Transcript Day 1 - Session 3 - Setting the context GBS vs Rwanda

Setting the context: GBS vs Rwanda
Civil society back ground
Gaspard AHOBAMUTEZE,Independent
consultant Cabinet VALEO,RWANDA
Presentation prepared for the
Southern Voices for Change in the
International Aid System Workshop
London, 14-16 November 2005
This presentation covers 2 main parties
 Increasing of GBS Support ( Rwanda)
Current condition of Civil Society (Rwanda)
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The objective is to set up issues of Civil Society within a context of an aid
system that is increasingly in form of Budget Support and deemphasizing project aid
This presentation attempts to give response to following questions :
What budget support is?
How GBS is organized in Rwanda ?
Whether and to what extend donors have increased GBS in
Rwanda ?
Which are advantages and disadvantages in Rwanda context ?
Why may feel SCOs marginalized as a result ?
What is Rwanda SCOs background ?
Which are its strengths, weaknesses and constraints in general
view?
Roles of SCOS vis-à-vis governmentalization of aid ?
How partenership can be organised to strengthen SCOs ?
Capacity of LSCOs in that growing of governmentalization of aid
?
2
GBS definition
•
•
•
•



programme aid can be divided into food aid
and financial programme aid.
Financial programme aid includes both budget
support and balance of payments support (such
as debt relief and import support).
Budget support in turn can be divided into
sector budget support and general budget
support (GBS).
Components of GBS
Finance
Dialogue/conditions/TA and capacity building
Harmonisation and alignment
3
General Definition of Budget Support and GBS
Programme Aid
Financial Programme Aid
Budget Support*
General Budget
Support (GBS)
Sector Budget
Support
* Referred to as direct budget support in the Evaluation Framework.
Food Programme Aid
Balance of Payments
Support
Debt Relief
Import Support
CAUSALITY MAP
GBS study Rwanda case
Effects of PGBS on Planning and Budgeting
Systems and Public Expenditure Performance
•
•
•
•
•
PGBS inputs (increased and regular funding) and immediate
effects on aid management systems  better budget financing
(volume, fungibility, predictability/ timeliness)
PGBS inputs (funding, policy, dialogue, conditionality and
TA/CB) and focus on key policy and PE issues  more
resources for government priorities (priority programs etc.)
including service delivery
PGBS inputs and immediate effects on aid management
systems  Govt. empowered to strengthen (planning and
budgeting) systems
Improved fungibility and predictability in external funding plus
empowered Govt. to strengthen systems  increased
allocative and operational efficiency of PFM systems
More resources available for Govt. priorities including service
6
Effects of GBS on policy-making, policies and service delivery
•
•
Increased ownership/Government empowered  Scope for more
accountable policy making processes, strengthened intra-government
incentives and enhanced democratic accountability, and for better
public expenditure (PE, covered in other group/matrix)  Policies
(service delivery and growth-related) more accountable and effective
in being pro-poor, improved justice and respect for human rights
(HR), thereby enhancing people’s confidence in government.
Assuming more resources are flowing to service delivery agencies
(from better PE and budgetary process), and sector policies address
market failures, this results into more and more responsive/pro-poor,
accountable services being delivered.
7
Effects of PGBS on macroeconomic performance and growth
•
•
•
PGBS funding  More external resources available for Gov’t budget; more
external resources ‘on budget’ and more regularity of aid funding  better
budget financing (fungibility, predictability) which, together with improved
PFM)  Improved fiscal discipline
Policy dialogue/conditionality, TA/CB focused on key (macro) policy issues
and H&A (behind agreed macro policies)  Improved fiscal discipline
Improved fiscal discipline  Macroeconomic variables favorable to private
investment and economic activity which, together with private sector
friendly policies  conducive environment for real private sector-led growth
8
ON/OFF BUDGET ISSUE
Source : draft report on baseline on aid coordination
Donor
Belgium
CIDA
DFID
EU
Germany
On budget*
75 % is on budget
100 % off budget
GBS on budget: remainder declared but well
integrated into budget process
100% on budget but issues of how integrated
into development budget
All registered but do not appear in GoR
budgets. GTZ provides monthly statements to
EFU.
IMF
JICA
Netherlands
Sida
USAID
World Bank
On budget (?)
100% off budget because of nature of portfolio
64% on budget; 36% off budget
Aid is all noted in agreement with MOF and
should be on budget but often does not get
into Development Budget and some
information seems to get caught at CEPEX
level.
On budget
9
GBS as % of ODA
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Amount of ODA
in Current US$
million
Amount of
GBS curent
US$ Million
GBS as %
of ODA
373.19
322.02
298.52
355.04
331.56
n.a.
55.94
57.90
105.21
108.13
60.88
190.31
15.0
18.0
35.2
30.5
18.4
n.a.
Source: OECD/DAC for ODA, Country Report es tim ates for GBS (Annex
3, Table 3.3).
Shifts toward non-project aid by GBS donors
United Kingdom (DFID)
Average non-project aid throughout period
Average non-project aid up to 1998
Average non-project aid up to 1998 excluding
Average non-project aid after 1998
Average non-project aid 1999-2001
Average non-project aid 2002-04
European Commission
Average non-project aid throughout period
Average non-project aid 1999-2002
Average non-project aid 2002-04
Sweden (SIDA)
Average non-project aid throughout 1994Average non-project aid since 2002
World Bank
Average non-project aid throughout period
Average non-project aid, 1994-1998 (pre-BS
Average budget support from 1999:
Source: GBS Donor Questionnaires and meetings
76%
80%
66%
76%
77%
75%
32%
38%
45%
58%
67%
53%
45%
59%
GBS Advantages & disadvantages
ADVANTAGES


