1 / 25

Good CSO Donorship

Good CSO Donorship. Karin Fällman, Sida/CIVSAM. PRESENTATION. What good CSO d onorship implies H ow Sida/SE supports CSOs and how SE fares in relation to good CSO donorship Current efforts to improve SE’s CSO s upport/practice good CSO donorship. WHAT IS GOOD ?

aaralyn
Download Presentation

Good CSO Donorship

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Good CSO Donorship Karin Fällman, Sida/CIVSAM

  2. PRESENTATION • What good CSO donorship implies • How Sida/SE supports CSOs and how SE fares in relation to good CSO donorship • Current efforts to improve SE’s CSO support/practice good CSO donorship

  3. WHAT IS GOOD? • Having a StrategicFrameworkcomposedof…. • an evidence-based, overarching civil society policy providing the theory of change for CSO support, and • complementary, context specific CSO funding strategies based on up-to-date political economy analyses and guidelines for management of CSO support

  4. WHAT IS GOOD? Having a StrategicFrameworkincludingobjectivesto • Strengthen civil society in developing countries (balance between agency and actor in its own right) • Promote and support public awareness-raising in donor countries • Promote an enabling environment for CSOs • In law and practice • Through development effective donor support

  5. WHAT IS GOOD? (2) For deliveringeffective support/ implementing the strategicframework • Respect independence while giving direction • Donor transparency • Local ownership of agenda • Choose partners to meet objectives • Match funding mechanisms with purpose • Minimizetransactioncosts • Alignmentand harmonization

  6. WHAT IS GOOD? (3) For Learning and Accountability • Having a shared understanding and commitment among donors and CSOs re thetheory of change and the ways of measuring and communicating results over time • Incl. an impact assessment framework appropriate to the type of programs supported and the size and nature of the CSOs • Systems and processes conducive to on-going learning and improvement: • Which are transparent and allows for mutual accountability • With reporting and evaluations focused on results and learning

  7. SE’s CSO support • Considered international champions: • Aid and development effectiveness: Task Team, CoD WG on CSO, Informal Donor Group (CoP, Policy Evaluation etc.) • Post-2015: Dialogue and support • Over-arching good practice policy (CSO as development actors in their own right, pluralism, HRBA) • CSO support in close to all Swedish Development Strategies • But what does SE’s CSO support look like in practice?

  8. First-Ever Review 2012-2013 ofSE’s total CSO Support – objectives: • provide knowledge of how Sida supports and engages civil society organisations • trends (2007-2012) during the past five years • lessons learnt regarding the modalities used • fitness for purpose • how Sida fares in relation to the civil society policy and international commitments • recommendations

  9. Increasing support toCSOs • Increased its share of the Sida aid budget from 19% in 2007 to 32% in 2011 – and increasing… • Figure of 35,8% in 2012 – at least more than a third of Sida’s budget to CSO (not counting support via multilaterals)

  10. Conclusions from the Review 1(2) • Strategies do not account for policy content • CSOs are primarily used as means or consultants to reach sector specific objectives in the Swedish development strategies (and seldom supported as development actors in their own right) • Funding decisions are often not transparent and they are often based on “reputation and trust” • Limited part of support reaches grassroots organisations, organising poor and marginalised groups (CIVSAM excluded)

  11. Conclusions from the Review 2(2) • International expert organisations are preferred partners, Swedish framework organisations even more so • Core support given only to the big and strong • Limited learning and sharing of new modalities • Bilateral, direct funding arrangement still most common – but joint funding on the rise • Emerging trend towards strategic approaches to CSO support (eight countries and one global strategy completed)

  12. WHAT TO DO? HOW TO MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES?

  13. Draft Management Response: To fullypracticegood CSO donorship 1. Sida should work more strategically with CSO support, and get better at • supporting CS in its own right • strengthening local ownership of the development agenda • reaching grassroots organisations, organising poor and marginalised groups

