|
|
 |
AID EFFECTIVENESS:
Trends and impacts of shifting financial flows to civil society organisations in Southern Africa
Report on Donor Roundtable Dialogue
2 MARCH, 2007
GABORONE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE
GABORONE, BOTSWANA
|
Summary
The international donor community has put
in place processes with the objective of enhancing aid effectiveness for a
number of years now. The Rome High-Level Forum on Harmonisation (2003) and the
Marrakech Roundtable on Managing for Results (2004) set precedents for the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) which remains a landmark document
on aid effectiveness. SADC member states and their international cooperation partners
adopted a similar declaration in
Windhoek
in April 2006. Both the Paris
and Windhoek Declarations call upon donor institutions, developing and
developed countries to increase their efforts to effectively utilise
development resources on the basis of the principles of ownership,
harmonisation, alignment, managing for results and mutual accountability. The challenge that remains is the implementation of the declarations and
addressing some of the emerging issues, such as how they relate to non-state actors.
A key objective of the Dialogue was to
establish the extent to which external donor support to southern
Africa
civil society organisations (CSOs) is being
affected by the new emphasis on aid effectiveness. The argument is that there is a significant shift in the
way donors are channelling their support to CSOs, including the pooling of
donor support through national and regional intermediaries. This in turn has
the potential to shift the dynamics in the way CSOs can influence poverty
reduction efforts.Some key questions about the nature and extent of
coherence between donor country level support and their regional support to
CSOs are also emerging. For example, how does donor support to CSOs working on
poverty reduction at the national level link to those CSOs working on regional
initiatives.
In addition, there are also concerns about
the pace and limited impact of improving aid effectiveness through
harmonisation (donor cooperation) and alignment (support to partner
priorities), especially in relation to addressing issues of the quality of aid,
moving from project support to budget support, aid absorption capacity of
southern Africa CSOs, and the limited participation of key interest groups in
influencing decisions on how aid is given, managed and utilised, among other
issues.
It is in this context that the
Southern Africa Trust
commissioned a research report
on the subject of “Aid Effectiveness: Trends and Impacts of Shifting Financial
Flows to CSOs in
Southern Africa
”. The research
findings of this work were presented at a one-day roundtable discussion on 2nd March, 2007 in
Gaborone
,
Botswana
.
The roundtable session objectives were:
·
To share the research findings
of the draft
Southern Africa Trust
commissioned research.
·
To discuss ways of strengthening
CSOs so as to ensure they can effectively access and manage aid flows
(absorptive capacity) to southern
Africa
.
·
To discuss effective mechanisms
and innovative sources of funding for CSOs in southern
Africa
.
·
To discuss future opportunities
for regional CSO-Donor engagement in southern
Africa
.
2.1.
Key Emerging Issues
Key emerging issues from the dialogue are
outlined as follows:
a)
The relationship between donors
and civil society organisations (CSOs) is a strong one. An estimated one-third of official aid goes to CSOs in the South. However, CSOs have not
effectively and directly utilised platforms for discussions about aid
effectiveness that have been taking place in recent years.
b)
CSOs play a critical role in
the poverty reduction supply chain given that they speak for the voiceless “poor”;
they ensure transparency and accountability and contribute to the policy
process. Therefore, they are an important player in the process that seeks to
make aid more effective and responsive to the needs of its intended constituents. There is need for greater CSO involvement in the
aid effectiveness debate and process.
c)
There is a greater need to use
regional and national CSOs as intermediary vehicles for delivery of aid as well
as trying to harness the diversity of the sector in ensuring aid benefits its
intended constituents and reduces poverty levels in southern Africa while at
the same time ensuring that there is sustainability for such efforts. A case
study of the
Southern Africa Trust
was
used to illustrate this point.
d)
The research findings from the
study on Aid Effectiveness: Trends and
Impacts of Shifting Financial Flows to CSOs in Southern Africa illustrate
that aid volume to the Southern Africa Development Cooperation (SADC) region is
increasing. Service delivery is noted as
one of the key areas where donors are investing.
e)
Donors are supporting CSOs
through multiple funding agencies and a variety of support models. There is
need for greater CSO and government collaboration and harmonisation.
f)
There is a need for increased
dialogue among donors and CSOs given that they have a crucial role to play in
the aid supply chain especially given their diversity and specialisation. CSOs
need to enhance collaboration amongst each other to have a greater influence on
policy dialogue.
g)
There is need to enhance multi donor approaches that support CSOs in
Southern Africa to increase their networking and learning capability, support Community Based Organisations (CBOs),
reduce duplication, encourage innovation and enhance the objectives of the
Paris
and
Windhoek
declarations.
2.2.
