Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

2 F I N D I N G S
support the capacity strengthening of partner CSOs who, through this strengthening,
enhance their ability to work with civil society and citizens, is a viable approach. The
interaction between the different spheres of influence (donor –intermediary-CSObeneficiary)
is logical, and, by which the programme can determine the pathways of
change allowing for the identification and documentation of associated outcomes.
There is the question associated with the need for the AGIR programme to pay increased
attention to its overall management of implementation activities through the
lens of a programme and not as grouping of sub-programmes but this does not decrease
the appropriateness of the theory of change upon which it operates.
The participation of CSO partners across the different sub-programmes continues to
increase in response to the work of the AGIR intermediary organisations. As discussed
earlier, there are now 43 active established CSO partnerships, 32 surpassing the
39 partnerships that were expected by the end of 2014. This growth is important, but
a few overall critical issues came out of the evaluation team’s meetings with intermediary
organisations. One concern relates to the critical balance between quantity and
quality. By taking in many partners, are the qualitative outcomes of AGIR in danger
of being compromised? What happens if AGIR capacity building and support becomes
too mechanical and structured? If this is the case, is there a real danger of
hampering the process of creating a vibrant civil society that requires a more dynamic
approach with the support process oriented and tailored in accordance with the specific
level of capacity and local circumstances surrounding an individual organisation?
At the beginning of the programme, each of the intermediaries started with a few
well-established central-level partners who have a broad scope and proven relevant
track records with respect to AGIR themes. In many cases, the intermediary organisations
had previous collaborative relationships with these partners. The focus on national
organisations can be regarded as a good approach if the intention is to ensure
that there is a vertical integration of resources and outcomes.
The concept of ‘trickle down support’ however, where capacities at the central level
are instrumental to strengthening organisations at the local level, and that, in turn, this
will produce ‘trickle up effects’ – where results from grass roots activism and evidence
gathering informs policies and national advocacy at the central level – can be
flawed. As seen in the programme, there can be a narrowing of the support process
that sees funds moving down and/or outwards to local areas (and sub-partners) being
constrained so that local organisations do not have the resources to undertake the
work that is central to their activism. Combined with a challenging governance envi-
32 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 i.e. MONASO, MEPT
and MISA.
67