Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

2 F I N D I N G S
be relevant for the programme, being part of its scope of intervention, but its place in
the results matrix might not be clear.
The implementation of principles of good donorship in this area also poses dilemmas.
For example, commenting on the previous version of this report, IBIS stated that under
these principles it is not the responsibility of the intermediary to define results
and/or select activities of the partner organisations. This is evidently a risk for the
attainment of AGIR’s results, since partner organisations can choose activities that
fall short of contributing to the programme results. Moreover, taking into account
partners’ capacity problems, mainly in monitoring and evaluation, the ability of these
actors to select suitable activities is potentially limited. The consolidation of the practices
of results-based management (RBM) in these organisations, one of the results of
the programme, might potentially change this situation. It is also worth noting however,
that the adoption of RBM by CSOs will be a result, per se, of the programme
and it is not realistic to expect this to happen in time to influence the planning of other
AGIR activities.
Reporting has improved considerably, capturing only the set of activities that is relevant
for programme results (including evidence/ indicators). This often helps link the
activities to specific results, but in practice there are still many activities in the annual
work plans that are relevant, because each fits into a specific area, but has a weak
relationship to other undertaken activities. Most of the partners’ activities in the subprogramme
thematic areas fit this description. There is a set of activities for joint
monitoring through a joint results matrix. These activities comprise areas relevant to
the programme objectives of strengthening civil society (namely engagement with
partners), capacity development, good donorship, networks and linkages, and mainstreaming
of cross-cutting areas (gender, HIV/AIDS and human rights). Intermediaries
are coordinating their approaches, sharing materials and even relying on the capacity
of some partners to deliver training jointly. In these common areas, the objectives
are coherent across the sub-programmes. The initiative of the intermediaries to
define a common baseline contributes to the strengthening of a programmatic approach
to their work.
On the other hand, the specific sub-programme activities, apart from some subcomponents
(for example, political accountability is common to the sub-programme
managed by Diakonia and Oxfam Novib), are less integrated in the programme and
stand as quasi-autonomous projects. As mentioned earlier in this report, even in jointreporting,
the linkages among the thematic activities are often not clear. It should be
acknowledged however, that through proper reporting (e.g. Oxfam Novib reports) and
a focus on showing the linkages between activities, outputs and outcomes and an
analysis of the results chains, the linkages would be clearer. This has been acknowledged
by both intermediaries and partner organisations (in 2011), and through the
adoption of an ‘impact matrix’, the AGIR programme has improved the reporting in
both 2012 plans and the recent AGIR 2012 semi-annual report.
47