Way Forward
Key aspects of a way forward that emerged
as outcomes of the closing discussion were:
a)
The need for increased
dialogue, sharing of information, learning, and analysis in the aid
effectiveness agenda, and for building relationships amongst CSOs in the
region, in a forum such as this. This will enable increased engagement of CSOs
in policy dialogue and increased voice and attention by donors and government
in areas of mutual interest.
b)
Ensuring declarations such as
Paris
and
Windhoek
are conceptualised through a consultative process. This can be done by
providing space for full engagement/ involvement of CSOs so as to entrench the
principle of ownership and facilitate better implementation of these treaties.
c)
Assessing the role and impact
of CSOs in the SADC-Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP)
process will provide a good pointer to the alignment of their strategies both
at the national and regional level, enabling a better evaluation of their
strategies based on their strategic performance.
d)
There is a need for CSOs to
take leadership in the aid effectiveness debate by harnessing their diversity,
developing their institutional architecture, and actively engaging donors and
governments in dialogue on their needs. The Southern Arica Trust is keen to
take on a proactive role to help develop learning and analysis and effective
practices, so as to ensure greater CSO engagement with the aid effectiveness
agenda in southern
Africa
. Broader
participation and voice is needed to address this leadership vacuum because the
Trust does not want to necessarily take a leadership role in this area. The
Trust will follow up on the outcomes of this meeting with SADC, key CSOs in the
region working on aid delivery issues, and donor regional programmes to take
forward a process in a programmatic way. This may include structured mechanisms
to ensure better knowledge of aid flows and mechanisms, sustained monitoring of
trends in aid flows, and regular, structured dialogue between the various
interest groups.
e)
The adoption of a strategic
approach by CSOs in the region to provide better focus and participation in
policy dialogue on aid is required. Conceptualising the strategies from a
systems perspective and investigating the impact of processes such as the APRM
in the region will be beneficial.
f)
The research report will be
finalised after taking account of this dialogue meeting. It will then be issued
publicly. Further focus discussions will be convened to concretise
recommendations for specific action.
Central to these developments is a need to
engage in dialogue at different levels, initially informally as CSOs cultivate
trust among each other and invest in collaborative partnerships, thus
positioning themselves strategically for Accra 2008.
Overall, CSOs need to proactively engage in
a continuous structured policy dialogue and also ensure that community voices
are directly heard in this dialogue.
The following record highlights presentations
and discussions during the different sessions of the roundtable dialogue.
3.
Making a case for supporting civil
society organisations in southern Africa, by Kemi Williams, DFID
The relationship between donors and civil
society organisations (CSOs) is a strong one in many respects, with an
estimated one-third of official aid now going through or directly to CSOs in
the South. CSOs have not however been directly involved in the discussions about
aid effectiveness that have been taking place in recent years. The session,
thus explored some of the reasons for donors supporting greater involvement by
CSOs in this process from the DFID perspective and its intended goal of being a
responsible donor within the framework of market forces that allows for an exit
strategy (strategic plans shifting from five years to ten years e.g. Ghana and
South Africa) by the donor while at the same time ensuring sustainability of
aid projects
3.1.
Role of CSOs in the poverty
reduction supply chain
The Paris Declaration (global focus) and
Windhoek Declaration (indigenised for the SADC region) developed the principles
of harmonisation, alignment, ownership and mutual accountability. These
principles are to make aid more effective and responsive to the needs of its
intended constituents. The aim was to:
a)
Minimise transaction costs to
governments receiving and giving aid
b)
Promote coherence in the
allocation and use of aid to the realities facing its intended beneficiaries.
c)
Minimise duplication of roles
among stakeholders in the aid supply chain.
d)
Ensure donors support recipient
government priorities (appropriateness enables ownership).
For these to be effective there should be:
·
Good governance.
·
Sound policies e.g. PRSPs.
·
Complementary interaction
between CSOs and governments in the service delivery realm.
Guiding the process was that governments
needed to formulate appropriate and realistic poverty reduction strategies. Recipient countries were expected to put in place governance systems that were deemed to be “good enough” so as to
access donor funds. Enabling this
goal of aid effectiveness provided an opportunity for CSOs to fill gaps in
service delivery and project implementation as regards the aid supply chain and
the intended goal of providing the optimal benefit to the intended recipients
of that aid.
The role of CSOs in this aid supply chain
is thus:
·
Speaking for the voiceless
(poor).
·
Ensuring transparency and
accountability is upheld by aid recipient governments.
·
Contributing towards evidence
based policy processes and formulation.
·
Increasing collaboration with
government in the process to ensure the aid supply chain is focused, of good
quality and responsive to the appropriate needs of its intended recipients.
CSOs should thus be proactive and involved
in improving aid effectiveness by:
a)
Engaging in aid projects that
truly define the needs of the poor.
b)
Modelling aid effectiveness
strategies based on what is appropriate to its intended recipients.
c)
Holding aid delivery
stakeholders accountable for “what” (i.e. the goal of the policies/projects to
be implemented) and “for whom” (i.e. the intended beneficiaries of the policies
and projects).
d)
Engaging in critical thinking
on the aid instruments used, and whether they promote harmonisation e.g. PRSPs
do they deliver for the poor, how accountable are they?
e)
Collaborating with governments
to develop robust (inclusive) PRSPs that set the foundation for true mutual
accountability.
f)
Piloting and adopting the
Paris
principles on aid
effectiveness and identifying their appropriateness in a specific
country/region
3.2.
