Transcript Evaluation of EC aid delivery through Civil society

Evaluation of EC aid delivery through
Civil society organisations
Major findings and concerns relating to
EC-NGO funding relationship and
questions to APRODEV members
London – 4 November 2009
General Findings
• Beyond general principles, the EC has not
yet defined clear vision on the added value
of different categories of CSOs in various
contexts nor systematically addressed
other key operational aspects of the CSO
channel.
• there is an overall tendency for piecemeal
approach to CSOs at EC and delegation
level.
Paradigm shift in supporting CS
• Until recently, the predominant mode of
use of CSOs was in service delivery (subcontracting).
• Now, more and more money is provided to
support CSOs in governance processes.
• However, there is a lack of operational
guidance and consistency for supporting
CSOs in governance processes.
Development is a
multi-stakeholder process
where Central State is one
of the actors
Development
assistance includes
Development cooperation
is a multi-actor
support to and
through civil society
PARADIGM SHIFT
(2000-2006)
participatory process
EU commits to
strengthening CSOs to
fully participate in political,
economic, and social
dialogue processes
Civil society is
recognised in all its
diversity
CSOs are not only implementing agencies but also
promoters of democracy, justice and human rights
What ‘paradigm shift’ are we
talking about?
Access for CSOs of DC still limited
• Despite access for CSOs in developing
countries, EC continues to fund and deal
disproportionately with European NGOs.
• There is a lack of knowledge/capacities of
local NGOs, high transaction costs (and
risk) in dealing with the EC and high
financial standards (calls for proposals
unsuited for small, informal CSOs).
How effective is the CSO channel ?
• Evaluation shows that CSO programmes
/projects often lead to broader (intangible)
development outcomes (such as social
and institutional capital).
• But major doubts regarding sustainability
of CSO interventions for several reasons,
some of them linked to the EC funding
system itself.
Obstacles to effectiveness of CS channel (1)
• High dependency on donor funding leads
CSOs to adopt opportunistic behaviour
according to funding opportunities, thereby
endorsing donor agendas rather than the
priorities of local populations.
• Limited opportunities for CSOs to explore
funding with the EC other than through
calls for proposals (EDF, IfS,…).
• M&E systems are output (spending)based.
Obstacles to effectiveness of CS channel (2)
• Regarding CSO as watchdogs: limited
impact, in many countries the political
environment is not conducive to effective
CSO interventions and governance
processes need longer-term funding.
• In order to effectively help champion CSO
spaces, EC must become more political
(more strategic) in its support to CS.
CS is effective in fragile situations
• Ample evidence for positive effects of EC aid
delivery through CSOs in fragile situations,
including broader development outcomes.
• But privileged use of INGOs is not sustainable
over the long term, importance of partnership
and capacity building
• There are incidences where EC-funded projects
in governance are stopped because of partner
government pressure (or because normal
relations with government are restored).
Management constraints (1)
• Calls for proposals are a less than optimal
tool for disbursing aid through CSOs.
• Administrative culture in EC delegations
focuses on quick disbursements and
financial accountability.
• EC is accountable to member states.
Financial accountability therefore often
prevails over downwards accountability.
Management constraints (2)
• Deconcentration of management of thematic
budget lines has helped improve dialogue with
and involvement of CSOs at country level but
leads to more inconsistency and the need for
creating/maintaining multiple contacts
• Ample evidence that prevailing administrative
culture and incentive system is not conducive to
a strategic management of CSOs in line with
stated policy objectives → quadrilogue ?
The system is highly
competitive
• Examples: % full
application selected for
100 concept notes
received in 2008
(global calls)
(total concept notes, total full
applications, selected)
NSA-LA
(multi-C)
EIDHR
(main
call)
5.8 %
Environment
4.9%
IIP –
Health
Food
Facility
3.2%
(2009)
(510, 57, 18)
4.5%
(443, 52, 20)
(1033, 199,
51)
(218, 30, 7)
15.2 %
(804,
275,122 )
How to overcome frustration and constructively explore
ways of working with an imperfect system:
You may try to expand funding sources by exploring nonusual EC funding opportunities (geographic, IfS, social
policies in the EU,…) or other international donors
And / or
Improve your collective response to the system through
coordination /cooperation, joint applications, consortia,
division of labour (at project and relationships level).
Identify and make visible the characteristics that make you
a (more) valuable and effective partner in development
in the current context and strengthen them or develop
new ones.
You can do that as an individual organisation and/or as a
network / family.
How far are we, EU NGOs, part of system/problem
and cultivating our own frustration?
• Are EU NGOs (and APRODEV members) ready to
promote political leadership for better EU/EC
engagement strategies with CSOs? Is it worth the effort?
How to achieve that? Through quadrilogue?
• What are the windows of opportunity where change is
realistic and feasible? For example, EC is moving fast on
integrating CSOs in geographic instruments
– Are we ready to support Southern partners
adequately (in new roles relating to governance and
policy)?
– Are we ready to engage in debates on CSOs added
value in new aid modalities like budget support?
– Are we ready to engage in multi-actors approaches?