List of interviewees - OECD.org · Jean-Marc Denervaud, Président ... Education and Development...

Evaluators’ Final Report Annex 7

43

List of interviewees SDC people Adam, Therese Head of O-Department Ambühl, Hansj ürg Head of Africa Division, H-Department Bäbler, Regula Evaluation and Controlling, E-Department Bächler, Günther COPRET Bichsel, Anne Evaluation Officer, Evaluation and Controlling Bischoff, Peter Latin America, E-Department Chappatte, Serge Head of M-Department Chenevard, Richard Internal Audit Division Droz, François Natural Resources and Environment Division, F-Department Egger, Paul Head of Asia II, E-Department Eisele, Hubert Special Programmes, O-Department Fässler, Martin Head, Development Policy Division, M-Department Ferrari, Marco Deputy Head, H-Department Fust, Dr Walter Director General Gautschi, Remo Deputy Director General Graf, Christoph Head, Evaluation and Controlling Hofer, Walter Deputy Head, Development Policy and Multilateral Co-operation Jakob, Christoph Evaluation & Controlling Officer, H-Department Lenherr, Willy Head of Asia and America Division, H-Department Läubli, Ursula Latin America Division, E-Department Müller, Suzanne NGO Section, E-Department Kugler, Thomas Southeast Europe Division, O-Department Kraus, Jiri Xerxes Auditor Maag, Hanspeter Head, CIS Division, O-Department Meier, Peter Evaluation and Controlling Officer, E-Department Maître, Adrian Programme Officer, Central America Division, E-Department Peter, Paul South East Europe, O-Department Rapold, Dora Head, F-Department Ries, Andrea Development Policy (E-Pol), M-Department Rossi, Marco Co-Head, Social Development Division, F-Department Saurenmann, Hans Head Procurement Services Schläfli, Kuno Evaluation and Controlling Officer, O-Department Schläpfer, Adrian Assistant Director General, Head of E-Department Sivec, Harry Head, Media and Communication Siegfried, Gerhard Senior Advisor, Southern and East Africa, E-Department Sotoudeh, Shirin Special and Regional Programmes Division, O-Department Specker, Konrad Head, NGO Section, E-Department Stantchev, Dimka Programme Officer Asia II and Governance Divisions Suter Tejada, Sybille Head of Human Resources Division Tausch, Holger Former COOF Co-ordinator, now Evaluation & Controlling Thévenaz, Franklin Head of Division Multilateral Affairs and Special Assignments, H-

Department Zwahlen, Anne West Africa Division, E-Department


44

NGO representatives Brot für Alle Prof Dr Christoph Stückelberger, General Secretary

Jürg Schertenleib, Project Officer Caritas Suisse Jürg Krummenacher, Director

Norbert Kieliger, Head of International Co-operation Erklärung von Bern Christine Eberlein, International financial relations

Marianne Hochueli, Trade issues Fastenopfer Markus Brun, Development Policy Unit

Yvonne Buschor, Head of Department “South” Antonio Hautle, Director General

Fédération Genevoise de Coopération

Jean-Marc Denervaud, Président Elisabeth Hämmig, Vice President Brian Mac Call, Board Member Gail Hunter, Head of the Secretariat

Fédération Vaudoise de Coopération

Patricia Dubois, Co-ordinator Roger Zürcher, consultant in rural development

Foundation for Education and Development

Richard Helbling, Secretary General

HEKS Franz Schüle, Central Secretary Christian Fricker, Head of International

Helvetas E Werner Külling, Secretary-General Esther Oettli, Head, Overseas Department

Intercooperation Dr Felix von Sury, Executive Director Ruth Egger, Deputy Executive Director

Médecins sans Frontières

Emmanuel Flamand, Head of Field Finances Thomas Nierle, MD, Director of Operations Frédéric Vallat, Financial Director

Stiftung Kinderdorf Pestalozzi

Markus Mader, Chief Executive Officer

Swissaid Caroline Morel, Executive Director Dieter Imhof, Director of Department of Development Co-operation

Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations

Peter Niggli, Executive Director

Swisscontact Markus Kupper, Managing Director Mirjam Schreiber, Programme Director

Swiss Labour Assistance

Brigitte Steimen, Managing Director Ruth Daellenbach, Head of International Department

Swiss Red Cross Martin Fuhrer, Director International Co-operation Thomas Bürge, Project Co-ordinator for Conflict Management Margrit Schenker, Head of Operations, International Co-operation Verena Wieland, Head of Operations, International Co-operation

Terre des Hommes Foundation

Peter Brey, Secretary General Philippe Buchs, Head of Programmes

Unité Martin Schreiber, General Secretary


45

Other Interviewees Dannecker, Dr Rudolf Former Head, E-Department, SDC Gerster, Dr Richard Former Director of Swiss Coalition, now Gerster Consulting Germann, Ivo Balance of Payments Operations and Debt Relief, State Secretariat

for Economic Affairs (seco) Giovannini, J-F Former Deputy Director, SDC Heiniger, Markus Programme Manager; Federal Department of Foreign Affairs – PA IVHolenstein, Anne-Marie

Former Director of Fastenopfer, former interim Director of Schweizerisches Arbeiterhilfswerk, now Consultant


46

CATEGORIES OF NGO CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION

NGOs Focus in development co-operation

NGO type Type of SDC funding

Origins of NGO

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Hilfswerke (Swissaid, Fastenopfer, Brot für Alle, Helvetas, Caritas)

√ √ √ √ √ √

Brot für Alle √ √1 √1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Caritas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Erklärung von Bern √ √ √ √ √ Fastenopfer √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Féderation Genevoise de Coop. FGC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Féd. Vaudoise de Coop. FEDEVACO √ √ √ √ √ √ FOSIT √ √ HEKS √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Helvetas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Intercooperation √ √ √ √ Médecins sans Frontières √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Schweizerisches Arbeiterhilfswerk SAH √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuz SRK √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Stiftung Bildung und Entwicklung2 √ √ √ Stiftung Kinderdorf Pestalozzi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Swissaid √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Swisscontact √ √ √ √ √ √ Terre des Hommes Foundation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Unité √ √ √ √ √ √ √

1 These activities are funded by the NGO, not performed by it. 2 Provides services (information, training, awareness creation etc.) for educationalists in Switzerland. Funding mechanism is similar to a block grant but does not follow the same rules.


