Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
2 F I N D I N G S acy in terms of good practices. This is more than simple semantics and will be discussed at greater length later in the review. A final noted element concerning the management framework of AGIR, was the use of international NGOs as intermediaries. While recognising that this management structure allowed for a more ‘hands-off’ approach by donors to channel support and funds, while allowing for different levels of civil society to work with each other, external voices questioned if the programme could also explore working with national CSOs as intermediaries. While necessitating a slower and longer start-up phase, this strengthening process would help these national civil society organisations to also grow as channels of support to other organisations and ensure a new level of sustainability within Mozambican civil society. Inter-Donor Communication: Perhaps the most consistent comment made by the various external voices interviewed, was the observation that there is a pronounced lack of communication between donors working in similar civil society strengthening programmes within Mozambique. Almost all of the external voices interviewed commented that they had not spoken directly with other donors connected to the AGIR programme. This was not a direct criticism of AGIR; rather it was a comment about the field in general and directly about the donors who inhabit this space. Each of the external voices considered this lack of communication within the donor community to be a critical component that needed to be ‘fixed’ so as to better support civil society strengthening programmes. Reducing the duplication of supported strategies and the over or under funding of certain CSOs were mentioned as common ailments of this lack of communication. Donor coordination and dialogue in this area remain weak, and the prospect of donors supporting civil society programmes like AGIR could be seen as dependent on the improvement of dialogue and the sharing of information across these different programmes focused on strengthening civil society. AGIR would appear to have a potential role in cultivating this discussion among donors and large civil society programmes about civil society-strengthening activities. 2.3 RELEVANCE – QUALITY OF THE DESIG N OF THE PROGRAMME 2.3.1 Good Donorship, Core Funding and the AGIR Programme - Principles for Donor Participation As noted in the programme’s Joint Programme Level Results Framework, AGIR has a number of joint outcomes specifically related to ‘use of a good-donorship approach’. Central to this approach is the mechanism of ‘core-funding’, used by the AGIR intermediaries to effectively support partner CSOs to undertake their work. This has been greatly appreciated by the CSOs as a new ‘funding’ model. Most of the CSO partners commented that this financial arrangement, where CSOs are funded based on their own strategic plans, has helped them to focus their attention and concentrate resources on the work that they undertake within civil society. A ma- 34
Page 1: 2013:3 Kevin Kelpin Vibe Johnsen Jo
Page 4 and 5: Authors: Kevin Kelpin, Vibe Johnsen
Page 6 and 7: Abbreviations and Acronyms AAAJC Pa
Page 8 and 9: Preface This evaluation of AGIR (Ac
Page 10 and 11: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y The
Page 12 and 13: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y CSO
Page 14 and 15: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y imp
Page 16 and 17: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y eff
Page 18 and 19: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y iv)
Page 20 and 21: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y act
Page 22 and 23: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y ges
Page 24 and 25: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y des
Page 26 and 27: 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N ited numb
Page 28 and 29: 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1.2 EVALU
Page 30 and 31: 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N Field Vis
Page 32 and 33: 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N aftermath
Page 34 and 35: 2 F I N D I N G S tendency for the
Page 38 and 39: 2 F I N D I N G S jor reason for th
Page 40 and 41: 2 F I N D I N G S This observation
Page 42 and 43: 2 F I N D I N G S 2.3.4 AGIR CSO Pa
Page 44 and 45: 2 F I N D I N G S gender policy, -
Page 46 and 47: 2 F I N D I N G S The mid-term revi
Page 48 and 49: 2 F I N D I N G S 2.4 EFFECTIVENESS
Page 50 and 51: 2 F I N D I N G S be relevant for t
Page 52 and 53: 2 F I N D I N G S the AGIR programm
Page 54 and 55: 2 F I N D I N G S production and qu
Page 56 and 57: 2 F I N D I N G S 2.5 IMPACT OF AGI
Page 58 and 59: 2 F I N D I N G S number of positio
Page 60 and 61: 2 F I N D I N G S Accountability o
Page 62 and 63: 2 F I N D I N G S Through campaign
Page 64 and 65: 2 F I N D I N G S offices, since th
Page 66 and 67: 2 F I N D I N G S Akilizetho has a
Page 68 and 69: 2 F I N D I N G S political partici
Page 70 and 71: 2 F I N D I N G S support the capac
Page 72 and 73: 2 F I N D I N G S The sustained par
Page 74 and 75: 3 C O N C L U S I O N S AGIR progr
Page 76 and 77: 2 findings 4 Recommendations The ke
Page 78 and 79: 4 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Ma
Page 80 and 81: 4 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S rea
Page 82 and 83: A N N E X 1 - A G I R P A R T N E R
Page 84 and 85: A N N E X 2 - T E R M S O F R E F E
Page 86 and 87:
A N N E X 2 - T E R M S O F R E F E
Page 88 and 89:
2 findings Annex 3 - Inception Repo
Page 90 and 91:
A N N E X 3 - I N C E P T I O N R E
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
2 findings Annex 4 - Documents Revi
Page 108 and 109:
A N N E X 4 - D O C U M E N T S R E
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
A N N E X 5 - P E O P L E I N T E R
Page 118:
Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Program
show all

Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?