  14. 2. Sida therefore needs a strategic framework which • makes the objective of the CS policy i.e. a pluralistic and rights-based civil society part of the results strategies • ensures the use of aid effective support models throughout the organization

  15. StrategicFrameworksuggested in the Draft MR

  16. To provide aid effective support, the draft MR suggests that Sida • Increases the use of aid effective support modalities such as core/programme and harmonized/joint funding (to strengthen ownership and support CSOs in their own right) • Manages for results by choosing partners to meet objectives and by tailoring the support accordingly; accommodate the need to balance strategic, long term approaches with flexibility and risk taking (to also reach CSO organizing the poorest of the poor) • Increases T&Ain CSO support: policy, strategy, guidelines, dialogue

  17. Draft MR: Division of Responsibilities 1(2) It is suggested that CIVSAMprovides the methodological platform: • Sida common CSO framework (how to practice good CSO donorship) to inform strategies and implementation • Further lessons learned and methodological support through: • Toolkit of methodological documents: • Code of Practice on Donor Harmonization • ToRfor organisationalassessments, CSO capacity development tools, formats for JFAs etc. • Complementarydirectadvisory • CSO focal points, CSO network/HR-Demo networks • Studies/evaluations: policy evaluation, evaluation of the CSO strategy, IDG joint fundingmodalities

  18. Draft MR: Division of Responsibilities 1(2) It is suggested that Embassies/HQ Units: • Conductregularcontext/political economy analyses (incl. actors’ analyses) • Develop and implement context specific CSO support guidelines which • Are based on the results strategy, the context analyses and Sida’s CSO framework • Function as transparent and clear guidelines for cooperation with CSOs • Set the frame for meaningful policy dialogue with CSOs (to ensure learning, transparency and accountability) • Share learning and experiences within Sida

  19. Summary of priorities in the draft management response Get better at (1) supporting CS in its own right (2) strengthening local ownership of the development agenda (3) reaching grassroots organisations, organising poor and marginalised groups (4) practicing aid effective support (which will contribute to 1-3) and then especially; • Increase the use of aid effective support modalities such as core/programme and harmonized/joint funding • Manage for results by choosing partners to meet objectives and by tailoring support • IncreaseT&A in CSO support: policy, strategy, guidelines, dialogue

  20. Reality Check: Kenya, Nov 2013 1. Major strengths • Framework organisation makes it easier to cooperate with Sida: planning, knowing and understanding the demands • Learning from other partners • Flexibility in terms of funding, supports/aligns to the strategic plan, long term support, core funding, easy to report back, accountability • Sida accepts formats by the partner, flexible, decreases transaction costs • Sida has provided leadership in important sectors in Kenya, takes a whole of sector approach

  21. 2. Major weaknesses • Responsivenessto policy work is not alwaysthere, e.g. enablingenvironment for CS in Kenya, new Bill • Capacitydevelopmentof partners has not beenthere in the country programme • Selectionof partners: Sida has beenplaying it safe, missingoutof new ones and the new dynamics in Kenya. • BalanceoffundingtoGovt and CS

  22. 3. Most important changes to make • Core funding could increase • More alignment to partners budget cycles e.g. for audits, too many audits • Logframesystem is not suitable to HR work, however accountability for results is key • M&E: all donors have different approaches • More focus on ICT as a tool for development • More dialogue also after the agreement has been signed (dialogue improved when Embassy responsible) • Too many meetings (in expensive hotels)

  23. Most important changes to make cont. • Capacitydevelopmentneedsmore attention to make CS actorsmoreprofessional, build champions and leadershipof new generation ofCSOs. • Learning between partners should be encouraged • Fast action in policy matters/enablingenvironment • Rights-based approach needs to be better understood • HRBA, more focus on giving the voiceless space • Focus more on local/countylevel • Peace and conflict should be more visible, incl interfaith collaboration, regional integration

  24. Questions? Comments?

More Related