Case:
Southern Africa
Trust
The decision to form the Trust was based on
an observation that CSOs were not working efficiently in the region and had a
poor absorptive capacity of resources. The role of the trust was to engage in
grant making and capacity building of CSOs in the SADC region. This required
indigenisation of strategies for greater effectiveness as well as a vehicle for
DFID to outsource the allocation and management of its donor funds. An initial
grant of ten million pounds sterling over a five year period was provided to
the trust. This was meant to reduce the transaction costs associated with
aid. The goal was to enable increased
aid effectiveness and greater impact on its intended recipients. This enabled
the aid supply chain to be more responsive as bureaucratic levels were reduced,
although still prevalent, which resulted in time lags in the availability of
aid. The problem can be solved by the donor being a responsible one as most
CSOs operate on a hand to mouth basis; hence any time lag drastically affects
the outcome of a project.
Using the
Southern
Africa Trust
as an aid delivery vehicle coincides with aid
flows to the SADC region increase annually with the budgetary framework of the
United Kingdom
providing more allocations to CSOs. This is in line with a goal to increase
British foreign aid to 0.7% of gross domestic product by 2013. Redundancies in
DFID staff have also called for innovative allocation of funds so as to reduce
the transaction cost of providing aid.
3.3.
Plenary Discussions
Discussions on this presentation centred
on:-
a)
The need to create the
Southern Africa Trust
for the region and its
sustainability after exit by donors.
b)
CSOs struggle with bureaucracy
by donors/ governments and attempts to address this.
c)
The effectiveness of an
initiative like the Southern Africa Trust in representing a shift in the type
and volume of aid flowing into the region.
d)
Sustainability of this support
model to improve aid effectiveness.
e)
CSOs offering one of the key
vehicles for delivery of aid.
The meeting concluded that the focus on increasing financial
flows to developing countries by donor countries is offering opportunities for
the greater participation of CSOs as governments struggle to utilise funds at
their disposal.This has further increased the need to use CSOs as
vehicles for delivery of aid as well as trying to harness the diversity of the
sector in ensuring aid benefits its intended recipients and reduces poverty
levels in southern
Africa
while maintaining a
sustainability mindset.
4. Research findings on aid
effectiveness: trends and impacts of shifting financial flows to CSOs in southern
Africa, by Elling Tjonneland, Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI)
The
Southern
Africa Trust
commissioned a report on the impacts of the aid
effectiveness debate on CSOs in southern
Africa
.
The report is based on the collection of data from seven SADC countries-
Botswana
,
Lesotho
,
Malawi
,
Mozambique
,
South
Africa
,
Zambia
and
Zimbabwe
.
It identifies the main trends in aid flows and support models to civil society
while assessing trends in relation to the principles of aid effectiveness. The
following are the preliminary findings of the report.
4.1.
Research Findings
The research findings focus on four main
areas:
a)
Aid volume to CSOs in the
Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region is increasing with service
delivery dominating as a major proportion of aid to CSOs that is channelled to them to engage in sectors such as health and
education :
·
Substantial but difficult in
quantifying due to the classification of aid by donors as regards the
definition of CSOs.
·
Channelled through northern NGO’s
that act as an intermediary between donor governments and CSOs.
·
New donors from foundations via
ACBF to the EU through the formation of special purpose vehicles and
philanthropic endeavours to disburse aid.
·
Small but significant direct
support to advocacy and policy engagement due to a perceived need to enable
stakeholder reconciliation.
b)
Aid effectiveness processes are
advancing at the official level in southern
Africa
:
·
The
Windhoek
declaration adopts a home-grown adaptation of the
Paris
declaration for the SADC region,
thereby enabling the appropriateness of the Paris Declaration to the SADC
region.
c)
The role of CSOs in improving
aid effectiveness is not guided by a coherent strategic approach:
·
There is a limited focus on
civil society as CSOs are mostly seen as a last resort for aid disbursement
where governments have failed, coupled with weak absorptive capacity of donor
aid.
·
There is poor but growing donor
cooperation in line with the principle of harmonisation, through greater
collaboration on points of interest in policy debate and poverty reduction
strategies.
·
CSOs are not guided by a strategic
approach as regards the donors/government perceptions of CSOs. This makes areas
of engagement between the two adversarial and not collaborative. There is also
a competitiveness mindset amongst CSOs working addressing aid issues and
between CSOs and governments.
·
There is a diversity of funding
agencies and variety of support models. This is evident in professional CSOs
that have proven effective in delivering projects that have an impact on the
poor. It is based on donor agencies identifying their strengths and weaknesses,
thus allowing for specialisation.
d)
New trends are emerging out of
the aid effectiveness initiatives:
·
New entry points for policy engagement are emerging as donors/governments
see an increased need to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach in policy
engagement. However, this should be done between CSOs and SADC at the regional,
thematic and national levels.
·
Some agencies are increasing direct support to CSOs
especially in countries where donors perceive that governance is not good
enough.
·
There is more focus on capacity building of CSOs so as to
increase their absorptive capacity and functionality in this dynamic
environment.
·
International NGOs from donor countries are accessing more
funds as donor governments outsource aid disbursements to their local NGO’s
that are increasingly taking space in the southern
Africa
region.
4.2.
Moving
forward
a)
The paradox of harmonisation and diversity is that too much
harmonisation will negatively affect CSO diversity which emanate from the
diverse purposes, organisational structures and constituencies of CSOs. The extent of harmonisation is also constrained due to the inherent
diversity of interests and priority areas amongst donors. This being so,
attempts at enabling effective CSO support through collaborative frameworks
among donors can be accelerated by:
·
Increased dialogue among donors
on their CSOs support experience.
