This chapter examines how development partners are supporting the participation of diverse actors through their development efforts. It focuses on how they engage national stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of development co-operation policies, strategies and programmes. It also provides a deeper assessesment of how development partners are supporting civil society in partner countries.
Making Development Co-operation More Effective
2019 Progress Report
Abstract
Realising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) depends on collective efforts. Indeed, the specific objective of SDG 17 is to strengthen global partnerships that bring together all parts of society, including national governments, civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector, the international community and other actors. The Nairobi Outcome Document (GPEDC, 2016[1]) also recognised the need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnerships and called for the contributions of all partners to be co-ordinated and complementary. In addition to working effectively with governments, development partners can support the participation of diverse actors through their development efforts. This can be done directly, by engaging these stakeholders in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of country strategies, programmes and projects, and it can be done indirectly, by promoting an environment that enables development actors to operate and to contribute to national development in their own right.
Through its multi-stakeholder platform, the Global Partnership champions a whole-of-society approach to sustainable development. While a variety of development actors are captured across several areas of Global Partnership monitoring, there is a dedicated indicator on a CSO-enabling environment and another on public-private dialogue. The results of these two indicators, as well as how other stakeholders contribute to development efforts, are discussed in Part I of this report. This chapter provides a brief overview of national stakeholders engaged in the preparation and implementation of development co-operation policies, strategies and programmes, followed by a more detailed assessment of one of the four areas of the CSO indicator, on how development partners are supporting civil society in partner countries.
Development partners’ support to and engagement with CSOs is particularly important for SDG implementation. Assistance from development partners to CSOs can enable better organisation of citizens, create direct communication channels with elected representatives and support overall public engagement for citizens to hold their governments to account (Seery and Seghers, 2019[2]). While this chapter focuses on official development partners, other development actors such as philanthropies also play a crucial role in supporting CSOs in partner countries. For example, the Aga Khan Foundation partners with civil society to develop citizen-led organisations that seek inclusive solutions to common problems (Aga Khan Foundation, 2018[3]). In one such project, it created a social innovation lab with CSOs in Kenya to discuss social and economic challenges for the youth and collaboratively design solutions to address them.
The key findings of this chapter are:
More inclusive and predictable engagement by development partners would allow for better-quality inputs from national stakeholders. Of all the national stakeholders, CSOs are consulted the most. Nevertheless, CSOs in more than half of participating partner countries reported that consultations1 with development partners are episodic, unpredictable and not systematically conducted. Additionally, by engaging more systematically a diverse range of national actors, development partners would help to ensure that development efforts are country-owned and relevant to the needs and priorities of different parts of society.
By raising the enabling environment as a regular agenda item in policy dialogues with partner country governments, development partners would enhance the conditions for civil society to operate and contribute to development in partner countries. While most development partners reported that they include this issue in policy discussions, CSOs in the majority of partner countries find that it is raised by only some development partners and not regularly.
Improving the quality of financial support to CSOs is critical. Development partners in a majority of partner countries consider their funding mechanisms to be predictable, transparent and accessible to a diversity of CSOs, but CSOs agreed with this assessment in less than 20% of partner countries. Moreover, CSOs consider funding received to be primarily driven by development partners’ own interests and priorities. In addition to safeguarding core support to CSOs, development partners can also better co-ordinate, simplify and harmonise funding requirements among themselves to maximally enhance the environments in which CSOs operate.
Development partners did not involve CSOs in the preparation of one-quarter of their country strategies, leaving room for more inclusive dialogue. They involved the private sector to an even lesser extent (Figure 6.1). Engaging national stakeholders in preparing development partners’ country strategies and partnership frameworks can play an important role in supporting development efforts that are owned by the whole of society. This helps to ensure the relevance of country strategies and projects to the needs and priorities of different parts of society in the partner country. In addition, inclusive engagement when planning development efforts can support collaborative and complementary efforts across the various development actors and maximise potential synergies. On average, development partners engaged CSOs in preparing 74% of the 831 country strategies reported in the 2018 Monitoring Round, the private sector in 54% of strategies, and other stakeholders (i.e. academia, trade unions, other development partners, experts, youth groups, etc.) in 60% of strategies. Among development partners, multilateral development banks consulted with non-governmental stakeholders the most, followed by UN agencies. Non-DAC bilateral partners engaged non-governmental stakeholders the least.
