2002). "DG Phase IV 2002 Annual Report."

Joseph, Richard (May 1996). "Nigeria: Inside the Dismal Tunnel,"
*Current History*: 194-195.

Kew, Darren and Peter Lewis (2003). "Nigeria," in Mark Kesselman, Joel
Krieger, and William Joseph (Eds.) *Introduction to Comparative
Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas*, Houghton Mifflin:
New York.

Kukah, Matthew Hassan (1999). *Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria*,
Ibadan: Spectrum Books, 61-63 and Chapter 5.

Lambert, G., J. Luche, and J. Nenon (1996). "Evaluation of the African
Women Leaders in Agriculture and the Environment Program," USAID.

Lewis, Peter M. and Michael Bratton (April 2000). "Attitudes Toward
Democracy and Markets in Nigeria: Report of a National Opinion Survey
January-February 2000," Washington, DC: IFES/MSI, 16.

Luche, J. and A. M. Correa (November 2000). "Good Governance and
Participation Practices: Kedougou, Senegal," UNCDF/UNOPS (French and
English versions available).

Luche, J. (September 2000). "Mozambique Governance Review: Operational
Guidelines to Improve Participation by the Population in the Nampula
Region," UNCDF.

Luche, J. (October 1999). "Mwanza, Tanzania: Assessment of Local
Authorities Governance Practices, Development of the Village Planning
Exercise, and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation System,"
UNDP/UNCDF.

Luche, J. (March 1999). "Kedougou Senegal Technical Review of Project
Participation Practices and Team Building."

Luche, J. (October 1998). "Technical Review of Participatory Development
Issues in Decentralized Planning and Financing Project," Mozambique.

Luche, J. (December 1997). "UNCDF Participatory Development: Synthesis
and Recommendations for Standard Practices," (French and English
versions).

Luche, J. (1993). "The Gender and Political Participation (GAPP) Study,"
USAID.

"Nigerian-European Community Country Support Strategy and Indicative
Program for 2001-2007."

Obi, Cyril (forthcoming). "Oil and the Politics of Transition," in Brown
Onuoha and Fadakinte (Eds.) *Transition Politics in Nigeria, 1970-1998*.

Olukoshi, Adebayo O. (1993). "Introduction: From Crisis to Adjustment in
Nigeria," in Adebayo Olukoshi (Ed.) *The Politics of Structural
Adjustment in Nigeria*, Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational.

Olukoshi, Adebayo O. (1997). "Associational Life," in Larry Diamond,
Anthony Kirk-Greene, and Oyeleye Oyediran (Eds.) *Transitions without
End: Nigerian Politics and Civil Society under Babangida*, Boulder:
Lynne Rienner, 391.

Oyediran, Oyeleye, Larry Diamond, and Anthony Kirk-Green, Eds., (1997).
*Transitions without End: Nigerian Politics and Civil Society under
Babangida*, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

"Save the Earth: Nigeria, Annual Report for 2001," Rivers State Nigeria.

Siegel, Louis (2001). "Nigeria: Local Government Assessment," ARD-USAID.

Silver, Robin (2003). "PROSPECT Phase I Assessment Report," MSI-USAID.

Silver, Robin (2002). "Using Media-based Programs to Communicate
DG/Conflict Management Messages in Nigeria: Effectiveness and Impacts."

Sklar, Richard L. (1996). "Toward a Theory of Developmental Democracy,"
in Adrian Leftwich (Ed.) *Democracy and Development: Theory and
Practice*, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Solidarity Center (2003). "LADDER Annual Program Report Covering the
Period of October 1, 2002-September 30, 2003."

TMG and United Nations Electoral Assistance Divisions (UNEAD) (September
2001). "Enabling Environment and Constitutionalism in Nigeria."

Transition Monitoring Group (TMG). "Manual for Continuous Voter
Registration Exercise."

USAID Country Strategic Plan for USAID's Program in Nigeria (2003-2009).

USAID's Assistance Strategy for Nigeria (2004-2009).

USAID Annual Program Statement: LADDER, USAID/Nigeria.

USAID Program Description of PACE Consortium.

USAID Summary Report on NGO Consultations (2000).

USAID Report of the Civil Society Roundtable (2001).

USAID Performance Monitoring Plans (2002).

Women's Law and Development Center (WLDCN) and CEDPA (2002).
"Constitution Made Easy with Gender Advocacy Points."

Women's Rights, Advantages and Protections Alternatives (WRAPA) (2003).
"Nigeria 2003 Election: the Experience of Women as Aspirants in
Political Party Primaries."

[^1]: Mogadam, Valentine. 2002. "Citizenship, Civil Society, and Women
    in the Arab Region," Al-Raida 19 (97-98): 12-21.

[^2]: This report will use the words "network" and "coalition"
    interchangeably.

[^3]: This activity was not USAID-funded.