·
Increased collaboration by
donor agencies that engage in similar policy and project areas.
·
Ensuring a higher probability
of collaboration by starting dialogue at the outset of programmes.
·
Establishment of local funding
facilities in close proximity to CSOs.
·
Regional CSO support facilities
such as the
Southern Africa Trust
should collaborate with other equivalent initiatives in areas of mutual
interest for greater impact through expertise and reduced transaction costs.
b)
Challenges and opportunities at
the regional level should be identified and addressed. The challenges
presenting themselves are:
·
Mechanisms formulated in the
restructuring of SADC as regards it Secretariat and officially-recognised apex
organisations is not yet functional resulting in minimal dialogue with CSOs.
·
Weak absorptive capacity of
CSOs in the region to engage in regional policy issues.
·
The thematic groups and the
draft Windhoek Declaration Implementation Plan does not provide CSOs an adequate
framework with which to monitor donors and harness opportunities availing
themselves for regional development.
·
The need to engage CSOs in the
thematic groups so as to build networks and collaborative partnerships.
·
The extent of engagement
between SADC and CSOs will determine the bias to accountability between the
donors and the populace of the SADC region.
·
Ensuring alignment between
SADC’s regional development strategy (RISDP and SIPO) and national development
strategies.
c)
The opportunities presenting themselves
are:
·
Restructuring of SADC has
factored in avenues that offer CSOs greater involvement and mutual
accountability.
·
Formation of thematic groups for
donor coherence in SADC offers opportunities for mobilising development finance
for the region, a role CSOs can effectively engage in and facilitate.
·
Stakeholder engagement will
offer CSOs greater voice in SADC policy dialogue and enable greater perspective
of evolving donor trends, especially as regards capacity building.
d)
Investment in enabling and enforcing
NGO coalitions could be an option as they are more effective and united to a
common goal in influencing policy and engaging donors in various issues. They
also serve as a more potent voice in articulating the issues affecting the
citizens in the region from a non partisan perspective, an aspect conducive to
growth and better welfare of the regions citizens.
4.3.
Plenary
Discussions
Discussions on the research findings highlighted:
a)
The need for a better
conceptualisation and definition of CSOs in the poverty debate.
b)
The need for a determination of
issues and principles to guide a strategic approach by CSOs so as to be able to
be more accountable for results.
c)
Engagement of CSOs within the
framework of the APRM as an avenue to influence the aid effectiveness debate.
d)
Reflection on the fundamentals
of how aid functions as the underlying power dynamics are in favour of donors.
e)
Attention to the politics
involved in donor interactions.
f)
The need for a deeper
assessment of the pattern of allocation of funds between CSOs and governments.
g)
The need for greater attention
to the role of the private profit-making sector in the aid effectiveness agenda.
h)
The need to identify issues
that motivate better aid delivery.
i)
Increased domination of the aid
agenda by northern NGOs in the SADC region,
j)
Efforts being made by northern
NGOs in harmonising aid so as to minimise demands on CSOs in the SADC region.
k)
Gaps in service delivery in the
SADC region in the context of capacity development. This calls for the need for
capacity building among CSOs in the region.
l)
That the harmonisation principle
is pegged on the strength of the organisation of civil society and its
diversity in the region, the question being whether one size fits all stakeholders
or whether aid should be more focused on a case by case basis.
m)
The need to explore and
identify the specific roles of the three major stakeholders in the aid effectiveness
agenda; donors, SADC Secretariat and CSOs.
n)
Increased use of budget support
by donors and the uneasy relationship between CSOs and government on service
delivery.
o)
The effects of minimising
transaction costs on operational space for donors and CSOs.
p)
The need to invest in the
diversity of CSOs.
q)
The definition of capacity requirements
as regards CSOs and how much should be invested in capacity building.
r)
The effects of issuing
pre-determined calls for proposals that set the agenda for work undertaken.
s)
The need to balance reducing
transaction costs and aid effectiveness.
t)
The need for greater investment
in public-private partnership initiatives.
u)
Need for SADC-based CSOs to
engage northern NGO’s to ensure their operations are aligned to national and
regional development plans.
v)
The need to develop appropriate
strategies for CSOs to influence the aid debate so that CSOs are not just passive
recipients of aid.
w)
The need for realism about what
CSOs can and cannot do.
x)
The need for identification of
points of parity and strategic fits among different CSOs in the SADC region.
The session concluded that CSOs have a crucial
role to play in the aid supply chain especially given their diversity and
specialisation. This is evident from the research findings that have noted a
trend of increased aid to CSOs in the region. However, CSOs have to collaborate
so as to maintain relevance and have a greater influence on policy dialogue and
points of engagement in the aid supply chain. We now look at the experience of
one such agency that could provide such an avenue of collective influence for
CSOs in the region in the aid effectiveness process.
5.