47

KEY Focus in development co-operation 1 Advocacy 2 Volunteers 3 Projects/programmes 4 Humanitarian 5 Policy NGO type 1 Organisation with a constituency 2 Thematically focused organisations with departments specialised in operational development co-operation 3 Multifunctional organisations 4 Church aid organisations 5 International network 6 Umbrella organisation Type of SDC funding 1 Block grants 2 Project contributions 3 Mandates 4 Not SDC funded Origins of NGO 1 Church 2 Private Sector 3 Social Democratic Party/Labour 4 Civil Society 5 SDC


48

Extracts from SDC’s Organisation Manual – Operations: Selection Criteria (project/programme block grants)

Chapter 4.3.3 (SDC translation)

(…)

2.4. Co-operation and Contribution Policies

One of the first tasks of the NGO Service was the formulation of clear contribution conditions and criteria for Swiss NGOs which enable applications to be dealt with in an open and fair manner.

Partners of SDC in the field of development co-operation are NGOs which: - are well established in the eyes of the Swiss population in general and provide in-

formation on North-South questions; - use Swiss development statutes as a basis; - have a clear development policy, operational capacity and experience (specific

knowledge, key areas); and - are interested in co-operation and co-ordination (complementarity, synergies, etc.).

On the basis of these criteria, SDC distinguishes between: a) bigger, consolidated NGOs with demonstrable capacities in co-operation; and b) smaller NGOs with limited financial and/or operational capacities.

Uniform criteria for contributions and forms of co-operation are laid down for both these NGO types.

Bigger NGOs, whose work is well known to SDC by reason of a longer period of co-operation, receive programme contributions (3-year contracts). In this co-operation, SDC requires and encourages:

- Long term implementation and planning in development co-operation. - Increased programme orientation in development co-operation (setting up of key

points) and annual programme discussions (see chapter 2.2.). This provides: (a) insight into evaluation and assessment of the entire work of the NGO (as against

isolated, individual projects); and (b) an exchange of ideas, improved mutual knowledge and understanding, and syn-

ergies.

- Professionalism in the matter of planning, evaluation and monitoring instruments, and use of sustainability criteria in projects, among others on the occasion of pro-gramme discussions, participation of NGOs in SDC further education arrange-ments, etc.

- A maximum financial participation of SDC in development co-operation

programmes of 50%.


49

Small NGOs: Clear contribution criteria are used for institutions and submitted projects. An equality

of rights in dealing with proposals is also an objective during the bi-annual examina-tion of requests.

That the NGO's own contribution is 50% fulfils the condition that small NGOs are also supported by the population as a whole or in part.

Chapter 4.4.6 (extracts translated by the evaluation team) Principles and Criteria for programme block grants: 1 Objectives of programme block grants

- Support to NGOs in their effort to increase quality and professionalism. - Secured financing for a reliable development co-operation organisation over a

longer period of time. - Concentration of discussion on important aspects of development co-operation, of

the programme etc. - Exchange of experience and mutual learning. - Administrative simplification for SDC.

2 Policy of co-operation and contribution 2.1 In the area of contributions, partners for SDC are NGOs:

- which are rooted in the Swiss society and feed information back on issues related to the exchange between the North and the South;

- whose basis for work is the Swiss law on development co-operation; - which have a clear development policy profile, operational capacities and

experiences (specific knowledge and focuses); and - which are interested in co-operation and co-ordination (complementarity,

synergies). 2.2 In the light of the above-mentioned criteria, SDC distinguishes between

- bigger, consolidated NGOs with proven capacities and - smaller NGOs with limited financial and/or operational capacities.

2.3 Bigger NGOs the work of which is well-known to SDC through longer lasting co-

operation, receive programme block grants (3 years contracts). In this co-operation, SDC requests and supports: - A longer-term orientation and planning in development co-operation. - An increased programme orientation (focus) and an annual programme discussion.

This facilitates (a) the insight into, and the assessment of, the NGO’s comprehensive work (in contrast to single projects) and (b) the exchange of ideas, improved information, understanding and synergies.

- The professionalisation of planning, evaluation and monitoring instruments and the adherence to criteria of sustainability in project and programme discussions, the participation of NGOs in SDC’s training events etc.


50

3 Responsibilities and financing 3.1 “Programme contribution” refers to a contribution to a programme for which the

respective organisation is responsible. SDC conducts discussions on the overall orientation, the development policy orientation, the instruments applied, controlling systems etc. and assesses the comprehensive programme. SDC introduces, in this dialogue, its own experiences. SDC may also introduce guidelines concerning orientation of the programme, development policy issues or overall orientation. The co-operation is based, on both sides, on a dialogue between partners and mutual exchange of experiences.

3.2 In the case of programme and project contributions to Swiss NGOs in development co-operation, the SDC contribution amounts to a maximum of 50% of the costs.

3.3 Programme contributions ask for clarity on organisational and capacity issues (in terms of personnel, organisational and financial issues) and experience/knowledge in operational issues.

4 Criteria for SDC programme contributions 4.1 Co-operation with SDC: The organisation has long-term experience and is known for

a successful co-operation with SDC in the area concerned. 4.2 Orientation: The organisation has a clear development policy orientation, coherent

principles and methodologies for doing its work as well as instruments for implementing a sound project management cycle.

4.3 Policy focus and co-operation: The organisation has a clear focus for its work (geographic, sectoral, methodological or other specialisation etc.). The geographic orientation is geared toward countries or regions. The organisation maintains an exchange of information on a regular basis in order to make use of synergies.

4.4 Professionalism of the organisation: The professional work of the organisation and the emphasis on quality (experiences, PCM, development in the course of the co-operation etc.) are according to SDC’s requirements. The experiences of employees are especially crucial for the quality of the programmes.

4.5 Financial size of the programme: The financial size of the organisation’s programme has to allow for a permanent broad project/programme experience (i.e. the limits are around CHF 3 million per year).

