Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

2 F I N D I N G S
ganisations work. It was also perceived to allow for more targeted support to CSOs in
that it directly meets identified needs, both internally and externally.
Management Framework: One area where there was more uniform agreement
among the external voices was on the process used to select CSOs to participate in
AGIR. While acknowledging that a competitive process for the selection of CSOs can
be long and overly bureaucratic (the selection cycle in the European Commission
programme to support non-state actors can take almost a year), and is often less efficient
and unable to quickly respond to opportunities, there was some questioning of
the transparency of the AGIR process for selection of CSOs. 20 This questioning centered
on the role of the intermediaries, who were understood to be working mainly
with their current CSO partners. This in itself was not seen as wrong (these partners
can still do good work). Rather, the process was perceived to limit the recognition and
inclusion of new emerging organisations and to encourage a kind of a clientelistic
system. This, it was felt, could in turn contribute to the increased dependency of these
CSOs and hinder their potential for sustainability. Both the perceived lack of transparency
and competitiveness in the selection of CSOs, and the consequences this
could entail for the general strengthening of civil society, were mentioned as potential
drawbacks for some donors if they were to consider joining AGIR as funders.
However, a different view was offered by some of the external voices concerning the
‘competitive process’ for the selection of CSOs. The principle of competition has
posed problems in programmes such as MASC, since CSOs often have no, or limited,
capacity to write applications and project proposals. This, in addition to weak communication
between Maputo and the provinces, has meant that MASC had only three
grantees in the first implementation year and a few more the following year. MASC
has had to invest significant effort in helping the fund seekers to write project proposals
and to build institutional capacity for these organisations to become eligible
for funding. While it could be argued (and was) that this is also ‘part’ of the programme
and a capacity strengthening activity in itself, it does prolong the start-up
period of a programme that already has a limited duration.
A further element of the management framework that was noted by the external voices
was the perceived role of the intermediaries within the programme and its higher
level of visibility vis-á-vis the overall ‘programme’ or the CSO ‘partner’ organisations.
This observation was primarily centreed on the belief that it is important for the
AGIR programme to clarify its contribution as a programme to a certain set of results,
instead of linking these results to specific intermediaries, in order to have a leg-
20 It was also stated that a competitive process creates an incentive among CSOs to be ‘better prepared’
and that expectations held by these organisations are therefore more ‘credible’.
33