Multi-donor approaches to southern
African CSO institutional development: challenges and opportunities, by Neville
Gabriel,
Southern Africa Trust
The
Southern
Africa Trust
was established with the aim of strengthening
the engagement of regional CSOs in the development and implementation of
policies aimed at overcoming poverty. As an organisation, it provides a useful
example of and for a multi-donor approach to the institutional development of
CSOs. The opportunities and challenges of this approach are discussed below.
5.1.
Emerging Learning from the
Southern
Africa
Trust
The goal of the Trust is for regional civil
society organisation to be:
·
Effective: CSOs should have a
regional impact on policy formulation and implementation so that policies work
better to overcome poverty. This can be done through capacity building of
stakeholders who engage in policy work.
·
Active: CSOs should be vocal
participants in policy dialogue. This is done by facilitating CSO engagement in
policy processes.
·
Inclusive: Through the adoption
of a multi-stakeholder approach to widening participation among various
constituents and creating an enabling environment for excluded civil society
voices.
·
Informed: Sharing learning and
analysis and building knowledge networks. This will impact on the quality of evidence-based
policy generation.
·
Resourced: Support to policy
work will be provided through the allocation of grants.
The purpose of the
Southern
Africa Trust
is thus, to support deeper and wider engagement
in policy dialogue to overcome poverty in the region.
Learning outcomes of the
Southern Africa Trust
’s approach include:
a)
A pragmatic approach that is
based on the realities facing targeted constituencies, works best. In the aid
effectiveness debate, the approach of the Trust is that changes are happening
to the way aid is provided and this is already having an impact of CSOs in the
region. The question is therefore: what can we do about this for the benefit of
CSOs and for more effective poverty reduction?
b)
Increased support to CSO
capacity building can improve aid effectiveness since CSOs are part and parcel
of the aid supply chain. However, CSOs must demonstrate that they credibly and
legitimately represent voices of the poor.
c)
Assessing the power dynamics in aid supply and absorption
must include assessing the power dynamics amongst different interests amongst
CSOs as well. There are, for example, major differences
of interest and influence amongst the NGO establishment and community based
organisations, as between bigger and better resourced professionalized NGOs and
other types of NGOs.
d)
The question of whether
it is advisable for CSOs to access funding through governments in southern
Africa
is a moot question since it is only a question of
which governments CSOs will be willing to take money from, either through
direct donor aid or budget support. Greater engagement
between CSOs and governments is required in southern
Africa
if we are to build developmental states that are sustainable. However, there is
no doubt that the type of government that CSOs access funding from will
influence the shape of CSO programmes.
e)
Donor administrative systems
lag behind political developments in aid coherence, resulting in a dysfunction
between formation of policy and translation of those policies into operating
systems, negatively affecting the intended goal of aid harmonisation processes.
f)
The increasing deconcentration
of donor delivery mechanisms to regional and national levels, taken together
with a reduction in administrative capacity by most donors, is resulting in an
increased concentration of financial resources in fewer CSO recipients
according to a kind of “bigger is better” principle, because this is
administratively easier. CSOs that benefit are mostly well-established, big,
and highly professional service delivery or research-type institutes. This is
changing the nature of civil society organisation in the region.
g)
Many donors face the same
challenge of reduced capacity but increased budgets. This trend is evident in
downsizing of donor staff while at the same time receiving more aid allocations
for them to disburse. This impacts on their efficiency, hence the increased
need for them to utilise a multi-donor approach so as to outsource the
management function to reduce their own transaction costs.
Key implications of these learning outcomes
are that:
·
Access to aid flows is a
challenge for most CSOs due to an increasing concentration of resources in
fewer recipients. Investment in CSO institutional development and
linkages/networks provides avenues to reduce duplicity and provide greater
access to aid as well as greater voice in policy dialogue.
·
Attempts to increase harmonized aid but not transform
operating systems means that transaction costs are reduced for donors but at
least the same level of capacity (if not more) is required amongst
beneficiaries as when aid is not harmonised. This calls
for CSOs to increase capacity building if the problem is not addressed. In
addition, CSOs must address their current weakness in absorptive capacity. Hence
more aid does not necessarily translate into more effective aid if operating
systems and capacity constraints are not addressed.
·
The role of intermediary civil society support agencies
therefore becomes more important as they become central to the aid effectiveness
agenda because they can more effectively develop harmonised systems.
·
There is already evidence of
some innovative aid delivery initiatives in the region that are centred on maximising
CSO impact in policy work to overcome poverty. The formation of the
Southern Africa Trust
is a case in point that has
seen more coherence in addressing the role of CSOs in the region, such as this
forum. Other examples include initiatives in
Mozambique
and
Lesotho
.
6.
Exploring future opportunities
for regional CSO-Donor engagement in southern Africa
Stakeholder engagement among CSOs, donors
and governments in the SADC region is a crucial step aimed at improving
interaction between the three role players in the aid effectiveness agenda and
increased aid flows to the region. One example of an aid effectiveness
initiative in the region is the establishment of thematic groups bringing
together SADC members and donor countries. What opportunities are there for
CSOs to engage in such initiatives? How can they best have input into future
policy development related to aid flows to the region?
6.1.
