2

Triannual Report

2015-2017

The AGIR sub-programme in

Natural Resources, Agriculture,

Climate Change & Environment – NACE Contribution number: 51140087

Capture: Fishermen in Quirimbas National Park, Cabo Delgado, fishing in a coral area. Photo taken in the context of a study on the

ecological characteristics of certain areas that will be evaluated for management by the fishing communities.

Photography: Cristina Louro, Programme Officer Centro Terra Viva

DONORS:

COORDINATION:

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 5

WE EFFECT NACE PARTNER ORGANISATIONS 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

RESULTS SUMMARY 9

RIGHT TO LAND 9 RIGHT TO FOOD 9 RIGHT TO A SAFE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT 10 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 11

CONTEXT ANALYSIS 12

AGRICULTURE, NEGLECTED PEASANTS AND COMPETITION FOR LAND 13 RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES – THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE 14 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 15

COMPOSITION OF THE SUB-PROGRAMME 15

FULFILLMENT OF THE WE EFFECT’S STRATEGIC VISION FOR PARTNERSHIP 16

CHANGES WITHIN THE SUB-PROGRAMME 16

FUNDING MECHANISMS AND STRATEGIES 17

CORE SUPPORT 17 COMPLEMENTARY FUNDING MECHANISMS 17 SMALL FUNDS 18 INNOVATIVE AND AGILE FUNDS 20

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE RESULTS MODEL 21

RESULTS FRAMEWORK FITNESS FOR PURPOSE 21 RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT 21 SYSTEMS FOR PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 22

APPLICATION OF UPHOLDING PRINCIPLES 24

CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL OWNERSHIP 24 ALIGNMENT TO PARTNER ORGANISATIONS’ CAPACITY AND SYSTEMS 24 HARMONIZATION AND COORDINATION 25 MANAGING FOR RESULTS 25 MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY 25

RESULTS ANALYSIS 26

RESULTS AREA 1: RIGHT TO LAND 26 RESULTS AREA 2: RIGHT TO FOOD 31 RESULTS AREA 3: RIGHT TO A SAFE, HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT 36 RESULTS AREA 4: STUDY CIRCLES 39 COMMON AGIR RESULTS AREA 6: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 40

RISK ANALYSIS 42

4

SUSTAINABILITY 42

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 44

GENDER 44 CONFLICT/DO NO HARM 45 CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT 46 HIV/AIDS 47 HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACH 47

WE EFFECT ADDED VALUE 47

FINANCIAL EXECUTION 49

FLOW OF FUNDS 51 AUDITS FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2017 51

ANNEXES 52

ANNEX 1: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK THEMATIC AREAS 2017 52 ANNEX 2: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 2017, WE EFFECT POS 64 ANNEX 3: FOLLOW-UP ON RISK REGISTER 2017 (AS APPROVED IN THE 2017 ANNUAL PLAN) 76 ANNEX 4: CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE SUB-PROGRAMME 84 ANNEX 5: WE EFFECT FINANCIAL REPORT 2015 - 2017 91 ANNEX 6: LIST OF WE EFFECT PARTNERS AND UTILIZED FUNDING 2015-2017 (ALL AMOUNTS IN SEK) 94 ANNEX 7: LIST OF NON-AGIR PARTNERS THAT RECEIVED SMALL GRANTS 2015 – 2017 97 ANNEX 8: WE EFFECT DRAFT RESPONSES TO AGIR MIDTERM REVIEW 100

5

ABBREVIATIONS

AGIR Acções para Governação Inclusiva e Responsável/Actions for inclusive and respsonisble governance

COP Conference of the Parties

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DUAT Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra/Mozambican land title

FRAS Fair Resource Allocation System

GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms

HRBA Human Rights’ Based Approach

ICT(4D) Information and Communication Technology (For Development)

IPO Intermediary Partner Organisation

LAPs Local Adaptation Plans

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MASA Ministério de Agricultura e Segurança Alimentar/ Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

MITADER Ministério de Terra Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural/ Ministry of Land, Environment e Rural Development

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MTR Midterm Review

NACE Natural Resources Agriculture and Climate Change Programme

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NPA Norwegian People’s Aid

NRMC Natural Resources Management Committees

PEDSA Plano Estratégico Para o Desenvolvimento do sector Agrário/Mozambican Stratetgic Plan for the Agricultural Sector

PLANET Participation, Linkage, Accountability, Non-discrimination, Empowerment and Transparency

PO Partner Organisation

QA Quality Assurance

RBM Results’ Based Management

SDC Swiss Development Cooperation

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

6

We Effect NACE Partner Organisations

AAAJC Associação de Apoio e Assistência Jurídica às Comunidades

ABIODES Associação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

AENA Associação Nacional de Extensão Rural

AMA Associação do Meio Ambiente

AMPCM Associação Moçambicana para Promoção do Cooperativismo Moderno

CTV Centro Terra Viva

Livaningo Associação Para a Preservação e Defesa do Meio Ambiente

JÁ! Justiça Ambiental

OMR Observatório do Meio Rural

ORAM Associação Rural de Ajuda Mútua

Udeba-Lab Unidade de desenvolvimento de Educação Básica-Laboratório

UNAC União Nacional de Camponeses

UPCT União Provincial de Camponeses de Tete

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents and discusses the Natural Resources Agriculture and Climate Change Programme (NACE) component of the Actions for an Inclusive and Responsible Governance (AGIR) programme in terms of its composition, approaches and results during the first three years, 2015 – 2017. The programme spans until 2020. The NACE sub-programme is implemented by We Effect, a Swedish non-governmental organisation, working in 24 countries with rural development, specifically aimed at women’s empowerment (more info on weeffect.org). During the period under review We Effect worked with 13 partner organisations (POs), based in the provinces of Maputo, Gaza, Tete, Nampula and Cabo Delgado. Several organisations act on a national level, so the NACE component acts throughout Mozambique (read more on page 13 and in annex 4). All POs received core support based on their own strategic plans, a funding modality that during the last three years have shown to be adamant in empowering the organisations in terms of local and institutional ownership and identity, not the least by aligning the partnership to the POs’ own systems for reporting and follow-up (read more on page 15, 22-24 and in annex 4 and 6). The core funding modality is in line with We Effect’s dedication to the human rights based approach. Alongside the core funding component, the AGIR programme also provided three complementary funding modalities; innovative, agile and small funds. The innovative and agile funds were available for POs. These allowed POs to experiment innovative approaches and act with resilience in unexpected situations. Small funds offered project and institutional support to civil society organisations not part of the AGIR programme, and have as such strengthened the Mozambican civil society to an even larger extent and increased the geographical and thematic variety of interventions (read more on page 16 – 18 and in annex 7). The total utilized funds during 2015 – 2017 was just below MSEK 72, with 73 % of the amount transferred to POs. Each PO received between MSEK 2 –8 depending on the robustness of their systems and geographical and thematical range (read more about financial execution on page 48 -50 and in annex 5, 6 and 7). One major challenge that remains is the high dependency POs have on We Effect/AGIR, particularly in terms of administrative costs. This is an aspect We Effect aims to prioritize in the second phase of AGIR II alongside with the principle of donor coordination (read more on page 41 -43 and 23). We Effect’s role as an intermediary partner organisation in the AGIR programme went beyond the mere channeling of funds. Evidently, a large part of We Effect’s role was dedicated to follow-up of POs’ activities, plans, reports, budgets and audits, risk assessment and conducting regular monitoring visits. However, a partnership with We Effect had further added value for POs. For example, We Effect engaged in capacity building in various areas such as financial and administrative management, results based management, gender and other cross-cutting issues and specific We Effect methods such as gender budgeting and study circles. POs report that being a partner of We Effect applies an added value in for example strengthened capacity, local ownership and new and innovative working methods (read more about capacity building on page 38-40 and 19-20, risks on page 40, We Effect added value on page 45 -47 and cross-cutting issues on page 42-45). During the reporting period Mozambique experienced some of the most exceptional contextual events in its history, ranging from political turmoil that resulted in a quasi-civil war, economic downfall caused by illegal loans taken by the government, a decay of social services in quality and availability that aggravated the living conditions of already poor and vulnerable population, and extreme weather events that affected mostly the population in the coastal areas of the country. This context has affected POs in several ways and forced the programme to adjust reduce impacts in results achievement. The core funding modality used within AGIR

8

as well as the experience of partners of the programme facilitated those adjustments (read more about the context on page 12 – 15). The results of the NACE component and its POs are divided into four areas; right to land, right to food and right to a safe and healthy environment and institutional capacity building. A results summary for each area follows in the next paragraphs and can be further explored in the results summary below and in the results’ chapter of the report (page 26 – 42). The thematic logical framework, that has been improved during the period under review gives a detailed quantitative overview of the results and can be found in annex 1. The capacity building logical framework can be found in annex 2. In the right to land area, POs achieved results related to land rights and natural resource management. For example, 842 communities and 3000 women were supported to obtain land titles, contributing to increased production and productivity for farmers that were also empowered to negotiate their right to land. Over 300 Natural Resource Management Committees were established in the communities, improving the communities’ position to negotiate the sustainable use of natural resources and community benefits. As a result of this and PO actions, the number of investments in compliance with investment benefit agreements increased by 38 %. In terms of policy and legislation, POs have also influenced the commenced revision of several policies and laws. These are examples that show how POs are empowered to support the rights of people in poverty to land, secure land tenure and the sustainable management of natural resources. In the right to food area, POs are contributing to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being). For example, over 34 000 farmers have increased their agricultural production after trainings given by POs, improving their access to nutritious food and expanding the opportunities for income generation. Furthermore, about 5000 farmers were supported to secure markets and commercialization of their product, an improvement in terms of ensuring farmers’ livelihood. For lobby and advocacy, a national platform to discuss public agrarian policies between the government, POs and the private sector was established as a result of dialogue with the president. This will contribute to changing the national approach on the agriculture sector in Mozambique In the environment and climate change area, empowered POs defend the rights of people to a

safe and healthy environment in ecological balance today. For example, POs have ensured

increased reforestation of arable land, sustainable management of protected areas and the

reduction of areas of wildfires. Furthermore, the resilience towards climate change increased

as more then 71 000 farmers adopted resilient farming techniques after PO trainings. POs and

communities also participated in the drafting and approval of local adaptations plans in 11

districts contributing to robust community resilience. Furthermore, through POs’ technical

support, approximately 24 000 households were involved in the improved cook-stoves

marketing value chain, contributing to increasing their livelihood, improving their health and

reducing the pressure on forest and environment in general. As such, POs are contributing to

SDGs 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life below Water) and 15 (Life on Land).

The value addition of a partnership with We Effect becomes visible in the capacity building area, where the results achieved contribute to the overall mission of the AGIR programme’s aim to create an active, strong and vibrant civil society that represents the rights holders. All POs have robust internal governance systems, including approved and up to date strategical plans and hold regular general assemblies to ensure accountability to their members. Most POs also have internal anti-corruption, gender and HIV/Aids policies, indicating increased dedication to these areas. POs spend an average of 48 % of their budget on women, implying a stronger focus on women’s empowerment. In terms of sustainability, POs have also increased the payment of quotas by their members, with many organisations receiving payments from more than 50 % of their members. Many POs express how being part of the AGIR-programme

9

is a quality stamp for other donors and more than half have managed to increase the number of donors and collaboration (MoUs) with state institutions due to the strengthened internal structures that We Effect has contributed to.

RESULTS SUMMARY

This is a short summary to give an overview of the main results of the NACE sub-programme

2015 - 2017.

Right to Land

In the right to land and natural resource area, POs are empowered to support the rights of

people in poverty to land, secure land tenure and sustainable management of natural

resources. For example:

The number of investments which are in compliance with community investment benefit agreements (20% natural resources, 2,75% mining, employment, other partnership agreements) have increased by 38% from 2015 to 2017 contributing to the improvement of just compensation and community empowerment and financial revenue;

The number of communities with land certificates (842 by 2017) and action plans for economic development of their land has increased. This has given more security to the community when a private investor is interested in their land, reducing the number of land conflicts and land grabbing cases and increased production and productivity for sustaining livelihood and income generation;

More than 3 000 women have acquired secure land tenures through support by POs, an improvement in terms of women’s economic and social empowerment;

POs have supported the functioning of more than 300 Natural Resource Management

Committees (NMRCs), currently active in defending their rights in different

communities. Communities are therefore in a better position to negotiate the

sustainable use of natural resources and community benefits. This is a mark of more

just, democratic society where the rights’ holders’ voice and interests are considered;

As a result of advocacy and lobby strategies, the current government are more committed to discuss issues related to land and natural resources with the civil society. POs have also been invited to provide technical support the Assembly of the Republic in relation to resettlement processes, which contributed to minimize conflicts between affected communities and private investors;

Important legislation (Land Law; Conservation and Biodiversity Regulation; Resettlement Regulation, High Authority for Extractive Industry Regulation and Regulation for Fair compensation and indemnity) is under revision as a result of PO action, which will contribute to reducing illegality and injustice in the land and natural resource sectors.

Right to Food In the right to food and agriculture thematic area, POs are empowered to defend the right of

everyone to safe and nourishing food in accordance with the right to a balanced diet and the

fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. POs in this area contribute to

10

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

For example:

Through PO trainings and technical support, approximately 34 000 farmers (women, men and youths) increased their agriculture production by adopting conservation agriculture, agroecology and agroforestry practices and diversification of commodities with positive results in their livelihood such as increased family income and quality of food and daily meals and decreasing the country’s dependence on import of food;

Through PO trainings and technical support, more than 5 000 farmers secured market for commercialization of their agriculture products and commodities due to partnership with agricultural commercial enterprises, participation in trade fairs and development of business plans, contributing to social and economic development and increase rural farmers livelihood;

In terms of improved nutrition, POs have increased awareness of approximately 18 000 rights holders (mainly women) through trainings and demonstrations. This contributed to the reduction of malnutrition in the country;

Creation of a National Platform to discuss public agrarian policies between the government, POs and the private sector as a result of dialogue with the president. This will contribute to changing the approach on the agriculture sector and increasing the national prioritization of this area in Mozambique.

Right to a Safe and Healthy Environment

In the area of environment and climate changed, empowered POs defend the rights of people

to a safe and healthy environment in ecological balance today and for future generations,

contributing to the SDGs 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life below Water) and 15 (Life on Land). For

example:

As a result of the increased number of reforestation of arable land, reduction of areas of wildfires and communities that practice sustainable management of protected areas (coastal areas, mangroves, national parks and reserves), PO actions improved biodiversity, flora and fauna ecosystems in Mozambique;

POs influenced the drafting and approval of local adaptations plans (LAPs) in 11 districts, mostly the inclusion of communities needs and visions, aimed at making robust adaptation and resilience of the communities;

Through PO trainings and technical support, approximately 71 000 community farmers adopted sustainable farming practices increasing their production and productivity and their resilience and adaptation to climate change events such as droughts and floods;

Through PO trainings and technical support, approximately 24 000 households are involved in the improved cook-stoves marketing value chain, contributing to increasing their livelihood, improving their health and reducing the pressure on forest and environment in general;

The level of involvement of rights holders actively participating in actions aiming at defending their rights to a safe environment increased to approximately 18 548 people (9 227 women) during the implementation programme through POs’ awareness raising and events.

11

Capacity Development In the capacity building area, the results achieved contribute to the overall mission of the AGIR

programme aim to create an active, strong and vibrant civil society that represents the rights

holders. For example:

All 13 POs have robust internal governance systems, including approved and up to date strategical plans that they use as the basis for their planning and implementation and regular general assemblies to ensure accountability to their members;

Close to half (6/13) of POs have 50 % of their members paying quotas, a sign of their democratic structures and a good indicator for the sustainability of the organisations. The number has doubled during the first phase of AGIR;

Most We Effect POs have internal anti-corruption, gender and HIV/Aids policies in place, a significant increase from 2015. This shows an increased dedication to cros-cutting issues and anti-corruption practices and is part of the result of the financial capacity building carried out by We Effect;

Almost all We Effect POs apply gender sensitive planning, implementation, follow-up and budgeting. POs spend an average of 48 % of their budget on women. This implies a stronger focus on women’s empowerment;

More than half of the POs have more than 4 donors, a positive sign in terms of sustainability;

All 13 POs report that the support given by We Effect is in results’ based management (RBM), has led to improved systems for data collection, improved tools such as logical frameworks and a greater understanding of what RBM entails. This ensures the capture of results within the AGIR programme;

All 13 POs report that their internal management and control systems have been strengthened through capacity given by We Effect, both through improved internal governance systems and concrete tools such as PRIMAVERA or other computer based accounting systems. This decreases the risk of corruption or misuse of funds;

Many POs express how being part of the AGIR-programme is a quality stamp for other donors and more than half have managed to increase the number of donors due to the strengthened internal structures that We Effect has contributed to.

12

INTRODUCTION

This report gives an analytical overview of the composition, results, changes, challenges and

approaches of the first three years (2015-2017) of the Natural Resources Agriculture and

Climate Change Programme (NACE) component of the Acções para Governação Inclusiva e

Responsável/Actions for inclusive and respsonisble governance (AGIR) programme. The

component is implemented through an agreement with the Embassy of Sweden, from 2015 to

2020. This midterm report is of particular importance as it aggregates results and gives and

overview of the three-year period to date.

The report is based on various documents including We Effect’s initial proposal, previous

reports and plans, a midline survey with NACE beneficiaries, partner organisations (POs)

reports and plans, separate data collection from, ongoing discussions and dialogue with POs,

monitoring and field visit and a workshop that discussed the programme’s overall significance

for the POs to date.

The report structure and contents is based on the structure presented in the Embassy of

Sweden’s Operational Guidelines for Partnering with and Supporting Civil Society in

Mozambique (2014). The report presents an executive summary and a results summary to give

the reader a possibility to quickly grasp the main contents and results of the report. This is

followed by a context analysis that discusses the context affecting the sub-programme and its

POs. Subsequently, the composition and changes of the sub-programme is presented. Two

chapters analysing the approaches of the programme; the funding mechanisms and the results

model, follow thereafter. The results analysis, which is the main body of the report and covers

all thematic and institutional areas, is found in the next part of the report, followed by the risk

analysis and a brief analysis on sustainability. The report’s final chapters include an analysis

of cross-cutting issues, the We Effect added value and the three-year financial execution. These

contents are further consubstantiated by eight annexes that provide further details in form of

data and particular facts and features for facilitate understanding.

CONTEXT ANALYSIS The subcomponent NACE of the AGIR programme initial proposal was submitted to the Embassy of Sweden in September 2014 when Mozambique’s economy was witnessing a steady annual growth of 7% triggered by the extractive industry. However already in early 2015 this changed. Investments behind this growth were discontinued and the country was in the middle of political distress resulting from an unsettled electoral process in 2014. The fact that Renamo has maintained armed militias and from time to time parts of the centre of the country have witnessed active conflict between residual militia and Mozambique’s armed forces (World Bank Country Overview) which reached its peak in 2016, deepened the crisis. The disclosure of secret debts contracted by the ousting government amounting to $2 billion has resulted in donors suspending support to central budget. These major facts set new ground for the implementation of NACE. POs were not completely ready for the consequences of active conflict in central Mozambique and potential conflict in other parts of the country, which complicated access to certain areas of implementation. The consequences of the economic downfall (devaluation and instability of currency, hike of prices, etc.) were also a challenge. However, the modality of funding used by AGIR, core support, allowed POs to adapt fast to the new national context and minimize the risk of jeopardizing achievement of the results. During the first 3 years (2015-2017) various institutional changes took place in the newly elected government. The most relevant to the NACE was the change of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MASA) in 2017 which has contributed to improve the relationship between NACE POs (and civil society at large) and thus open space for dialogue

13

on the outstanding issues related to national agriculture policy, food security law, public services to the agriculture sector and alike.

Agriculture, neglected peasants and competition for land Although the majority of the people in the country, mainly rural dwellers, rely on agriculture as their main source of income and livelihood, as reported in the Strategic Plan for Development of the Agriculture Sector (PEDSA 2010-2019) and other relevant strategic documents, operationalization of the sectors’ policies and programmes were not geared to address this sector in the last three years. Despite the high potential for agriculture the country faces acute food security and sovereignty problems. Undernutrition is a critical public health challenge in the Country (USAID, 20141). Despite claims in some national policies and strategies (PEDSA, Agenda 2025, Estratégia de Desenvolvimento Rural) as well as pledges to comply to international commitments such as targets set by CAADP2’s Maputo Declaration, investment priorities in the agriculture sector have failed to give focus to national food production through empowerment of millions of small famers operating in the sector; rather, priority was given to large scale agribusinesses (e.g. ProSavana, Portucel), most of which relied on foreign capital from multinational corporations. The crisis that fell unto the country by 2016 has contributed to the decrease in number of large scale agriculture investments. POs have taken this opportunity to advocate for policies that support small scale agriculture focusing on staple food as a way of bringing the economy back on track3. They have as well used the opportunity set by the critical context to showcase the vulnerability of large scale agribusinesses to sharp economic and political crisis in opposition to the resilience of the multifunctional small-scale farmer based agriculture. Notwithstanding this, POs have faced enormous challenges to dialogue with MASA. Civil society at large were viewed as enemies by the leadership of this ministry due to their opposition to ongoing large scale agriculture projects that would potentially lead to massive land grabbing. It is however worth mentioning that local departments of MASA, providing agriculture services (research, extension, inputs), have maintained some level of cooperation with local members of the farmers union (UNAC). The other challenge faced by POs in the wake of the armed conflict and crisis was the lack of balance between provision of basis services needed by communities – right holders – and capacity building for policy advocacy and participation. This has, to some extent, constrained the achievement of results. Large numbers of communities working with NACE POs were affected by the political and economic conjuncture (mostly Tete, Zambezia, Nampula) as well as extreme weather events related to climate changes (all provinces that NACE has POs). The AGIR programme is mostly inclined to capacity building for policy advocacy and participation activities. It was obviously a challenge to continue working with communities under very serious human needs if the programme was not open to cater for such needs (food, shelter, protection). Our contribution to POs’ budgets is mostly below 50% and they have partnerships with other donors that are able to complement NACE work and respond to emergency appeals. For instance, when AENA was faced with an emergency resulting from a tropical depression in Nampula, they collected information of damages and shared with COSACA4 Consortium that responded to the appeal.