4.6 The Swiss context: The organisation has a clear all-Swiss orientation and a clear domestic mandate in the area of information and PR activities. On the basis of its experiences, its policy and the clear orientation (focuses, specialisation etc.), it belongs, in its area of work, to the leading organisations with high professional standards and capacity to foster substantially the dialog on development co-operation in Switzerland.

Evaluators’ Final Report Annex 10 SDC Organisation Handbook-Operations 4.4.1 Funding from SDC to Swiss NGOs for development co-operation projects page 51 of 1

Replaces edition of June 1998 date: 4 May 2001 51

Document A Conditions and criteria to be met by Swiss NGOs submitting an application for funding to the SDC for development co-operation projects in countries in the South. 1. Swiss NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) which do not currently benefit from an

SDC credit programme or funding via an umbrella organisation may submit an application to the SDC for funding on a project, provided that the project satisfies a certain number of criteria (Document B) and that the NGO meets the conditions and criteria below.

2. The Swiss NGO must be an organisation that is known, non-profitmaking, having already

been active for a number of years, formed under Swiss law (e.g., an association, a foundation or co-operative, etc.), of sound financial footing and having its operational and administrative centre in Switzerland. In the main, its resources should stem from public voluntary donations collected in Switzerland. The policy followed by the NGO must reflect its members’ opinions as made known through its officers: a secretariat or executive committee consisting of specialists, a separate, independent central committee or board of governors consisting of volunteers, possibly recruited at local level. Such policy must respect human rights and principles of solidarity.

3. The NGO must have obvious presence and be solidly anchored in popular perception, not

only for purposes of informing people of how it spends their donations, but also to maintain a dialogue with them on North-South relations and on ways in which injustice and imbalance can be remedied. Development co-operation must be one of the NGO’s principal activities.

4. The NGO must also have proven abilities in operational management (planning,

monitoring and assessing activities), in particular through its experienced staff. In direct contact with partner organisations in the South, the NGO should be able to identify worthwhile initiatives and to assess results in line with objectives set. It should also co-ordinate its activities with those of other NGOs in Switzerland and the North, in order to avoid duplication of work and to achieve synergy.

5. The NGO must have proven abilities in financial administration and management; its

accounts must be transparent with regard to the origin and use of its funds, and be subject to audit by an independent firm of accountants. The profit and loss accounts, the balance sheet and, where relevant, the accounts for autonomous funds, must be easily accessible and given greater publicity. The audit department must be separate from the secretariat and the board of governors, and consist of persons qualified in this field.

6. The NGO must husband the monies it receives from public donations; where professional

management represents a definite cost factor, the amount of resources devoted by the NGO to its Swiss operations, organising public fundraising, and planning, monitoring and assessing project, must remain as modest as possible so that donations from the public are used to finance development in the South and not to cover high costs in Switzerland.

7. Organisations based in Geneva and the Vaud canton are requested to apply to the

Cantonal Co-operation Federations in their respective cantons. Strictly speaking, they do not qualify for direct access to federal funding.

8. Where an NGO has not yet received funding from the SDC, it should compile a dossier

including the following information: (…)



Document B

Criteria employed by SDC in appraising Applications for funding Any application must comply with the general principles laid down by the federal law dated March 19, 1976, on international development co-operation and humanitarian aid. The follo-wing criteria will serve as a checklist to see whether the application corresponds to what the SDC means by “development co-operation action”. However, not every project will be affected by every one of the criteria below. One or two criteria may not apply to some projects, but in general, the overall guiding principles of each project must not be in obvious contradiction with any of them. Strictly speaking, criteria under Item 6 are cause for exclusion.

1. Criteria applying to the population involved in the project

1.1 The project aims to satisfy one or more basic needs experienced by the population concerned.

1.2 The population concerned must make the project their own, they must be motivated. The population contributes to making the project a success by its own efforts.

1.3 Initiatives put forward by the population concerned and self-help structures are encouraged.

1.4 The project is intended to be of service to the population concerned without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, creed or political persuasion. The project must not be linked to any religious or political proselytising activity.

2. Criteria applying to the Local Partner Institution for project implementation

2.1 The local partner institution is in an adequate position to take on administrative and organisational tasks connected with implementing the project (planning, monitoring, assessing, accounting).

2.2 The local partner institution works along collaborative lines. The population concerned is associated with all the important phases of the project (and in particular, its conception, implementation, management, assessment and all follow-on activities).

2.3 Those in charge of the project maintain contact with other institutions in the region in order to avoid having competitive activities or duplication.

2.4 The project targets institutional and/or organisational reinforcement of the local partner institution (in particular for basic organisations).

2.5 The institution applies a policy of transparency with regard to resources and relations especially with other donors.

3. Criteria applying to the content and structure of the project

3.1 The general aims and phases of the projects are clearly defined, scheduled in an appropriate calendar of events and have been determined jointly with those involved. This calendar makes allowance for outside support being withdrawn.

3.2 The means necessary to implement the project represent a reasonable cost in relation to the target aims.

3.3 The project respects the social and cultural context and integrates with local structures.

3.4 Use is made of potential local development capabilities, which are thereby strengthened.



3.5 Any technical solutions chosen for the project are adapted to suit both the material and the social point of view.

4. Criteria applying to the context and impact of the project

4.1 The project has no adverse impact on the condition or status of women nor on the relations between men and women in the population concerned..

4.2 The project does not have a negative impact on the dependent children of the adults involved.

4.3 The project favours sustainable development which respects the environment.

4.4 The project makes a contribution to a greater respect of human rights and of the child.

4.5 Where these exist, the project fits into the framework of the main axes of local, regional or national development in the country concerned.

4.6 In countries where the SDC is active, the project does not go against activities already supported by the SDC. It does not have to correspond to the programme of priorities which the SDC has drawn up to that particular country. In addition, it may be implemented in a country which is not a country on which SDC has specifically concentrated.

5. Criteria applying to the viability of the project

5.1 The activities which will follow on from the project in the long term must cover recurring operational costs; the creation of new dependency on aid is to be avoided.