Thematic group coordination in
SADC, by Tracy Zinanga, SADC Secretariat
The adoption of the
Windhoek
declaration in April, 2006 heralded the beginning of a new partnership between
SADC and ICP’s that marked the implementation of the SADC common agenda based
on the principles of the
Paris
declaration. The objectives of the indigenised
Paris
declaration (read Windhoek Declaration)
were to:
·
Ensure regular
institutionalised dialogue for constructive engagement, information and
experience exchange and promotion of best practices on development cooperation.
·
Improve coordination between
ICP’s and SADC in order to ensure more effective development cooperation
mechanisms with a view to achieving maximum impact.
This provided two levels of dialogue within
SADC, namely:
·
Level 1, composed of a joint
ministerial consultative conferences that brought all SADC member countries to
a negotiating forum to chart the way for the SADC region.
·
Level 2, incorporating joint
SADC/ ICP task forces that comprise a wider network of stakeholders within the
SADC region, including core groups and thematic groups.
Thematic groups are forums that specialise
on one aspect of the poverty reduction debate such as health, education or
agriculture that constitute priority areas in the debate. They are normally led
by a designated country. The objectives of these thematic groups are:
·
Fora for exchanging ideas and
enhancing dialogue on strategic issues (consultation).
·
Platform for networking/
confidence building between SADC and stakeholders.
·
Fora for coordinating
activities to avoid overlaps (duplicity) and achieve maximum synergies with
other donors and other SADC activities.
The allocation of these thematic groups is
as follows:
·
Trade facilitation- led by the
EU.
·
Water- led by
Germany
.
·
HIV and Aids- led by
Sweden
.
·
Energy- led by
Norway
.
·
Transport- led by DFID.
·
Agriculture and food security-
led by DFID.
·
Natural resources and
environment (yet to be named).
Structures utilised to manage these
thematic groups and ensure their efficient coordination are:
·
SADC Secretariat
·
Lead ICP to assist SADC in
facilitating coordination of other ICP’s involved or interested in a thematic
area, and to strategically advise the Secretariat and other SADC structures on
ICP comparative advantages, and individual ICP priorities of support.
CSOs can engage in these thematic groups as
enshrined in the SADC Treaty. The treaty provides for continuous engagement
with the private sector, civil society, non-governmental organisations, and
workers/ employer organisations.
6.2.
CSOs and aid effectiveness:
future opportunities for involvement, by Gert Danielsen, Programme
Specialist-Aid Effectiveness, UNDP
a)
The United Nations role in the
aid effectiveness debate is:
·
To ensure commitment from the United
Nations Development Group to the aid effectiveness agenda and move upstream
from project implementation.
·
As a key supporter to national
governments in the implementation of the Paris Declaration.
·
To be instrumental in the
capacity development of national institutions so as to enable them be
responsive in this dynamic environment.
·
Harmonising inter agency organs
so as to formulate and implement one cohesive action plan. This means the UN
can speak as one voice in the poverty alleviation debate having taken in the
views of its agencies.
·
To provide country support
towards Accra 2008.
b)
The opportunities the role of
the UN presents to CSO’S are:
·
Creating new collaborative partnerships
in country governments and regional treaties enabling increased voice of CSOs
as representing a significant constituency in the poverty reduction debate
especially as regards policy issues.
·
Helping to ensure increased transparency
and mutual accountability for all players in the aid effectiveness agenda. This
enables increased professionalism of CSOs and exposure to development finance
in the region.
·
Increased participation in the service
delivery of non core functions, ensuring national ownership, thereby reducing project
implementation upheavals.
·
Supporting regional peer
training that will see increased capacity building in order to be more
responsive to the dynamic environment and increase their absorptive capacity.
·
Active participation in the Ghana
Consultation Group thereby lending their voice to the policy debate and
representing a significant constituency in the debate.
·
Harnessing comparative
advantages in the respective regions (SADC) and their alignment with the National
Development Plans of their respective countries in their region.
·
Integrating cross cutting
issues among stakeholders to reduce duplicity and achieve more voice as we move
towards Accra 2008.
·
Ensuring international,
regional and national commitments are upheld such as the Paris Declaration,
Millennium Development Goals, Gleneagles Summit, and the Windhoek Declaration.
c)
These opportunities can be
harnessed and monitored towards the Ghana Consultation Group (
Accra
2008 and 2010). This development will
serve as a form of strategic measurement on the impact CSOs may have contributed
to the poverty reduction debate.
6.3.
Opportunities for CSOs to engage in these initiatives, by Siphamandala Zondi, Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD)
a)
The participation of CSOs in
public policy development in the national and regional arena remains highly
unexplored. The involvement of the private sector (real business) and donors is
more pronounced and institutionalised than CSO engagement in the debate. This
could be attributed to three major factors:
·
State (government) attitude to
the concept of participatory democracy and development as they are emerging young
democracies.
·
Poor donor support for strengthening
regional/ domestic debate in policy formulation and capacity building of CSOs,
but using them as conduits for project implementation.
·
Structural constraints within
the CSO sector; CSO’S fragmentation, narrow agendas/ issue based, poor external
support, possession of indistinct constituencies, shifting loyalties due to
poor ideologies and strategy for self sustenance.
b)
Analysing the macro environment
within which CSOs operate, presents certain characteristics of this particular
environment:
·
The challenge of on-going struggles for democratic spaces (that
is political in nature), as CSOs are viewed in suspicion and the constituencies
they represent are vaguely defined due to lack of coherent strategies.