Proportion of country strategies where non-governmental partner country stakeholders are engaged by development partners in their preparation, by partner type
Notes: DAC: Development Assistance Committee. Data presented in this figure relate to the 831 cases in which development partners have a country strategy or partnership framework. “Other stakeholders” mentioned by respondents include academia, trade unions, other development actors, experts and youth groups.
Source: Draws on assessment of development partners’ use of country-led results frameworks (Indicator 1a, Module 1). Further information is availabe in GPEDC (2018, pp. 46-52[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
The perception among CSOs in most partner countries is that consultation with development partners is episodic, unpredictable and not systematically conducted. Over half of participating partner countries reported on the enabling environment for civil society (see Section 3.2 in Chapter 3 of this report). One of the four areas assessed as part of the enabling environment is the effectiveness of development partners’ work with CSOs.2 Aggregate results for this area, as rated by governments, civil society and development partners, declined from 79% in the 2016 Monitoring Round to 49% in the 2018 round.3 As shown in Figure 6.2, CSOs also reported on the extent to which development partners consult them in the design, implementation and monitoring of their development co-operation policies and programmes. In this regard, CSOs in 59% of participating partner countries reported that consultation with development partners is episodic, unpredictable and not systematically conducted. CSOs in these countries also reported that the agenda of these consultations is largely set by development partners and focuses on pre-determined policies and priorities. In addition, CSOs in these countries reported that consultations are not co-ordinated adequately to include a diverse range of CSOs.
Responses from development partners, civil society and governments on the extent to which development partners consult civil society on their development co-operation policies and programmes (share of countries)
Notes: Results include all views received from focal points of development partners, civil society and government who answered this question. Focal points were encouraged to consult with their constituencies to provide representative views. The complete wording of the response options is presented in the Characteristics of Practice, which can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/Indicator2CoP
Source: Draws on assesment of the environment for civil society organisations (Indicator 2, Module 3, Question 3A). Further information is available in GPEDC (GPEDC, 2018[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
In addition to being consulted by development partners, CSOs and the private sector play a role as implementers of development co-operation projects. Development partners value CSOs as partners because they bring expertise, grass roots knowledge and capacity to deliver services in places that development partners may not be able to reach on their own (OECD, 2012[5]). The proximity of CSOs to beneficiaries and their ability to react quickly in crises are also considered comparative advantages (Hedman and Mc Donnell, 2011[6]). Likewise, development partners work with the private sector to take advangage of its in-country knowledge, sectoral expertise and innovative solutions to address development challenges. Its capacity to mobilise additional resources is also cited as a reason to engage the private sector in project implementation (OECD, 2016[7]). CSOs and the private sector implement just under a quarter of development partners’ projects assessed through the 2018 Monitoring Round (Box 6.1).4
Civil society organisations are the main implementers of 15% of the more than 3 300 projects reported by development partners in the 2018 Monitoring Round; the private sector, national and international, is the main implementer of another 4% of projects. The government is responsible for implementing 35% of projects; the development partner for 19% of projects; and other public entities for 5% of projects. This disaggregation of implementing partners, illustrated in Figure 6.3, is consistent with the findings of the 2016 Monitoring Round.
Notes: Development partners were asked to report on their six largest programmes or projects above USD 100 000 and approved during 2017 in the 86 participating countries. They reported a total of more than 3 300 projects. “Others” include universities, research centres, banks, financial intermediaries and private foundations.
Source: Draws on assessment of development partners’ use of country-led results frameworks (Indicator 1a, Module 2). Further information is available in GPEDC (2018, pp. 46-52[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
Development partners can support whole-of-society participation in development by promoting an enabling environment for CSOs to operate. This can be done in many ways, including by: advocating for an enabling environment for CSOs as a key development concern in policy dialogue with governments; improving mechanisms to fund CSOs in ways that strengthen their operations and increase their independence and responsiveness to community needs; and making support to CSOs more transparent to facilitate the co-ordination of operations and funding in partner countries.
Development partners do not systematically raise the enabling environment for CSOs as an issue in policy dialogue with partner country governments. Civil society organisations in a majority of countries (57%) reported that development partners only occasionally include elements of an enabling environment for CSOs in their policy dialogue with partner country governments. This view is also held by 48% of partner country governments (Figure 6.4). According to a recent study by Wood and Fällman (2019[8]), only 19 of the 30 DAC members reported that they engage in dialogue on the need for enabling environments with both partner country governments and in international and regional fora (see Box 6.4). Part I of this report discusses overall negative trends across several conditions for CSOs to operate and effectively contribute to development, supporting views of a contracting civic space (CIVICUS, 2019[9]). In view of these findings, there is room for development partners to take on a more systematic advocacy role to help strengthen the enabling environment for CSOs. Dialogue with partner country governments, for instance, provides the opportunity for development partners to stress the need to address constraints on the enabling environment and actively seek to identify measures to improve it. Development partners also can gear their government-to-government support to reinforcing partner country institutions that protect and uphold the CSO-enabling environment.