1https://www.usaid.gov/sites/defualt/files/documents/1864/USAID-Mozambique-profile.pdf 2 CAADP - The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is Africa’s policy framework for agricultural transformation, wealth creation, food security and nutrition, economic growth and prosperity for all. In Maputo, Mozambique, in 2003, the African Union (AU) Summit made the first declaration on CAADP as an integral part of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) 3 A Associação Comercial e Industrial e de Serviços (ACIS), a Associação de Fruticultores de Moçambique (FRUTISUL), a Gapi - Sociedade de Investimentos, SA, o Observatório do Meio Rural (OMR) e a União Nacional de Camponeses (UNAC) submeteram o contributo para uma mudança no desempenho económico, social e ambiental da agricultura em Moçambique a sua Ex.ª o Presidente da República, no dia 18 de Setembro de 2017. Este documento tem como objectivo sugerir medidas para que a agricultura, seja o sector fundamental na redução do número de pobres e das desigualdades sociais e para o equilíbrio do território e redução de fenómenos migratórios forçados e redução de elementos potenciadores de conflitos de diferentes naturezas, assegurando a soberania alimentar do país. (www.omrmz.org). 4 COSACA is emergency and humanitarian consortium leading by Save the Children which Care, Oxfam and Concern World Wide are also part to respond during floods, drought, cyclone.

14

Rights and access to natural resources – the difference between theory and

practice The most relevant events in the last three years worth reporting include the slowdown of land conflicts, the dynamics in the mining sector and government action against poaching. Legislation regulating the right to land and natural resources (flora and fauna) remained unchanged in the last three years. Major changes in this sector are related to new dynamics resulting from the approval legislation pertaining mineral resources including oil and gas (Law 20 and 21/ 2014). This legislation obliged mining companies to pay back 2,75% of natural resources explored to local communities (Budget Laws 2015-2017). The current natural resources legislation package addresses most of the challenges which were presented in the submitted NACE programme document. Nevertheless, enforcement and implementation of this legal framework remains a challenge and motives are linked to lack of political will (e.g. payment of 20% and 2.75% to communities) and in some cases lack of institutional capacity (e.g. “Terra Segura” programme). Some partners – for example AENA and AAAJC – engaged in advocacy aiming at securing the implementation of this legislation vis a vis securing community access to these benefits through contacts with local administrators and Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy as well as corporation involved in mining. The incoming government resulting from 2014 elections has set a target of titling 5 million Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra/Mozambican land title (DUATs) focusing on protecting land rights of the people who only hold non-written customary occupation – Terra Segura Programme. It was rather difficult to understand the government’s logic of securing land rights for small farmers while prioritizing large scale agriculture investment. In this context, POs have used this opportunity to present the risks of largescale agriculture projects such as ProSavana and Portucel while at the same time suggesting other agriculture models such as food sovereignty, multifunctional small holder, sustainable agriculture and alike. Terra Segura is, to a large extent, a government response to claims by POs and civil society at large on the need to secure land rights to the most vulnerable (although the target set is too high). Thus, conflicts have reduced substantially if compared to the previous three-year period. While land investments for agriculture have reduced substantially as a result of the crisis (e.g. Niassa province alone had 6 forest companies by 2011 out of which only 1 remained in 2017) the mining sector was only slightly affected by the crisis. The most important investments never closed and even expanded (e.g. Vale de Moçambique in Tete, Anadarko and Montepuez Ruby Mining Lta. in Cabo Delgado; Kenmare in Nampula). Consequently, NACE POs continued to report cases of conflicts between companies and local communities. Most of these investments took place before the existence of legislation to prevent conflicts related to resettlement, to secure benefits to local communities, to define taxation rules and environment protection, among other issues. Absence of appropriate legislation made the work of POs – supporting rights holders to secure and protect their land rights, right to a clean environment and to benefits from mining – very challenging. The approval of the aforementioned legal framework (mining sector 2014) was an opportunity taken by POs to advocate for their enforcement and implementation. As it will be later reported, memorandums of understanding (MoUs) were signed by POs and some mining companies have contributed in reducing the level of conflict and create space for dialogue between communities and mining companies to settle differences on matters related to the implementation of the legislation. During many years, national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as some international wild life and flora protection bodies have reported cases of serious violation of the domestic legislation as well as international treaties that Mozambique is part of, pertaining protection of wild life. The government has been failing to take firm action against this malpractice. However, the new Ministry of Land, Environment e Rural Development (MITADER) created by the newly elected government (2014) took very concrete

15

actions to prevent and punish cases of poaching and illegal logging5. This has contributed to increase space for dialogue and collaboration between government bodies and POs to identify, report and take action on more cases across the country.

Environment and climate change Mozambique’s coastal location means exposure to extreme weather events such as highly destructive hurricanes and cyclones occurring during the wet season. The government of Mozambique participated in the conference of the parties (COPs) and it is signatory of the Paris Agenda which was ratified by the Parliament in November 2017. In preparation to the COP 23 the Government has started working on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions with participation of some PO. This will hopefully lead to Nationally Determined Contributions which will cover the period between 2020-2025. It is, however, worth mentioning that some of the POs consider the Paris Agenda as a weak commitment in as much as it focuses too much on compensation and not in reduction of emission as such, target set are not very ambitious and they are focusing in the interests of the industrialized countries. In this context, POs, beyond advocacy work in the climate change area, also promote concrete mitigation and adaptation strategies with local communities.

COMPOSITION OF THE SUB-PROGRAMME This chapter discusses the composition of the NACE component in terms of POs and the strategic vision for partnerships and how this has been fulfilled. We Effect has worked with 13 POs between 2015 - 2017 who are categorized into three categories:

1) Rights holders’ organisations or grassroots member based organisations. These represent the interest of right holders and most of them comprise of people who are affected by the problem and have created an organisation to collectively address the problem. Four out of thirteen POs belong to this category. 2) CSO and services providers or advocacy/capacity building NGOs: these group of eight POs, have members (but do not represent individual interests of their members), were created by concerned citizens to support local communities to address relevant problems and carry out advocacy to improve policy environment and build capacity for local communities. 3) Think tank research institution or semi-academic research organisation that focuses its work in undertaking research and publish papers on rural development in Mozambique. OMR, the only PO belonging to this category, plays a crucial role in bringing up evidence for advocacy and improvement of national rural development policy.

These three categories of organisations have complemented each other in efforts to address common concerns. For instance, UNAC, a grassroots organisation, and OMR, a semi-academic organisation, have been working together to produce an alternative agriculture policy and advocate for its inclusion in the national policies. ORAM, Livaningo, JA!, ADECRU6 (NGOs) and UNAC (category 1 and 2) are all members of the “Não ao ProSavana Campaign” were their different backgrounds contribute in complementary ways. The combination of different types of organisations contribute to the effectiveness of the programme and long-lasting and sustainable results. Annex 4 – Current composition of the Sub-Programme shows an overview of the POs; including if the PO acts on locally or nationally, the category of PO, operational areas as per strategic plan (key accountabilities within NACE that POs worked within during the last three years), geographic coverage, as well as total budget received and the funding mechanism used.

5 Examples of actions include: “Operação Tronco” – seizure of illegal timber; extension of prohibition period for timber felling; reclassification of timber species 6 ADECRU – Acção Académica de Apoio as Comunidades Rurais is an organisation that benefited from AGIR small funding mechanim

16

Moreover, the last column of the aforementioned annex shows to what extent our vision of partnership is being achieve by each of the partners. In general, smaller organizations (AAAJC and UPCT) as well as those based in the province (AENA, AMA) have demonstrated an outstanding performance in both results areas and institutional capacity. This is related to the fact that AGIR was the first core support they received and allowed them to focus on strengthening internal capacity to pursue their mission and vision, as well as innovating and improving their national and international networks. Other larger organisations (generally Maputo based) have used the partnership to improve and broaden their areas of work, especially those areas that get limited funding from other donors – e.g. internal governance and legitimacy, internal management systems, policy advocacy, networking. Further, this vision for partnership, has allowed both We Effect and partners to identify areas that require especial attention and concrete plan for improvement.

Fulfillment of the We Effect’s strategic vision for partnership The guiding principle for We Effect’s strategic vision for partnership was to support and develop the knowledge, understanding and skills of POs in accordance to its own needs and priorities, share responsibility for uniting skills and resources to achieve common objectives. Every two years (since 2011, the first year of the AGIR I), We Effect carried out organisational assessments of all POs using a tool called “Octagon” and independent satisfaction surveys in order to better understand PO priorities and improve ways of working. Partnerships were always geared towards the achievement of common objectives – to promote the rights and interest of the rights-holders – and not an end in themselves. We Effect relationship with POs has always been based on respect, reciprocity and openness, albeit the parties have different roles in relation to decision-making and financial resources. We Effect and its POs were mutually accountable and had mutual responsibility to prove their ability and relevance to the target group and other relevant stakeholders. This approach has contributed in identifying potential problems in advance and find corrective measures. The programme started in 2015 with 13 partners and none of them was phased out since no reason for such was encountered. In sum, We Effect’s strategic vision for partnership is progressively being achieved. Notwithstanding the above, in the last year of the period – 2017 – We Effect was notified of facts within ORAM that posed serious risks pertaining internal governance that could potentially affect achievement of results. After holding meetings with ORAM board and various communications we decided to put conditions for disbursements in the second semester of year. This consisted basically in disbursing upon presentation of reports of previous disbursements and short plans and budgets. By the end of the period we were informed that ORAM risked to be condemned by court to pay SEK1.1 million which corresponds to about 60% of funds disbursed by We Effect to ORAM annually. In view of this We Effect suggested to ORAM to carry out a system audit to determine the position of the organization in order to take decision on future partnership.

CHANGES WITHIN THE SUB-PROGRAMME During the period We Effect has undertaken the process of changing its global strategy and in essence remained with the same results areas of rural development and housing. Rural development still adheres to all the areas of NACE and the partnership methodology remains the same. It is worth mentioning that gender is at the top of the agenda in the new strategy. Thus, We Effect is willing to take up actions that stimulate the decision to allocate at least half of the support of development cooperation to benefit women, advocacy actions for gender equality, an increase of at least 50% women in leadership positions in POs, an increase of the income of women, an increase in financial services for women and finally an increase of women with ownership and control over land. These internal changes in the We Effect strategy will

17

influence positively NACE. The sub-programme will have to show more systematically how our partners interventions are not leaving women behind, but they are empowering women.

FUNDING MECHANISMS AND STRATEGIES This chapter accounts for We Effect’s use of funding mechanisms (core support and complementary funds) vis-à-vis POs and small fund partners and how these have managed to fulfill their purpose.

Core support The main funding modality used during the period was core funding as it acknowledges the POs as independent development actors and strengthen their ownership by not imposing an external agenda. During the period POS have, for instance, developed/ improved their long-term strategic plans on the basis of their mission and vision. This has allowed POs to improve their performance and carry out more sustainable interventions. This funding modality has also helped in avoiding POs facing lack of funds for management and programme oversight as it often happens in project funding. Core funding ensured POs flexibility to manage and prioritise funding, as well to provide room for being innovative. During the period 2015-2017 the country has undergone swift social, political economic and environmental context changes. The flexibility has allowed ground for timely revision of plans and budget to adapt ensuring that the overall objectives of the partnership remains unchanged. It is however worth mentioning that “unrestricted” core funding has resulted in POs expending too much on administration as well as less funding sharing with local delegations and members. In view of this POs have been encouraged to monitor dependence on NACE on administration and limit administration for 30%. Further, POs have been encouraged to monitor and report on how much funding is transferred to delegations and local member organizations. Core support also implies that the administrative burden is reduced for both partners and We Effect. POs are requested to provide two reports (narrative and financial) per year. This has allowed space for We Effect value addition interventions (POs capacity building, monitoring visits, results assessment, etc.). POs could in their turn focus their attention on fulfilling their mission and achieve sustainable results instead of spending time on administrative work. Further, through the provision of core funding, We Effect could get a better overview of a POs’ financial and programme management capacity, as POs report on a global level. In conclusion, it is assessed that this funding modality (core funding) has contributed in empowering the POs both institutionally and to achieve long-lasting and sustainable results. Proof of this is the reduction of POs dependence to NACE-AGIR and broadening and diversification of funding base. More donors were attracted by POs due to their increased capacity and clarity of vision and mission. As visible through the results (Annex 1 and 2), POs are, as well, progressing positively towards the achievement of the overall objective of NACE and AGIR.

Complementary Funding Mechanisms

Complementary funds is a funding mechanism created during AGIR II in order to cover more CSOs and capture more results that can contribute to the AGIR II. These funds are divided into three categories:

18

a) Small funds for non-AGIR core partners, for example associations, organizations, institutions, fluid movements, temporary coalitions, platforms or networks. Funds for projects/initiatives that can increase/enhance and strengthen the results, aims and goals of AGIR and the specific thematic areas of AGIR. Must be implemented during 12 months;

b) Innovative funds for the AGIR POs, to support POs to be innovative and combating the problem that they do not "dare" to dedicate part of their core costs and budget by venturing into unknown ground, to encourage Information and Communication Technology For Development (ICT4D), or new methodology. After successful implementation of the experience partners should be able to plan and budget for continuation in the next year;

c) Agile funds: for the AGIR POs, to support activities that requires a quick availability of funds such as for a particularly policy dialogue that arises rapidly, public demonstration, or community preparation for resettlement or dialogue with government or private sector. These funds must be implemented during a period of three months.

During this period (2015-2017), the disbursement for the complementary funds line started only in 2016, since the first year (2015) was mostly dedicated to organize the process internally within We Effect to ensure the proper use of the funds. Therefore an internal committee for complementary funds was created and the internal regulation to orient the committee was also settled and approved by the Regional Director. The harmonization and understanding the criteria to assess the proposal between the intermediary partner organisations (IPOs) affected the process during the first year of AGIR II). In this period a total amount of SEK 7,293,000 was budgeted for all three lines (small funds,

innovative and agile funds) and the amount of SEK 7,316,903.98 were disbursed (see Annex

5 – Financial Report and Annex 7 – List of Non-AGIR Partners that Received

Small Grants).

Small Funds For small funds, from the proposals received in 2015 (about 92), eight of them were approved and implemented in 2016. Annex 7 show a list of all proposals and the name of the organization, thematic area, location and amount disbursed during the period of this report. From the call for proposals in 2016, a total of 73 proposal were submitted to We Effect and 12 were approved and implemented in 2017. In terms of results the small funds contributed to the programme with the following:

Introduced techniques of reuse of solid wastes and training in coal production and handicraft production in Vilanculos, Inhambane Province. More than 70 people produced charcoal from wastes reducing the wastes, the use of wood and increasing the yield of the families (AMOR);

AAN contributed in the establishment of digital platform to disseminate messages related to mitigate the effect of extreme climate events that affects the District of Namaacha. By this about 2000 people will be able to mitigate the effect of these climate events;

One informal Association was able to legalize and develop a strategic plan (AAN), through this one more civil society voice was raised to support and defend the interest of the right holders;

Community environmental awareness-raising, introduction of improved waste management and re-use of waste to make products to sale in Katembe (ADE);

48 farmers in Namaacha District were trained on sustainable agriculture and management of natural resources. They were able to increase their production and productivity, (CMA);

19

Communities affected by mining in Moatize District know and require their rights. Some of them are already receiving 2.75% established by law as a consequence of exploitation of their natural resources, (KUBECERA);

35 Association members (16 women) benefitted from simplified mineral license in Nathove and Marava in Mogovolas District in Nampula (APRODER). With those licenses they can explore the mineral and commercialize in the normal channels and make profit from this activity;

580 community members, out of which 350 are women, gained increased awareness regarding mineral legislation and are able to defend their rights;

Capacity building for three communities in the Beira corridor in land rights and natural resource management, including establishment of natural resource committees (ADECRU);

Most of these organizations had rather weak systems especially in terms of accounting and financial management, which were detected during financial capacity assessments and monitoring visits. In some cases, We Effect had to intervene with support to get reports with acceptable standards. This was the major challenge related to these funds, but also a major improvement of systems for smaller organisations. They demand a lot of attention and technical assistance, are of high risk and still have no specific budget or staff allocated to them. The following measures were taken by We Effect to minimize the risk of this funds:

Institutional assessment before entering the partnership;

Conducted a workshop training before the implementation of the projects on RBM and administrative/financial management;

Monthly or bimonthly disbursements;

Conducted an administrative and financial assessment by external consultant to all small funds partners;

Produced internal Administrative and Financial Guidelines for small fund partners and a set of recommendation was also produced and shared with the partners to improve the accountability in the future;

Conducted a final innovative workshop for balance and results collection (partners were requested to bring objects that represents: results, challenges and lessons learned).

The small funds window has contributed to upscale the number of CSO that are legalized and engage on CSO advocacy and lobby for the benefits of the right holders. Additionally, fluid movements, temporary coalitions, platforms and networks that cannot access AGIR funds normally since there are not legal entity their managed to get funds for a concrete action. One of the example is the AAN (Associação Amigos da Natureza), which was not legalized when their received funds (small grants) in 2016 for legal issue purpose and elaboration of internal tools including the strategic plan. In this period 15 different CSO received funds from this window along the country, impacting life’s of people. One of the criteria to approve the small funds is the geographical location. Proposal coming from districts outside of Maputo have high priority. Issues such as solid waste recycling, using of digital platform to mitigate the impact of climate change, re-use of waste, biocharcol production and sustainable farming, community land demarcation and delimitations using community mobilizers could not been implemented if these fund had not ben not available. Some of these issues were not tackled by the core partners. In general, small funds have managed to strengthen the Mozambican civil society in a more inclusive way, both by ensuring that a higher number of organisations are supported financially, more geographical areas are covered and by giving financial and technical support in the systems of the organisations, both financial and RBM systems.

20

Innovative and Agile Funds For innovative and agile funds, a total of 22 projects were approved and implemented from 2015 to 2017. Out of 22 projects, 13 were agile and 9 innovative, which can be found in Annex 6. Some of the results achieved by innovative funds, contributing to main objective of the NACE sub programme were:

Communities in Gaza (Bilene, Manjacaze and Chibuto) and in Tete (Moatize District) are influencing the decisions made by the government on the public and private investment by using a participatory monitoring tool, the Community Score Card; the innovation in this project is the fact that the tools brings together the beneficiary, the service delivery and other interested parties for a joint evaluation and action plan design with responsibilities.

Improved management of waste solid in Maputo City, by using the MOPA platform; MOPA is an innovative tool for participatory monitoring using a digital platform based on sms to report the management of solid waste on villages. The citizens can take a photo of the waste situation and send an sms in real time to the, department of waste management. This tool also supports the village’s citizen to participate in the management of solid waste.

Establishment of an ICT Platform for dissemination of information to farmers in Nampula Province, using telephones to provide information for the communities about agricultures and food security, gender equity, natural resources, environment and climate change. The innovation is based on massive sms with utility information for the community members. The information shared could be on agriculture campaign, type of seeds to be used, vaccination campaign, agriculture fair, market prices and other information.

The innovative funding mechanisms have contributed to innovation as described above. This shows that the POs are indeed committed to innovation. However, POs still face challenges in their innovative thinking and have not used the fund to the maximum extent possible. We Effect will try to share successful initiatives and encourage thinking outside the box initiatives in the coming three years. POs used the agile funds to respond to the unexpected situations during the implementation. Some example of agile funds that POs implemented are:

Social Preparation of Communities affected by mining companies in Gaza (heavy sands project in Chibuto) and Nampula (heavy sands in Moma). As a result of the PO intervention affected communities are being resettled in accordance with the resettlement regulation;

The Local Union of Cooperatives in Bobole improved their production by stopping the unpredicted pests that were affecting the cashew-trees;

Organized the workshop called “Triangular Peoples Conference against PROSAVANA” The Conference was organized by LIVANINGO with involvement of other partners such as JA! UNAC and CTV and other civil society come from Japan, and Brazil. The conference objective it was to coordinate the strategies against the PROSAVANA. The conference was an inclusive and democratic space where people from different sector of the society (farmers, rural communities, religious organization, and civil society) discuss alternative models of development on agriculture and land use different from the PROSAVANA proposal.

Assistance to the Namanhumbir community to receive back their benefit resulting by exploitation of their natural resources (2,75%). The community used the money for rehabilitation of 13 boreholes and construction of 05 new boreholes.

21

The agile funding mechanism has addresses some unexpected situations, as explained above, for example when unexpected investments or natural situations occur. However, the POs are still not fully exploring this funding mechanism and face challenges in identifying unexpected situations that could be suitable for application. We Effect will continue to support POs to identify and apply for these funds.

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE RESULTS MODEL This section analyses three key issues related to the quality assurance (QA) of the results model; an assessment of the results framework fitness for purpose, We Effect’s overall management of results based management in the sub-programme and the general functioning of the systems for planning, implementation and monitoring.