·
Diminishing democracy, that is,
the widening gap between state (including donors) and civil society in some
countries makes the strengthening of regional CSOs an exercise in futility.
This cripples their advocacy for the constituencies they represent in policy
dialogue.
·
Weak democratic institutions
are marked by poor citizen participation in policy dialogue, even though state
has been opening up to political parties, business and donors.
·
Exemption or leniency by
business and donors when it comes to democratic processes in government, while
receiving increased aid flows to facilitate state initiatives through increased
budgetary support.
·
Fear that deepening democracy
must mean democratization of all critical spaces through an inclusive process thereby
facilitating greater CSO involvement in policy dialogue, hence the need to
stifle their role.
c)
Exploratory areas that could
increase regional CSO-Donor engagement in southern
Africa
are:
·
Through a consultative process,
CSOs need to reach a common understanding of their role in policy dialogue,
without which there can be no effective collaborative partnerships at the
regional level and in thematic groupings.
·
CSOs have to develop a common agenda, set of priorities and
key engagement strategies based on a shared conceptual framework. The consequence being, the sector will have limited influence (lobbying
power) against well organised sectors (state and donors) in policy dialogue.
·
CSO participation in thematic groups should not substitute for policy dialogue with donors, states and
SADC on political-development questions, but should form a practical dimension
of multi-faceted engagement in policy dialogue.
·
We should encourage continuous inter-CSO conversations and
region wide networks to develop common ideas, approaches and strategies
suitable for the highly dynamic environment they operate in.
·
CSOs should continuously probe
policy and harness their rich variety of experience/ expertise, levels of
access to state and communities and various strategic focuses. They will then be
able to effectively participate at every level of engagement and on any issue
on the table. This can be done by the
sector organising itself in a neat body of institutions.
·
The region’s CSOs need to increase engagement with CSOs in the
north and elsewhere. This is meant to share experiences, build strategic
relationships and fronts in donor countries so as to be incorporated from the
onset of policy dialogue till the point of aid flow to implement the given
policy initiative.
d)
The effectiveness of this
engagement is dependent on three vectors of fundamental change in the mind set
of the three role players in the policy dialogue, namely;
·
Change in the state-civil
society relationship from adversarial to collaborative.
·
A shift in donor thinking from viewing CSOs as extensions
of donor arms to recognising their independent mandate and role in society is
critical. This can be done through increased support to
CSO development in an effort to deepen democracy, and not as a substitute of
state, as is currently the forte among donors.
·
Investment in collaborative
partnerships by CSOs on points of parity in key policy debates.
e)
CSOs can provide input to
future policy development and related aid flows in the SADC region by:
·
Changing their culture from
adversarial to collaborative, harnessing their synergy, diversity and unity.
·
CSOs have to agree on a proper CSO
regional platform such as SADC NGO, SARPN-style. It could be informal at first.
·
Consolidate thematic focuses in
conformity with the
Windhoek
declaration at national and regional level.
·
Invest in research into what
should be key priorities, positions and engagement strategies for CSOs in inter
CSO conversations.
·
Promote harmony and
institutional concordance through increased collaboration.
·
Integrate other on-going
processes such as ECOSOCC, NEPAD, RISDP e.g. to avoid bureaucracy, increase
response and impact on intended ultimate aid recipients.
·
Parallel engagement at national
and regional level with common agenda will ensure effectiveness.
·
Formal engagement with
organised donors and private sector (CHAMSI) to establish bonafide
relationships.
·
Establish channels of
engagement with international NGO’s, especially from the global north.
The discussions highlighted on the
following points:
·
The need to invest
collaborative partnerships among CSOs for information and access to community
assets in Black economic empowerment (BEE) transactions.
·
The need to conduct research in
respect to the regional aspects of poverty in the SADC region.
·
Formulation of declarations and
policy should be through consultative processes.
·
The need to share experiences
among CSOs on engagements with donors in the SADC region.
·
Time constraints to CSO
engagement with regional SADC structures should be addressed, given the
under-capacity and heavy demands placed on CSOs.
·
Points of engagement in
meetings on policy should be addressed so as to eliminate rubberstamping policy
directives formulated without consultative processes.
·
The need for increased and
continuous engagement in SADC consultative groups by CSOs in the region.
·
Initiation of discussions away
from northern NGO’s among CSOs in the region.
·
Seeking opportunities for CSOs that
arise from policy debates in the SADC region.
·
Poverty discussions should be
approached from an inter sectoral angle.
·
Thematic discussions should
connect with grass root experience and the changing human conditions in the
region.
The meeting concluded that opportunities that
exist for increased regional CSO-Donor engagements in southern
Africa
should be strengthened. This can be done through a
consultative framework and processes amongst CSOs in the region so as to
achieve critical mass and lobbying power through adoption of a stakeholder
engagement mindset. Adopting such a mind set will enable increased output of
CSOs in future policy development dialogues with donors and their related aid
flows for the benefit of their intended recipients in the pursuit of poverty reduction
in the region.
7.