Responses from development partners, civil society and governments on the extent to which the promotion of an enabling environment for CSOs is an agenda item in development partners’ policy dialogue with the government (share of countries)
Notes: Results include all views received from focal points of development partners, civil society and government who answered this question. Focal points were encouraged to consult with their constituencies to provide representative views. The complete wording of the response options is presented in the Characteristics of Practice, which can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/Indicator2CoP
Source: Draws on assessment of the environment for civil society organisations (Indicator 2, Module 3, Question 3B). Further information is available in GPEDC (2018, pp. 62-67[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
The vast majority of CSOs consider that development partners’ funding mechanisms are driven primarily by these partners’ own interests and priorities. As highlighted in the Busan Partnership agreement, “CSOs play a vital role in enabling people to claim their rights, in promoting rights-based approaches, in shaping development policies and partnerships, and in overseeing their implementation”. The Nairobi Outcome Document restated the essential role of civil society as an independent partner. Development partners have the opportunity to strengthen CSO operations and increase CSOs’ independence, diversity and responsiveness to community needs and priorities through their financial support. CSOs in 82% of partner countries reported that funding priorities and mechanisms are exclusively driven by development partners’ own programming interests or tied directly to implementation of their own priorities (Figure 6.5). This suggests that those CSOs receiving funding from development partners consider themselves more as implementers than as equal partners and actors in their own right able to bring knowledge on local needs and priorities. As discussed in Part I of this report, CSOs expressed similar views when funding comes from other, larger CSOs and from international CSOs. These perspectives are particularly relevant given current trends, whereby funding provided directly to local CSOs is declining and funding channelled through local and other types of CSOs is increasing (Box 6.3). An example of how to strengthen CSOs as independent development actors in their own right is organisational support in the form of core funding targeted to a CSO’s own objectives and programmes. Co-ordination, simplification and harmonisation of funding requirements among development partners also constitute good practice that contributes to reduced transaction costs and increased access for a diversity of CSOs (Box 6.2 discusses Samoa, a case in practice).
Responses from development partners, civil society and governments on the extent to which development partner financial support maximises sustainable engagement of partner country CSOs in development (share of countries)
Notes: CSO: civil society organisation. Results include all views received from focal points of development partners, civil society and government who answered this question. Focal points were encouraged to consult with their constituencies to provide representative views. The complete wording of the response options, and detail on funding mechanisms, is presented in the Characteristics of Practice, which can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/Indicator2CoP.
Source: Draws on assessment of the environment for civil society organisations (Indicator 2, Module 3, Question 3C). Further information is available in GPEDC (2018, pp. 62-67[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
The Civil Society Support Programme (CSSP) was designed to strengthen Samoan civil society organisations (CSOs) and facilitate their participation in the sustainable delivery of social and economic benefits. The programme set out two objectives.
1. Providing an efficient and accountable funding mechanism that enables CSOs to implement effective and innovative development initiatives in response to the priority needs of vulnerable communities.
2. Serving as a responsive resource for civil society development in Samoa by building CSO capacity, strengthening partnerships, promoting alliances, providing information and conducting research.
In extending its support to CSOs, the CSSP provides a single point of contact and a common set of application forms and reporting requirements. It further provides for CSO capacity building in project and organisational management and in proposal writing. Grantees are offered technical assistance to improve the implementation of their projects within a sustainable framework. The CSSP additionally supports information exchange among community organisations on their projects and best practices.
The CSSP is governed and managed by the government of Samoa, civil society representatives and development partners, including the Australian government through AusAID, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the European Union. The CSSP allows for improved co‑ordination, simplification and harmonisation of funding requirements. It also contributes to reducing transaction costs and increases access to funding for a diverse range of CSOs.
Source: Government of Samoa (Government of Samoa, n/d[10]), www.cssp.gov.ws/about-us.
Although civil society organisations (CSOs) are receiving more financial support from development partners than ever before, funds to CSOs based in partner countries have decreased. According to recent OECD statistics on official development assistance (ODA) to CSOs (OECD, 2018[11]), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) funds to and through CSOs increased from USD 17 billion to USD 20 billion from 2010 to 2017 (Figure 6.6). ODA to CSOs comprises core contributions that are programmed by the CSO; ODA through CSOs is earmarked funding that is channelled through CSOs to implement development partner-initiated projects.