Results Framework fitness for purpose We Effect’s main lesson learned in relation to the logical framework, is the need to be resilient also when it comes to this measuring tool, even though aimed to measure results from the beginning to the end of a programme. Consequently, the initial results framework has proven to be in need of changes throughout the programme phase. The initial results framework, developed in 2015, included overarching areas such as legitimacy, accountability and We Effect added value. These were removed and included in the AGIR results framework, as a step to divide thematic and institutional results areas. This was hence the first lesson learned in terms of the results framework. We Effect would also in the future separate thematic and institutional results, as this facilitates the understanding of partner results and We Effect thematic added value (thematic framework) We Effect’s added value as an intermediary (institutional framework). In 2016, the framework was further improved. This was spurred from the fact that the framework did not capture POs’ results in an efficient way. Hence, indicators were added and improved and the framework is seen to be improved in terms of fitness for purpose after this revision. For 2018, a few aiding indicators, adding gender and environment aspects to already established indicators were added. Another challenge met in relation to the logical framework is the setting of targets. Last year, the majority of targets were exceeded, a trend that continues this year, even though targets were revised to better suit the reality. This is a challenge that We Effect assesses as difficult to overcome. With the core support modality, POs are supported in terms of their global results. When POs acquire new donors and projects, these results are added to the results reported to We Effect. POs are therefore reporting results to a higher degree than what they, or We Effect, foresaw in 2015 or 2016. Two parallel strategies can be adopted to manage this; the first one is to adapt and update the targets to the context and the other one is to analyze and present the context to justify the exceeding targets annually. We Effect will in dialogue with donors strive to adapt both strategies. In general, the logical framework should be seen as a living instrument, capturing the lessons learned though data collection and analysis, and should hence not be static. The fitness for purpose improves when challenges and shortcomings to a certain extent can be revised and altered throughout the implementation phase. This is also important for the learning component of results based management.

Results based management

Throughout the first half of the NACE programme, 2015- 2017, We Effect have prioritized

internal and partner strengthening of results based management. The first step in this process

22

was the recruitment of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) officer, first through Sida’s

Associate Bilateral Expert programme, who has now been extended to follow the AGIR

programme RBM processes.

The internal measures to strengthen the RBM systems include professional RBM training for

all programme officers, improvements of the logical framework as mentioned above,

improvement in tools for partner annual plans and report assessment, improved tools and

systems for data collection and harmonization of monitoring systems. In general, the

programme officers are now better equipped to support partners and always apply a RBM

approach in discussions with partners and analysis and drafting of documentation. The RBM

systems and staff competence has improved during these first three years. Challenges that

remain is to in a better way communicate the compiled results of the NACE programme, so

that they become clear and visible internally and to donors. This challenge is of course linked

to the POs’ RBM capacity too.

POs have received two larger capacity building sessions

during the first phase in the AGIR programme, one in

logical framework development (January 2016) and one

in data collection (October 2017). One example linked

to these trainings can be found in the blue box to the

right. They have also received shorter sessions during

for example the annual partner meeting. Several POs

have received on the job trainings, all through shorter

sessions during monitoring visits, some through longer

internal workshops. In general, the POs RBM systems

are improved and strengthened and most POs have

improved logical frameworks including all the

necessary aspects for reporting outcomes and outputs,

such as baselines, targets and achieved indicator data.

POs have also improved their outcome reporting, and

are more efficient in reporting change as opposed to

mere activities and outputs. This is a positive change in

comparison to 2015.

However, challenges still remain. Many POs have challenges in implementing robust data

collection systems that capture change. For larger national organisations, the data collection

is not efficient in capturing all delegations and members. The 2017 data collection training will

hopefully show results in relation to this. Challenges also remain to a certain extent in terms

of reporting results and not of activities and outputs. It is evident that some organisations are

further ahead than others, and the lesson learned is therefore to try and combine efficiency

with needs by for example making different groups when planning capacity building further

on. The focus in the coming phase will be more to refine and strengthen systems rather than

establishing new capacity. Hopefully, the innovative funding modality can be used as a way to

renew and be innovative when it comes to data collection and storage.

Systems for planning, implementation and monitoring

We Effect’s goals are established in relation to the PO goals. As such, planning and

implementation processes are also built on the POs planning and implementation. We Effect’s

annual planning is based on the POs’ annual plans, both made annually. We Effect tries to

apply a human rights’ based approach (HRBA) in the planning, by basing its activities on PO

needs. This has been a lesson learned during the three years of implementation. For example,

We Effect has started to survey capacity needs, ongoing policy processes and major events

In 2017, after receiving a

training in data collection by We

Effect, the PO AENA, based in

Nampula, finalised an online

data collection system. AENA

has implementation in various

districts were focal points in

rural areas use tablets to fill in

information about the

associations, DUATs, newly

adopted technologies and farmer

incomes. The system is aimed to

improve the collection and

reporting of results and is mainly

financed by We Effect funds.

23

planned to coordinate and harmonise POs and to ensure that the capacity buildings

implemented are based on the needs of the POs. A challenge that remains is the large number

of POs and their different levels of capacity. We Effect POs span from grassroot based

organisations, to think tanks and high-level policy organisations with well-educated staff. This

of course poses challenges in the support and systems. There is a need to diversify the capacity

building given and tailor make it to fit all participants. At the same time, the benefits in time

and budget to do larger capacity sessions are inevitable. We Effect will strive to divide POs in

groups and give on-the-job trainings when possible. Furthermore, efforts will be made to

encourage mutual learning through staff swapping and exchange between POs that are more

advanced in certain areas and those who still need support. This could benefit both parties. In

general, the systems work well and are based on the principles of core support and good

donorship. As such, the systems are flexible to allow for ownership to remain with POs. This is

a strength of the AGIR programme and appreciated by the POs.

We Effect conducts monitoring visits to their POs twice per year. These monitoring visits serve

to dialogue with POs regarding the current status of the partnership and implementation in

terms of annual plans, budgets, narrative and financial reports and other current changes with

the AGIR programme and partner structures. These meetings further give the opportunity to

discuss partner results and once a year a field visit is also conducted to interact and monitor

activities in the communities. The regular inclusion of these field visits is a lesson learnt during

the three years and give an added value in terms of understanding the local context and the

reality of POs and rights holders. These monitoring visits are important to adapt the

partnership in terms of the POs, to identify the needs and problems of the POs to be able to

provide the support necessary. They further allow We Effect to dialogue about aspects that are

needed to improve in for example reporting of results.

Every third year We Effect also conduct organisational assessment called Octagons that is a

self-assessment tool in eight key institutional areas. These assessments are used to develop an

action plan that is followed-up during the monitoring visits. The Octagon helps the PO to

identify what aspects of institutional structures that need to be strengthened and what

strategies to use to strengthen these. The challenge related to these assessments are that self-

assessments tend to be more positive than external assessments. We Effect are actively trying

to assist the POs to identify their weaknesses, basing this on the accumulated knowledge We

Effect has regarding their POs. Octagon assessments were conducted in relation to the start of

AGIR II (2014-2015) and in relation to the end of the first phase (during 2017).

In 2015, a baseline study was carried out in the communities where We Effect POs works. A

sample of 347 people (statistically significant) were surveyed regarding their opinions and

knowledge level in relation to the NACE component, POs and thematic areas. In 2018, a similar

survey was carried out to compare the impact of NACE in the communities were POs work.

Results from this survey are presented in the results chapter throughout the report, and the

final survey report is also a separate annex to this report.

In 2017-2018, a midterm review (MTR) of the AGIR programme was carried out with the

Embassy of Sweden in lead. The purpose of this mid-term evaluation was to:

(a) Help the donors and their partners to assess progress in the first part of the on-going

programme AGIR II (2014-2020) to learn from what works well and less well in order to inform

decisions on how project implementation may be adjusted and improved.

(b) Provide the donors and their partners with an input to upcoming discussions concerning the

preparation of a possible new phase of the AGIR programme (from 2020).

(c) Advice on changes needed in the program guidelines and in the general functioning of the

programme.

24

A general reflection on the objectives is that the scope of the evaluation is very extensive for an

MTR. It could have been more beneficial to do a more focused evaluation for the MTR, and

focus on the overall programme for a final review. The recommendations and We Effect’s draft

responses to these can be found in Annex 8. We Effect’s overall view is that the

recommendations aim at decreasing the coordination and functioning of the umbrella AGIR,

which would be a missed opportunity. Processes and documentation can be simplified and

improved, but the existence of a larger civil society programme is in general beneficial for a

strong and vibrant civil society in Mozambique, which is the objective of donors, IPOs and POs

alike. A more thorough and common view of the MTR can be found in the common AGIR

report.

APPLICATION OF UPHOLDING PRINCIPLES This chapter accounts for the application of upholding principles in the sub-programme, analysing them one by one. The upholding principles referred to are: contribution to local ownership, alignment to POs’ capacity and systems, harmonisation and coordination, managing for results and mutual accountability.

Contribution to local ownership Local ownership and responsibility are basic prerequisites for sustainable development. Only when the local organisations internalise the responsibility for their own activities, relevance and existence will their endeavours have a chance of becoming sustainable. To achieve this We Effect has used core funding, organisational self-assessment tools, training on RBM, satisfactions surveys and partners meetings to empower the POs so that they can be the owners of their processes. As a result of this POs have reduced the donor lead project based interventions and are more prone to results oriented interventions that are based on their own mission and vision, relevant to their rights holders and members and for which they have internal capacity, through long-term strategic plans. The scarcity of funding and limitation of funds to certain thematic areas for civil society in the country has constrained the achievement of this principle, but the AGIR programme is often highlighted as one of the programmes than manages to contribute to this important principle.

Alignment to partner organisations’ capacity and systems

Right from the outset We Effect made it clear to POs that it was ready to align to their internal

systems, i.e., for instance that all PO got core funding on the basis of their long-term strategic

plans. This was well received by POs, who during years have been working on the basis of short-

term projects and having to report to different donors using different systems. Assessments

made of all PO systems demonstrated that most, if not all, systems had some weaknesses. In

this context, the first phase of the NACE-AGIR (2011-2014) encouraged all POs to develop and

or update long-term strategic plans in which they defined their mission and vision as well as

support to improve internal capacities to achieve intended results (RBM, financial

management systems, internal governance and accountability). When the second phase of the

AGIR started, all POs had understood the value of having steady systems for planning,

implementation, follow up and reporting and all, in fact, had, to some extent, systems in place.

They were, however, facing the challenge of systematically and effectively using the systems

due to lack of qualified staff who can only focus on their implementation and follow up.

Support provided by We Effect in relevant areas (RBM, financial management) to more than

one staff of the organisation has contributed in improved the way POs used the systems. During

the period, however, We Effect aligned to PO systems while providing support to ensure their

improvement. The fact that POs had other donors that eventually were contributing with more

25

funding and required that their own system be used by the POs may have contributed or will

contribute negatively to the development of independent and autonomous organizations

pursuing their own development agenda. Albeit it is worth mentioning that the culture

introduced by the AGIR through core funding has and still will contribute for a more

sustainable civil society from different angles: institutionally, results oriented, long-lasting and

sustainable interventions and networking.

Harmonization and coordination

During the reporting period, all thirteen POs had more than one donor. We Effect and some

POs (for example Livaningo, UNAC, OMR, CTV) have promoted joint meetings with some

donors in order to encourage harmonization and coordination. In as much as all agreed with

the aid effectiveness principles most face limitations from back donors to engage into joint

funding agreements or alike. We have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Swiss

Development Cooperation (SDC) to commonly support CTV and OMR. In this collaboration

we both share the same annual plans, reports, audits and, in as much as possible, we are

carrying out joint plan and report assessments, joint monitoring visits and organisational

assessments. With the Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) we have agreed to coordinate in as much

as possible by undertaking periodical meetings to analyse the partnership and share lessons

and challenges as we build towards a more advance harmonization and coordination. We

Effect and NPA are supporting the following partners: AAAJC, ORAM, UPCT and UNAC. In

both cases, and to a larger extent for the former, this collaboration has reduced substantially

the burden that POs had on administration and have time to focus in the actual work. The

support provided is improving the partners bargaining powers and some are already

encouraging other donors to build joint funding agreements. Notwithstanding this, it is worth

mentioning that the indicator in joint funding agreements is very low, as most donors are now

willing to engage in this harmonisation and coordination so much, despite efforts from POs

and We Effect.

Managing for results

Ensuring that support to POs’ strategic plans is oriented towards achieving maximum benefits

for women, men and children living in poverty was a priority for We Effect. To achieve this

there was a need to ensure that POs annual plan and budgets were developed in such a way

that they could generate performance information that can be used for continued

improvement. Thus, We Effect has given especial priority in supporting partners to improve

their results frameworks as well as systems to monitoring implementation and assess progress.

During the period, trainings on RBM were organized to build capacity to partners to plan,

implement and report focusing on long-lasting and sustainable changes. POs were as well

encouraged to carry out context analysis and risk analysis in order to plan risk mitigation.

Given the context presented earlier, this approach has contributed in updating and adapting

annual plans and budget, revise targets, to ensure that achievement of results will not be

jeopardized due to lack and risk mitigation plans. More detailed information can be found in

the chapter on RBM.

Mutual accountability

We Effect, during the period, abided by its definition of partnership according to which

partnership is a relationship involving development cooperation in which two or more

organisations share the responsibility for uniting skills and resources to achieve common

objectives. We Effect experience shows that the building of successful partnerships takes time

and highly depends on among other aspects: An agreement that a partnership is necessary; the

26

development of a shared vision of what might be achieved; shared mandates and agendas

granting respect and generating trust between different interests; good communication and

collaborative decision-making, with a commitment to achieving consensus. In view of this We

Effect has mainly a partners’ satisfaction survey tool in order to get feedback from POs and

make necessary changes. For instance, in the second year of the NACE, 2016, POs

recommended through the partner satisfaction survey that disbursement periods needed to be

changed so that POs could access funds earlier. Revisions of the funding agreement followed

after this recommendation. Further, annual partners’ meetings are used as an opportunity to

discuss the level of performance and progress of We Effect’s commitments as IPOs of the AGIR.

For the monitoring visits the partner has the responsibility of suggesting the agenda and

writing the minutes as a way of putting the partners in the leadership position. Other events

such as joint training sessions, courses, seminars, workshop or other similar events are

planned jointly well ahead (two months at least) with all partners and they have the possibility

of influencing the agenda and content to fit their own interests.

RESULTS ANALYSIS

The following chapter presents and analyses the results of NACE’s three thematic areas – right

to land, right to food and right to a healthy environment. This is followed by a results analysis

for the study circle methodology and the NACE PO execution in terms of the common capacity

building logical framework for AGIR. All data presented, if not otherwise stated, are taken from

the logical frameworks and PO reports. The results achievement is measured against the

targets for 2017.

Early 2018, a beneficiary midline survey was also conducted. The survey interviewed 395

community members in communities where POs work regarding their knowledge of the POs,

NACE thematic areas and the impact possible trainings or awareness raising sessions have had

on them. This survey is used for some indicators in the thematic logical framework, to

understand awareness and beneficiary impact the POs have and are used to exemplify results

in the chapter below. The full midline survey report is also included as a separate annex to this

report.

Results are reported on an aggregated level, trying to draw conclusions about the intermediary

and final outcomes of the sub-programme on a more general level. The results are supported

by PO examples and success stories. For a quick overview of the results per area, see the results

summary in the beginning of the report and the last chapter of each thematic area.

Annex 1 and 2 present the logical frameworks and should be used as a reference point for the

text, read alongside for increased understanding of the results.

Results Area 1: Right to Land

Our Goal: Empowered partner

organizations that support the rights of people in poverty to land, secure land

tenure, and sustainable management of natural resources.

Long Term Outcome 1: Increased community benefits from their land and natural resources

Long Term Outcome 2: Improved policy on land and natural resources

The land and natural resource accountability area intends to ensure right holders’ access and

participation in management of natural resources such as land and forestry, as well as their

rights to influence investments with impacts on communities livelihood, including

27

investments in mining, petroleum and gas issues. Two long term outcomes were defined to

achieve the overall goal.

All 13 NACE Partners were involved in this thematic area and contributed to the achievement

of the defined indicators and expected results. POs used accumulated capacity, experience,

knowledge and various approaches gained during the AGIR phase I to upscale the results

during AGIR II.

The target achievement pie shows that while 92% of

the targets defined for the period were exceeded 8%

related to advocacy focusing on women land rights

issues and key documents that address women's

needs are below expectations. Although these two

indicators are new for 2017, the results indicate that

despite the positive results achieved in ensuring land

rights for women, culture and other barriers prevails

in the land administration that reduce women’s’ right

to land and access to resources and there is a need to

strengthen the capacity of POs in this area in the

coming years.

The outcome related to increased community

benefits from their land and natural resources show that a number of investments are

being implemented in targeted communities in compliance with community investment

benefit agreements (20% is the benefit that community members are receiving as a result of

exploitation of their natural resources such as forest, fauna and other natural resource,

community members receiving this benefit thought the NRMCs, 2,75% as a result of mining

exploitation, community receive this benefit through local government). Other partnership

agreements such MoU between private investor and Communities (example: MoU between

Topuito Community and Kenmare) had increased from 6 in 2015 to 23 in 2017 which

correspond to an increase of 38%. One successful example to be highlighted are the case of the

community of Cubo in Massingir that has an agreement –an MoU with Twin City Eco-Turismo,

Ltd – signed in December 2016 with the Company for joint management of wildlife game farm

where community will be holding 30% and the company 70%. This story is further explored

in the box below.

92%

8%

Target AchievementRight to Land &

Natural Resources2015 - 2017

Targetexceeded

Target belowexpectation

28

Capacity building with the local natural resource

management committees in Cubo.

Xilalane Valley, a good example of lobby

and advocacy action made by Cubo

Community

The Community of Cubo in Massingir District,

Gaza Province in South part of Mozambique, has

been facing a long conflict with a Private Investor,

Twin City Game Farm since 2010. The conflict was

associated with expropriation of community land

by this company to establish a Game Farm. Apart

from losing their land, communities were also

affected by attacks from the wild animals and

destruction of their farms. Additionally, the

company intended to grab additional 3 000 ha of

wet lands, (Xilalane Valley) from the community.

The wet lands are essential for the subsistence of

the communities in this part of country (arid soils)

since the rain seasons are irregular and their food

security relies on the land. In 2015, communities

requested the assistance from one of NACE

partners, CTV, to assist them in overcoming this

conflict. CTV started the process of building

capacity in the community by creating NRMCs as a

valid interlocutor between the communities,

Government and the private company.

As a result of the capacity of the NRMCs, they

gained knowledge about their rights and how to claim them. In 2016 the communities signed a

MoU with the Twin City Ecotourism, which

establish principles on how to share profits of the

Game Farm. The MoU establish that 70% will be

for the company and 30% for the communities,

apart from other benefits such as jobs

opportunities.

In 2017, the Government, represented by the

Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural

Development, due the lobby and advocacy taken by

the communities recognized and accepted to give

back the 3,000 ha of wet lands (Xilalane Valley) to

the Cubo Communities.

As a result of right holder’s pressure, PO reports indicate that several investors that started the

investment before signing any agreements with the communities have come to a partnership

with the communities. This is an example of changing of behaviour of the right holders as a

result of training on natural resources management by the POs. Some of the examples are the

resettlement plan for the Pilivili community in Moma, as a consequence of the Expansion of

Kenmare Investment in the area and Palma in Cabo-Delgado, as a result of ANADARKO

investment. In the case of Pilivili community, the community members through their NRMCs

where prepared by one of the AGIR partners, in this case AENA on how to negotiate their rights

when a private investor are interested in their land. In case of Palma in Cabo Delgado two AGIR

partners, AMA and CTV, are involved on the advocacy and lobby action and at the same on the

preparation of community members to know and defend their rights.

The way that POs worked towards this goal is by supporting communities to establish and

manage NRMCs. During this period (2015-2017) 305 committees were formed and a total of

2 644 community members (927 women) participate in these. The NRMCs are very important

29

community structures that enable community members to be aware of, understand their rights

and claim for it. NRMCs are structures recognized by the Government, private sector and the

communities as they representative. NRMCs have been involved in the negotiation with private

sector investments as reported above, and have also played a role in the land demarcation and

delimitation processes vis-à-vis the government. One concrete outcome of these NRMCs is that

most right holders living in surroundings of forestry and wildlife concessions, received in this

period the 20% of forest taxes that contributed for the improvement of their social and

economic life. The NMRCs supported by the POs have been involved in seeking information

and negotiate a number of issues for the community, always taking the community members’

interest into account. As such, they are important structures for the empowerment of

communities and a valid interlocutor between they communities and duty bearers, which has

been visible in the last three years of NACE.

Results are also visible in relation to the right to land. POs supported 842 communities to

receive land certificates benefitting 38 833 community members (20 492 women, 18 391 men)

during 2015 to 2017. This will lead to secured incomes for small-scale farmers and a decreased

possibility of investors

grabbing land from the

people. One example is

with the area of

Xilalane in Manssigir

where the Government

decided to return 3 000

ha of land to the

community. POs will

continue their effort to

ensure protection of

community land rights,

since the country still

witnessing increase in

of large land based

investments. The

beneficiary midline

survey further reveals

(see table) that out of

the beneficiaries with DUATs, 76% of men and 72% of women, feel that these create greater

security. Almost 50% of both men and women consider that the benefits of having a DUAT is

the possibility to leave in inheritance to their children. About 10% consider that they have

increased their production as a result of having DUAT.

Specifically and in order to respond to the outcome on land rights for women’s, POs conducted

various activities including development of by- laws that are inclusive and reduce cultural

barriers. For example, CTV undertook a revision of customary norms and practices in 15

communities in Inhambane Province, and as a result norms that are against women’s rights in

the constitution were removed, and new norms aligned with current legislation were agreed.

These actions contributed to increase the number of women that own land or have acquired

land titles or family co-titles. POs reports indicate that from 2015 to 2017 more than 3000

women’s acquired DUATs representing an increase compared to the baseline in 2015 were

POs supported about 54 women to acquire DUATS.

For the outcome related to improved policy on land and natural resources POs

reported a total of 256 dialogue sections between right holders and duty bearers, 196

publications, 38 position paper and other documents promoting right to land and NR 2015 -

30

2017. Almost all 13 POs had been involved in this period (2015-2017) on lobby and advocacy

action to influence policy on land and natural resources management in order to change the

actual scenario. Today the land issues are very critical due to the upscaling number of private

investment based on land. Example of big investment based on land we have are the case of

PROSAVANA, PORTUCEL, and Extractive Industry. The POs had to adapt their strategies and

intervention in order to respond the dynamic of the actual process and defend the interest of

the right holders. One of the strategies adopted by the POs is the lobby and advocacy action

made by investigations, publications, position papers, marches and other. This effort from the

POs has contributed to the launch of Government Programs “Terra Segura” which intends to

secure land (DUATs) for 5 million and SUSTENTA which is an integrated rural development

program in North of Mozambique, intended to support 5 million people to acquire their land

certificate.