5.2 The sustainable effect of the project extend beyond the period in which outside help is available.

5.3 Points 5.1 and 5.2 are taken into account right from the project planning stage.

5.4 Where the project is an economic one, a feasibility and market study has been carried out.

6. What, generally speaking, is not financed by the SDC in terms of development co-operation?

6.1 Project feasibility studies.

6.2 Building construction costs such as schools, health centres or hospitals: maintenance costs are often too high for the local structures to take on later.

6.3 Expatriate personnel costs (the SDC finances a programme of volunteers through the umbrella organisation UNITE which covers about thirty voluntary organisations).

6.4 The ordinary running costs of an institution such as salaries of local permanent staff, building maintenance or administrative costs.

6.5 Aid activities such as free distribution of food, medicines or scholastic materials.

6.6 International transport costs to bring equipment and materials to the project site.

6.7 Cost of research, training, seminars, meetings, bursaries and publications in Switzerland or in countries in the North.

6.8 A project in the course of implementation or already completed (no retroactive financing).

6.9 An institution or a project already financed directly or indirectly by the SDC.

6.10 A project in a conflict zone or region, or when implementation of the project could threaten Switzerland’ interest or position.

Evaluators’ Final Report Annex 11 SDC Organisation Manual - Operations 4.3.3 Cooperation with Swiss NGOs

Replaces edition of November 15th , 1995 54

Institutionalized and informal platforms for dialog and learning – Extract from the Organisational Manual 2.1. Contacts/Discussions at the level Federal Council - NGOs

Since the appointment of Federal Councillor Cotti and SDC Director Fust there have been regular contacts at a political level (bi-annually).

• Participants: Head of Department, Director of SDC, executive directors of NGOs

• Contents: Swiss foreign policy, development cooperation and domestic policies, general deve-

lopment policy

2.2. Dialogue and Sharing of Experience with regard to Development and Operatio-

nal Policies

Since 1992, formal and informal contacts and areas of discussion have been built up between SDC and the NGOs:

Meetings between SDC and Programme Contribution Organizations1

(bi-annually)

• Participants Two or three participants from programme contribution organizations, five or six participants from SDC

• Contents Development cooperation and humanitarian aid themes: development policies, new tendencies, operational questions (e.g. IMF/World Bank, development cooperation vs. emergency aid, etc.)

Programme Discussion with Individual Organizations (totalling 12)2

Once a year (between November and January), a meeting takes place with each pro-gramme contribution organization to discuss its annual programme.

• Participants: Head of Operational Divisions SDC, NGO Service, NGO contact staff member of

1 Helvetas, Swisscontact, Swissaid, Bread for All, Inter Church Aid (HEKS), Lenten

Fund (Fastenopfer), Caritas, Geneva Federation for Cooperation and Development (FGC), Pestalozzi Children's Village Foundation (SKIP), Swiss Red Cross, Swiss Labour Assistance (SAH)

2 See above (footnote 1); plus Unité



SDC, individual Programme Officers from SDC sections and services, four to ten staff members of organization concerned.

• Contents: Discussion on programme, contents, implementation, further development, budget, etc., granting of annual SDC contribution.

Such programme discussions also take place with volunteer organizations in the framework of the Unité Executive (two or three times a year).

Each organization has a contact person within SDC who is responsible for relations with that organization. In operational matters, the NGO Service cooperates with the in-dividual organizations through this contact person.

Discussions between Development Cooperation Project Managers ("Regie", con-

tract organisations)3 and SDC

Executive Level (bi-annually)

• Participants: Director of contract organisations, Head of Operational Divisions SDC

• Contents: operational cooperation, complementarity, operational development cooperation policies, implementing questions

At Section Level (annually)

• Participants: Staff members of contract organisations, Programme Officers of Geographical Sec-tions of SDC

• Contents: Operational cooperation in contract organisation projects, programming

Annual Programme for SDC Priority Countries

Representatives of contract organizations for each country are invited to discussions concerning the Annual and Working Programmes for SDC priority countries.

Country Discussions

Discussions concerning particular countries between SDC and all locally active Swiss NGOs take place as needed (e.g. Haiti, Peru, Ecuador, India, etc.).

Contacts with other Development Cooperation Organizations

3 Intercooperation, Institute of Development Studies (IUED), Helvetas, Swisscontact



• Through requests for project financing to the NGO Service/SDC Sections (credit for small projects)

• General information (collection point: NGO Service)

2.3. Reciprocal Information SDC - NGOs

Reciprocal information occurs within the framework of existing dialogue structures (see chapter 2.2.).

In addition, SDC provides further information through the NGO contact person in SDC, through the NGO Service, the technical divisions and sections.

Examples of information and invitations for cooperation which are sent to NGOs: - Conferences (Rio, Social Summit, Population conference, etc.) - Studies - Education opportunities in SDC for NGOs

Within SDC the volume of information supplied by the NGO Service to other sections and services on various NGO aspects has slowly increased in accordance with the per-sonnel capacity. Information concentrates in particular on NGO programmes and pro-jects (lists), NGO documentation and various NGO activities.


57

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Risks of SDC’s practice in interacting with NGOs

The following SWOR analysis represents a summary of the chapters 2.1 to 2.4 and has to be seen

- against the background of the norms current in Swiss society as described/analysed in 2.1.1 and 3.1.

- against what the evaluators see as the emerging Swiss strategic development policy orientation. This is based on a growing institutionalisation of Switzerland’s participation in international debates and multi-stakeholder fora (among others DAC and the principles of harmonisation, concentration, coherence and result orientation), the recognition of PRS as guiding the development agenda and moving the locus of decision making from the North to the South or East.

The presentation of the SWOR might suggest that some strengths and weaknesses or opportunities and risks counter-balance each other. This is not the case. Some strengths have implicit weaknesses and some opportunities have implicit risks.

Roles of SDC and the Swiss NGOs

Strengths Weaknesses - There is a long lasting and stable partnership between

SDC and the Swiss NGOs in development co-operation. - In the course of implementing a working relationship,

SDC has acknowledged roles the Swiss NGOs had already appropriated through implementing projects in their partner countries.

- SDC trusts the Swiss NGOs in the delivery of implementation services.