This overall increase, however, is not equally reflected in the different forms of assistance or in the types of organisations. ODA through CSOs has increased for all types of CSOs, most notably for international ones.1 ODA to CSOs decreased overall for partner country-based CSOs.2 While ODA to CSOs increased for international CSOs, the biggest increase was for CSOs that are based in development partner countries.3
International CSOs often work with CSOs based in partner countries, so an increase in funds to international CSOs could translate into an increase in funds to partner country-based CSOs. However, these partnerships often are not equitable and are typically based on the projects and interests defined by the financing CSO (see Chapter 3 of this report). As a result, such funding does not directly increase the ability of CSOs based in partner countries to implement their own programmes in response to the needs and priorities of the local communities they serve.
Notes: Official development assistance (ODA) to CSOs refers to core contributions and contributions to programmes. These funds are programmed by the CSOs. ODA through CSOs (earmarked funding) refers to funds channelled through CSOs and other private bodies to implement development partner-initiated projects.
Source: OECD (n.d.[12]), Creditor Reporting System (database), https://stats.oecd.org.
1. International CSOs are organised on an international level. International organisations may act as umbrella organisations with affiliations in several development partner and/or partner countries.
2. Partner country-based CSOs are organised at the national level, and are based and operated in ODA-eligible countries.
3. CSOs based in the country of development partners are organised at the national level, and are based and operated either in the country of the development partner providing the funds or another development partner country.
More detailed information on development partners’ support to CSOs would increase transparency and accountability towards citizens. Development partners in 40% of partner countries reported that they make available detailed information (sectors, programmes, objectives, financing, results) on their support to CSOs. However, CSOs in only 11% of partner countries agreed that this is the case. In 50% of countries, CSOs reported that only some development partners make information available on their support to CSOs at aggregate level, and without activity-level or beneficiary-level information. Governments in 11% of countries and CSOs in 14% of countries reported that they believe information is not available on the majority of development partners’ support to international and domestic CSOs working in the country. Transparency regarding flows for CSOs is important to enhance the accountability of CSOs in partner countries towards their citizens. One option is reporting information about financial support to CSOs to national or international online platforms. Such information – including details on sectors, objectives, geographic locations, financing and results – also can be made available through development partners’ websites. In Albania, for example, most development partners make informaton about their support to CSOs publicly available on different platforms such as social media, publications and their own websites.
Responses from development partners, civil society and governments on the extent to which development partners make available information about their CSO support (share of countries)
Notes: Detailed information on support for civil society organsations includes sectors, objectives, geographic location, financing and results, both on international platforms and on development partners’ websites. Results include all views received from focal points of development partners, civil society and government who answered this question. Focal points were encouraged to consult with their constituencies to provide representative views. The complete wording of the response options is presented in the Characteristics of Practice, which can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/Indicator2CoP
Source: Draws on assessment of the environment for civil society organisations (Indicator 2, Module 3, Question 3D). Further information is available in GPEDC (2018, pp. 62-67[4]), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf
Wood and Fällman, in a paper published by the OECD (Wood and Fällman, 2019[8]), find that, overall, Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members are striving to implement the OECD’s Partnering with Civil Society recommendations (OECD, 2012[5]). The new study explores DAC members’ policies regarding civil society, including on consultation; funding; and approaches to monitoring, evaluation and accountability, and it will inform up-to-date guidance to be developed in collaboration with DAC members and other stakeholders. The study’s conclusions, moreover, dovetail with results from the 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Round. Their mutually reinforcing findings on how development partners work with civil society point to areas in need of attention going forward.
All 30 DAC members participated in a survey conducted in conjunction with the study. One of its findings was that all DAC members consult with CSOs at headquarters level regarding their civil society policies, and that 20 members have a regular and systematic consultation process in place. Only 7 members report having regular and systematic consultations at partner country level, although 20 members said ad hoc consultations take place at partner country level.
DAC members report that they promote an enabling environment for CSOs in different ways. Consistent with findings from the 2018 Monitoring Round (Figure 6.4), 19 of the 30 members report that they engage in dialogue on the need for enabling environments both with partner country governments and in international or regional fora. Among the additional means they pursue to promote enabling environments in partner countries are supporting civil society in countries where environments are disabling (23); supporting CSOs to strengthen their effectiveness and accountability (22); and encouraging partner country governments to engage in dialogue with CSOs (18). A less frequently used method, reported by only seven members, is self-assessment to better understand how their CSO support may indirectly contribute to disenabling environments.