There are cases where Multi-National Companies have been taken to the International Court

such as: Vale Mozambique, (regarding the Kateme resettlement) Mozal (air pollution) and

PROSAVANA (land grabbing in the North of Mozambique). Parallel to these processes, POs

reported significant progress in the key speeches and strategic actions of government

institutions, particularly the ongoing positions and actions on issues of forestry, resettlement

process, land grabbing and benefits to the right holders. Despite these significant lobby and

advocacy achievements, new legislation has not been adopted or approved in this period. The

process of influencing changing on legislation requires medium and long-term approaches.

Additionally, issues related to land and natural resources still very controversial and sensitive

in Mozambique, due to various interest (Communities, Government and Investors). Even so,

the pressure and lobby made by POs during this period ended with the ongoing process of

revision of the following laws or regulation for example: Revision of the land Law, revision of

forest legal framework, revision of the regulation for High authority of extractive industry and

fair compensation. The Land Law still in debate for revision, the resettlement regulation also

still in process of revision. However, the processes have contributed in accumulating

knowledge and experience to build up on the same processes and other similar ones in the

coming programme years. Several proposals have however been revised and submitted to

competent institutions for approval7, which is a huge step in the right direction.

Another process where NACE POs were involved during this period is the resettlement process of communities affected by big investments (essentially mining). One of the examples is the Afungi Community in Cabo Delgado due to the establishment of ANADARKO and ENI involved in the exploitation of gas and oil in Rovuma basin. The process started in 2010. The process started with lack of information flowing to different stakeholders. Only the Government and the Investor has access to information. POs recognizing the complexity of the situation and the absence of a valid intermediate between the duty bearers and the right holders started to approach the duty bears. The change of Government also contributed to change the relation between the intervenient in the process. The Government represented by MITADER requested the inclusion of the civil society in all process. In this case two NACE partners are involved in this advocacy and lobby process. Some achievement during this period are: established participatory procedures to be followed during all the resettlement process in Quitupo-Palma; the Community committees for resettlement reactivated; ANADRAKO agreed to introduce a correction factor on the compensation of fruit trees and other crops to the community; the livelihood programs are already running even before the resettlement process

7 Examples of proposed legislation to be revised are: i) Revision of RAIA (Regulation of evaluation of Impact Assessment), ii) Revision of art. 22 of the regulation of the Land Law on the competences to authorize large extensions of land for private investments, suggesting that these should be attributed to the Assembly of the Republic instead of the Council of Ministers as at present; iii) Revision of the forest legal framework; iv) Petition on Forest plantations; v) Revision of the Regulation of the high authority of the extractive industry and Fair Compensation; vi) Revision of the Master Plan of ProSavana to change the focus and protect small famers rights , among others provincial and district and municipality strategies and plans .

31

for the adaptation of the community; MITADER recommend the local Government to include civil society in all the process. POs also continued to work in collaboration with national and international forums and

platforms making up a total of more than 72 networks on district, provincial, national and

international level that all 13 POs are involved in this collaboration, contributed to spread the

voice of right holders outside the country border and at the same time as a mechanism of CSO

experience exchange and synergy.

In summary, the results achieved during this period 2015-2017 show that POs are

empowered to support the rights of people in poverty to land, ensuring other benefits and

sustainable management of natural resources. For instance, more than 800 land certificates

have been granted to the communities and about 3 000 individual certificates granted to

women in different parts of the country. Hence, more individual people and communities have

their land protected from the interest of the private investor. This means that more rights

holders in rural areas are empowered to negotiate their interests in relation to land

management and the possibility to increase production and productivity for sustaining

livelihood and income generation. As described above, the government itself has been

influenced to enforce the land law and the issuing of land certificates. During the period (2015-

2017) POs contributed to increasing the number of investments in compliance with community

investment agreements with 38%. The increased compliance ensures the community benefits

from natural resources. As such, the communities receive part of the natural resource benefits

back and can reinvest in the communities’ development. Furthermore, private investors are

increasingly complying with the national land and natural resource legislation which

contributes to reducing conflicts and promote joint partnerships between communities and

private sector. POs are also empowering local communities in the form of NRMCs, with more

than 300 committees currently active in defending their rights in different communities.

Communities are therefore in a better position to negotiate the sustainable use of natural

resources and community benefits. This is a mark of more just, democratic society where the

rights’ holders’ voice and interests are considered.

We recognise that the issue of policy change is critical. Although no legislation was approved

during the period, actions undertaken by POs have persuaded the government to engage in

revision of some critical debate towards improving the legal framework. It is expected that

towards the end of the programme, political will and capacity will be built within government

to implement current legislation and make necessary improvements.

Results Area 2: Right to food

Our Goal: Empowered farmer

organization’s defending the right of everyone to safe and nourishing food in accordance with the right to a balanced

diet and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger

Long Term Outcome 2.1: Improved policies for

small scale farmers and their right to food

Long Term Outcome 2.2: Increased agricultural production

The agriculture and right to food result area was introduced in AGIR II to respond to the need to stagnate the poverty levels in the country and also to ensure the rights of women and men living in poverty, by enhancing the capacity of POs to engage in strategic policy dialogue. Eight NACE POs (AMPCM, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, OMR ORAM, UNAC and UPCT) contributed to achieving the results and the targeted indicators defined in this theme. The

32

target achievement pie shows that all 13 targets defined for the period of the programme were achieved, while 10 (83%) indicators exceeded the targets defined for 2015 to 2017, two indicators (17 %) related to the to approval by government of legislation as a result of advocacy and lobby made by CSOs are on track. In relation to the outcome on Improved Policies

for small scale farmers and their right to food,

during the period under analysis, NACE POs have

embarked in policy advocacy work aiming at

persuading duty bearers to approve different

legislations and policies. Several approaches and

methodologies were used including dialogue sessions

between rights holders and duty bearers, key public administration institutions from districts

to national levels, promotion of marches, manifests, position papers, etc. The eight targets were

defined to this outcome and were positively addressed by POs and right holders.

PO reports indicate that from 2015 to 2017, about 182 dialogue sessions, 51 publications and

113 advocacy processes and events related to agriculture and food security were conducted.

POs have also been active in 22 national, regional and global right to food networks, and a total

of 18 proposals for legislation revision or approval were made and submitted for discussion.

However, only one policy, a new customs tariff8 for import of agricultural equipment and

inputs has been approved during the reported period. The challenge to dialogue with the MASA

in 2016 is appointed as one of the reason for not approving any proposed legislation, but the

situation changed in 2017 the dialogue with the government increased with the openness of

the President of the Republic and parliamentarians. The government’s approach on agriculture

also changed and there is an indication of the intention in prioritizing food production for

internal market with involvement of small farmers. For example, a National Platform to

discuss public agrarian policies between the government, POs and the private sector was

established. A joint document called Contribuindo Para Uma Mudança No Desempenho

Económico, Social E Ambiental Da Agricultura Em Moçambique was submitted, proposing

the changes in the approach on agriculture in Mozambique. This is one positive example that

illustrates the interest of government in increasing food production and catalyze the actual

government priorities centered on commercial agriculture and agribusiness for small farmers.

Another important achievement was the presentation by the Parliament of a first draft of the

Agriculture and food security law to government and civil society for consultation. After

internal consultation process, POs and other CSOs came up with a document with suggestions

to improve the law focusing on inclusion of sustainable family based agriculture practices.

OMR has supported UNAC with evidence to back theirs inputs to the law. The approval of this

law will contribute to reduce level of malnutrition, which, according to national statistics stand

at 43%, and minimize hunger in the country.

During the period under analyses, POs (UNAC, ORAM and other CSOs) have been engaged in the debate on agricultural biotechnology and promotion of advocacy campaigns against the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the country as this would have a devastating effect in the livelihoods of family based sustainable agriculture and also in the environment. As a response, government are undertaking GMOs tests in POs also advocated for the inclusion of land, forestry, biodiversity and water in the agriculture strategy.

8 Lei nr 11/2016, Texto da Pauta aduaneira, aprovada pela Assembleia da Republica , Dezembro 2016

83%

17%

Target Achievement Right to Food

2015 - 2017

Targetexceeded

Target ontrack

33

The Mozambican Association of Promotion of Modern Cooperatives (AMPCM), a partner of We Effect since AGIR 1, has, during this period (2015 to 2017), lobbed and advocated for the promotion of a modern cooperatives as “viable and sustainable way of creating wealth and strengthening entrepreneurial initiatives in the country”. One positive response was the interest of duty bears, Mozambican Government and private sector to create modern cooperatives in agricultural sector. There was also an increase in number of small scale agriculture or farmers associations that have become cooperatives. In 2017, 51 cooperatives are affiliated to AMPCM as members with a total of 197 808 individual members (149 646 women) and about 65% are working in areas of sustainable agriculture, recycling, environment and natural resources. On the other hand, recognizing the role of modern cooperatives to reduce social inequalities and promote sustainable management of natural resources and environment, after years of lobbying, MASA has assumed the role of conducting the process of approval of the regulation of the law of cooperatives and the tax regime regulation9. Long Term Outcome 2.2 Increased agricultural production: This result area is relevant

to the AGIR II sub-programme NACE and the country in general and aims to ensure that rural

farmers (women and men) have secured their right to food by increasing their knowledge and

capacity to produce sufficient food and reduce hunger. Five targets were defined to this

outcome and were positively addressed and exceeded the expected targets.

To achieve the expected results in this area, POs used different approaches and methodologies such as awareness raising and involvement of communities in the interventions, agriculture diversification, study circles, farmers field school, learning and exchange knowledge between farmers, transferring of new agriculture practices and or technologies such as agroecology, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, agro business, nutrition practices, conservation and processing of farmers crops and commodities, facilitation of markets through promotion of fairs or connecting farmers with agricultural commercial enterprises and also when needed provision of agriculture inputs. Farmers were also trained in the use of different ICT platforms to demand and access different information on agriculture market, prices. All this has resulted in good management skills within the supported farmers including their ability to develop their market-oriented business plans and deepening knowledge of environmental issues. According to POs data, approximately 34 375 farmers, more than 50% women, increased their agriculture production and productivity by adopting conservation agriculture, agroecology and agroforestry practices and diversification of commodities from 2015 to 2017 with positive results in their livelihood. This has also led to the increase of the total volume of agriculture production from 125 tons in 2015 to 1 717 tons in 2016 and 3621 tons in 2017, compared with 1 ton. Equally, the average volume of agricultural produce per farmer from 2015 to 2017 reached 69 tons and the volume of agricultural produce per hectare 24 tons, demonstrate that the targets set for 2017 have been successfully exceeded. This result also contributed to increasing the community resilience and capacity to respond to climate change and events such as droughts, floods, soil erosion, etc. Several reasons can be appointed for the results described below, for example according to national statistics, while the agriculture campaign 2015/2016 have been affected by droughts in some provinces mostly in the center and south of Mozambique, the 2016/2017 agriculture campaign was good, with almost all crops exceeding the expected production. The other factors that contributed positively for the achievements of this targets is the fact that POs such as ABIODES and AMPCM expanded their intervention areas introducing agroecology in new areas in the Maputo province.

9 REGULAMENTO COOPERATIVO 03.04.2018 DRAFT to be submitted for aprovall.doc; AMPCM - ANTE PROJECTO DE LEI -REGIME FISCAL DRAFT for Aprovall.doc ; Matriz de Prioridades de Reformas 2018 _DRADT4_Pelouro do Agronegocio_28.02.2018_vc_UIAE_CTA.01.03.2018(5).doc

34

Around 5 000 farmers secured market for commercialization of their agriculture products due to signature of MoU with 5 agricultural commercial enterprises in Nampula Province10, and an agribusiness development project in the north of the country has resulted in revenue of 53 million of MZN by selling 312 tons of different crops11.

Eneas and his motorcycle

The new cows

Fair Trade Project led to a motorcycle and five

new cows

Eneas Armando Sabonete, 53 years old, married with 9 children.

During the 2016/2017 season, he sold about 700 Kg of peanuts

and 1.3 tons of cashews that resulted in an income of USD 3 184.

Eneas Sabonete is a farmer of UAHALA Village located in 17 km from

capital of Murrupula District and one of the beneficiaries of the Fair Trade

Project implemented by AENA, in Nampula Province. The project supports

farmers to increase their agriculture production and productivity through

transfer of agriculture technologies, crops processing, conservation and market facilitation. The immediate result was the increase of Eneas

agriculture area from 0.5 to 2 hectares. Eneas, together with other project

beneficiaries, also developed capacity and skills on market negation,

business development gender inclusion:

“The project showed me a new horizon in the field of business. During my

live I have only ever produced to eat and I never thought that one day I

would have large agriculture fields and good sales. I have also had the

opportunity to attend meetings with government and buyers and I was

able to negotiate without intervention of third parties”

With the increased income, the family managed to buy a motorcycle to use

in agriculture and other income generation activities. By his wife’s initiate,

the other part of the profits was used to buy cattle to increase the

production areas. In the beginning of 2017 they brought two females and

one male cow, by the end of the year they have five.

Eneas sees the future brightly, certain that the family life will improve even

more.

Adapted from The community voice, Edition 004: Food security, Nutritional and Economic, December 2017, AENA (Jordão Matimula)

The period under analysis were also marked by different actions taken up by right holders in defending their right to food (March’s, position papers, celebration of rural women days, word food day, participation in various fairs). Approximately 18 646 community members (8 052 women) attended trainings and workshops on different agriculture and food security resulting in behavior changing and adoption of the knowledge acquired. There was also an increased knowledge of small farmers, mostly women on better nutrition trough dissemination of good practices and demonstrations (cooking).

10 AENA Anual Reports, 2016 and 2017. According to AENA about 5000 farmers have increased the average of their income from 100USD to 207 USD in the last agriculture season 2016/ 2017. 11 AMPCM 2017 annual report, annex 10: Relatório das Cooperativas que respondem ao NACE: (AMPCM: ANNUAL REPORT – 2017: Agribusiness Development Project-PDAN)

35

For example, the beneficiary midline survey shows (see table) that 95.5% of interviewed beneficiaries consider that as a result of the training obtained in agriculture food security and nutrition, they use part of the production as agricultural surplus. 86.4%, produce a greater variety of crops, 63.6% use the new agricultural techniques and improved seeds. 77,3% have increased the production and productivity and 54,5% have an increaed income. In terms of defending their rights to food, 24.4% of men and 15% of women had opportunities to spoke with local authority on the subject. In conclusion, We Effect POs working in the agricultural thematic area are positively addressing the defined goal to empower right holders to ensure food security, a balanced diet and contribute to poverty reduction. There is progress in the achievement of results defined, especially the ones related to knowledge and demand of rights, adoption of new technology that have resulted in increased production and productivity by near 35 000 farmers. This is contributing to increasing income and securing improved living conditions, which is a progress mark in terms of the SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being) for Mozambique. It is further contributing to decreasing the dependence on import of food. In terms of improved nutrition, POs have increased awareness of the rights holders (mainly women) through trainings and demonstrations. This contributed to the reduction of malnutrition in the country, also linked to the above mentioned goals. Improvement of the sector legal framework remains a challenge. Continued efforts will be needed to secure long-term changes so as to pursue this outcome in the next phase of the programme implementation (2018-2020). This will require support to strengthen the capacity of POs to undertake evidence based policy advocacy work. Mozambique is still not yet self-sufficient in terms to food and the level of malnutrition in the country standing at 43%12. To ensure the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, We Effect will support POs that are active in this sector to act collectively and in a coordinated manner to persuade duty bearers to prioritize small holder agriculture as a priority to reduce hunger and poverty.

12 OMR, 2016: Desafios Para segurança alimentar e nutrição em Moçambique

36

Results Area 3: Right to a safe, healthy environment

Goal: Empowered partner organisations defending the right of people to a safe and healthy environment in ecological balance, today and for future generations

Long term Outcome 3.1: Improved environmental protection and forest management

Long term Outcome 3.2: Increased efficiency and sustainability of water and energy

Long term Outcome 3.3 Increased adoption of sustainable agricultural production methods

Long term Outcome 3.4 Improved environmental policies

During the implementation period, 2015 to 2017,

seven POs contributed directly to the environment

and climate change result area; ABIODES, AENA,

AMA, CTV, JA, Livaningo, and UDEBA-LAB, while

the remaining (AAAJC, AMPCM, UNAC and UPCT)

have mainstreamed environment and climate change

in their programmes. As per the target achievement

pie chart, 59% of the targets set for the period under

analyze exceeded the expectations, 35% are on track

and 6% did not achieved the targets or are below

expectations.

For the first outcome, related to the Improvement

of environmental protection and forest management, the POs have successfully

contributed to the conservation and regeneration of biodiversity in the country. PO data

indicate that they have interventions in about 20 conservation areas13. CTV and the National

Administration of Conservation areas signed a MoU to ensure biodiversity conservation in

marine protected areas resulting in the increased number of communities involved in co-

management of Maputo, Bazaruto, Quirimbas and Reserva Marinha Especial da Ponta do

Ouro marine reserves. Furhtermore, UDEBA and AENA are also involved in supporting

community’s management of coastal zones and mangroves forests in Zongwene, Gaza Costal

zone and 1st and 2nd Islands in Agonche, Moma in Nampula, respectively. AMA supported 3

communities living in the surroundings of marine areas to establish a community conservation

area. ABIODES signed an MoU with Administração Nacional de Pescas to promote a campaign

on sustainable artisanal fishing in tree provinces in Nampula, Zambezia and Sofala, using

awareness campaigning in the communities and also through TV spots. All the above examples

contributed to achieving environmental, economic and social impacts at both community and

institutional levels as the resources are used in a sustainable manner, with clear benefits to

communities and there are indications14 of regeneration of the ecosystems in these important

areas.

The governance and administration of forestry sector in the country face a lot of problems.

These include illegal logging, poaching, corruption, contributing to degradation of forest

resources and environment in general. POs were engaged in lobbing for good governance and

protection of forestry species. One good example come from a joint initiative in the buffer zone

of Magowe, a Wildlife Protected area in Tete. It was a partnership involving the local

government, the protected area authorities and communities represented by the NRMC and

community scouts, that resulted on the classification of Pterocarpus tinctorius, locally known

13 Mozambique conservation areas include National Parques, National Reserves, official hunting reserves, game farms, community conservation areas, environmental protection areas namely coastal zones, mangroves, wetlands, and others 14 AMA and AENA conducted studies on the recovery of mangroves in Angoche..

35%

59%

6%

Target AchievementRight to a Safe and

Healthy Environment2015 - 2017

Target onTrack

Targetexceeded

Target belowexpectations

37

as NKULA tree, as a protected species by the Ministerial diploma 51/2016, and the

exploitation is now been stopped. POs also influenced the launching of the government

Operação Tronco in the northern provinces of Cabo Delgado and Nampula, and in the central

provinces of Zambezia, Tete, Manica and Sofala, aiming at tracing up illegally logged timber in

these provinces. This has resulted in the extension of the period prohibiting the exploitation of

forestry resources for three months by the Ministerial Diploma 28/2017.

For the long-term outcome relating to environmental protection and

sustainable use of energy, POs reforested around 222 hectares of arable land, including

mangroves. The number of areas exposed by uncontrolled fires were highly reduced (27 ha in

2016 to 8 ha in 2017) and exceeded the target for 2017. This was due to PO awareness sessions

and trainings with communities that are increasing, combined with activities that

simultaneously contribute to better economic situation of the households using the natural

resources. POs data indicate that from 2015 to 2017, approximately 18 548 people (9 227

women) were involved and actively participating in actions aiming at defending their rights to

a safe environment. Civil society are also making effort in gradually achieving more space for

dialogue with government. This is highly positive in terms of expected impacts on the

conservation and sustainable use of Mozambican ecosystem.

Recognizing the importance of introducing the use of renewable energy solutions as a means

to reduce the threat of using natural energy in terms of climate change, POs continued to

promote the adoption of energy saving solutions, such as energy-saving cook stoves and the

use of solar panels. From 2015 to 2017, more than 23 386 households were supported to use

improved cook stoves, with impacts in the environment, by reducing the pressure to the forest.

This move had impact in the health of the families by reducing the probability to contract

respiratory diseases, as the smoke coming from traditional cook-stoves can cause lung

problems. From a social point of view, there was considerable change mostly for women

because cooking stoves use less wood and the time needed to look for wood is reduced,

providing more time for other activities that can contribute to their development, such as

school and business.

The use of the stoves is monitored by a tool

called stove map (www.stovemap.org ). The

stove map is an initiative developed by the

Forum for Sustainable Energy and

Development Mozambique, and actually

managed by LIVANINGO, as a tool for

coordination among NGOs working in this area

and also to allow, through a map, all interested

people to visualize the progress towards access

to improved cook stoves. The tool also

facilitates contacts with those who are in the

stove business contributing to increase the

interest, accessibility and marketing of

improved stoves (see the map to the left).

In 2016, POs introduced the use of solar lamps

to improve the possibility for the communities

to have alternative income generation

activities. This interesting process will be

followed in 2018.

Positive improvements were also achieved in the third Long term Outcome related to

the Increased adoption of sustainable agricultural production methods. The POs

38

are increasing the number of beneficiaries, mostly women, trained in conservation agriculture

and agroecology, from about 22 800 people trained in 2015 to 71 619 in 2017. Increasing the

number of farmers using the knowledge and adopting these practises to increase their

resilience to climate events such as drought or flooding. These practices become more and

more important as climate change continues to affect the country, keeping in mind that the

majority of the population live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their subsistence.

The beneficiary midline

survey also reveals evidence

of behavioural changes of

rights holders that attended

trainings in environment

and climate change. As

shown in the table, 88.9%

avoided uncontrolled fires,

and are aware of

reforestation and 70% use

good fishing practices and

avoid poaching due to

trainings given by POs.

These positive results show

the need to continue with

information dissemination

and trainings.

