Peter K. Munene International Affairs Manager DSW 10 May 2011

1. CSOs participation in Aid Effectiveness: From Rhetoric to Action Peter K. Munene International Affairs Manager DSW 10 May 2011

2. Where CSOs participate • Consultations on areas where donors can support development • Strategic planning processes by donors • Evaluation and dissemination of results for government and CSO projects • Fora where CSOs are invited by a development partner e.g. International Dialogue in Berlin

3. How CSOs participate • Monitoring budget allocation and expenditure • Euromapping • Budget studies • Undertaking missions to monitor donor funds for RH, e.g. AfGH • Researching and production of publications -Tips and Tricks and Guide to European Population Assistance • Creating own forums where CSOs look at funding and performance in thematic areas (FP/RH, FP/HIV-AIDs Integration, girl child education ...) • Capacity building in resource mobilisation and advocacy • Advocacy with donors and governments for allocation of more an area such as RH

4. Successes • DSW Uganda with other CSOs supported NAWMP (National Women Members of Parliamentarians Uganda Chapter) in lobbying for earmarking World Bank loan for RH. • DSW Kenya with other CSOs have been regularly consulted by EU in identification and setting priorities for EU NSA programme. Twice, DSW advocated and succeeded in setting RH as a priority. • Participation in budget processes and policy formulation

5. Disappointments • Overall, there is no major successes in participation in donor funded projects • MTR of CSPs • CSOs and parliamentarians did not get information on time for meaningful participation • EU delegations did not involve CSOs and parliamentarians sufficiently • Outcome: CSOs only provided an opinion without real influence • MDG initiative has been difficult for CSOs to participate. In Uganda, the Min of Finance and Min of Water agreed with EU delegation in December on area of focus for the application (undemocratic, selfish). Advocacy work by CSOs was undermined by this.

6. Disappointments • Participation in donor sector dialogue: very often these groups are very technical. Local CSOs need capacity building to understand all the jargon, e.g. RWN in Rwanda. • Participation in CCMs. Government often sets the priority with donor support • Participating in donor initiated consultations e.g. by UNFPA does not result in feedback. Ideas are taken/documented but no further outcome is heard • Generally - participation of CSOs is tokenism

7. Legal situation, space and scope for CSOs to Participate • CSOs are registered under an Act of Parliament. • Regulation is done by both government (NGO Board) and self regulation by the NGO Council • Some donors make CSO participation in project financing a condition (MDG initiative, GF)

8. Legal situation, space and scope for CSOs to Participate • Key issue is of participation is principle of ownership. Many donors give money under the basket fund and expect the projects will be owned by governments. • Important to recognize there is more than ministry of finance • The principle of separation of powers established parliament which is democratically elected. Parliament should participate in deciding how and in what the government should spend donor funds. MPs get budget when its too late to make amendments • Basket funding sometimes helping governments evade their responsibility by diverting their own resources to other areas of less priority. Example of Uganda’s purchase of fighter jets when people in north are starving

9. Lessons learnt • Funding monitoring cant be divorced from processes such as good governance. Example, in Uganda a recent CSO briefing noted three critical areas that undermine effective budget governance in Uganda: authority and control over the budget, budget indiscipline and incremental budgeting, corruption and abuse of office. (http://www.healthy-action.org/news.html?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=90) • Control over the budget: the executive arm of government exercises near absolute control over the way national budget resources are appropriated and utilized. • Corruption and abuse of office remains one of the biggest challenges facing the countries’ quest for equitable development.

10. Conclusion • Impetus and intellectual leadership for reforming the international aid system has come from donors. • Northern CSOs have engaged with this agenda but views and perspectives of Southern CSOs are a bit muted. • Donors have not invested enough in supporting CSOs to be engaged by their governments. Funding for projects remains a bilateral/multilateral agreement negotiated and in closed doors 

11. Conclusion  • Lack of appropriate fora to promote dialogue among Southern CSOs on aid architecture issues and the future of aid more broadly. Europe has forums like AfGH, Eurongos .... • Low capacity and ineffective involvement of Southern CSOs in Aid effectiveness • Scepticism among Southern voices on impact of their proposals to decisions by rich countries • Perception that international organisations are the ones with the right of voice.