- SDC’s flexible approach to dealing with the Swiss NGOs creates space for innovation and autonomy.

- An emerging strength is that SDC is discussing new strategic development orientations internally, which implicitly would require a clearer allocation of roles between all stakeholders in development co-operation in the North and in the South, including the Swiss NGOs.

- The integration of Switzerland into the international development policy debate is establishing new requirements for accountability.

- The perception of roles in this partnership is not governed by a strategic orientation. (In other words, what are the strategic reference points for the co-operation between them?)

- There is insufficient discussion on the implications of emerging policy elements, changing policy orientation and the future roles of SDC and the Swiss NGOs (e.g. north-south shift of agenda setting).

- In the past, there was no analysis of the strategic orientation, of the most suitable partnerships and possible roles of partners in implementing this orientation. What existed was simply accepted and later criticised.

- There is not yet an attempt to bring the work of the Swiss NGOs and of other stakeholders into a strategic framework.

- The lack of monitoring creates an atmosphere in which NGOs are blamed, although their failure to meet expectations cannot be proven.

- The discussion of the emerging policy issues does not yet sufficiently include the Swiss NGOs.

- There are few mechanisms for holding NGOs accountable.

Opportunities Risks - Responses to changes, which potentially can put

relationships under stress, should be able to build on a sound basis of trust.

- The emerging elements of a Swiss development strategy provide a basis on which a discussion of changing roles can take place.

- If SDC were to turn back from the development of a new strategic policy orientation, which is in line with the international development policy discussions, the Swiss development co-operation might run the risk of being unable to build on its strengths.

- If the Swiss NGOs do not enhance their advocacy role, mobilise and build on their ties with their constituencies,


58

- The fact that Switzerland is more and more integrated in international development policy debates increases the opportunities for Swiss NGOs to re-align themselves in terms of changing realities.

- In the light of the emerging new strategic development policy orientations, SDC has an opportunity to integrate other relevant stakeholders in the clarification of roles.

- E-Pol has been given the internal mandate to develop policies/facilitate policy development and has already initiated some discussions with the Swiss NGOs.

- This evaluation provides an opportunity to clarify roles.

there is a risk that the Swiss public will become less supportive of Swiss development co-operation, especially in times of low economic growth.

- Unless they discuss the implications of changing international development policy realities between SDC and the Swiss NGOs, both sides might end in conflictual relationships with differing expectations of each other.

SDC’s organisational structures

Strengths Weaknesses - SDC is rather an accumulation of different organisations

than one coherent organisational structure, allowing for the necessary efficiency within each of the departments, and between them.

- Within each department, there are differences in shaping the co-operation with the Swiss NGOs and, with increasing decentralisation, the variety and number of units and individual Swiss NGOs have to deal with has grown, as has the variety in approaches and procedures. Each department/section/COOF uses the Swiss NGOs according to its specific needs. This flexibility meets the varied needs of the different departments and COOFs.

- The NGO Section has a good reputation amongst the Swiss NGOs.

- Considerable effort is being required for proper co-ordination, securing internal coherence and external identity and appearance.

- A discussion on necessary differences and potentials to streamline modalities of co-operation with the Swiss NGOs is still to take place. There is a perception that dealing with SDC is like dealing with five organisations. (Some NGOs find this useful.)

- The NGO Section generally lacks legitimacy outside the E-Department.

- The NGO Section was created with a view to facilitating funding mechanisms in the absence of a strategic understanding of the roles of SDC and the NGOs.

- Generally, outside the NGO Section, the Swiss NGOs lack certainty as to who makes decisions and what the rules and procedures are.

Opportunities Risks - The emerging policy orientation provides the opportunity

for strategic reference points for the organisation of co-operation with stakeholders.

- It creates the possibility of re-thinking the mandates of units with respect to the co-operation with NGOs and other stakeholders in the future.

- The internal organisational incoherence is prohibitive for an efficient and transparent organisation of co-operation, especially with third parties, and provides fertile ground for misunderstandings and mistrust.

SDC’s management of the interaction with the Swiss NGOs

Strength Weaknesses - SDC’s co-operation with the Swiss NGOs is consistent

with the 1976 law and the 1977 bylaw on development co-operation.

- In the E-Department, there are rules and regulations for co-operation with the Swiss NGOs at an operational level.

- Generally, most SDC Departments and many COOFs understand that the roles of northern NGOs are changing and that more and more implementation needs to be done by the respective partner governments and local NGOs.

- The 1976 law and 1977 bylaw say very little on the nature of the expected relationship between SDC and the Swiss NGOs.

- Existing rules and regulations in the E-Department lack a strategic reference point and therefore leave room for interpretation. This makes their consistent application largely impossible and gives room to individual interpretations.

- The rules and regulations (E-Department) are based on an outmoded perception of the role of northern NGOs.

- There is not always sufficient joint monitoring of the


59

- Project contributions are an appropriate mechanism for funding specific interventions of Swiss NGOs that fall within country programmes and priority areas.

- Mandates are seen as an appropriate way to purchase identified services.

- Programme block funding is easy to administer, provides long-term security of funding to enable NGOs to develop programme approaches.

- Programme block funding could favour coherence of approaches within an NGO’s programme.

- Programme block grants show SDC’s trust in the Swiss NGOs’ professionalism and expertise.

- Because project block grants are not confined to SDC’s geographic and thematic priorities, it extends the presence of Swiss development co-operation.

projects to which contributions are made. - Tenders for mandates are not always clearly defined,

transparently awarded, fully competitive and often there is a lack of sufficient feedback on the basis of selection criteria from which tenderers could learn for the future.

- The objectives for the use of block grants stated in the Organisation Manual are in contradiction to the criteria for qualifying for such grants. The stated objectives for programme block grants have very little reference to the purpose of development co-operation.

- There is no evidence that programme block grants are having a positive effect on the Swiss NGOs’ advocacy work in Switzerland and on a critical dialogue with SDC.