For the Long term Outcome four related to Improved environmental policies POs report that during 2015 to 2017 , they were involved in the revision of several policies and laws, namely the Policy of the Sea, the Environmental impact studies regulation, plastic use regulation, fertilizes use regulation, the law for the protection, conservation and use of biological diversity and Regulation of the environmental Protection Law. POs have participated in about 83 dialogue meetings with duty bearers and about 54 publications were written and submitted to government institutions. For most of these documents, POs have contributed a lot in including articles that safeguard community rights and needs, considering the context of the country were in almost all protected. Civil society are also making effort and gradually achieving more space for dialogue with the government. POs have further been involved and participated in the development and implementation of LAPs in the districts. POs reports indicate that they have been involved in 11 LAPs development and are monitoring the implementation of 6 LAPs. CSOs and some POs have participated in the process leading to the rectification of the Paris AGENDA by the Parliament. PO and CS at large are well participating in the process leading to COP 23.

In conclusion, the goal set for this area including are showing progress and have achieved

the planned results by 2015 to 2017. For example, POs were active in undertaking very tangible

actions for protection of environment and adaptation to climate change, like the use of energy-

saving methodologies and sustainable farming practices. The use of energy-saving

methodologies reduces pressure on the trees and contributes to the health and income of

communities, positive impacts for both the individual rights holders and the country in

general. Sustainable farming practices make communities less vulnerable to extreme climate

events and increases production and productivity, leading to self-sustenance and income

generation. This contributes to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

POs have also contributed to the protection of fauna and flora, for example replantation,

reduction of wildlife fires and management of costal zones and protected area. This increases

the availability of resources for the communities and for future generations and contributes to

the country’s achievement of SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land).

39

Besides undertaking policy and advocacy for as well as for the adoption of policy long term

environment protection, POs participate in the development and implementation of LAPs.

This is important as the communities themselves become involved in defining the priorities

and strategies for these plans, and through them increase their resilience towards climate

change. With and increased number and quality of LAPs, the country in general becomes more

resilient. POs were also involved in policy processes on a national and international level. For

example, they participated in the process leading to the ratification of the Paris Agenda of the

parliament and COP 23 through the national platform of climate change. This is contributing

to increased awareness and policies in the environment and climate change area, in conformity

with SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Results Area 4: Study Circles

Our Goal: Empowered partner organization’s using study circles as a method to achieved thematic results

Intermediate and short-term outcome: Formation and strengthening of study circles

The study circle methodology was introduced in AGIR II as a tool to be used by POs to achieve

thematic and institutional development results. The study circle methodology is a methodology

that is based on group learning, where community members use study circle material for self-

learning and discussions in groups. The participants can study an array of subjects using the

approach. Study circles contribute to the sustainability of the local development since the tool

is used to empower community to defend their rights (to land, health environment, and food

security).

From a total of 13 POs, seven implement the

methodology during 2015 t0 2017: AAAJC,

ABIODES, AMPCM, ORAM, UDEBA-LAB, UNAC

and UPCT. The target achievement pie shows that

from 2015 to 2017, 33% of the targets were exceeded

and 67% are below target. The indicators that

exceeded the target are related to the number of

participants in study circles and number of people

trained using study circle as training tool.

The indicator regarding the number of participants

with a total of 3 070 people exceeded the target by

10% which is reasonable considering the interest of

the right holders to adhere the study circle group. People are motivated to attend the study

circle groups because their see transformation of the lives from these who are members of a

study circles. Some examples are reported by partners that farmers had been able to improve

their production and productivity since there are involved in study circle (UPCT, UNAC and

ORAM) on the other hand AMPCM and UDEBA-Lab reported that people involved in study

circle had identified and implement livelihoods strategies to improve their lives. This is one of

the reason why the indicator related to number of people trained using the study circle as tool

had also increased during this period up to 30%.

The indicator related to production of study material was below the target since its requires

investment from the POs in terms of budget allocation and time for investigate and adapt the

material needed in different study circle groups. We Effect will incentive the POs to use the

study material from We Effect Library.

33%

67%

Target AchievmentStudy Circles

2015-2017

Targetexcedeed

Target belowexpectations

40

In general, study circles contribute to the three results’ areas as a tool for community capacity

building on different areas like legislation on land, resettlement, environment and different

techniques on agriculture production like conservation agriculture. The added value of study

circle lies in the opportunity to provide a participatory environment to all for social and

community development to help communities at local level solve problems, improve

relationships, provide training an engage in dialogue to address their needs. As local people

continue to participate in study circles, they gain the knowledge necessary to engage in public

issues, understand how society works, control their own lives and master the tool to change

their condition of living. Through this, they feel empowered to participate in democratic

processes, they increase personal development and engagement in matters of governance. The

challenges faced by POs during this period are related to understanding the methodology,

material development, use of ICTs and monitoring processes to ensure the standards of the

methodology. We Effect will continue to promote and disseminate information regarding the

study material available on the digital library, promote the use of ICTs by incentivizing POs to

apply for innovative funds and encourage POs to adopt monitoring approaches to ensure the

success of the methodology. The process of disseminating the methodology will continue in

order to ensure that all POs have the possibility to use the methodology. For these who are

already implementing the methodology, We Effect will continue with technical assistance.

Common AGIR Results Area 6: Capacity Development

In Annex 2, the common AGIR logical framework for capacity development is presented with

achievements for We Effect POs only. As the target achievement pie shows, more than half of

the indicators are on track for the 2017 targets, with around 20 % below expectations and a

quarter exceeding expectations.

For the first bridging outcome, related to

management and governance, POs are in general

on track with the midterm targets set. All We Effect

POs have democratic systems, with member

approved strategic plans, regular general

assemblies and with members included in their

planning process. The existence of democratic

structures is part of the improvement of the

indicator related to POs with at least 50 % of their

members paying quotas. This indicator was below

expectations last year, but is now on track with an

average of 46 % of POs reaching this goal.

All 13 POs report that one of the areas where most support has been given by We Effect is in

RBM, which has led to improved systems for data collection and improved tools such as logical

frameworks. Another noteworthy improvement is the increase of POs that have internal anti-

corruption policies, starting in 2015 with only one PO, which has now increased to 10 out of

13. This shows an increased dedication to anti-corruption practices and is part of the result of

the financial capacity building carried out by We Effect. A challenge that remains is the timely

submission of audit reports, which continues to lack behind. POs report collaboration

problems with the auditors that do not finalise their work in accordance to the deadlines set in

the agreed ToRs. Nonetheless, all 13 POs report that their internal management and control

systems have been strengthened through capacity given by We Effect, both through internal

systems and concrete tools. All POs are now using proper accounting systems (in most cases

Primavera), previously many used excel. This makes financial reporting more accurate and

reduces the risk for fraud. Continued communication, dialogue and pre-emptive planning in

relation to audit reports will be measures to implement during the coming three years.

27%

53%

20%

Target AcheivementCapacity Development

2015 - 2017

Target exceeded

Target on track

Target belowexpectations

41

For the gender related outcome, POs are generally on track for targets set. There are impressive

improvements in the gender analysis and aggregation made by POs, with few POs applying

these perspectives in 2015, now almost all POs analyse their activities from a gender

perspective and measure the active participation of women in their programmes. POs also

report that the support given by We Effect in terms of the elaboration of gender policies has

been a driver for change (for example AAAJC, AMA, AMPCM, Udeba-Lab). These

achievements is partly due to the trainings given by We Effect in these areas. Another reason

for this is the Fair Resource Allocation System (FRAS) methodology, a gender sensitive budget

approach unique for We Effect, that most We Effect POs apply. This tool, that aims to ensure

that at least 50 % of the budget is spent on women, incentives POs to be gender sensitive in

planning and implementation. One area that still needs attention to reach the set goals are the

number of female staff and women in decision-making positions in the organisations. Half of

the POs reach the 50 % target for female staff, three have at least 50 % women in decision-

making positions, but only one have succeeded with having both. This is a larger societal

problem, with women being less prioritised in education and hence skilled work and with a

culture of male bread-winners and leaders, especially in the rural areas of the country. We

Effect will continue to encourage female recruitment, by continued training on FRAS and

dialogue on how to include women in different ways in the activities and staffing.

In terms of the HIV/Aids capacity and upscaling, We Effect POs still need to improve. Most

POs have HIV/Aids policies relating to their staff, but for the mainstreaming perspective, many

still face challenges. In 2017, We Effect staff received training in HIV/AIDS related issues,

which was a first step to upscale the activities. We Effect will seek help from other IPOs to

provide the support needed to ensure improved mainstreaming and capacity in this important

area.

For the outcome related to networking in ICT and provincial branches, most targets are on

track or exceeding target for We Effect POs. Most POs are part of several networks, have

functional websites and use social media to communicate and work closely with activists and

their delegations. A major improvement is the number of POs that transfer funds to their

delegations, reaching 70 %, an increase of 30 % from 2016. One area that needs to improve,

however, is the number of staff swapping between the organisations. This is an area where

IPOs must improve their coordination. This can work as a way to increase capacity within staff

without being too time-consuming or have an impact on the budget.

For the last outcome related to donor coordination, there are positive results in terms of the

number of donors that POs have, with more than 50 % having more than 4 donors. Most POs

also present global plans and reports. However, there are still improvements to be made in

terms of donor coordination and basket funds. Here, We Effect will try to play a larger role in

coordination donors in terms of common meetings and basket funds.

In general, the AGIR-programme is successful in its vision to

strengthen POs. Looking at the development of POs from the

beginning of the programme, until now, the systematic changes

are remarkable. Many POs express how We Effect is the only

donor that provides regular capacity building and how being

part of the AGIR programme is a quality stamp for other donors

and they have managed to increase the number of donors after

the strengthened internal structures that We Effect has

contributed to (AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMPCM, CTV, JA!,

Udeba-Lab). The results achieved in the institutional

strengthening of POs, contribute to the overall mission of the AGIR programme, creating

active, strong and vibrant organisations that represent the rights holders. The existence of such

“We Effect is the only

donor that contributes

to the capacity building

of the organisation”

PO, evaluating the first

phase of the NACE

component

42

a civil society is important as it ensures the accountability of duty-bearers and works as a

watchdog of the government. We Effect sees it as positive that the weaker areas are well defined

through the exercise of measuring the target progress and plan to focus this year’s annual

partner meeting on governance and further refinement of the POs.

RISK ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses the risk management of the sub-programme, including changes and

challenges to date and the current status of the risk matrix in Annex 3.

The main change in the risk management process during the first three years is the shift from

institutional to thematic risks. We Effect started AGIR 2 with a risk matrix mainly inclined

towards institutional risks. Early 2017, all institutional risks were absorbed by the common

AGIR-programme management system. These risks affect the programme, as they are

prerequisites for the overall functioning of the partnerships and programme management.

They are discussed in more detail in the common AGIR report.

Under the We Effect sub-programme, only thematic risks are included and followed-up. The

main advantage with this is that We Effect has gained some control over the PO risks related

to our outcomes, and are now able to support and prevent risks related to PO activities. The

challenge is that since We Effect does not implement, it is difficult to mitigate the risks as

efficiently as possible with institutional risks.

The updated risk matrix can be found in Annex 3 which should be considered alongside this

narrative description. Concerning the risks linked to right to land, We Effect planned dialogue

sessions between various actors, capacity buildings and experience sharing between POs. Most

mitigation measures were implemented in 2017; including a joint lobby and advocacy

workshop, continuous dialogue with MITADER and PO experience sharing at the annual

partner meeting and the consultative forum. Challenges remain in establishing linkages with

the private sector and more concrete experience sharing between POs. This will be a priority

during 2018.

For the risks linked to right to food and right to a healthy environment, We Effect planned

actions related to capacity in the study circle methodology, other trainings and experience

sharing in between the POs. Various trainings and conferences with experience sharing in the

study circle methodology have been carried out in 2017. This methodology is one of the added

values of a partnership with We Effect and is implemented by POs on a regular basis to teach

different methods of farming that will increase food security, divulge land rights and promote

rights-holders’ learning in relation to environmental friendly practices. Thematic trainings

have been more difficult to plan and execute, as the POs many times are experts to a larger

degree than We Effect. Experience sharing and staff swapping will therefore be encouraged

during the coming years of AGIR. Innovative and agile funds will also be encouraged as

possible ways to mitigate the risks.

In general, working with thematic risk management is a new experience for We Effect. As POs

become more efficient in their risk management, We Effect will also be able to see what risks

are present in the thematic areas. The learning that occurs every year will also be a way to

improve the risk management in thematic areas.

SUSTAINABILITY

This chapter analyses the sustainability of the sub-programme, defined as; “The sustained

43

ability by partners and individuals to financially and substantially continue to contribute to the

sub-programme results also after the end of the partnership with We Effect”.

One of the conditions for partnership was that POs and We Effect agreed on a shared vision

that interventions within NACE are oriented towards long-lasting and sustainable changes. We

Effect, POs and the overall NACE component are a means towards something beyond their

existence. Livaningo, for instance, produced wood saving stoves to avoid deforestation and

reduce respiratory diseases amongst rural communities in Manhiça. This activity only became

important when communities learned the skills and disseminated the knowledge to many more

community members in order to achieve collective goals of protecting forests and public

health. The exit of Livaningo from those communities in Manhiça has not made any effect.

Thus, the process of planning, implementation and M&E needs to consider to what extent

every intervention of the programme is geared towards conscious behavioral change, and an

exit that would not impact on the results already achieved by the POs, as in the example

mentioned above.

The other level of sustainability that We Effect addressed is pertaining the ability of our

partners to financially and substantially continue to contribute to NACE objective after the end

of the partnership. The most important tool used to address this was the dependence analysis,

i.e. , to what extent partners depend financially on NACE-AGIR funds and how costs supported

by NACE are distributed between internal administrative functioning and activities. We Effect

defined the target of avoiding to fund more 50% of the overall budget of the partners as a way

of encouraging them to broaden the funding base. NACE contribution to partners’ budgets was

50% below for the majority of partners. The graph below shows the level of dependence of

partners during the reporting period as the We Effect contribution percentage of their overall

budget. Since POs were conscious that NACE could not fully fund their total annual budgets

partners made efforts to increase and diversify donors. In most cases throughout the

programme the average funding has always been around 32% of the total budget of POs (see

Annex 5 for more exact data).

Challenges were related to the fact that most POs were using NACE-AGIR funds to cater for all

administrative costs and in so doing they attracted many donors whose projects can only fund

activities and not administrative costs. This was the reason why we encouraged POs to measure

the level of dependence to NACE funds on administrative costs and to apply the 70% activities

0

20

40

60

80

100Degree of Dependence of PO to NACE

2015 2016 2017

44

and 30% administration principle. This has helped POs to visualize how extremely dependent

on AGIR they were and if the programme had to close instantly they would risk collapsing.

Having this tool at hand POs had more power to negotiate the increase of administrative

contributions that other donors could make.

Besides increasing funds partners were also encouraged to diversify donors. The challenge

related to this is reduction of donors in numbers. In the last three years, in Mozambique, the

number of donors reduced but the ones that continued to provide support to civil society

decided to work in clusters. For instance, the AGIR programme included three donors

(Sweden, Netherlands and Demark), Mecanismo de Apoio para Sociedade Civil/MASC four

donors (Denmark, SDC, United Kingdom, Ireland), Inciativas para Terras Comunitaris/iTC

(Sweden, Denmark, SDC, United Kingdom, The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa

(OSISA), the Netherlands). The other similar phenomenon was the merge of the Oxfam and

the inclusion of other organization such as IBIS. These facts have limited POs’ chances to

diversify funding sources.

Building from lessons learned in the period We Effect has carried out consultation processes

during partners meetings and in the AGIR consultative Forum to develop the sub-programme

sustainability strategy and exit strategy for the second period of the AGIR II.

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES This chapter aims to analyze the mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues, including the achievements, challenges and lessons learned internally and for POs. The cross-cutting issues analysed are gender, conflict/do no harm, environment and climate, HIV/Aids and HRBA.

Gender We Effect views gender equality as a fundamental human right. During the period in analysis, We Effect adopted a new global strategy for 2017-2022 with a strong focus on gender equality, and in women in particular, as women and girls are the most vulnerable and constitutes the majority (70%) of those living in poverty in the world. To operationalize the strategy, in 2017, a new gender policy was also approved emphasizing the SDG 1, 2 and 5. To deepen We Effect staff’s capacity to develop rights-based gender analyses, design and follow-up on gender mainstreaming in programs, and also increase the ability to support POs in their efforts to gender mainstream, two We Effect Staff in 2017 attended an internal online course in gender mainstreaming in rural development programmes organized by We Effect head office. One of the results was the revision of We Effect NACE logical Framework to include gender indicators in all thematic areas. Two We Effect staff were also trained in gender and environment and conflict sensitivity. In 2017, a gender teambuilding and training on how to mainstream and analyze gender were also conducted for all We Effect staff and a follow up action plan developed. We Effect gender policy stands that at least 50 per cent of the financial support to POs should go to women and girls. To respond to this goal from 2015 to 2017, nine out of 13 We Effect POs have been trained and implement the tool FRAS. FRAS was also integrated in the AGIR programme, and under joint activities, We Effect conducted several trainings to IPOs to also transfer the knowledge to their POs to start implementing the tool. At PO level, during the 3 years of AGIR 2, all POs have included gender mainstreaming in their internal (institutional) and external (programmatic) level. To close the gender gap at institutional level and strike a balance between both sexes, gender policies or strategies were reviewed or formulated including action plans with measurable indicators (12 out of 13

45

POs have a gender policy in place). Only 3 POs have a gender specialist or specific person to ensure gender mainstreaming, 10 POs continue to work with gender focal points, indicating the need of We Effect continuous support and training on these areas. There is also an increase number of female representatives at the grassroots level including in leadership positions at organizational level (associations, farmers unions and cooperative movements, and also in NRMCs). However, challenges still remain regarding their decision-making power within these bodies. At programmatic level, while some POs mainstream gender in all thematic areas in the

strategic and operational plans, others have gender as strategic area. Most POs are members

of Women Forums and have engaged in different gender networks at national and regional

level. Partnerships and linkages between POs and strategic gender organizations have also

been encouraged15. The midline survey measured the knowledge of gender among the PO

target group and show high levels of knowledge regarding women’s rights, for both men and

women. Regarding the use of post-training information, 96.2% of the participants, mostly

men, have changed attitudes and have started to respect women. 84.6%, started sending their

daughters to school. 80% now include women in decision making at households level. This

suggests that training has a positive influence on community attitudes towards gender issues

and women's rights (see table for more details).

Conflict/Do no harm

We Effect works where political, social, and/or tension and violence are part of everyday life,

in areas directly affected by a conflict or in post-conflict areas. This reality requires that we

safeguard that we do not contribute to a deterioration of the situation and we must ensure that

all programmes and projects are conflict-sensitive, i.e. that a programme’s possible impact on

conflict factors has been thoroughly assessed and taken into account in the design of an

intervention. In addition, it requires an understanding that women and men are affected

differently by conflicts and tension. The main purpose is to minimise unintended negative

15 For example, MULEIDE, as a women organization have been linked with UNAC and ORAM to strengthen the capacity of these

organisations in gender mainstreaming. ABIODES is also collaborating with HOPEM (Homens Para a Mudanca).

46

impacts (Do-No-Harm) and maximize positive impacts, i.e. identify both risks and

opportunities in relation to the conflict.

NACE PO interventions that caused some level of conflict included protest by local

communities to protect their right to land, natural resources and clean environment; reporting

cases of violation of human rights by members of police or private security staff in the vicinities

of mining sites; travelling with international media to areas of conflict between communities

and mining company; denounce cases of human rights violations by mining companies. As a

consequence, PO reported cases of threats through messages and home visits in the middle of

night (AAAJC, AMA, AENA) by unknown assailants, being held in police custody for long hours

and equipment confiscated (AENA). As corrective measures we have encouraged POs to

conduct context and risk analysis that will identify the sources of tension as well as the sources

of unity to be able to understand the dynamics of a conflict, violence, or tensions. POs context

and risk analysis provided necessary input to assess whether their Annual Plans may have a

negative or positive impact in relation to an identified existing or potential conflicts or tension.

Finally, the risk assessments were expected to consider external risks related to the conflict or

existing tensions that may affect the implementation of the intervention.

As a result of this analysis in the last year of reporting period partners did not report many

cases of threats but, on the contrary, they have reported signing MoUs with public and private

institutions.

Climate and environment The NACE sub-programme has strengthened the environment and climate change issue in its

portfolio. To respond to this, a programme officer in the field of climate change was added to

the staff in 2015. This has in one hand contributed to build the capacity of We Effect to deal

with climate change, and in other to strengthen POs’ capacity through awareness and

information sharing to more and more promote advocacy in climate change, using

international and national forums and proactively support communities to deal with extreme

natural disaster events. Internal training on climate change to all staff was also conducted to

increase the capacity of staff to analyze PO plans and results in this area, also assess the need

of POs in terms of capacity building. During the period, for instance, the NACE climate change

and environment officer benefited from a training on climate change and environment

integration offered by SIDA at Härnösand Civil Society Centre in Sweden. As a follow up of

this, the officer has been invited to take part in the We Effect’s especial group whose aim was

to draft the internal global policy (Integrating environment and climate issues – We Effect’s

policy and thematic strategy, February, 2018) whose main purposes is to serve as a guideline

for We Effect and respective POs in the area of environment and climate change and as a tool

used to achieve We Effect’s strategic objective in 2021. We Effect also strives to have a green

office, not wasting paper and recycling all recycle materials (glass, paper, metal and plastic)

since 2017 in cooperation with the company 3R.

All POs have included and implemented environmental, climate change and resilience actions

using different approaches. Seven POs work directly with climate change and environment that

include advocacy and lobby in environmental issues, monitoring impact assessment studies,

plans and strategies, development and implementation of policies and LAPs, others partners

mainstreamed or have included environment and climate change in their actions to connect

with agriculture’ for example by promoting conservation agriculture, agroforestry as

adaptation or resilience strategies to mitigate impact’s on agriculture production, increase

productivity and promote sustainability in the use of natural resources.

