Civil Society Participation in the Governance of New

Civil Society Participation in the Governance of New Efforts to Improve Basic Education: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mali and Tanzania Karen Mundy, OISE-UT with Richard Maclure, University of Ottawa Suzanne Cherry (OISE-UT) Megan Haggerty(OISE-UT) Caroline Manion (OISE-UT) Malini Sivasubramaniam (OISE-UT) Benoît Kabore (Université de Ouagadougou) Colette Meyong (University of Ottawa) Daniel Lavan (University of Ottawa)

Background n New efforts to expand access to basic education central to national development plans across Africa. n Official Donors - moving towards a new “compact” with governments, providing reliable long term, budgetary support for recurrent costs of basic education, from 2000 n Civil society actors increasingly seen as partners in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of new efforts. Emphasis on governance and accountability Question: What factors limit or encourage effective CSO engagement in new education policy arena?

The Context: Burkina Faso, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania Education systems in crisis during the 1980 s -1990 s n economic crisis and structural adjustment programs n In Tanzania and Kenya: reversals in primary enrolments, user fees. n In Mali and Burkina Faso: low access led donors to fund NGO schools Mid 1990 s n Democracy reforms in each country. n Rapid expansion of civil society – especially formally registered NGOs. n First experiments with systemic efforts to revitalize basic education n State no longer conceived as the sole party responsible for the design, regulation, ownership, and delivery of education. Education Sector Programs, From 2000 n Country owned plans + pooled funding in education (still about half of aid to sector is still in project form). n EFA declarations: free primary education (Tanzania, Kenya); expansion n Decentralization reforms - decision making shifted to local government and school level. n New emphasis on civil society participation in the governance of education programs.

Basic Data from the Four Countries

The Study - Design & Goals n Rapid assessment of current civil society actors in the education policy arena of four countries n CS actors NGOs, INGOs, parents associations, teachers unions, faith based organizations, other citizen organizations with a history of action in basic education. n Study Design – 8 desk studies, (all in countries where Canada is engaged in a SWAp to basic education. – 4 field based studies: Tanzania, Kenya; Burkina Faso and Mali, involving interviews with civil society organizations, donor organizations and government. – 30 -50 CSO interviews in each country n Limits

Civil Society Engagement: Tanzania n Sector support program (2001) – Follows abolition of school fees and rising enrolments; like Kenya, the country had previously achieved UFPE. – Pooled funding; decentralization to district level and school. n Changes in CSO engagement – Government acknowledges role for CSOs - especially technical expertise/innovation - but still wants to control CSO activities – Of all the cases, strongest CSO coalition, with international funding but local CSO control. Clearest example of evidenced-based policy advocacy. – However, also most contentious relationship between CSOs and government (especially 2005 -6). Illustrates tensions between “watchdog” and “complementary” roles. – Major challenges exist in engaging local level actors in educational policy issues.

Civil Society Engagement: Burkina Faso n Ten year sector plan (PDDEB, 2002 -2011): – partial budget support, decentralization and regional planning. – CSOs play an increasingly active role in monitoring the sector plan, via, joint missions, regional annual planning. – Key innovation = FONAENF (jointly managed fund as part of SWAp) n Changes in CSO engagement: – Limited CSO involvement in initial sector program design: but later buy in by CSOs – Growth of “complementary” service providers through jointly governed nonformal education project fund. – Coalition links largest local and international NGOs for dialogue with government at both central and regional levels – Teachers unions and Parents associations somewhat marginal to CSO-government dialogue – Limited ability of CSO coalition to engage wider public on education issues

Civil Society Engagement: Kenya n Sector support program (2005/10) – Follows renewed declaration of free primary education and massive increase in enrolments. – Pooled funding with major resources directed and controlled by schools. n Changes in CSO engagement in education – CSO coalition played a key part in the abolition of primary schools fees. – Coalition later lost capacity for effective engagement - reasons include different interests among CSO actors, continued threats of deregistration, dependency on INGO (Actionaid) – Individual NGOs advocate and work with Ministry on specific policy issues (gender, early childhood education etc). – No coordinated CSO effort to track government promises - equity and access still major issues.

Civil Society Engagement: Mali n 10 year Sector Plan (1999). – Some pooled funding and direct budget support – Decentralization - local officials responsible for school construction, local planning, teacher hiring and payment, some curriculum n Changes in CSO engagement in education – Community schools’ movement in 1990’s led to first CSO coalition – Government has history of “bypassing” existing organizations in major reforms: (teachers unions; parents associations) – Considerable tension between INGOs and NGOs, and between community schools providers and teachers unions – Major CSO debate about decentralization. – CSOs threatened by government demands for “harmonization” of resources (1% budgets for govtl oversight, 60% for infrastructure) – While CSOs see important need for national coordination, so far no effective national coalition (ongoing leadership struggles) n Education sector program can intensify existing divisions within civil society: especially between NGOs, teachers’ unions, parents associations.

Government-CSO Relationships Governments – Often try to limit or contain CSO roles, usually to service delivery rather than advocacy/criticism. (NB - threat of deregulation). – Wish to preserve control, but are struggling to do so alongside decentralization and increased oversight by international donors – Respond to distinct constituencies (“teachers” “parents”). – Often pick “winners” - those with clear capacity and expertise, and elite links - “divide and rule” strategies. – Want to see CSOs “on plan” - and sometimes mention the need to harmonize and pool NGO resources with government. – Are skeptical about NGO capacities, criticize their accountability. – View CSOs as “temporary gap fillers” - not permanent partners. – Avoid formal, regularized roles for civil society in policy processes CSOs – Not clear on where they fit into new decentralized governance structures – Want to be both “on plan” and independent/autonomous – Rarely work through parliamentary mechanisms. – Limited capacity to engage wider public in education issues

Donor - CSO Relationships n Official Donor Organizations – Formally supportive of CSO participation - but often vague when asked “participation for what” - (“accountability” vs. “capacity” vs. “citizenshp”) – Unclear how to fund in context of sector approach and country ownership - different views on right roles for CSOs. – Often unfamiliar with INGOs and domestic CSOs working in education – Can play a major role in ensuring CSO participation. [Tanzania] – Interesting experiments: FONAEF, Foundation for Civil Society, Commonwealth Education Fund. n CSOs – Only a privileged few have a direct relationships with major donors – Are afraid that new sector approaches will further limit their ability to access major donor organizations. – Also believe they have a role to play in monitoring donors and their promises (accountability not a one way street). – Want to maintain independence/autonomy - fear fads among donors and seek to manage risk.

General findings: n ‘’Invited spaces” for civil society organizations in educational policy growing. BUT: Governments control the “invitations” and sector programs create clear CSO “Winners” at the policy table n Coordination among CSOs improves their voice and recognition n CSOs are playing new roles in providing a forum for citizen let accountability. (NB: Experiments in budget tracking and expenditure monitoring, advocacy campaigns, national debate). n Most coalitions/networks face major challenges: – – – Competing interests or loss of focus Weak capacity - especially in evidence based policy engagement Limited or unreliable resources - need for autonomy Difficulties in working in new decentralized education systems Weak relationships to elected representatives - mainly focused on Ministry of Education – Limited ability to engage wider public in education issues - especially those related to equity and quality.

Three Key Challenges for CSOs: n How to be “partners” with government and be critics/advocates capable of holding governments responsible? [requires independent funding] n How to coordinate civil society actors, domestic/intersectoral and domestic/international to achieve effective policy voice? n How to mobilize local communities around the right to education, and deal with decentralized governance structures, while maintaining national role?