Way Forward
Key aspects of a way forward that emerged
as outcomes of the closing discussion were:
a)
The need for increased
dialogue, sharing of information, learning, and analysis in the aid
effectiveness agenda, and for building relationships amongst CSOs in the
region, in a forum such as this. This will enable increased engagement of CSOs
in policy dialogue and increased voice and attention by donors and government in
areas of mutual interest.
b)
Ensuring declarations such as
Paris
and
Windhoek
are conceptualised through a consultative process. This can be done by
providing space for full engagement/ involvement of CSOs so as to entrench the
principle of ownership and facilitate better implementation of these treaties.
c)
Assessing the role and impact
of CSOs in the SADC-Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP)
process will provide a good pointer to the alignment of their strategies both
at the national and regional level, enabling a better evaluation of their
strategies based on their strategic performance.
d)
There is a need for CSOs to
take leadership in the aid effectiveness debate by harnessing their diversity,
developing their institutional architecture, and actively engaging donors and
governments in dialogue on their needs. The Southern Africa Trust is keen to take
on a proactive role to help develop learning and analysis and effective
practices, so as to ensure greater CSO engagement with the aid effectiveness
agenda in southern
Africa
. Broader
participation and voice is needed to address this leadership vacuum because the
Trust does not want to necessarily take a leadership role in this area. The
Trust will follow up on the outcomes of this meeting with SADC, key CSOs in the
region working on aid delivery issues, and donor regional programmes to take
forward a process in a programmatic way. This may include structured mechanisms
to ensure better knowledge of aid flows and mechanisms, sustained monitoring of
trends in aid flows, and regular, structured dialogue between the various
interest groups.
e)
The adoption of a strategic
approach by CSOs in the region to provide better focus and participation in
policy dialogue on aid is required. Conceptualising the strategies from a
systems perspective and investigating the impact of processes such as the APRM
in the region will be beneficial.
f)
The research report will be
finalised after taking account of this dialogue meeting. It will then be issued
publicly. Further focus discussions will be convened to concretise
recommendations for specific action.
Central to these developments is a need to
engage in dialogue at different levels, initially informally as CSOs cultivate
trust among each other and invest in collaborative partnerships, thus
positioning themselves strategically for Accra 2008.
Overall, CSOs need to proactively engage in
a continuous structured policy dialogue and also ensure that community voices
are directly heard in this dialogue.
8.
APPENDIX: List of Participants
Donor
Roundtable Dialogue held on 2 March, 2007 at the Gaborone International
Convention Centre in Gaborone, Botswana
DONORS
Cindy
Lopez-Bento, EC Gaborone
Horst
Michael Vogel, GTZ
Gaborone
Fred
Wayne McDonald, USAID
Gaborone
Frederic
Berard, French Embassy
Helmut
Mueller-Glodde, GTZ
Janette
Hetherton, NZAID
Zimbabwe
Jean-Didier
Oth, Second Secretary (Development), Canadian High Commission
Katarina
Fried, SIDA
Botswana
Kemi Williams, DFID Southern
Africa
(speaker)
Monica
Moore USAID
Gaborone
Odile
Dayak, French Embassy
Overson Chiyaka, Hivos
Rosa Ongeso, ACBF Harare
Sonja Kurz, GTZ
Stacey Greene, AusAID
Subethri
Naidoo, DFID
Southern Africa
Thato
Jansen, USAID
Gaborone
Yvon
Ruf, GTZ
CIVIL
SOCIETY, GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Abie
Ditlhake, SADC-CNGO
Alfredo
Nuvunga,
Deputy
High Commissioner
,
Mozambique
Andrea
Rogers, Synergos Institute
Charmaine
Estment, CAGE
Donald
Ndwandwe,
Swaziland
SADC National Office
Penelope Plowman, Facilitator
Sehoai Santho
,
Lesotho
Siphamandla Zondi, IGD (speaker)
Elling Tjonneland, CMI (speaker)
Farai
Zizhou, BIDPA
Gaborone
Innocent
Nkata, Oxfam GB
Ishamel
Sunga, SACAU
Gert Danielsen, UNDP (speaker)
Jorges
Borges, Centre for the Development and
Enterprise
Kaitira
Kandjii, Media Institute of
Southern Africa
Linda
Scott Idhenga, Namibian
High
Commission
,
Botswana
Mafefe
Mutombo, Embassy of DRC,
Botswana
Moreblessings
Chidaushe, AFRODAD
Moses
Kachima, SATUCC
Neville Gabriel,
Southern Africa
Trust
(speaker)
Nina
Solberg Nygaar,
Norwegian
Church
Aid,
Gaborone
Ozias
Tungwarara, AfriMAP
Phillip
Mavulu, Acting Namibian
High
Commissioner
,
Botswana
Shelia
Bunwaree,
Mauritius
Sue
Mbaya, SARPN
Tafadzwa
Ndoro, SARDC
Thusani Mulaudzi
,
South Africa
High Commission,
Gaborone
Tracy Zinanga, SADC Secretariat (speaker)
Barbara
Kalima-Phiri,
Southern Africa
Trust
Themba
Mhlongo,
Southern Africa
Trust
Elizabeth Byaruhanga
,
Southern
Africa
Trust
Petronilla Ndebele
,
Southern
Africa
Trust
Titise Make
,
Southern
Africa
Trust
|
