Evaluation of EC aid delivery through Civil society

Evaluation of EC aid delivery through Civil society organisations Major findings and concerns relating to EC-NGO funding relationship and questions to APRODEV members London – 4 November 2009

General Findings • Beyond general principles, the EC has not yet defined clear vision on the added value of different categories of CSOs in various contexts nor systematically addressed other key operational aspects of the CSO channel. • there is an overall tendency for piecemeal approach to CSOs at EC and delegation level.

Paradigm shift in supporting CS • Until recently, the predominant mode of use of CSOs was in service delivery (subcontracting). • Now, more and more money is provided to support CSOs in governance processes. • However, there is a lack of operational guidance and consistency for supporting CSOs in governance processes.

What ‘paradigm shift’ are we talking about?

Access for CSOs of DC still limited • Despite access for CSOs in developing countries, EC continues to fund and deal disproportionately with European NGOs. • There is a lack of knowledge/capacities of local NGOs, high transaction costs (and risk) in dealing with the EC and high financial standards (calls for proposals unsuited for small, informal CSOs).

How effective is the CSO channel ? • Evaluation shows that CSO programmes /projects often lead to broader (intangible) development outcomes (such as social and institutional capital). • But major doubts regarding sustainability of CSO interventions for several reasons, some of them linked to the EC funding system itself.

Obstacles to effectiveness of CS channel (1) • High dependency on donor funding leads CSOs to adopt opportunistic behaviour according to funding opportunities, thereby endorsing donor agendas rather than the priorities of local populations. • Limited opportunities for CSOs to explore funding with the EC other than through calls for proposals (EDF, If. S, …). • M&E systems are output (spending)-based.

Obstacles to effectiveness of CS channel (2) • Regarding CSO as watchdogs: limited impact, in many countries the political environment is not conducive to effective CSO interventions and governance processes need longer-term funding. • In order to effectively help champion CSO spaces, EC must become more political (more strategic) in its support to CS.

CS is effective in fragile situations • Ample evidence for positive effects of EC aid delivery through CSOs in fragile situations, including broader development outcomes. • But privileged use of INGOs is not sustainable over the long term, importance of partnership and capacity building • There are incidences where EC-funded projects in governance are stopped because of partner government pressure (or because normal relations with government are restored).

Management constraints (1) • Calls for proposals are a less than optimal tool for disbursing aid through CSOs. • Administrative culture in EC delegations focuses on quick disbursements and financial accountability. • EC is accountable to member states. Financial accountability therefore often prevails over downwards accountability.

Management constraints (2) • Deconcentration of management of thematic budget lines has helped improve dialogue with and involvement of CSOs at country level but leads to more inconsistency and the need for creating/maintaining multiple contacts • Ample evidence that prevailing administrative culture and incentive system is not conducive to a strategic management of CSOs in line with stated policy objectives → quadrilogue ?

The system is highly competitive • Examples: % full application selected for 100 concept notes received in 2008 (global calls) (total concept notes, total full applications, selected) NSA-LA (multi-C) EIDHR (main call) 5. 8 % Environment 4. 9% IIP – Health Food Facility 3. 2% (2009) (510, 57, 18) 4. 5% (443, 52, 20) (1033, 199, 51) (218, 30, 7) 15. 2 % (804, 275, 122 )

How to overcome frustration and constructively explore ways of working with an imperfect system: You may try to expand funding sources by exploring nonusual EC funding opportunities (geographic, If. S, social policies in the EU, …) or other international donors And / or Improve your collective response to the system through coordination /cooperation, joint applications, consortia, division of labour (at project and relationships level). Identify and make visible the characteristics that make you a (more) valuable and effective partner in development in the current context and strengthen them or develop new ones. You can do that as an individual organisation and/or as a network / family.

How far are we, EU NGOs, part of system/problem and cultivating our own frustration? • Are EU NGOs (and APRODEV members) ready to promote political leadership for better EU/EC engagement strategies with CSOs? Is it worth the effort? How to achieve that? Through quadrilogue? • What are the windows of opportunity where change is realistic and feasible? For example, EC is moving fast on integrating CSOs in geographic instruments – Are we ready to support Southern partners adequately (in new roles relating to governance and policy)? – Are we ready to engage in debates on CSOs added value in new aid modalities like budget support? – Are we ready to engage in multi-actors approaches?