47

Other POs focused on environmental awareness at community level, schools and for all citizens

in general. Using the participatory approaches, POs raised awareness and involved

communities in different the interventions: Forestry management and regeneration of natural

forestry and tree planting, fire management, agroforestry, conservation farming and crop

rotation, climate smart agriculture, crop diversification, use of energy saving stoves and solar

equipment, management of dams and rivers, costal zones, mangroves, promotion of

community natural resource management initiative and income generation activities based on

forestry and non-wood forestry products and waste management using the 3Rs (Reduce, Re-

use and Recycle). However, POs feel that corruption and lack of institutional coordination in

territorial urban and rural planning and inclusion of environment and climate change

prevention, mitigation and adaptation strategies in district development plans, are the major

challenges that need to be addressed.

HIV/Aids During the reporting period, HIV/Aids mainstreaming continued to be a challenge. Recognizing this, in 2017 IPOs conducted as a joint training to strengthen internal capacity to all IPO staff. The same training was replicated to AGIR partners aiming to increase interventions in this area. PO reports refer to training, information, education, awareness, sensitization programs, and peer education conducted at the community level for behavioral changes contributing indirectly for the prevention and mitigation of HIV/Aids. At institutional level, the number of POs with HIV/Aids policies have increased, for 6 in 2015 to 10 in 2017.

Human rights based approach

We Effect has been using the PLANET (participation, linkage, accountably, non-

discrimination, empowerment transparency) principles as a tool to promote HRBA in NACE.

During the period, We Effect has strengthened partners’ capacity to develop affordable tools

(e.g. FRAS) and methodologies to implement HRBA through PLANET as a way of promoting

effective change in their development areas. Partners were as well encouraged to develop

specific indicators to monitor performance of the organisation on the HRBA. The capacity

development logical framework (Annex 2) present a number of institutional development

results that respond to PLANET principles.

WE EFFECT ADDED VALUE

This chapter summarizes the We Effect added value. The

main role of We Effect at AGIR Programme is to secure

technical and financial support to the NACE partners and

manage the partnership administratively and through QA. By

doing this, POs become more efficient in the implementation

of their strategic plan which contribute to the overall

objective of NACE sub-programme. We Effect is an IPO that

is not the only choice for support to CS. Therefore, this

chapter aims to capture the added value of We Effect for POs,

and in turn, beneficiaries.

Value

Addition

Component

Role of We Effect and value added to the AGIR Programme, POs

and right holders

“We Effect has introduced

new working methods,

such as FRAS, Study

Circles and M&A systems”

PO, evaluating the first

phase of the NACE

component

48

FRAS

FRAS is a tool developed by We Effect to measure % of resources allocated

to men and women in POs. From 2015 to 2017, We Effect trained PO staff

in the methodology and as a result 10 NACE PO are implementing the tool

and are capable of monitoring the budget allocation to both women and

men in their specific organisations. The methodology was also expanded

to the entire AGIR programme and integrated in the capacity development

indicators. Staff for IPOs were trained as trainers to replicate trainings in

their POs in 2018.

POs consider the tool as a gender lens because it enables them to improve the ways of working with gender, paying greater attention to different target groups in the community. FRAS is also an opportunity to justify gender mainstreaming as it allows POs to conduct a gender analysis, using the results that have been achieved (% of resources allocated to men and women) and promote changes towards gender equality. For some POs, FRAS can reduce the subjectivity of the qualitative results presented in most of the reports, and can help the organizations to do a participatory and inclusive planning, with clear description of activities. It also helps to better shape and decide on budget allocation. FRAS is also proving to be effective tool in measuring the benefits of development aid to women. Being a PO to We Effect hence gives a more gender sensitive approach and a new budgeting instruments to POs, which can be valuable also for other partnerships and to show gender commitment.

Study Circles

Study Circles is a strategic approach that We Effect has used through its history, as a way of empowering local communities by sharing experience and knowledge. From 2015 to 2017, We Effect trained seven POs to apply this tool for community empowerment and increased knowledge. The added value of the approach is the empowering structure of the learning tool and the sustainability of the way to conduct trainings. By using the group to disseminate knowledge and discuss, all members of the community are empowered and participate in the process. This training method is an added value of the We Effect intervention. (See thematic area 4 above for more details on the added value of study circle tool).

Capacity

Building

One of the major roles and an added value of We Effect is capacity building

of POs. We Effect is not only a financial donor but also a capacity building

donor. If the AGIR programme ends the partner will continue their work

because they have capacity in various areas. Building on the POs needs,

during this period POs benefited for trainings using different approaches,

formal trainings, workshops and seminaries, on-job training, and

exchange visits or joint monitoring of activities. Some trainings

undertaken in this period include: advocacy and lobby; financial and

administrative procedures; RBM; risk analysis; success histories; study

circle methodology, FRAS, gender trainings and HIV/Aids mainstreaming.

For POs, the provided capacity building has contributed to strengthen

their institutional capacity to implement their strategic plans, more

specifically POs understand that that have increased their performance to

undertake M&E of results, elaborate logical frameworks, report on

outcome results and also mainstreaming gender in their work. In general,

POs report that We Effect is the only donor that give this elaborate form of

capacity building, and that their internal capacity to implement

programmes and reach their objectives have increased significantly

49

through this type of partnership, a clear added value of the partnership

with We Effect.

Core

Funding

Core funding is the modality that We Effect uses to support their POs. This

modality allowed POs to base their implementation on their own strategic

plan, which increase ownership and identity building. Core funding also

allows the POs to submit one narrative and financial report during the year

for all donor partners, resulting in more time to implement planned

activities. This funding modality leads to a strengthened civil society in

Mozambique, an added value of the partnership with We Effect.

Innovative

and agile

funds

These funding modalities have been available to the POs during AGIR II.

The innovative funds aimed to support POs to experiment new approaches

or methods. POs can through this modality experiment these approaches

without fear of compromising resources on something which there are not

confident. This brings an added value of creating a more innovate civil

society in Mozambique, with approaches that have not been tried before

and with inclusion of for example ICT4Ds. The agile funds allowed the

partners to respond to the unexpected events that could affect their

programs without compromising their resources. Agile funds has the

benefit of allow POs to attend on time unexpected events that’s affects

communities without compromising the core business of the

organizations. This also give confidence to the communities since they

know that there are not living alone when something unexpected happen.

These windows give opportunities to POs that are not normally available

for CSOs.

FINANCIAL EXECUTION This chapter presents the financial execution from 2015 to 2017 for the NACE sub-component

and also discusses the audit procedures and challenges during these years.

We Effect utilized 94% of total funding available during 2015 – 2017. The utilization of budget

line Funds transfers to Partners was almost fifty-five millions SEK which is 98% of the

budgeted amount. For the 13 POs, the utilization was 96% of budgeted amount or 46 894 043

SEK compared to budgeted 48 620 000 SEK. The overall utilization for other funding

mechanism was almost one hundred and ten percent. The small funds execution and

functioning is discussed in the chapter on funding mechanisms above and in Annex 7.

During 2016 the metical depreciated sharply and even though we disbursed more in meticais

compared to 2015, the utilization was well below the utilization for 2015. In 2017 our partners

had adjusted to the new exchange rate and utilization in SEK went up again to slightly more

than 16 million SEK.

Due to a delayed civil society survey, the overall utilization at budget line IPO Lead Activity

was only 63 per cent. This budget line will instead be used in 2018 to conduct the midline

beneficiary survey that will capture change in attitudes and knowledge of NACE beneficiaries.

AGIR Joint Activities also had a low level of utilization only 31 percent which is due to various

reasons that are explained in the common AGIR report.

Fort the line M&E utilization is 104%, main points for deviations are audit costs which became

cheaper than budgeted for whilst travel for monitoring and partner forum became more

expansive compared to budget.

50

Programme management and staff costs used 92 % of the budgeted amount. The

underutilization was mainly due to deprecation of metical as well as some changes in staffing

whereby salary costs became lower than budgeted for. Programme support costs also became

less expensive compared to budget and this was also mainly due to the deprecation of metical.

Graph 2: Comparison of budget expenditures for 2015-2017

The major challenge during the program implementation period was to keep the budget

execution by POs above 70 per cent. Meanwhile, POs have significantly improved their

planning capacities at the programmatic level, even though there were still gaps in budget

preparation. To minimize this weakness, the budget review system was introduced at least

three times a year.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

Grant toPartners

IPO LeadActivit

AGIR JointActivit

M&E Manag. & Staff Office Costs Admin overh(7%)

2015 2016 2017

Grant to Partners73%

IPO Lead Activit3%

AGIR Joint Activit3%

M&E3%

Manag. & Staff8%

Office Costs4%

Admin overh (7%)6%

51

Flow of funds

The NACE funds are transferred by the Swedish Embassy to the account of the We Effect head

office in Stockholm. Through the monthly requests, funds for programme operations are

requested from the Regional Office for Southern Africa which transfers them to We Effect

accounts in Maputo. The mechanisms for disbursing funds to partners are set out in the

funding agreements between them and We Effect. Both the Embassy-We Effect and We Effect-

POs relationship has always been based on permanent dialogue, seeking clarifications and

actions aimed at ensuring that the transactions are made in the strict terms established in the

financing agreements.

Audits for the period 2015-2017 During the period 2015-2017, We Effect entered into agreements with top rated audit firms,

namely Ernst & Young and KPMG to audit the program and all partners who received funding

under the AGIR programme. The audits were carried out directly or indirectly and on an

annual basis. All audits performed on partners have not been qualified. However, there was a

need to audit the systems at UNAC, CTV and ORAM as these POs demonstrated weaknesses

in their management systems.

On the other hand, there was a challenge in relation to the POs that received core funding.

These partners had to carry out their own audits even when annual budgets were not high.

Audit costs were extremely heavy and had an impact on their budgets. As mentioned above

POs had to carry out their own audits and We Effect audit would make a consolidated report

that included We Effect expenses and analysis of the POs’ audits, in respect to the terms of

references and agreed upon procedures approved by the Embassy of Sweden. We faced

challenges in relation to 2016 audit because KPMG refused to produce an opinion based on the

opinions of the auditing firms that audited partners. A new audit had to be carried out in order

to have an opinion on the financial demonstration of all partners in the period. This has raised

some questions that remains to be clarified, that is, what is the use of the Agreed Upon

Procedures? How can we value the audits commissioned by POs and use their outcome?

All audit reports were accompanied by Management Letters with audit findings and

recommendations. We Effect consolidates these findings and recommendations and presents

them in mutual learning meetings for discussion to avoid repeating the findings. During the

financial compliance monitoring visits, We Effect has been following up with partners to see

how audit recommendations are being implemented and what systems are in place to prevent

similar errors from reoccurring. In general, all partners have followed the audit

recommendations and have improved their internal governance and management systems.

Based on our experiences, audits are extremely expensive in the country. However, the quality

of the service provided is often not what is desired. Part of this is due to the fact that audits

occur at a time when large companies are also conducting their audits. The companies that we

have hired for our audits, which are the top five, have. to our knowledge, always given priority

to such large companies. For this same reason, we have suffered systematic delays in receiving

the audit reports and, in some cases, these reports have been inaccurate. As a result, the late

delivery of audit reports has had a negative impact on the implementation of activities in

subsequent years due to the late funds disbursements.

ANNEXES Annex 1: Logical Framework Thematic Areas 2017

AGIR Vision

To contribute to a Mozambican society where its citizens, particularly also presently marginalized groups, fully enjoy their rights to inclusion and equity, to retribution

of wealth created from the country’s patrimony, to accessible and affordable public services of good quality, to basic civil freedoms and to political representation

and participation; in a peaceful and ecologically sustainable environment.

AGIR Mission

To contribute to the emergence of an active, strong and vibrant civil society in Mozambique, who legitimately raise and channel the voice of the female and male

rights holders who are at present being politically, socially and economically marginalized, secure their access to all information they need to exercise their civil

rights, and effectively participating in and influencing the course of policy decision-making process and accountability of the duty bearers for a transparent,

democratic, inclusive, gender just and human rights sensitive governance.

We Effect Sub-Programme Impact

Secured benefits for rights-holders from use of land and natural resources, enjoy safe and healthy environment and reduced negative climate change impact.

Results Indicators Baseline

2015

Acheived

2016

Acheived

2017

Cumulative

2015 + 16 +

17

Target values

(cumulative) Means of verification Partner

s 2017

1. RIGHT TO LAND

Our goal: Empowered partner organisations that support the rights of people in poverty to land, secure land tenure, and sustainable management of natural

resources.

Long term outcomes

1.1 Increased

community benefits

from their land and

natural resources

1.1.1 # of

investments being

implemented in targeted

communities which are in

compliance with

community investment

benefit agreements (20%

natural resources, 2,75%

mining, employment,

other partnership

agreeements)

2 6 15 23 14

Reports/Records AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

Livanin

go

1.1.2 # of

investments where

community investment

agreements were signed

before implementation

2 2 9 13 9

Reports/Records AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

Livanin

go

1.2 Improved policy on

land and natural

resources 1.2.1 # of key

documents (policies,

laws, strategies, decrees)

promoting right to land

adopted

8 13 5 26 25

Reports/ Records AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

UNAC,

OMR

% of the adopted key

documents that address

women's needs

Not measured before

2017 40% 8% 10%

Reports/ Records AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

UNAC,

OMR

Intermediate and short term outcomes

1.3 Increased

community

participation and

control over their land

and natural resources

1.3.1 # of

communities with

functional natural

resource management

committées

111 43 151 305 160

Reports/ Records AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ABIODE

S,

Livanin

go,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

UNAC

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records

AENA,

AAAJC,

AMA,

ABIODE

S,

Livanin

go,

ORAM,

CTV,

JA!,

UNAC

# of male and female

participants in the

committes

Not measured before

2017

9

2

7

1

7

1

7

2

64

4

92

7

1

71

7

2

64

4

1.3.2 # of

targeted communities

with land certificates

743 41 58 842 830

Official documents and

statistics from iTC

ORAM,

UPCT,

CTV, JA

1.3.3 # of

targeted community

members with secure

land tenure (land

certificates or title deeds)

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records ORAM,

CTV

5

4

7

2

12

6

6

3

1

3

6

9

7

9

13

29

2

1

4

1

2

5

1

1

3

4

0

25

46

5

20

49

2

18

39

1

38

88

3

6 800

7

8

0

0

14

60

0

1.4 Increased

community awareness

of their right to Land

and natural resources

1.4.1 % of

targeted community

members aware of their

right to land and natural

resources (men/women)

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

80

Only

measured

through

survey mid-

and end-

term

60 70 75 8

2 82

Survey All

partner

s

1.5 Increased dialouge

on land and natural

resource issues 1.5.1 # of

dialogue sessions

between rights holders

and duty bearers

57 69 130 256 170

Reports/ Records UNAC,

ORAM,

CTV,

AENA,

AAAJC,

JA!,

OMR,

UPCT,

Livanin

go,

AMA,

Udeba-

Lab,

ABIODE

S

Outputs

1.6 Improved capacity

of CSO's in lobby and

advocacy

1.6.1 # of land

and natural resource

advocacy

publications/position

papers etc written by

partners

76 39 81 196 145

Reports/ Records JA!,

OMR,

CTV,

AENA,

UNAC,

ORAM

% of advocacy papers

focusing on women land

rights issues

Not measured before

2017 32% 13% 20%

Reports/ Records JA!,

OMR,

CTV,

AENA,

UNAC,

ORAM

1.6.2 # of

proposals made by

partners for policy and

legislation change

18 7 13 38 33

Reports/ Records JA!,

OMR,

CTV,

AENA,

UNAC,

ORAM

1.6.3 # of

policy actions by partners

(demonstrations,

marches etc.)

131 22 25 178 200

Reports/ Records UNAC,

ORAM,

CTV,

AENA,

AAAJC,

JA!,

OMR,

UPCT,

Livanin

go,

AMA,

ABIODE

S

1.7 Increased

knowledge of right to

land and natural

resources

1.7.1 # of

participants at

workshops/ training

sessions

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records All

partner

s 2

8

6

8

2

3

2

5

5

19

3

3

0

6

6

4

7

0

7

7

77

3

1

1

1

7

4

1

7

5

0

6

28

68

0

17

10

8

24

53

8

41

64

6

6 500

7

5

0

0

14

00

0

1.8 Improved

collaboration between

CSO's

1.8.1 # of active

global, regional and

national land rights'

networks in which

partners participate

13 57 72 72 65

Reports/ Records All

partner

s

Results Indicators Baseline

2015

Acheived

2016

Acheived

2017

Cumulative

2015 +

2016 +

2017

Target values

(cumulative) Means of verification

Partner

s 2017

2. RIGHT TO FOOD

Our goal; Empowered farmer organisations defending the right of everyone to safe and nourishing food in accordance with the right to a balanced diet and the

fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger

Long term outcomes

2.1 Improved policies

for small scale farmers

and their right to food

2.1.1 # of key

documents promoting

right to food adopted

4 10 2 16 16

Reports/ Records UNAC,

OMR,

ORAM,

AMPCM

, AENA

2.2 Increased

agricultural production ♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

2.2.1 # of

farmers that have

adopted practices aimed

at improving agricultural

production

13 299 4 848

8

2

9

1

7

9

3

7

16

22

8

34 375 1 000

1

0

0

0

20

14

7

Survey UNAC,

ORAM,

AENA,

ABIODE

S,

AMPCM

, UPCT

2.2.2 Total

volume of agricultural

produce (tons)

125 1 717 1 779 3 621 2 000

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

2.2.3 Average

volume of agricultural

produce per farmer (tons)

20 8,90 31 60 29

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

2.2.4 Volume of

agricultural produce per

hectare (tons)

3 4,95 16 24 3

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

Intermediate and short term outcomes

2.3 Increased dialouge

on land and natural

resource issues

2.3.1 # of

dialogue sessions

between rights holders

and duty bearers

28 66 88 182 140

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

, OMR

2.4 Increased

community action in

defending

beneficiaries right to

food

2.4.1 % of men

and women that are

engaged in defending

their right to food

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Survey AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM 1

3

1

8 30

Only

measured

through

survey mid-

and end-

term

2

8

3

3

61

41 51

9

2 20

3

5 55

2.4.2 # of actions

undertaken by rights

holders to defend the

right to food

7 21 13 41 34

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

2.5 Improved capacity

of CSO's in lobby and

advocacy

2.5.1 # of

proposals made by

partners for policy and

legislation change

4 8 6 18 18

Reports/ Records AENA,

UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

, OMR

2.5.2 # of right

to food advocacy

publications written by

partners

8 24 19 51 42

Reports/ Records AENA,

UNAC,

ORAM,

AMPCM

, OMR

2.5.3 # of

advocacy processes and

events

11 29 73 113 45

Reports/ Records UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

OMR,

UPCT

% of advocacy processes

and events that address

women's right to food

issues

Not measured before

2017 32% 20% 25%

Reports/ Records UPCT,

UNAC,

ORAM,

OMR,

UPCT

Outputs

2.6 Increased

knowledge on better

nutrition, agricultural

production and right to

food

2.6.1 # of

participants at

workshops/ training

sessions

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records AENA,

ABIODE

S,

UPCT,

ORAM,

UNAC,

AMA,

AMPCM

, OMR

2

1

4

1

3

1

9

3

5

33

4

2

6

8

4

2

7

8

2

5

46

6

3

2

2

7

4

6

1

9

7

84

6

8

05

2

10

59

4

18

64

6

3 000

3

0

0

0

6

00

0

2.7 Improved

collaboration between

CSO's

2.7.1 # of active

national, regional and

global right to food

networks of which partner

participate

2 14 22 22 16

Reports/ Records AMPCM

, ORAM,

UNAC,

OMR,

ABIODE

S, AENA

Results Indicators Baseline

2015

Acheived

2016

Acheived

2017

Cumulative

2015 +

2016 +

2017

Target values

(cumulative) Means of verification

Partner

s 2017

3. RIGHT TO A SAFE, HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IN ECOLOGICAL BALANCE

Our goal: Empowered partner organisations defending the right of people to a safe and healthy environment in ecological balance, today and for future generations

Long term outcomes

3.1 Improved

environmental

protection and forest

management

3.1.1 hectares of

targeted for reforestation

were trees/mangal have

been planted

178 16 28 222 200

Reports/ Records AMA,

AENA,

Udeba-

Lab,

ABIODE

S

3.1.2 hectars of

land affected by

uncontrolled burning

101 27 8 136 140

Reports/ Records ABIODE

S,

Udeba

3.1.3 # of

environmentally protected

areas where partners

have interventions

13 20 20 53 55

Reports/ Records CTV, JA!

3.2 Increased

efficiency and

sustainability of water

and energy

3.2.1 # of

households adopting

sustainable energy

technologies (energy

saving cook stoves, solar

lamps etc. )

13 330 4 150 5 906 23 386 25 000

Survey, Reports/Records Livanin

go,

AMPCM

, UNAC

3.3 Increased

adoption of

sustainable

agricultural production

methods

3.3.1 # of

farmers adopting

sustainable agriculture

production practices

(drought resistant plants,

conservation agriculture

etc)

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Survey, Reports/Records UPCT,

UNAC,

AENA,

ORAM,

ABIODE

S 22 891

3

2

7

7

2

7

6

0

28

92

8

9

3

3

2

1

0

4

6

8

19

80

0

71

61

9

6 500

6

5

0

0

35

89

1

3.4 Improved

environmental policies

3.4.1 # of

environmental policies

successfully lobbied and

advocated for

68 0 4 72 71

Reports/ Records Livanin

go, CTV,

JA!

