1. Slide 1 Civil Society Policy and Practice in Donor Agencies GSDRC study commissioned by DFID, February 2010 Size and position for cover image Lone Sorensen, DFID Civil Society Department, 26 January 2011

2. Slide 2 Overview Background: contextual developments Current trends - policies and funding mechanisms –Pros/cons of pooled funding –Pros/cons of core funding Issues arising

3. Slide 3 Donors examined Multilateral DonorsBilateral Donors African Development Bank Asian Development Bank European Commission UNDP UNICEF World Bank CIDA Danida Irish Aid MFA Netherlands Norad Sida USAID

4. Slide 4 Background: contextual developments Aid Effectiveness and the Paris Declaration –Donor approaches driven by need to support development of nationally owned policies –CSOs seen as having important role in building country ownership of policies by being engaged in dialogue about policies and holding governments to account for delivery –Open Forum / Better Aid established for CSOs to develop own standards and monitor effects of ‘aid effectiveness’ –Rise of harmonised funding mechanisms (pooled funds), especially to create funds locally. Replacing ’small project’ budget of many donors. –Rise of ‘global civil society’

5. Slide 5 Current trends – civil society policy MultilateralsBilaterals Support for civil society to have greater agenda-setting role: Consultation and participation of CSOs in programmes at country level Creation of opportunities for global level civil society groups to engage and lobby multilaterals on own policies Development of strong civil society as an end in itself: More focus on capacity building and development of southern civil society - balanced with need to support home-based NGOs Continue to ensure civil society work is engaged with policy advocacy beyond service delivery Focus on diversity

6. Slide 6 Current policies – funding mechanisms MultilateralsBilaterals Limited funds at centralised level - most distributed via country offices Much work with CSOs conducted by departments other than the ‘civil society’ department Central ‘anchor’ has advisory role and engages with civil society at global level but does not coordinate Limited organisation level data on civil society work Funding for domestic CSOs concentrated more on ‘core funding’ or ‘programmatic grants’ Emerging focus on supporting Southern civil society eg, fewer grants for home-based INGOs / more to consortia greater focus on funding for partners who give priority to southern partners multi donor funding at country level greater use of embassy funds

7. Slide 7 Current tends – implications of support to Southern civil society Greater focus on contextualised understanding –More nuanced understanding of social and political landscape in recipient countries –Emphasis on work with CSOs will depend on context (eg Dutch) –More informed choice of partners – who is in a position to make the greatest contribution? Eg focus on supporting partners that can engage politically Increased interest in harmonised southern based funding –Increased focus on establishing direct funding mechanisms for Southern CSOs –Increase in multi-donor funding mechanisms –Increased use of Embassy funds (Netherlands, Denmark)

8. Slide 8 Funding mechanisms pros/cons – pooled funds StrengthsWeaknesses Reduces transaction costs, fosters coordination, improves mutual accountability Has potential for greater outreach because of greater volume Has higher impact on national decision making because of volume and agreement between donors May reduce number and scope of funding sources May favour funding fewer, larger CSOs May focus more on donor concerns and objectives – rather than on CSO dialogue. Can be resource intensive Perception that service delivery predominates (CSOs as contractors v vibrancy and diversity)

9. Slide 9 Funding mechanisms pros/cos – core funding StrengthsWeaknesses Flexible – supports ownership, autonomy and long term planning Particularly appropriate for advocacy CSOs which need to maintain legitimacy and independence Simplified reporting requirements facilitates downward accountability Reduces transaction costs for donors Has historically favoured Northern INGO (trust) May be expected to have impact on southern CSOs but often not made explicit in results frameworks May not be accessible to diverse range of CSOs because of high demands for organisational capacity Small, inexperienced CSOs lose out (may be better targeted through project funding)

10. Slide 10 Issues Arising The choice of support modality matters! Core funding and multi-donor mechanisms which emphasise harmonisation and alignment can limit access and outreach, or over-institutionalise CSOs Need for variety of funding mechanisms that reach CSOs of different sizes, strengths and interests Need to develop better understanding of non-donor sources of civil society funding – eg through diaspora groups Consider differentiated grant making v. ‘one size fist all’ Also need for experimental funding to nurture coalitions

11. Slide 11 Issues arising – what donors can do now Emphasise transparency by producing clear and accessible information in each country context about: –support modalities –levels of funding –access points to funding Simplify procedures Provide support for weaker CSO players to participate Push the benefits of core funding down through INGO intermediaries to their southern partners

12. Slide 12 Size and position for image Image only