In terms of transparency about their CSO support, the study finds that DAC members tend to favour tools such as annual reports to the public and to DAC member parliaments (15). Some DAC members have established open access databases of their CSO support (10). But, in line with the 2018 monitoring results, these are not necessarily disaggregated by partner country. Other members participate in open access databases covering CSO support in specific partner countries (6).
For a majority of DAC members (22), a main objective of their work with CSOs is strengthening civil society in partner countries, including to enable CSOs as independent development actors. The most-cited objective in working with CSOs was programme implementation in service delivery (23); 18 members reported programme implementation in human rights and democratisation was reported by 18 DAC members. More members use funding mechanisms such as calls for proposals or project and programme financing than use core support, even though core support is arguably more conducive to supporting CSO-defined initiatives and thus to enabling CSOs as development actors in their own right.
Source: Wood, J. and K. Fällman (2019[8]), “Enabling civil society: Select survey findings”, https://doi.org/10.1787/54903a6a-en.
References
[3] Aga Khan Foundation (2018), AKF website, https://www.akdn.org/our-agencies/aga-khan-foundation.
[9] CIVICUS (2019), State of Civil Society Report 2019: The Year in Review, CIVICUS, Johannesburg, https://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2019/state-of-civil-society-report-2019_executive-summary.pdf.
[10] Government of Samoa (n/d), Samoa Civil Society Support Programme (web page), http://www.cssp.gov.ws/about-us/.
[4] GPEDC (2018), 2018 Monitoring Guide for National Co-ordinators, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, New York and Paris, http://effectivecooperation.org/pdf/2018_Monitoring_Guide_National_Coordinator.pdf.
[1] GPEDC (2016), Nairobi Outcome Document, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, New York and Paris, http://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OutcomeDocumentEnglish.pdf.
[6] Hedman, J. and I. Mc Donnell (2011), How DAC Members Work With Civil Society Organisations: An Overview, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/Final_How_DAC_members_work_with_CSOs%20ENGLISH.pdf.
[11] OECD (2018), Aid for Civil Society Organisations, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/Aid-for-Civil-Society-Organisations-2015-2016.pdf.
[7] OECD (2016), Private Sector Engagement for Sustainable Development: Lessons from the DAC, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266889-en.
[5] OECD (2012), Partnering with Civil Society: 12 Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/12%20Lessons%20Partnering%20with%20Civil%20Society.pdf.
[12] OECD (n.d.), Creditor Reporting System (database), OECD, Paris, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=CRS1.
[2] Seery, E. and J. Seghers (2019), “Hitting the target: An agenda for aid in times of extreme inequality”, Oxfam Briefing Paper, Oxford International, Oxford, UK, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/bp-hitting-the-target-aid-inequality-agenda-080419-en.pdf.
[8] Wood, J. and K. Fällman (2019), “Enabling Civil Society: Select survey findings”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 57, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/54903a6a-en.
← 1. The Global Partnership monitoring framework defines consultation as a process through which subjects or topics of interest are discussed within or across constituency groups. Consultations are more formal and interactive than dialogue. The objective of a consultation is to seek information, advice and opinions. In any consultative process, the convener is not only gathering input, but sharing information as well. The organiser seeks to identify and clarify interests at stake, with the ultimate aim of developing a well-informed strategy or project that has a good chance of being supported and implemented. Providing and sharing information are seen as the foundation of an effective consultation process.
← 2. This area is Indicator 2, Module 3. The results from Module 3 are discussed across this chapter.
← 3. . The relevant data sample is limited to the 36 countries that reported on CSO-enabling environments in both the 2016 and the 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Rounds. For the 2018 round, the figure is the average result of individual responses of governments, civil society and development partners that reported on this area. For the 2016 round, the figure shows the responses provided by the government in consultation with civil society and development partners that reported on this area. Aspects covered in the assessment are discussed below in this chapter.
← 4. These projects were approved during 2017, but actual implementation and disbursements may be phased over subsequent years. The projects were reviewed in the context of assessing development partners’ alignment to country objectives and results. Development partners’ disbursements at country level also are included in the dataset and inform other indicators. Of these disbursements, 35% were channelled to and through non-state actors, including CSOs and the private sector, as discussed in Chapter 2.