Focuses attention on
PFM systems
Increases govt
control over resource
allocation and
supports govt
systemsincreasing
govt confidence
DISADVANTAGES


SCOs resource can be
more reduced by aid
governmentalization
As consequency, risk of
decreasing of improved
democratic
accountabilty
Why may feel SCOs marginalized as a result ?
This can be analyzed as understanding
problem or difficulty of adaptation on the
change in aid modalities.
 We will present in our part 2 the current
SCOs situation
 This workshop will attempt to deep on
that?

Rwanda Civil society back ground
•
Recognition of an emergency face:

The first attempt to put in place a civil society body was in 1993 in
stormy political period: Rwanda was facing war and pressure from
newly created political parties. The initiative was undermined by the
1994 genocide
In 1996, another attempt was lunched but faced problems due to
genocide aftermaths. People had no consensus on society vision;
there was suspicion and tensions among people, even within
organizations
After on, workshops were hold on civil society. CCOAIB and other
umbrella organizations organized a workshop on civil society,
Government and donors partnership(2001)


14
Rwanda Civil society back ground
In 2003, The civil society Commission at the President office
organized another workshop on Government and civil society
partnership. Unfortunately, no action point from the two workshop
was taken forward.
 Since 2001, Christian Aid and Trocaire jointly tried to bring together
their respective partners in order to discuss what civil society was
and what should be its role in Rwanda. The initiative gave birth to an
INGOs’ and a LNGOs’ task forces on PRSP. Only the INGOs one
could work up to March 2004..
 From July 2004, putting into place of a civil society forum but
according to many actors, it is not representative of the whole civil
society community
 Civil Society today is weak and under reconstruction
 “Visible” organized part of SC is mostly town based especially in
Kigali capital

15
Strength and opportunities


Civil Society concept not includes public power
(Civil society institutions don’t include public
services)
There are few networks but they lack of
willingness or capacity to play the expected
important role
Weaknesses and constraints
in general view

-





Civil Society concept not well defined
Tendency to consider CS as NGOs while churches, other
form of worship, Universities, schools centres, ,medias
…
Inadequate coordination among CSOs so difficult for
them to effectively participate in national programme
Lack of capacity (human, financial , material resources, )
Weak organisational structuring then not functional
Lack of relevant policy governing the relationships
between Government and SC,
Lethargic SC
Lack of legal status for many SC organizations
Weaknesses and constraints in general view






The Government has always been considered as very
strong, paternalist by the population. According to
history, citizens expected so much from their
governments, though they became much dependent from
them. Participation was and is today limited.
Lack of a Long Term strategic vision
SC as unified partner by sector of intervention is not
there
Weak representativeness of actual plate forme ( less
NGOS embeded in the community)
Lack of acceptable speaker as SC ( lack of capacity in
national intermediate SCOs
Lack of holistic developpement
‘







Weaknesses and constraints
Task force of LSCOs exists but not functional because of financial
depending on project support and not program support
No strategic thinking: programs elaborated according to available
financing not in the spirit of real community problems ( lack of
vision, synergy and analytical capacity)
Superficial answer to pro poor problems: LSCOs address issues seen
by theirs own eyes but not those seen by poor eyes
No clear linkage/ interrelation o f LSCOs activities with PRSP:
many LSCOs live in isolation
Lack of mutual information sharing GoR & SC because no
consultation framework and no concerted action framework
Who is accountable to whom? Gvrnt to SC or inverse
SC activities not integrated in PRSP APR
‘Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the
growing “governmentalization” of Aid

To convince International Development Partners ( IDP) to:
 Reinforce LCSO in order to be a fully-fledged partner in government
system because sometimes Government willing is less
 Shift from project support to programmes support (Support LSCOs
strategic plan including institutional support) with the focus of
empowerment community using CSOs and Government structures in
decentralisation to facilitate poor people in changing their environment
and economic status
 Help CSOs networks in participating in official clusters ( Rural
development, Education, Governance, economics infrastructures, …)
and have enough representatives
 Support LSCOs in the process of legal status recovery : shifting from
temporally district authorization to legal personality (Support LSCOs in
advocacy of obtaining that legal status)
 Instead of à CSOs coordination body, there might a liaison one
 Donors to supportCSOs in acquiring relevant staff/advocacy desk (
institutional support)
‘‘Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the
growing “governmentalization” of Aid