3.4.2 # of PLA's

(Local Adaptation Plans)

processes in which

partners participated

5 3 3 11 11

Reports/ Records AENA,

AMA,

ABIODE

S

# of PLA's that are being

monitored by partners

Not measured before

2017 6 6 15

Reports/ Records AENA,

AMA,

ABIODE

S

Intermediate and short term outcomes

3.5 Increased dialouge

on enviornment and

climate change

3.5.1 # of

meetings between

partners and duty bearers

15 26 41 82 45

Reports/ Records All

partner

s

3.5.2 # of

participants in meetings

with duty bearers (for

example when planning

and implementing PLA's,

other meetings regarding

environment issues)

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records UNAC,

UPCT,

AENA,

AMA,

ABIODE

S, CTV,

JA!,

Livanin

go,

AAAJC,

OMR

1

5

5

5

1

4

0

7

2

96

2

6

7

3

3

7

7

1

05

0

2

4

9

2

4

0

48

9

24

77

20

24

4

50

1

2 700

2

3

0

0

5

00

0

3.6 Improved capacity

of CSO's in lobby and

advocacy

3.6.1 # of

proposals made by

partners for policy and

legislation change

4 7 9 20 14

Reports/ Records JA!, CTV

3.6.2 # of

enviornment advocacy

publications written by

partners

8 28 18 54 46

Reports/ Records JA!,

CTV,

Livanin

go,

AENA

3.6.3 # of actions

partners undertake to

monitor implementation

of environment impact

assessments

34 12 8 54 58

Reports/ Records UNAC,

UPCT,

AENA,

AMA,

ABIODE

S, CTV,

JA!,

Livanin

go,

AAAJC,

OMR

Outputs

3.7 Increased

knowledge of

environmental

protection and climate

change adaption 3.7.1 # of

participants at

workshops/ training

sessions

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records UNAC,

UPCT,

AENA,

AMA,

ABIODE

S, CTV,

JA!,

Livanin

go,

AAAJC,

OMR

1

2

2

8

1

5

3

1

2

75

9

4

3

0

3

3

9

0

3

8

20

6

3

6

9

6

3

8

8

7

7

58

3

9

22

7

9

32

1

18

54

8

5 931

5

8

3

4

11

76

5

3.8 Improved

collaboration between

CSO's

3.8.1 # of active

national, regional and

global environment

networks in which partner

participate

2 15 37 37 10

Reports/ Records All

partner

s

4. STUDY CIRCLES - ALL THEMATIC AREAS

Our goal: Empowered partner organisations using study circles as a ethod to acheieve thematic results

Intermediate and short term outcomes

4.6 Formation and

strenghtening of study

circles 4.5.1 # of active

participants in study

circles

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

5

9

6

5

2

64

8

1

0

5

1

8

1

59

5

2

0

1

0

3

08

2

3

73

2

1

59

3

5

32

5

2 173

8

7

0

3

04

3

7

7

5

9

2

3

Circle

method

ology

4.5.2 # of

functional study circles 58 195 210 463 303

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

4.5.3 # of study

circle leaders

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

18

0

19

6

21

0

21

0

35

0

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

Outputs

4.7 Formation and

strenghtening of study

circles

4.6.1 # of people

trained in different areas

using the study cicle

approach

♀ ♂ To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

To

tal ♀ ♂

Tot

al

5

9

6

5

2

64

8

1

8

1

7

7

5

8

2

57

5

1

0

2

3

2

0

5

9

3

07

0

1

02

3

2

05

9

3

07

0

500

5

0

0

1

00

0

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

4.6.2 % of

training participants

giving a positive rating of

the trainings conducted

TO BE ESTABLISHED 2018

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

4.6.3 # of study

materials produced by

partners

0 0 5 5 10

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

4.6.4 % of

partners using the study

circle methodology as a

training method

10 53 53 53 50

Reports/ Records All

partner

s using

the

Study

Circle

method

ology

Annex 2: Logical Framework Capacity Development 2017, We Effect POs

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

5.1 POs16 are considered democratic, well governed, legitimate by their members and support base, accountable and apply strong management practices

% of POs with approved strategic and operational plans

100 % (13/13) 100 % (13/13) 100 % (13/13)

100% (X/X) POs Annual Plans and Reports

% of POs holding regular (annual) general meetings according to the frequency in their statutes

84 % (11/13)

100 % (13/13) 100 % (13/13)

95% (X/X)

General Assemblies minutes

% of POs with unqualified audit reports

100% (13/13)

100 % (13/13) 100 % (13/13)

80% (X/X) POs Audit Reports; IPOs staff monitoring visit reports

% of POs that produce and share consolidated plans and reports through their website

23% (3/13)

38 % (5/13)

38 % (5/13)17

70% (X/X) POs websites

% of PO’s with at least 50%

of members paying quotas

38 % (5/13)18 23 % (3/13) 46 % (6/13)19

50 % (X/X) PO Reports

16 POs in this framework refer to partners receiving core support from We Effect 17 AENA, AMA, CTV, ORAM, UNAC 18 OMR, AENA, AMPCM, ORAM, Udeba-Lab 19 AAAJC, AENA, OMR. UNAC, UPCT. The average % for all partners was 27 %.

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

% of POs that deliver

reports (narrative,

financial and audit) within

the deadline

100 % (13/13)

0 % (0/13) 0 % (0/13)20

95 % (X/X) Intermediary records and assessments of reports

5.1.1 POs capacity strengthened in good governance of their organisations

% POs underwent capacity building in good governance of their organisations

100 % (13/13)

Annual: 46 % (5/13) Cumulative: 100% (13/13)

Annual: 100 % (13/13)21 Cumulative: 100% (13/13)

Annual: 100 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 100 % (X/X)

Capacity building assessments; 5C assessment

5.1.2 POs internal governance, accountability and transparency strengthened

% of social organs of all POs actors meet as per regularity specified in their statues

100 % (13/13)

100% (13/13) 100% (13/13)

100 % (X/X) General Assemblies minutes; monitoring visit reports; Reports of internal meetings of social organs.

% of partners whose

reports (narrative,

financial and audit) were

approved by the general

assembly

100 % (13/13)

100% (13/13) 100% (13/13)

100 % (X/X) General Assemblies minutes; Monitoring visit reports; Reports of internal meetings of social organs.

20 Narrative: All POs within deadline, Financial: 1/13 within deadline (Udeba-Lab), Audits: No POs within deadline 21 Octagons Assessments and actions plans were done with all 13 POs.

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

5.1.3: POs capacity strengthened in financial, HRM and results-based management

%POs underwent capacity building in financial, HRM, and RBM management

100% (13/13)

Annual: 31 % (4/13) Cumulative: 100% (13/13)

Annual: 15 % (2/13)22 Cumulative: 100% (13/13)

Annual: 100 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 100 % (X/X)

Capacity building assessments; 5C assessment, FSA reports

POs average % dependency of AGIR

33.5% 32,7 % 32,7 %23

45 % Financial reports

% of POs with M&E systems in place

100 % (13/13) 54 % (7/13) 62 % (8/13)24

90 % (X/X) POs Annual Plans and Reports, M&E meeting minutes

5.1.4 Members participate in strategic planning exercise

% POs that include members in their strategic planning process

100 % (13/13)

92 % (12/13) 100 % (13/13)

100 % (X/X) POs Annual Plans and Reports, minutes

5.1.5 POs strengthened to mainstream environment and climate change in their strategic and operational plans

% of POs that include mainstream environment and climate change in their strategic and operational plans and internal documents

100 % (13/13) Annual: 100 %

(13/13) Cumulative:100 % (13/13)

Annual: 100 % (13/13) Cumulative:100 % (13/13)

Annual: 15 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 60% (X/X)

Reports of capacity building assessments

22 All 13 POs underwent training in RBM. 8 POs underwent training in financial management. Only 2 POs underwent training in all three areas (AENA, AMA, CTV). 23 Average administrative contribution by We Effect: 39 % 24 ABIODES, AMA, AENA, CTV, JA!, OMR, ORAM, Udeba-Lab

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

5.1.6 Partners have their anti-corruption policies and implement them

% of POs that have internal anti-corruption policies in place

7 % (1/13)25 69 % (9/13)

77 % (10/13)26

Annual: 10 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 30 % (X/X)

POs Anti-Corruption Internal Policies

5.2 Strengthened gender mainstreaming among AGIR POs at programme and activity level, as well as in the work place

% of POs that have gender equality policies formulated

69% (9/13)

Annual: 84 % (11/13) Cumulative: 84 % (11/13)

Annual: 84 % (11/13) 27 Cumulative: 84 % (11/13)

Annual: 10 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 75% (X/X)

POs Gender Internal Policies Reports of capacity building assessments

% of partners doing gender analysis in project or programme strategic documents

46 % (6/13)

Annual: 69 % (9/13) Cumulative: 69 % (9/13)

Annual: 77 % (10/13) Cumulative: 77 % (10/13)28

Annual: 10 % (X/X)

Cumulative: 75% (X/X)

Reports of capacity building assessments

% of POs involved in regional initiatives on gender issues

23% (3/13)

46 % (6/13) 54 % (7/13)29

30% (X/X) Gender Link reports SADC gender Protocol Barometer

25 CTV 26 These refer to articles in human resource policies etc. No partner has a stand-alone policy for anti-corruption. The 1+ PO’s are: AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, CTV, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, Livaningo 27 AAAJC, AENA, ABIODES, CTV, JA, Livaningo, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT 28 AAAJC, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, CTV, JÁ!, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT 29 AAAJC, AENA, AMA, JA!, ORAM, UDEBA-LAB, UNAC

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

% of partners with at least 50% of women working and represented in leadership decision- making positions

46 % (6/13)

15 % (2/13)

8 % (1/13)30

70% (X/X) Annual plans and report

5.2.1 AGIR POs applying tools to address and monitor progress in regard to promoting gender equality and justice and women’s empowerment

% of partners trained on developing gender indicators, gender disaggregation and gender analysis

0% (0/13)31

100 % (13/13)

Annual:77 % (9/13)32

Cumulative: 100 %

(13/13)

Annual: 60% (X/X)

Cumulative: 70 % (X/X)

IPO monitoring reports

% of partners applying gender indicators, gender disaggregation and gender analysis

0%33 (0/13)

77 % (10/13)

92 % (12/13)34

60% (X/X) POs Annual reports POs Annual Plans

% of partners trained in the system for equitable allocation of funds methodology (FRAS)

7 % (1/13)35 Annual: 92 % (12/13) Cumulative: 92 % (12/13)

Annual: 77 % (10/13)36 Cumulative: 92 % (12/13)

Annual: 80% (X/X)

Cumulative: 81 %

Budget, Financial reports

30 AMA. For 50 % women in leadership positions, the number reaches 6/13. For 50 % women working in the organisation, the number reaches 3/13. 31 Activity was not carried out in 2015 32 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, JA!, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT 33 While some partners have gender indicators other, the majority provide gender desegregated information and very few effectively do gender analyses. 34 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, CTV, JÁ!, Livaningo, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT 35 UNAC 36 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, Livaningo, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

% of partners implementing the system for equitable allocation of funds methodology (FRAS)

7 % (1/13) Annual: 38 % (5/13) Cumulative: 46 % (6/13)

Annual: 69 % (9/13)37 Cumulative: 69 % (9/13)

Annual: 10% (X/X)

Cumulative: 30% (X/X)

POs Annual reports POs Annual Plans

% of partners implementing the system for equitable allocation of funds methodology (FRAS) that reach the 50 % goal

7 % (1/13)

Annual:25 % (3/12)

Cumulative: 25 %(3/12)

Annual: 33 % (3/9) 38 Cumulative: 25 % (3/12)

Annual: 5% (X/X)

Cumulative: 20% (X/X)

Budget and financial reports

5.2.2 Coordination between AGIR POs on gender-sensitive advocacy and dialogue strengthened

# of events/position papers /seminars/campaigns in gender are held by partners per year

1 event39 (All IPO’s)

10

33

3/year (All IPO’s)

Annual reports, position papers

# of policy changes with contribution from CSOs

240 Annual: 1 Cumulative: 3

Annual: 1 41 Cumulative: 4

Annual: 5 Cumulative:

15 (All IPO’s)

POs Annual reports Reports of the events

37 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, ORAM, Udeba-Lab, UNAC, UPCT 38 AAAJC, ABIODES, UNAC, 39 Those events were: Rural Women Fair (ORAM) 40 Prosavana, Terra Segura 41 AENA: Politica e Estrategia do Genero no Sector Mineiro

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

# of staff swapping in between the partners

042 Annual: 0 Cumulative: 0

Annual: 143 Cumulative: 1

Annual: 10 Cumulative:

30 (All IPO’s)

Annual reports

5.3 AGIR partners upscale HIV/AIDs interventions internally & externally and have the capacity to provide an effective response to the right holders

% of POs that have HIV/AIDS policies formulated

46% (6/13)

62 %(8/13) 77 %(10/13)44

80% (X/X) POs HIV Internal Policies Reports of capacity building assessments

% of POs mainstreaming internally and externally HIV/AIDS issues

38% (5/13)

54 % (7/13) 54 % (7/13)45

50% (X/X) Annual report and plans

5.3.1 POs with capacity to mainstream HIV/AIDS

% of POs trained on how to mainstream internally & externally HIV/AIDS

100 % (13/13) Annual: (2/13)

Cumulative: 100 % (13/13)

Annual: 100 % (13/13)46 Cumulative: 100 % (13/13)

Annual: 60% (X/X)

Cumulative: 70 % (X/X)

POs HIV Internal Policies Reports of capacity building assessments

42 No staff swapping occured in 2015 43 AENA with HOPENTA, local organization in Nampula. 44 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, Livaningo, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT, Udeba-Lab 45 AAAJC, AMA, AMPCM, Livanigno, ORAM, UNAC, Udeba-Lab 46 Duiring the training on marganlised groups, a component on HIV/Aids was included

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

5.3.2 POs are innovative, creative and work in strategic partnerships on HIV/AIDS

# of POs engaged in strategic partnerships and networks with HIV/AIDs specialized organizations

0 % (n/a)

31 % (4/13) 31 % (4/13) 47

100 % (All IPO’s)

Annual report and plans

5.4 POs are trained on SRHR and influence for better quality service on SRHRs for women, men, girls and boys

# of SRHR related public policies revised and/or adopted

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

Annual: 1 Cumulative: 3

(All IPO’s)

Annual reports plans

5.4.1 POs strengthened on SRHR and including it in their plans

# of training sessions carried out in SRHR

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

Annual: 1 Cumulative: 1

(All IPO’s)

Training reports

# of relevant partners that include SRHR in their plans

n/a for We Effect n/a for

We Effect n/a for

We Effect

Annual: 2 Cumulative:

16 (All IPO’s)

POs Strategic and operational plans

5.4.2 POs and rights holders have access to information on

# of programs on comprehensive SRHR information to teenagers and youth (girls and boys)

n/a for We Effect n/a for

We Effect n/a for

We Effect

n/a for We Effect

Annual reports & plans

47 AAAJC, ORAM, UPCT, Udeba-Lab

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

SRHR # of events/seminars held promoting SRHR-related issues

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

n/a for We Effect

10 (All IPO’s)

Annual reports & plans

5.5 POs are effective, creative, dynamic, work in networks and are resourceful enough to

# of joint public campaigns organised by POs

248

Annual: 6 Cumulative: 6

Annual: 8 49 Cumulative: 14

Annual: 10 Cumulative:

30 (All IPO’s)

POs annual plans and reports

# of national and regional linkages and networks created among POs

Annual: 4 Cumulative:

19

Annual:36 Cumulative:40

Annual:65 Cumulative:6550

Annual: 5 Cumulative:

20

POs annual plans and reports

48 Climate Change/ COP 21 (Livaningo, JA!) , Prosavana (JÁ!) 49These campaigns were: i) The 2017/19 agricultural campaign (ABIODES, ORAM, KULIMA, UNAC); ii) Open Debate regarding women’s participation in DUAT processes (CTV, OMR); iii) National Conference about the 20th anniversary of the land law (CTV, UNAC, ORAM, CFJJ, JA! FM); iv) Monitoring of coal transport in the Nacala corridor (CTV, ORAM); v) Prosavana (almost all partner involved in various ways) vi) The Campaign Against GMOs (UNAC, ORAM); vii) Campaign against the expansion of the monoculture of Eucalyptus (JA!, UNAC, Livaingo); viii) Campaign for the performance of the agricultural sector in Mozambique (UNAC, OMR).

50 National; Plataforma da Sociedade Civil para os Recursos Naturais e Indústria Extractiva; Plataforma de Mudancas Climaticas; Fórum das Organizações da Sociedade Civil de Cabo Delgado (FOCADE) - Grupo Temático de Recursos Naturais e Ambiente; Fórum de Consultas sobre Terras (FCT); Alianca da Sociedade Civil Contra Usurpacao de Terras (ASCUT); Plataforma das Organizações da Sociedade Civil da Maxixe (POSCM); Fórum Nacional do Mecanismo Africano de Revisão de Pares / Mecanismo de Doação Dedicado às Comunidades Locais (MozDGM); FOEI (Florestas; soberania alimentar; justica climatica; justica economica, plastico, etc); Campanha Nao ao Prosavana; ROSA; Forum Mulher; No REDD in Africa; GMO's; International Rivers; IPEN; Global Forest colituion, GAIA , OilWatch; Plataforma da industria extrativa e de nutrição; Rede HOPEM; Plascite; Alianca das Plataformas; GMD; FOSCAM; JOINT; PPOSCN (Redes de Agricultura e Recursos Naturais, Genero e Governacao), FOCADE, FONAGNI, FONGZA, PIE, FOSCAMC, North Mozambique Chanel (NMC), Alternative Mining Indaba (AMI), Mecanismo para Coordenacao do Corredor de Desenvolvimneto Norte e Iniciativa da Transparencia na Industria Extractiva em Mocambique (ITIEM), ACEP e Mecanismo para Desenvolvimento Sustentavel de Nampula; FOSCAMC. FEDESMO; REDE PARA ORÇAMENTO PARTICIPATIVO; ADVOCACIA SOBRE GREEN RESOURCES; Coligagação Transparência e Justiça Fiscal. MEPT; Forum provincial do ambiente; Forum provincial da Educacao; AMPCM; ASCUT; Reuniões com a FMO, Plataforma das politicas agrarias;Plataforma de Nampula, RADEZA; Forum de ONG de Niassa, FONGA Regional: INDABA, WOMIN, Rede dos Afectados pela Mineracao Tete/ Mpumalanga, Tribunal dos Povos, Forum da Sociedade Civil da SADC, Cupulas dos povos da SADC; Conselho Nacional para SADC; SACAU, La Via Campesina, CONSAN - CPLP e OCPLP; REDSAN-CPLP; SADC Civil Society Organizations; ILC

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

accomplish their mission and vision using innovative technical (websites & social media) tools in their interventions

# of POs thematic knowledge improved by sharing their experience (lesson leaning and best practice) between each other

Annual: 6 Cumulative:

23 Annual:7

Cumulative: 13

Annual: 5 51 Cumulative: 18

Annual: 5 Cumulative:

30

Reports of experience exchange reports

# of position papers released

Annual: 62 Cumulative:

87

Annual: 48 Cumulative:

135

Annual: 28 Cumulative:

163

Annual: 25 Cumulative:

100

Newspaper cuts

% of POs that have functional websites

85% (11/13)52 77 % (10/13) 69 % (9/13)53

60% (X/X) POs webpages

% of POs activist networks to stage their advocacy

23% (3/13)54 Annual: 69 %

(9/13) Cumulative: 69

% (9/13)

Annual: 69 % (9/13)55

Cumulative: 69 % (9/13)

Annual: 5 % (X/X)

Cumulative:30 % (X/X)

POs activists network register; POs activists feeding communications; POs databases

51 The main thematic learning areas were: i) ABIODES with HOPEM regarding men in the kitchen; ii) AMPCM with others: Workshop World Environment Day; iii) Livaningo with others: Empowerment of women event 52 UPCT; AMA; AJC; AMPCM; AENA;CTV; JA!; Livaningo; OMR; ORAM; UNAC 53 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, CTV, Livaningo, OMR, ORAM, UNAC 54 UNAC, Livaningo, ORAM 55 AENA, CTV, JA!, Livaningo, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT, Udeba-Lab

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

% of partner POs that use social media (Facebook, twitter, google, Instagram, blogs) to implement their advocacy and disseminate their results

100 % (13/13)

85 % (11/13)

85 % (12/13)56

70% (X/X) POs social media pages

5.5.1 Improved connections between POs and their provincial delegations

% of core funding contracts signed with POs with clauses on support to provincial branches

100% (13/13)

100% (13/13)

100% (13/13)

72 % (X/X)

Contracts between IPOs and partners

% of PO’s with delegations that transfer part of the fund to their provincial delegations

55% (23/42)57

40 % (4/10) 70 % (7/1058)59 50 % (X/X)

POS budget POs financial and narrative reports

% of POs with delegations that transfer funds that reach the goal of 30 %

0 % (0/13)

10 % (1/10) 10 % (1/10)60

5 % (X/X) POS budget POs financial and narrative reports

5.6 POs benefit from improved

% of partners that have basket funds61

15 % (2/13)62 15 % (2/13) 15 % (2/13)63

15 % (X/X) Memorandum of Understanding

56 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA, AMPCM, CTV JÁ!, Livaningo, OMR, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT 57 Unfortunately, the specific information regarding We Effect POs is missing for the baseline 58 POs with delegations: UNAC, ORAM, CTV, AENA, ABIODES, AMPCM, JA!, Livaningo, Udeba-Lab, UPCT 59 ABIODES, AENA, AMPCM, ORAM, UNAC, UPCT, Udeba-Lab 60AENA 61 We are considering a basket fund a fund where several donors are contributing with core support to the same bank account, even though there is no donor coordination. 62 CTV, OMR 63 CTV, OMR

Bridging

Outcomes

(in bold)

and

Outputs

(below)

Objectively verifiable

indicators

Baseline (end of

2015)

Achieved 2016

Achieved 2017 Mid-term

Target (Dec 2017)

Means of verification

alignment between donors and application of “good donorship” principles

% of partners that have more than 4 donors

54 % (7/13)64

54 % (7/13) 54 % (7/13)65 50 % (X/X) Financial reports

% of POs that benefit from regular (at least one per semester) donor meetings

31% (4/13)66 31% (4/13)

31% (4/13)67

50% (X/X) Donor meeting minutes

% of partners producing only one plan/budget and reports to their donors

46 % (6/13)68 85 % (11/13) 85 % (12/13)69

65 % (X/X) POs plans and reports

64 AAAJC, AENA, UNAC, CTV, Livaningo, ORAM, JA! 65 AAAJC, ABIODES, AENA, AMA,AMPCM, CTV, JÁ!. UNAC 66 UNAC, Livaningo, CTV, OMR 67 AAAJC, CTV, OMR, UNAC 68 OMR, JA!, CTV, Udeba-Lab, Abiodes, AENA 69 AAAJC, AENA, ABIODES, UPCT, UNAC, Livaningo, Udeba-Lab, CTV, JA!, ORAM, OMR, AMPCM

Annex 3: Follow-up on Risk Register 2017 (as approved in the 2017 Annual Plan)

We Effect NACE Thematic Risk Register 2017 Risk Identification Risk Assessment Risk Management Risk Follow-Up

No. Identified Risk / Scenario

Risk Description Category Impact (I)

Probability (P)

Risk score (I*P)

Existing measures Proposed action Responsible

Follow-up on 2017’s Risk Management (April 2018)

RISKS LINKED TO GOAL 1: RIGHT TO LAND

Our goal: Empowered partner organisations that support the rights of people in poverty to land, secure land tenure, and sustainable management of natural resources.

