Rwanda CSOs - Workshop Presentation_Final
-
Upload
gianfrancesco-costantini -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Rwanda CSOs - Workshop Presentation_Final
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a support
program to the civil society in Rwanda
PRELIMINARY FINDING DISCUSSION WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
Kigali, 14th of November 2013
Part 1: Theoretical methodological framework
Part 2: Preliminary findings
Part 3: Concluding remarks
Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Part 1
The main categories used in the mapping
An operational concept of CSOs;
A tiered vision of CSOs;
Dynamic view of CSOs structures and processes;
An operational concept of governance;
An operational concept of capacities.
A graphic representation of CSO tiers
Networks Federations
NGO NGOAssociationAssociation
Local grouping
Grass root org. Local
grouping
Second levelorganisations
Formally constitutedNGOs (direct supportor accompanyinggrass rootsorganisations); etc.
Third level org.
Third level org.
Coordinations
Third levelOrg.
cooperativesGrass root
org.Church
cooperatives
Third level organisations
Networks, federations, coordination, associations of churches ...
Church
First levelorganisations
Local associations,grass rootsorganisations;churches andconfessionalmovements; etc.
Capacity building
organisations /training institutions
Fourth level organisations:
platforms, forums, etc
Main methodological features
Participatory approach;
Integration between quantitative and qualitative information;
Integration between information on “factual elements”;
Capitalization of existing knowledge;
Adoption of non statistical methods to foster the representation of differences in the considered universe.
Geographical scope
The mapping considered the whole territory of Rwanda;
Activities have been carried out in Kigali as well as in the 5 Provinces: Rusizi and Rubavu (West) Huye (South) Nyagatare (East) Musanze (North)
Information sources and consultation/data gathering tools
Sources Tools
Documentary sources
1st level CSOs Organisation Fiche Focus group meetings
2nd level CSOs Structured questionnaire
Focus group meetingsIn-depth interviews
3rd level CSOs Analysis greed In –depth interviews
INGOs In-depth interviews Group meetings
Local authorities In-depth interviews
Government bodies In depth interviews
Donors In depth interviews Group meetings
The consulted actors
NGOs CBOs INGOs LAs Gov. bodies
Donors
Rusizi 8 12 3
Huye 11 9 1
Nyagatare 5 8
Musanze 11 13 2
Rubavu 12 18 2
Kigali 10 4 7 3 4
Total 47 64 7 8 3 4
Preliminary Findings
Part 2
The stakes for CSOs in Rwanda making decentralisation work;
fostering social cohesion from below;
supporting innovation processes;
strengthening communication and trust among citizens and public authorities;
facilitating access to information and services in peripheral areas and contributing to social inclusion.
The challenges for CSOs
(re) defining role and position in a changing environment;
avoiding the prevalence of service delivery and reducing dependency from external agendas;
recognition as an autonomous actor;
representation and cohesion within Civil Society;
building the capacity to interact with government and LA and strengthening the capacities for engaging in governance;
recognising and including emerging actors, particularly at grassroots / strengthening the linkage with constituencies.
Spaces for CSOs engagement in governance and policy dialogue
Consultation activities launched by government: law/policy formulation, sector working groups, informal consultation;
Engagement in decentralisation processes: JADF , District/Sector Development Plan, Budget setting and their monitoring and evaluation;
The dissemination of information on rights and public policies;
The exercise of “Voice” functions: collection of complaints, “suggestion boxes”, HR monitoring;
Improving service delivery: Scorecards; Committees for service management;
Improving public policies: support to land reform process UPR a space to be opened.
The differentiated analysis of CSOs
The four levels:
First level organisations
a diffused and multi-faced phenomenon (cooperatives, parents club, church related groups, micro-finance local schemes, students clubs, etc.);
the lack of recognition as actors;
The risk of a role limit to economic activities;
dependency and lack of a capacities;
“de facto” engagement in the governance of common goods at local level;
a large number of organisations but a small number of “strong organisations”;
emergence and decline of “opportunistic NGOs”; lack of recognition as actors; lack of autonomy, dependency and formal structures that
often are under “owners-fathers”; weak linkages with local communities and local actors
(and use of CBOs as beneficiaries rather then recognising them as actors);
shortage of capacities to engage in governance functions; the tendency to stay into a “comfortable space” and to
work isolately and in isolation from other NSAs; high staff turnover and loss of capacities.
Second level organisations
the appearance of very structured CS: many networks and umbrella, mainly at national level but few active member organisations;
unclear functions: representation or project implementation;
lack of autonomy and dependency; the lack of capacity to be a “place for communication” constituencies are seen as “beneficiaries”; emerging conflicts and lack of trust; variable capacities for project implementation but
shortage of capacities to engage in governance; the tendency to stay into “comfortable spaces”.
Third level organisations
Fourth level organisations:
one only platform, but with mixed constituency (and often conflicting interests) and an unclear function: representation or project implementation
no voice, no influence, little capacities;
despite local antennas, lack of capacity to foster “bottom – up” communication;
a (not efficient) megaphone for government policies and a (not efficient) mechanism to foster dialogue and consultation.
Available support to CSOs
Prevalence of grant and project approach; Few International NGOs supporting capacities
and development of national NGOs and CBOs; An approach to “support” that tends to limit
autonomy and to generate dependency; Lack of local capacity building structures and
lack of engagement of other NSAs for supporting CSOs;
Lack of support (including mutual support) for managing divergent interests between CSOs and public authorities.
Concluding remarks
Part 3
A need emerges for supporting CSOs in facing challenges concerning their engagement in governance. Renouncing to support them will imply both the lost of their contributions and the emerging of a drift process.
Supporting CSOs in facing these challenges would require an effort of both donors and government to:a) Recognise CSOs as and actor as a partner;b) Recognise that CSOs are diversified, and recognise informal groups; c) Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and
structures; d) Support institutional capacity building and organisations’ development; e) Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to
partner with CSOs;f) Strengthening/enlarging existing partnership and dialogue spaces,
recognising that a governance space exists that is not overlapping with the space of political institutions;
g) Reinforce civil society out of Kigali and new emerging actors (youth, innovative entrepreneurs, etc.)
h) Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSAs, including at international level.