- Where a programme block grant covers a high percentage of an NGO’s budget or is combined with project contributions or mandates (in one case making for around 90% of an NGO’s budget), a dependency syndrome develops, which can: - loosen ties to the NGO’s original constituency; - reduce the independence of an NGO in areas of

policy disagreement with SDC or the Swiss government in general;

- undermine fund raising efforts; - reduce the necessity for keeping in touch with

emerging debates and adjusting accordingly; - move an NGO from a value-led base to a service-

led orientation; - increase the sense of entitlement to receive funds

without conditionalities. - Implementation, monitoring and evaluation of

programme block grants are left to the NGO which makes it difficult for SDC to be accountable for taxpayers’ money.

- Programme block grants are not limited to SDC’s geographic or thematic priorities and therefore work against the concentration efforts of Swiss development co-operation, especially in times of shrinking budgets.

- The lack of joint monitoring and evaluation goes against the increasing requirements to prove impact.

- Where organisations receive block grants and also compete for mandates, they may be perceived to have an unfair advantage under WTO rules.

Opportunities Risks - The evaluation creates an opportunity to develop new,

and adapt existing, modalities to support new strategic orientations and the advocacy and innovative role of Swiss NGOs.

- If SDC continues to participate in the international forums on development co-operation but continues with the current rules and regulations and funding modalities, it runs the risk of losing credibility among international players.


60

Core Learning Partnership The Core Learning Parnership (CLP) is a group from the primary intended users of the evaluation i.e. those who are directly concerned by the evaluation’s recommendations and lessons and who need to take action. The role of the CLP was defined as being to comment on the evaluation design and review the evaluators’ draft and final reports. It participated in the INTRAC and Visions Workshops. The following are members of the CLP: − Konrad Specker, E-Department, Head NGO Section − Susanne Müller, E-Department, NGO Section − Anne Zwahlen, E-Department, West Africa Division − Gerhard Siegfried, E-Department, East and Southern Africa Division − Dimka Stantchev, E-Department, Asia II Division − Ursula Läubli, E-Department, Latin America Division − Adrian Maître, E-Department, Latin America Division − Hansjörg Ambühl, H-Department, Head of Africa Division − Willi Lenherr, H-Department, Head of Asia & America Division − Kuno Schläfli, O-Department, Evaluation & Controlling − Thomas Kugler, O-Department, Southeast Europe Division − Shirin Sotoudeh, O-Department, Special and Regional Programs Division − Andrea Ries, M-Department, Deputy Head EPOL (Development Policy Division) − François Droz, F-Department, Natural Resources and Environment Division Representatives of seven Swiss NGOs are also participating in the CLP. They are: − Philippe Buchs, Terres des Hommes − Thomas Bürge, Swiss Red Cross − Christine Eberlein, Bern Declaration − Martin Schreiber, Unité − Norbert Kieliger, Caritas − Esther Oettli-Engeli, Helvetas − Roger Zürcher, FEDEVACO


61

OA interaction with civil society – comparative analysis1

COUNTRY POLITICS DEVELOPMENT EMPHASIS

CIVIL SOCIETY STATE FUNDING MODALITIES CO-ORDINATION AND

GOVERNMENT

TRENDS

The Netherlands Enormous public support for Dutch development co-operation. The Dutch development co-operation policy is greatly influenced by civil society.

Emphasis on MDGs. Coherence (harmonisation) is a key principle. Rights-based approach.

The autonomy of Dutch NGOs and their political role is recognised. Have a tradition of working with unions, universities and other “non-traditional” civil society players.

0.8% of GNP to development co-operation. 20% to private organisations and NGOs. There are no restrictions on Dutch NGOs being fully funded by the OA, but, as OA conditions for grants get stricter, Dutch NGOs are looking for alternative sources of funding to give them more flexibility.

Are core contributions for four years to five big NGOs, representing various facets of society. Approved by an expert commission.

OA is Directorate-General for International Co-operation (DGIS).

Emphasis on performance, efficiency and transparency of allocation of funds, and of use of funds by NGOs. Increasing attention to impact measurement. The five main Dutch NGOs have agreed to quite stringent programme evaluation conditions. Increasingly funding SNGOs directly.

Denmark An assumption that DANIDA and the Danish NGOs will have a harmonised view of development co-operation. No

The overarching goal is poverty alleviation and the strategy states that Danish ODA must promote sustainable

Denmark considers the primary role of civil society organisations to be that of advocacy. The Danish NGOs play a major role in

0.97% of GNP to development co-operation. 9% channelled through Danish NGOs – about 200, ranging from large to small

Are framework agreements (with about five NGOs) as well as mini-framework agreements (smaller project

DANIDA is the OA and controls all disbursement of development funds.

DANIDA keeps careful control of NGO performance by stressing financial probity and the achievements of

1 Figures reflected are mostly from websites, but we enter the caveat that not all the websites were up-to-date.


62



GOVERNMENT

TRENDS

assumption of antagonism.

economic growth with distributive impact, development of social sectors with an emphasis on education and health, and popular participation in development processes. Agrees with harmonisation.

development education, raising public awareness on issues such as poverty and debt.

informal groups of citizens. There are no restrictions on a Danish NGO being fully funded by the OA, but they have to follow strict conditions and agree, for example, to cut the number of countries in which they work. There has been a 10% cut in overall funding over the past few years.

contributions) outputs and objectives, rather than activities. There is regular monitoring and evaluation. Increasingly looking for evidence of constituency support (e.g. signed up membership).

Norway Broad national consensus, underpinned by the churches, a strong NGO community and a “grand coalition” in parliament on the scale and purpose of Norwegian development assistance. One of the few countries with good policy coherence on issues like

Focus on human rights and democracy. Increasing focus on the private sector. Intention to merge humanitarian aid and long term development aid so as to avoid a dual aid system.

Government relies on NGOs to lead its development co-operation policy. The Norwegian NGOs play a strategic role in advising government and channelling funds. They are partners and implementing agencies for government. The Norwegian NGOs manage about 80%

0.9% of GNP, aiming at 1% by 2005, to development co-operation. 24% of total ODA channelled through Norwegian NGOs. Government funding is limited to 80% of project/programme cost.

Are framework agreements with about 17 large NGOs. Also individual and programme agreements and contracts.

The OA is NORAD. All departments report to both the Foreign Minister and the Minister of International Development and Human Rights Development. NORAD offices are now fully merged with the embassies at the field level.

