Presentation on theme: "Nordic+ study of Country Level CSO Support Models Ivar Evensmo, Senior Adviser, Civil Society Department, Norad 4 February 2008."— Presentation transcript:
Nordic+ study of Country Level CSO Support Models Ivar Evensmo, Senior Adviser, Civil Society Department, Norad 4 February 2008
2 Overview Background and process Findings about major trends re: models of country-based CS support Conclusions and recommendations of the Scanteam study Nordic+ - way forward: Analysts' recommendations to donors
3 Definition: Country-based support for civil society Support for civil society in the South provided at recipient country level (as opposed to assistance provided through Northern channels, such as through the HQ of Northern CSOs)
4 Background, process Nordic+ DG meeting in Nairobi, Nov. 06 Nordic+ CS partners meeting in Oslo Feb 07: CIDA, SIDA, DFID, Ireland, Finland, Norad (lead) Six case countries: Bangladesh, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe Scanteam: fieldwork Apr-July 07 Nordic+ draft Management Response & Conclusions for DGs Dec 07/Jan 08
5 Key issues How can models of civil society support help to strengthen CS in the South, promote local ownership and reduce transaction costs? How can a greater share of funding be channelled directly to Southern CSOs while maintaining the advantages of North-South Partnerships? What is the right balance between responsive CSO funding and more strategic intervention by direct funding, core/programme support and capacity development? Which support models will best ensure funding diversity and outreach? Which support models will best allow CSOs to strengthen their various accountabilities and development effectiveness?
6 Structure of Donor Funding to Civil Society Three dichotomous dimensions analytically useful: Unilateral vs. Joint - several donors w/ formal instruments for managing funding CSO Project vs. Core / Programme Direct vs. Indirect - through Intermediary DirectIndirect / Intermediary ProjectCoreProjectCore UnilateralUni-Dir-ProjUni-Dir-CoreUni-Ind-ProjUni-Ind-Core JointJoint-Dir-ProjJoint-Dir-CoreJoint-Ind-ProjJoint-Ind-Core
7 Status – varies by donor, by country, over time. Can be changed - no need for policy changes! Trends From Unilateral to Joint From Direct to Indirect / Use of Intermediary (Probably) from Project to Core / Programme Different driving forces General: moving towards multi-actor, strategic support forms Status and Trends
8 1. Aid Effectiveness ("Paris Agenda") Ownership, Mutual Accountability Joint, longer-term Core/Prog support – BUT w/ better Results Reporting Harmonisation Donors should move faster IF / WHEN objectives clear Managing for Results Clarify Objectives Alignment "with what?": CS not monolithic … 2. Vibrant, Diverse, Democratic Civil Society: Outreach: Unclear concept, no operational goals Accessibility: No strategy for reducing transaction costs Study’s Outcome Statement: Donors lack strategic goals/outcome statements for CS support Unclear goals No criteria for selecting instrument Objectives and Modalities
9 Average fund level for Core/Programme > Project 1/3 of agreements Core/Programme; if Joint even higher CSOs prefer Core/Programme: More predictable, flexible, appreciative of total value of CSO delivery Goes to larger, better established, urban CSOs (Tougher on financial reporting), less on results reporting Built on trust (personal relations?) Move towards Core/Programme support, but counterbalance the preference for larger, established, urban CSOs Need to collaborate w./Intermediaries to move beyond this "privileged" CSO group Project vs. Core/Programme Funding
10 Increased use of Intermediaries: reduced transaction costs to donors, potentially also to CSOs Many Intermediary agents used: Northern NGOs (largest!); umbrella CSOs; firms, foundations etc. Management professionalism; conflict of interest issues Arrangements may be complex Many CSOs prefer Direct: feel as sub-contractors/ substitutable with indirect; intermediary monopolises info flows, captures main benefits etc. Contracts w/ Intermediaries is a key tool. May apply performance-based fees, based on capacity for outreach, better results frameworks etc. Develop contracts in dialogue w/CS forum – but: often neglected! Direct vs. Indirect Funding
11 > 75% of agreements Unilateral, though €-share lower Nordic+ moving to more Joint: Paris Agenda Formal instruments Greater clarity on program values (i.e. transparency, predictability, mutual accountability), objectives, mechanisms and roles. Joint arrangements may increase risk and volatility as "group think" all fund same issues/organisations pressures to change own priorities focus on fewer strategic goals – less innovation, more conformity(?) Unilateral vs. Joint Funding
12 Donors less systematic re: CS support Need to clarify objectives Donor support in fragile/post-conflict particularly poor Several (not fully compatible) frameworks exist – need to systematise, agree on key guiding principles Donor & CSO views diverge Need for structured arenas for dialogue CS diverse, will remain so Need to lower CSOs' access costs to donor dialogue as well Support models must be country specific Need for national and local dialogue! Ensure long-term vision: Donors’ strategic goals/outcomes must be shared, known and predictably funded Transaction costs of CS support/€ will remain high; Need to measure/track this by support modality/CSO perspective Study Conclusions & Recommendations
13 Analysts' recommendations to donors for Nordic+ follow-up (I) Act on the international consensus around the need for the PD principles of national ownership, harmonisation, alignment, mutual accountability and results in CSO support Enhance national and local capacity to administer country-based support for civil society in the South Monitor achieved development results as well as the implementation process Enable new models to administer greater volumes of development assistance at reduced transaction costs Broaden and extend the outreach of country-based support models for civil society in the South Implement study recommendations
14 Analysts' recommendations (II) Design criteria for new support models must build on: Joint donor guiding principles for co-operation with civil society Clearer strategic goals for the support to civil society, based on substantial goals for the development of civil society Operationalise the goals for support to civil society. Focus on diversity - and in close collaboration with civil society representatives Improve the dialogue, through more arenas for regular dialogue between donors and civil society actors, on joint formulation of policy, goals and indicators for goal achievement Clearer emphasis on both support for civil society (focussing on diversity) and support through civil society (focussing on aid effectiveness) Joint templates for contracts, monitoring and assessing risk for conflicts of interest in connection with the selection of intermediaries Mutual accountability, especially ” downward accountability”.
15 Actions for implementation by Nordic+ in 2008: Increase core/programme support, joint support and indirect support/use of intermediaries while upholding requirements for mutual accountability, results achievement and transparency. Increase donor coordination of country-based support to civil society in the South. Utilize existing aid effectiveness principles. Paris Declaration; OECD/DAC’s criteria for work in fragile states and situations; Principles of Good Donorship - basis for country- based discussions to strengthen relations and dialogue between MFA/headquarters/Embassies and civil society. Operationalise the diversity principle through greater outreach and accessibility, in close dialogue with representatives of civil society. Include risk analysis and management as a central component throughout all phases of country-based support for civil society in the South. Select two or three countries in which to increase their core/programme support, joint support and/or use of intermediaries. Conclusions adopted by Nordic+ DGs