Deep restructuring of actual SCos in their :
Mode of service delivery
Advocacy
Research /education
Representativeness


To organize grassroots based organizations by embarking
them in human rights
As mostly best organized SCOs are town based (
Rwanda case), these should play a role of grassroots
based organization capacity building in advocacy.
Actually, grassroots organizations take the former for
donors instead of feeling themselves as constituents
Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the growing
“governmentalization” of Aid

GoR is willing to open up and work with CSOs legal statements,
SCOs are enthusiastic to participate in national GoR programmes in
terms of services delivering. Dialogue is needed to shed light on
some of the unclear areas governing this relationship lack
commitment for “ sortir coquille”

Advocacy and participation: CSOs have to develop technical
capacity and expertise so that they can be able to discuss some the
current issues with confidence

Advocacy on participation statute: need to develop a national
participation statute or law to clarify the criteria for participation,
who participates in what and at what level and when?
Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the growing
“governmentalization” of Aid as “service deliverers”
In the context of SWAPs and Budget Support, CSOs have to play a
bridging role between state and citizens (joint planning of policy
implementation so can provide useful contributions on the basis of
their closeness to “grassroots”
 ”It is in services delivery that the majority of CSOs engage with
policy processes”
 “It is in contact with service delivery that the vast majority of poor
people have contact with ‘ policy’ and ‘politics’”
 It is at the level of decentralisation that CSOs can cause to be wary,
can demonstrate that the state is not the only provider of essential
services
 To find relevant ways of participating in policy development
 To play the role of watchdog

Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the growing
“governmentalization” of Aid in “PRS dimension”

Source of table : Robrech Renard and Nadia Molenaers
Civil
society
Ownership
Effectiveness
Accountability
-Representativeness
-Ability
-Capacity
to
- Autonomy vis à vis assess micro
and macro
the state
needs of the
- Embeddedness
poor
- Proximity to the
poor
to
evaluate
government
policy
-Negociating
Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the growing
“governmentalization” of Aid as “invited contributors to policy
formulation”


1.
2.
3.
Advocacy to have seats at the table in both cross-sectoral processes
and in sectoral planning fora and be able to participate in official
delegations at international negotiations
To be involved in many sectors with government and other Gvt
official bodies in the formulation of specific policies at level
district But their influence can be affected by following challenges:
the overall dynamics of the process which may lie outside their
control, including relationship between ministries, and ministries
and donors,
Internal CSOs Weaknesses such as their lack of capacity to grasp
technical issues, lack understanding of government procedures and
ability to interact within environment that may seem intimidating;
Lack of SCOs capacity and appropriate time to prepare, consult
constituencies for consistently and effectively attending meetings
or workshop
Possible role sco in PRSP
Vision 2020
= Medium term of
Vision 2020
Needs/Poverty data
PRSP1
Monitoring
Finance
Planning
Advocacy /
dialogue
Policy
Civil society
Priority sectors
Service
delivery
Local Government
Resurch
Education
POObbb
Outputs/outcomes
- Rural
transformation
- Agriculture
growth
- Human development
- Economic infrastructures
- Good Governance
-
Role of C S Org. against a backdrop of the growing
“governmentalization” of Aid as “pressurisers”


To exert pressure on Grnt in terms both policy
formulation and implementation, mainly
campaigning and lobbying
To create and keep an updated data base of
Information related to policy formulation,
implementation and evaluation
Guidelines for partnership Grnt

Before engaging in partnership CSOs should:
 Make an adequate analysis of the national Grnt agenda
 To clearrly understand the roles to be played by both
SCOs/ Government
Clarify their inputs into the partnership
 Assess their own capacity to fulfil such roles

When working together with government, SCOs should:
Actively engage in policy formulation etc…
 Actively participate in programme design,
implementation and evaluation
Establish their legitimacy through expertise and fulfilling
commitments
 Generate facts through their presence on the ground

Guidelines for partnership: values and principles





Transparency / accountability
Mutual respect / trust
Respect of law
Complementarity
Other considerations
 To build partnership through strong LSCOs networks
than can relate with Government
CSOs should share information amongst themselves ( and
with government) and build their mutual capacity for
partnership etc…
At donors side




Leave paternalism attitude / overhand on programmes
Set up benchmarks that Government must respect in its
relation with Civil society
Pressure on Gvrnts to establish fair and transparent
framework for the operation of CSOs
Institutional and financial support to SCOs in order to be
able to take up their role in development
With reguard to Governement
Grvs should more open up space and
guarantee freedom of expression ( respect
of law /putting in place relevant laws)
 Grvs to financially support CSOs
according Cotonou agreement
 Grvs to make information available
accessible to whom may need to use it.

« What you do for me without me is against me »
I.Gandhi
MURAKOZE