rwanda csos - workshop presentation_final
DESCRIPTION
civil society in Rwanda, synthetic presentation of the results of the mapping study carried out in 2014. The study has been looking at CSOs dynamics and at CSOs engagement in governance mechanisms, in a country that is at the same time considered an example of "good governance" and a semi-authoritarian regime. A main issue is the fact that existing mechanisms make interests and "conflicts" invisible.TRANSCRIPT
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.