Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 F I N D I N G S 2.3.4 AGIR CSO Partners and the Range of Activities According to the approved AGIR strategic planning programme document, the quantitative target for the number of partnerships to be established by the end of the programme in 2014 was 39 CSOs. However this target has already been bypassed, as the number of active partnerships established has now reached 43. 22 Additionally, other interested prospective or ‘emerging’ partners are currently in the process of being enrolled in the programme, qualifying (or not) through recently-undertaken partner evaluation processes. One reason for this expansion of partners is the addition of the intermediary organisation, the Swedish Cooperative Center – SCC, that became operationalised within AGIR in 2011, one year later than the three original intermediaries. An additional reason is that the intermediaries, through early partnership assessments, soon found that very few CSOs qualified for long-term core partnerships as their capacity, particularly their institutional capacity, was lower than expected. 23 More CSOs were then supported in institutional strengthening through nursery funds, thus increasing the pool of potential partners. In the review team’s initial contact with the AGIR intermediaries, it learned that the AGIR programme was originally meant to focus on national/central level CSOs. However, the intermediaries found that an approach that integrates relevant CSOs at the local level would ensure critical linkages and provide a much sounder and more sustainable basis for the programme. As a result, locally-based CSOs are now being recruited into the programme. This adaptation to the programme parameters will be discussed later in the report. Within the scope of the current four thematic components of the AGIR programme, the current partners comprise different types of CSOs, which can be characterised as follows: Human Rights-Based CSOs: e.g. the Human Rights League and a range of more specialised organisations focusing on issues such as women/gender, the youth, children, the elderly, people living with HIV/AIDS and the disabled. While many of these organisations are Maputo based, at least two are locally based, i.e. Akhilizeto in Nampula province and Magariro in Manica province working with community rights and decentralised consultative councils (IP- CCs). 22 This number does not include some partner organisations whose contracts have been suspended, due to non-adherence to internal governance criteria, these measures relate to - MONASO, MEPT, and MISA. 23 MASC was faced with a similar situation of CSOs with low capacity and as such, was also forced to start with fewer qualified CSOs than expected. 39
2 F I N D I N G S Natural Resource & Environment CSOs: while most of these CSOs are Maputo based, a few local organisations relating to farmers and natural resource extraction mega projects in Tete (coal) and Nampula (heavy sands) provinces have recently joined the programme. Broad Membership Based CSOs: such as the farmers union and the journalist union, represented throughout the country. Political Rights-Based CSOs: such as AWEPA (International Non- Governmental Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa), and the Youth Parliament. Resource CSOs in Investigation and Research: such as IESE, CIP (Center for Public Integrity), CEDE (Center for Studies on Democracry and Development) and WLSA (Women and Law in Southern Africa), all of which operate at the central level. Resource CSOs in Capacity Development and Learning: such as CESC (Center for Capacity Development and Learning of Civil Society). Broad CSO Networks, Forums and Platforms: such as the Electoral Observatory, Women’s Forum, National Forum of Community Radios (FORCOM). This set of partners allows the programme to cover the wide array of activities of the four sub-programmes. Nonetheless, the current portfolio still falls short of covering all the planned interventions. The freezing of funding of some partners after management problems has left some gaps in the coverage of activities. Intermediaries argue that this has been offset by the integration of new partners. For example, to replace MISA IBIS, according to their comment to this report, has selected five partners including CODD (Centre for Studies and Promotion of Citizenship, Human Rights and Environment) and the CEC (Centre for Communication Studies). Diakonia, commenting on the first draft of this report, also stated that the selection of new partners closed the gap. However, up to the end of this mid-term review, the process has not been completed, and the last semi-annual joint report, released in October 2012, states that the suspension of funding to MEPT has left a gap in the area of access to education rights (see page 3). The same report mentions that SCC is expected to increase its portfolio from 9 to 12 members by the end of 2012, and Oxfam had partners covering only 70% of the indicators for the four thematic areas of the sub-programme, with none dealing directly with the monitoring of public services (see page 2). In conclusion, the current portfolio covers most of the areas defined in the four sub-programmes, but it is still being expanded to cover some under-served thematic areas. 2.3.5 CSO Partner’s Satisfaction with their Participation in AGIR According to the interviews by the review team, there is a high level of satisfaction across the various CSO partner types (core, nursery). Many commented that AGIR is a safe platform through which to improve their organisation and to pursue their mission. As expressed by one of the more established partners: If we did not have AGIR support, we would probably, just in order to survive, have had to accept a project, which was not quite in line with our strategic plan. In another instance, an emerging partner expressed: ‘quite honestly our finances were in a mess, now with AGIR support we have become organized, the assembly will meet in November to approve the 40
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 36 and 37: 2 F I N D I N G S ganisations work.
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 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:
A N N E X 3 - I N C E P T I O N R E
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?