Concern starting to be expressed about the independence of NGOs so highly supported by government – increasingly expected to demonstrate constituency support. Increasingly, conditions are being attached to


63



GOVERNMENT

TRENDS

preferential market access.

of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs information budget. There are moves to involve the private sector more.

framework agreements – narrowing of extensive flexibility of NGOs.

Sweden Very little antagonism between state and NGOs.

Rights-based approach. Major support to multi-lateral organisations. Support research and training programmes in Sweden. Six over-arching guidelines of development policy, which NGOs are expected to follow.

One third of Sweden’s development co-operation is channelled via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a number of multi-lateral organisations. 300 Swedish organisations work in 100 countries. Swedish NGOs are expected to do information activities (advocacy).

0.7% of GNP to development co-operation. Swedish NGOs must contribute 20%.

Framework agreements with 15 NGOs (including umbrella organisations). Are also contracts – usually about provision of technical expertise.

OA is SIDA. Seems to be a coherent NGO policy and operational procedures.

Quality management aspects becoming increasingly important. Move to fund more SNGOs directly. Sweden is also moving to form alliances with NGOs around issues (e.g. child labour) which are of public interest. Very little money is involved in these alliances.

United Kingdom Much more polarised society than the Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands.

Emphasis on building partnerships with poorer countries, working more closely with the

NGOs are less dependent financially on the state and are more critical. They see it as part of their role

0.31% of GNP, aiming at 0.335 by 2003/4, goes to development co-operation.

Was a Joint Funding Scheme now A Civil Society Challenge Fund with a greater emphasis on

The OA is DfID and the Secretary of State for DfID is now a full cabinet member. The International

UK NGOs are aware of their role as watchdogs on government policy and of the need to maintain a high


64



GOVERNMENT

TRENDS

private and voluntary sectors and the research community, developing consistent policies overall, working with and seeking to influence multilateral development organisations. Accept consolidation and the notion of SWAps.

to feed into advocacy campaigns that challenge government, and to circulate knowledge between the north and south. Funding to NGOs has increased by 32% since 1996. 44% of NGOs rely on DfID for some kind of funding.

innovation. There was a Block Grant Scheme open to five large organisations – now replaced by Participatory Partnership Agreements – for more agencies and focusing on long-term links between DfID and NGOs. However, this does not involve large amounts of money.

Economic Policy Department falls under DfID and there is also a Civil Society Unit.

degree of financial independence in order to carry out this role. Despite positive moves from government to increase funding to NGOs, they maintain this position. At the same time, DfID is widening the parameters of its understanding of civil society and the avenues through which development co-operation funds are channelled.

Annexes

Comments of the Swiss NGOs

Schweizer Hilfswerke zum „Agreement at Completion Point“ der Deza Oktober 2004

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Hilfswerke, Brot für alle, Brücke-Le Pont, Caritas, E-Changer, Enfants du Monde,

Fastenopfer, Fédération Genevoise de Coopération, Fédération Vaudoise de Coopération, HEKS/EPER, Helvetas,

Intercooperation, Interteam, Schweiz. Arbeiterhilfswerk, Schweiz. Rotes Kreuz, Stiftung Kinderdorf Pestalozzi, Step,

Swissaid, Swisscontact, Terre des Hommes Fondation, Terre des Hommes Genève, terre des hommes schweiz, Unité

c/o Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Monbijoustr. 31, Postfach, 3001 Bern

Unsere Position zu den Empfehlungen an die Deza-Direktion in Sachen Deza-NGO-Politik

Die unterzeichnenden Hilfswerke und NGOs1 nehmen hiermit Stellung zu den Empfehlungen, welche die Deza-Core Learning Group zuhanden der COSTRA-Sitzung vom 3. Dezember erarbeitet hat. Die wichtigsten Punkte sind uns Mitte Oktober mündlich mitgeteilt und am 3. November schriftlich unterbreitet worden. Wir sind über den Gang der Diskussionen in der Deza und die daraus resultieren-den Empfehlungen an die COSTRA erfreut. Im Rahmen dieser Empfehlungen können wir uns eine produktive Mitarbeit der Hilfswerke an der Formulierung einer NGO-Politik der Deza gut vorstellen. Unsere folgende Stellungnahme folgt der Struktur des Completion-Point-Papiers der Deza. Ad 1: SDC-Strategy Wir unterstützen wärmstens die Absicht, eine Deza-NGO-Politik zu erarbeiten. Wir empfehlen jedoch, dass die COSTRA keinen Entscheid für eine der vier Optionen fasst, die ihr unterbreitet werden, sondern den Auftrag zur Erarbeitung einer Deza-NGO-Politik etwas offener fasst. Die Formulierung der vier Optionen ist noch nicht optimal, das Verhältnis der vier Optionen zueinander noch nicht zu Ende gedacht. Am gemeinsamen Treffen Deza-NGO vom 3. November wirkte eine Kombination von Option 2 und 4, also von allgemeiner NGO-Politik und Schweizer NGO-Politik, auf alle Beteiligten am attraktivsten. Ad 2: Structure Wir haben schon in unserm Kommentar zum Evaluationsbericht festgestellt, dass wir die Auflösung der NGO-Sektion ablehnen und für eine Stärkung der NGO-Sek-tion eintreten. Wir nehmen deshalb befriedigt zur Kenntnis, dass beide Alternativ-empfehlungen der Core Learing Group an die COSTRA eine Auflösung der NGO-

1 Wenn im folgenden von Hilfswerken die Rede ist, sind die unterzeichnenden NGOs mitgemeint.

2

Sektion ablehnen. Wir unterstützen die Empfehlung der ersten Gruppe (E, F, und H-Bereiche), das künftige Mandat und die organisatorische Stellung der NGO-Sektion zu überprüfen und den Erfordernissen der neuen NGO-Politik anzupas-sen. Wenn die Deza entsprechend der ersten Empfehlung eine einheitliche NGO-Politik erarbeitet , dann scheint es uns logisch, dass die NGO-Sektion für diese Politik auch zuständig wird und nicht mehr nur als Teil des E-Bereichs funktionie-ren kann. Ihre Stellung muss zentraler werden und sie sollte unseres Erachtens für die Zusammenarbeit aller operativen Abteilungen mit den Hilfswerken zustän-dig werden. Unsere Empfehlung in dieser Sache schliesst mit ein, dass EPOL und der Bereich Multilaterales weiterhin für bestimmte Aspekte des entwicklungspolitischen Dia-logs mit den Hilfswerken – nämlich für diejenigen, die nicht die bilaterale Entwick-lungszusammenarbeit, sondern die multilateralen Verpflichtungen der Schweiz und die Kohärenz betreffen – zuständig bleiben. Ad 3: Management a) Wir begrüssen die Empfehlung der Core Learning Group an die COSTRA, die Programmbeiträge beizubehalten und zu strategischen Partnerschaften weiterzu-entwickeln. Die Hilfswerke sind gerne bereit, am Konzept strategischer Partner-schaften mitzuarbeiten und ausgehend von ausländischen Modellen zu einer schweizerischen Lösung zu kommen. b) Wir unterstützen die Empfehlung, weiterhin verschiedene Instrumente der Mitfi-nanzierung von Hilfswerksprogrammen beizubehalten, innerhalb der einzelnen In-strumente aber kohärenter zu werden. Uns liegt daran, dass der Gebrauch der Fi-nanzierungs-Instrumente transparenter wird und dass die Kriterien für ihre Anwen-dung geklärt werden. c) Was die Frage einer oberen Limite für die Finanzierung von Hilfswerken von 30 Prozent betrifft, empfehlen wir COSTRA, keine Limite festzusetzen. Wir unterstüt-zen deshalb die Empfehlung der ersten Gruppe (E, F und H). Dies aus drei Grün-den: (1) Die Co-Finanzierung von Hilfswerksprogrammen durch öffentliche Gelder resultiert unseres Erachtens aus der Strategie der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, die die Schweiz hat oder haben sollte: Ein Teil der öffentlichen Entwicklungsbud-gets muss vor Ort an Organisationen der Zivilgesellschaft gehen, die die Interes-sen benachteiligter Schichten artikulieren und die Auseinandersetzung mit ihren Regierungen und allfällig verfehlten Interventionen der Geberländer führen kön-nen. Diese Form der EZA erfolgt – aus diplomatischen Gründen – am besten über die Hilfswerke. (2) Die Co-Finanzierung von Hilfswerken durch die Deza hat mit dem allgemeinen Budgetwachstum der Deza nicht Schritt gehalten. Eine 30-%-Limite würde eine weitere Senkung der Beiträge an Hilfswerke mit sich bringen. (3) Wenn das schweizerische EZA-Budget nach dem Staatssparen dann endlich auf 0,4 und später auf 0,7 Prozent angehoben wird, muss ein Spielraum bestehen, auch die Programme, welche über die Hilfswerke laufen (müssen – siehe 2), finan-ziell besser zu dotieren. Denn es ist nicht gesagt, dass der Spendenmarkt sich pa-rallel zum Wachstum des staatlichen Budgets vergrössern wird. (4) Eine fixe Limi-te trägt auch den unterschiedlichen Rollen, Aufgaben und Umfeldern der Hilfswer-ke nicht Rechnung. (5) Eine solche Limite würde insbesondere das Überleben der kantonalen Föderationen in Frage stellen. Denn diese arbeiten fast ausschliesslich mit öffentlichen Geldern. Eine Reduktion des Bundesbeitrags würde durch Kanto-

3

ne und Gemeinden nicht aufgefangen, sondern eine Reduktion ihrer Beiträge nach sich ziehen. Ad 4+5: Dialog and Mutual Learning / Transition Phase Wir unterstützen die Empfehlungen der Core Learning Group an die COSTRA. Veröffentlichung des Evaluationsberichts Die unterzeichnenden Hilfswerke schlagen COSTRA vor, ihren Kommentar zur Evaluation mit dem Evaluationsbericht zusammen zu veröffentlichen. Da der Eva-luationsbericht viele Falschaussagen über die Hilfswerke enthält, denken wir, dass deren Richtigstellung in der gleichen Publikation erscheinen sollte. Weiterarbeit nach der COSTRA-Entscheidung Wir empfehlen, dass die Erarbeitung der Deza-NGO-Politik nach dem COSTRA-Entscheid zügig angepackt wird. Die Hilfswerke signalisieren ihr Interesse, an die-sem Erarbeitungsprozess aktiv mitzuarbeiten. Sie werden sich zu diesem Zweck weiterhin koordinieren und versuchen, so weit wie möglich, mit einer Stimme zu sprechen. Wir stellen uns die Zusammenarbeit in der Erarbeitung der Deza-NGO-Politik fol-gendermassen vor: 1. Wir möchten mit der Deza auf der Grundlage vorbereiteter Arbeitspapiere bei-der Seiten debattieren und gemeinsame Positionen suchen. 2. Wir möchten, dass in diesen Diskussionen die Deza durch die Leute vertreten wird, die für die Erarbeitung der Stakeholder/NGO-Politik verantwortlich sind. 3. Wir unterstützen das Begehren des Deza-NGO-Treffens vom 3. November, in einem ersten Schritt einen Zeit- und einen Arbeitsplan (welche Themen werden in welcher Reihenfolge bearbeitet) zu vereinbaren. 4. Wir unterstützen das Anliegen des Deza-NGO-Treffens vom 3. November, am Anfang der Erarbeitung einer Deza-NGO-Politik eine Bestandesaufnahme der be-stehenden Deza-NGO-Politiken und Probleme sowie eine Erhebung über ver-schiedene Modelle in anderen Ländern zu erstellen. Bern, 22. November 2004

DEZAEvaluation & ControllingFreiburgstrasse 130CH-3003 BernTelefon +41 (0) 31 325 92 77Fax +41 (0) 31 323 08 49E-Mail [email protected]

www.deza.admin.ch

November 2004

List of interviewees - OECD.org · Jean-Marc Denervaud, Président ... Education and Development...

Documents

Transcript of List of interviewees - OECD.org · Jean-Marc Denervaud, Président ... Education and Development...