1 (NEW)

Corporations unwilling to sign/comply with investment agreements

Some larger corporations have proven unwilling to sign and implement community investment agreements. This might remain the same despite efforts from POs. This would lead to poor results achievement and unfair conditions for the communities in which these corporate projects are being implemented.

Operations 4 – Critical

3 - Average

12 We Effect promotes dialogue sessions between private sector and POs through establishment of links between actors and various capacity building actions that will increase PO capacity to dialogue.

Maintain existing actions and add discussion and sharing of success stories and challenges with partners (during M&E visits, partner meeting, consultative forum etc.)

Programme Officers

Joint training on lobby and advocacy held in 2017 that contributed to increased PO capacity to dialogue The annual partner meetings, and other meetings with POs, has contributed to strengthened link between POs and more collaboration

2 (NEW)

Inefficiency in land certificate administration

The administration responsible for issuing land certificates is often inefficient and slow. This might delay and complicate land certificates for the NACE beneficiaries, which will affect results achievement and the farmers' situation.

Operations 4 – Critical

3 - Average

12 We Effect is dialoguing with MITADER, POs have linkages with local authorities and include them in the land delimation and demarcation processes.

Maintain existing measures

Programme Officers

We Effect has continuous dialogue with MITADER and are planning a workshop, various meetings have been held with the ministry Progress on the collaboration between POs and local authorities in the delimitation process Several PO networks in function Follow-up on national land programs (Sustenta, Terra Segura)

3 (NEW)

Weak collaboration in joint land right and civil society networks

Joint lobby and advocacy efforts are weak, and is worsening due to lack of funding opportunities. This might lead to double work, uncoordinated efforts, inefficiency, a weaker voice towards the duty bearers and would hence cause poor results achievement in the area of land rights.

Operations 4 – Critical

4 - Probable

16 We Effect is striving to coordinate POs through annual partner meetings, the consultative forum, joint M&E visits and trainings.

A joint lobby and advocacy training will be held with AGIR partners in February. Existing measures will be maintained and emphasized.

Programme Officers

Joint training on lobby and advocacy held in 2017 that contributed to increased PO collaboration The annual partner meetings, and other meetings with POs, has contributed to strengthened link between POs and more collaboration POs reporting more joint events in 2017 (see capacity log frame)

RISKS LINKED TO GOAL 2: RIGHT TO FOOD

Our goal; Empowered farmer organisations defending the right of everyone to safe and nourishing food in accordance with the right to a balanced diet and

the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger

4 (NEW)

Low interest on small scale agriculture by government

Large scale investments are often more attractive for duty bearers. Small scale agriculture might hence be neglected in public policies which will complicate results achievement and negatively affect the farmers' situation.

Strategic 3 - Noticeable

4 - Probable

12 We Effect provides technical support to partners through study circle methodologies, trainings, documentation and sharing of good practices and success stories which will increase the capacity to lobby and advocacy and dialogue with different actors.

Maintain existing measures

Programme Officers

Joint training on lobby and advocacy held in 2017 that contributed to increased PO capacity to collaborate with different actors POs have been trained and are adopting the study circle methodology as a tool to disseminate new sustainable agriculture practices, including conservation agriculture, agroecology, etc. that increased right holders knowledge and production

POs have been encouraged to network and jointly celebrate rural women’s day, food security days, and also to showcase and market their agricultural products and commodities in fairs, Annual AGIR Forum, FACIM, etc. These actions contributes to POs visibility and value of small farmers. The results are also used to enforce policy dialogue on agriculture.

5 (NEW)

Extreme weather conditions such as floods and droughts

Mozambique has been experiencing an increase in extreme weather conditions such as floods and droughts. These events might lead to reduction of agricultural production and productivity which in turn can affect results achievement and also lead to starvation and malnutrition in the country.

Operations 4 - Critical

3 - Average

12 We Effect provides technical support to partners through study circle methodologies, trainings, documentation and sharing of good practices and success stories which will increase the capacity to disseminate appropriate methodologies for resilient farming.

Scale up existing measures and encourage POs to apply for agile funds in agile situations.

Programme Officers

POs have been trained and are adopting the Study Circle methodology as a tool to disseminate new sustainable agriculture practices, including conservation agriculture, agroecology, to mitigate effects of droughts and also improve nutrition practices

6 (NEW)

Competition for land

Large scale investors have more bargaining power than small scale farmers. Farmers might lose their land to investors which will lead to food insecurity and poor results achievement.

Strategic 3 - Noticeable

3 - Average

9 We Effect provides technical support to partners through study circle methodologies, trainings, documentation and sharing of good practices and success stories which will increase the capacity to dialogue with duty bearers and give voice to rights holders.

Maintain existing measures

Programme Officers

Through study circles and other approaches, POs have engaged right holders to discuss the land law order to know and defend their rights, this has contributed to solve land conflicts and secure land to farmers (delimitations and demarcations)

RISKS LINKED TO GOAL 3: RIGHT TO A SAFE, HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IN ECOLOGICAL BALANCE

Our goal: Empowered partner organisations defending the right of people to a safe and healthy environment in ecological balance, today and for future generations

7 (NEW)

Unsustainable use of forestry resources

Throughout Mozambique, communities and companies are clear-cutting vegetated areas (trees/mangal). This might reduce areas covered with vegetation, affecting the environment and communities negatively.

Operations 4 - Critical

3 - Average

4 We Effect provides technical support to partners through study circle methodologies, trainings, documentation and sharing of good practices and success stories which will increase PO capacity to raise awareness of the need of trees and mangroves, encouraging replantation and protection of vegetation and sustainable use of trees and other plants.

Scale up existing measures and encourage POs to apply for agile funds in agile situations.

Programme Officers

Some POs such as Udeba-Lab and ABIODES are using study circles to raise awareness on environment (coastal zone management, mangroves management, reforestation). One PO, AAAJC, applied for an agil fund to stop unstainable use of forestry in Magoe District in Tete and also to lobby with government to stop illegal exploitation in a buffer zone area.

8 (NEW)

Extreme weather conditions might lead to unsustainable use of conservation areas

Mozambique has suffered from draught and floods and is likely to do so again. This might force people to search for alternative land/resources, and end up using conservation areas or areas with weak eco systems. This will have a negative impact on the environment.

Operations 3 - Noticeable

3 - Average

9 We Effect provides technical support to partners through study circle methodologies, trainings, documentation and sharing of good practices and success stories which will increase PO capacity to initiative and support community awareness of conservation areas, diversified income sources and joint efforts in community nautral resource committees.

Maintain existing measures

Programme Officers

See risk 5

9 (NEW)

Lack of/weak community consultation in PLA's

There have been cases when PLA's are elaborated without, or with weak, prior community consultation. This might result in PLA's that do not reflect the real needs and risks of the community. This will imply weak preparadeness of communities in case of extreme weather conditions.

Strategic 3 - Noticeable

3 - Average

9 We Effect encourages POs and government to have regular dialouge sessions. We Effect also share best practices and success stories between POs to learn from each other in terms of PLA processes.

A joint lobby and advocacy training will be held with AGIR partners in February. Existing measures will be maintained and emphasized.

Programme Officers

Joint training on lobby and advocacy held in 2017 that contributed to increased PO capacity to dialogue

1 - Unimportant 1 - Improbable

2 - Small 2 - Very seldom

3 - Noticeable

3 - Average

4 - Critical

4 - Probable

5 - Existence threatening 5 - Almost certain

Annex 4: Current Composition of the Sub-Programme

# Partner Category of

PO

Geographic

Coverage 2015-

2017

Budget and

funding

mechanism

Operational area as per strategy

plan

Fulfilment of vision for partnership

1. AAAJC CSO and

services

providers

Province: Tete.

Districts: Moatize,

Changara, Magoe,

Cahora Bassa,

Cidade de Tete,

Zumbo, Chiúta,

Tsangano, Angónia,

Macanga (10

Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Land and natural

resources management

Extractive industry

Transparency and local

governance

Capacity building of local

communities

Legal assistance to

communities

Core funding to AAAJC contributed to

expand their support to communities

affected mining but also increase the quality

of support provided. The PO grew beyond

our expectation. The PO expanded funding

base and increased its networks. POs has

now to address challenges related to their

rapid growth by improving and adapting

management and internal control systems,

hire more qualified staff. This needs to be

well addressed as it might bring

sustainability issues. AAAJC had, in 2017

four donors of which one is providing non

earmarked budget funding and the rest

earmarked budget funding and project

funding. In 2015 AAAJC depdended on

almost 100% but 2017 relied on 68% of

fund provided by AGIR-NACE and

prospects indicate that it will be lower. We

Effect assesses this partnership has having

been of the best since the contribution

provided has strengthened a province

based organisation that is providing

valuable support to communities whose

livelihoods are endangered by the mining

sector. AAAJC value addition on the use of

their skills as paralegal to empower local

communities to defend their rights.

2 ABIODES CSO and

services

providers

Provinces: Maputo,

Gaza, Inhambane.

Districts: Magude,

Marrachene,

Cidade de Maputo,

Chicualacuala

Inharrime, Jangamo

(7 districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Lobby and advocacy for

sustainable development

Sustainable agriculture

Environment and climate

change

Energy

Inclusive business

Capacity building of local

organizations

We Effect aimed at a long term partnership

with ABIODES. The organisation´s value

addition on innovations for climate change

adaptation and resilience as well as

expertise on sustainable agriculture

practices has contributed for the

achievement of the NACE result areas.

ABIODES has been passing on knowledge

to local communities on strategies to

mitigate and adapt to climate changes. The

organisation’s governance systems are

steady. The organizations had in 2017 seve

donors. Out of which only We Effect/AGIR

is providing non-earmarked budged

support. The rest are providing earmarked

budget support and project funding. 11% to

the total funds to the organization come

from NACE-AGIR.

3 AENA CSO and

services

providers

Provinces:

Nampula (HQ),

Zambézia, Cabo

Delgado, Niassa,

Cidade de Maputo

Districts: Moma,

Angoche, Meconta,

Mossuril,

Mogovolas,

Mongicual,

Monapo, Larde,

Pembane,

Montepuez, Muede,

Mocimboa da Praia,

Sanga, Mecula,

Ribuea, Malema,

Muecate, Monapo,

Core funding

Budget:

Rural extension on

agriculture and natural

resources;

Environment and climate

change;

Food security;

Lobby and advocacy;

Gender mainstreaming;

AENA has grown as an organization. It is

among the best in as far as internal

governance and administration and

management systems. AENA is excellent

relations with the communities they work

with and have increased the numbers of

districts they are working with from 13 in

2015 to 25 in 2017. AENA has a focal point

in Maputo whose work is to coordinate

policy advocacy and national level. AENA

has broadened its funding base. AENA had

4 donors that are supporting 8 projects. 5 of

these donors are supporting AENA´s

strategic plan directly. We Effect is the only

donors providing core funding (non-

earmarked budget support). 17% of

AENA´s budget is funded by NACE-AGIR.

We Effect value highly the partnership with

Memba, Rapale,

Alto Molóque,

Gurue,

Mecanhelas,

Cuamba, Cidade de

Maputo (25 districs)

ARENA. The organisation is delivering

good results in relevant areas and it is

growing steadily.

4 AMA CSO and

services

providers

Province: Cabo

Delgado.

Districts: Ibo,

Quissanga,

Macomia, Ancuabe,

Montepuez and

Mecufi (6 Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Food security

Environment education

Hygiene and sanitation

Natural Resources

management

When We Effect started partnership with

AMA the organisation had no strategic plan

and relied on disperse and uncoordinated

projects. AMA has approved a strategy that

has allow a more strategic vision of the

organisation in the province. Most project

are now aligned to the strategy. AMA has 9

projects focusing on the different

operational areas. One of this projects

focus on institutional development (DIDI)

and is funded by AGIR/Diakonia. Funding

from the latter corresponds to 9% of the

overall budget of AMA. The organisation is

contributing to the achievement of the

NACE results areas

5 AMPCM Rights

holders

organisations

AMPCM has 24

member

cooperatives in all

provinces

Core funding

Budget:

Improve cooperatives

environment

Environmental education

Recycling

Build and support

cooperatives

Sustainable agriculture

We Effecting kept a long term partnership

with AMPCM to support in building the

cooperative movement in areas that are

relevant to the subprogramme. During the

period the organisation has been able to

build processes that are leading to

improvement of the cooperatives’ legal

framework. AMPCM had 7 donors during

the period. All except We Effect provided

earmarked budget support. 52% of the

organisation´s budget was funded by We

Effect/ AGIR

6 CTV CSO and

services

providers

Provinces: Maputo,

Gaza, Inhambane,

Manica, Cabo-

Delgado

Districts: Mansigir,

Inharrime,

Jangamo,

Homoíne, Maxixe,

Inhamabane,

Zavala, Xai-Xai,

Palma, Barué,

Catandica, Cidade

de Chimoio, Palma

(14 Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Monitoring environmental

governance;

Natural resources

Land, forestry and

biodiversity;

Environmental awareness

and education;

Gender , HIV and Natural

Resources

Long-term partnership with CTV has

contributed in improving internal

management systems and governance.

The organisation has very qualified staff

that combine both research and evidence

based policy advocacy and support local

communities to defent their rights. During

the period CTV has had13 donors. NACE-

AGIR and SDC are providing non-

earmarked budget support (core funding)

and all the other donors a providing

earmarked budge support. 23% of CTV

budget is funded by We Effect.

7 JA CSO and

services

providers

Provinces: Maputo,

Tete, Zambézia

Districts: Matola,

Matutuíne, Xai-Xai,

Moatize, Lugela,

Mocuba, Manganja

da Costa (7

Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Lobby and advocacy;

Land rights;

Community

Empowerment;

Industrial pollution;

Environment;

Water management

(dames and basins);

Biodiversity conservation;

JA Undertakes evidence base policy and

advocacy and empowers communities

affected by land based investment and

industrial pollution to protects their rights.

Challenges openly the development

paradigm that affects negatively the poor

and marginalized. JA uses international

platforms to access knowledge and

evidence to support advocacy actions in the

country

JA had 10 donors during the period. 3 are

providing non-earmarked budget support, 1

earmarked budget support and the rest a

providing project support. 52% of AGIR

budget is funded by We Effect/ AGIR. JA!

The organisation will need to improve

internal governance issues.

8 LIVANINGO CSO and

services

providers

Provinces:

Maputo, Zambézia

and Nampula:

Core funding

Budget:

Sustainable Urban Development

The organization additional value on

sustainable Urban development, renewable

energy, monitoring of environment impact

assessment, and climate change has

Districts:

Kamaxaquene,

Matola, Boane,

Manhiça (4

Districts)

Monitoring of implementation of large projects

Good governance and accountability in Natural Resource Management.

Risk reduction on natural disasters and Climate Change

Gender and HIV

contributed to The AGIR Programme.

Livaningo has 4 donors that are supporting

Livaningo`s Strategic Plan directly: 3 of

them provide earmarked support and We

Effect is providing core funding. Currently

Livaningo depends on 42.32% of Funds

provided by NACE

9 OMR Think tank

research

institution

OMR is Maputo

based but sends out

researchers to

various parts of the

country

Core funding

Budget:

Research and debate on

the agriculture sector;

extractive industry; natural

resources and environment

management

OMR produces evidence for policy

advocacy which is being used by civil

society, private and public sectors, and in

doing so it is contribution for policy

improvement and change. . OMR has 3

donors. All of them are providing non-

earmarked budge support. SDC and We

Effect have joint funding mechanism and

NACE is providing 8% of the total budget to

the organization.

10 ORAM Rights

holders

organisations

National. With

delegations in all

provinces (except in

Cabo) Delgado),

ORAM works

almost in all

districts.

Core funding

Budget:

Secure access to land, Facilitate sustainable use of

land and natural resources, Strengthen the farmers’

movement and the associative movement in general

Lobby and advocacy Gender an land rights to

Women

The overall goal of ORAM’s strategic plan

2012- 2017 was to strengthen the defence

of the interest of the small scale farmers.

There was a strong linkages between

ORAM’s strategic plan and the NACE

objectives. ORAM work very close to right-

holders. During the period ORAM had 4

donors, of which three focus on Institutional

Development by funding the Strategic Plan

and one is a project on Land Delimitation.

ORAM NACE AGIR dependence is about

32.41%. Towards the end of the last year of

2017, We Effect has identified weaknesses

in the internal management systems that

resulted in the deviation of agreed

disbursement plan in order to prevent

mismanagement until issues in question are

clarified.

11 UDEBA-

LAB

CSO and

services

providers

Province: Gaza.

Districts:Xai-Xai,

Chokwe, Macia,

Manjacaze,

Masingir,

Chicualacuala.

They also had

activities in

Zambezia Province.

(6 Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Promote and consolidate

the school council work,

with focus on local

curricula and

environmental education;

Strengthening the

research center

educations works;

Strengthening the

institutional development

of UDEBA;

We Effect aimed at a long-term partnership

with UDEBA-LAB because it could

influence local curricula, community

awareness and costal management to

improve de quality of life of the right holders

in rural areas. It has got clear vision and

mission, and legitimacy is very high; very

close to rights-holders; interventions based

on rights-holders needs and demands;

member of national and international

networks; internal governance and

management

During the period, UDEBA-LAB had four

donors. One of them is core funding and the

remaining are project fund. UDEBA-Lab is

20.57% dependent on funds from We

Effect.

12 UNAC Rights

holders

organisations

UNAC has 10

provincial unions,

65 district unions

Core funding

Budget:

Strengthening of local

farmers organizations;

Agriculture policy;

Access and control land

and natural resources;

Services to increase

production, productivity

and access to market;

Gender and environmental

mainstreaming

Being a member based organization UNAC

has legitimacy and capacity to mobilize

membership into a collective voice in

defence of interest of farmers on key

accountabilities of land, right to foo, natural

resources, climate change. During the

period, UNAC has 12 donors. 3 are

providing earmarked budget support and 1,

WE Effect AGIR, core support. 15% of

UNAC total budged is provided by NACE-

AGIR. UNAC has a broad network but

internal capacity to manage expectation

from different stakeholders, donors

included, needs to be improved

13 UPCT Rights

holders

organisations

With district unions

in 12 out of 13

districts of the

provincet: Angonia,

Cahora- Basa,

Changara,

Chifunde, Chiuta,

Cidade de Tete,

Maravia, Macanga,

Mutarara, Matize,

Tsangano (11

Districts)

Core funding

Budget:

Production and productivity and access to market

Advocacy and Lobby on land and Natural Resources and conflict management

Monitoring of governmental policy , gender , environment and youth

Service provision to

members and institutional

strengthening of UPCT

We Effect had a long term partnership with UPCT. As a member based organization, defending farmers’ rights and interests, UPCT has contributed to empower rural poor to demand accountability to duty bears on their rights to land and also contribute to mitigation of vulnerability and food insecurity by disseminating legislation and other relevant information to right-holders. During the period the organization had 4 donors. One, We- Effect providing non-earmarked budged, two providing earmarked budged and one project. 41.53 % to the total funds to the organization came from NACE-AGIR

Annex 5: We Effect Financial Report 2015 - 2017

All amounts in SEK We Effect Financial Report 2015 -2017 Funds transfers to Partners Budget 2015 2016 2017 Total %

Key Partners 48 620 000 16 078 274 14 741 102 16 029 697 46 849 073 96%

Small Funds 2 431 000 660 763 979 504 3 715 829 5 356 096 220%

Innovative Funds 1 215 500 0 227 982 930 554 1 158 536 95%

Agile Funds 1 215 500 8 951 308 159 1 145 923 1 463 033 120%

Process and Networking 2 431 000 0 0%

Total of Funds transfer to partners 55 913 000 16 747 988 16 256 747 21 822 003 54 826 739 98%

IPO Lead Activity Budget Utalization %

Base-line Study 210 000 210 195 210 195 100%

Travel - Regional meetings, capacity building, thematic training of staff and training for the new IT systems. Planning, follow-up, synergies and networking. 0 0

0%

Civil Society Study and Surveys 600 000 14 520 14 520 2%

Midterm evaluation 0 0 0%

Partners assessment 0 0 0%

Capacity building programmes 1 521 400 503 921 737 553 1 241 474 82%

Thematic training 0 9 453 2 746 12 199 0%

Translations 0 0 0%

Programme communications 66 200 0 0%

Coordination and networking activities 0 19 219 21 818 41 037 0%

Sub-total Other programme costs 2 397 600 253 387 506 667 759 371 1 519 425 63%

AGIR Joint Activities Budget Utalization %

Template Design 5 000 9 979 0 9 979 200%

Joint Capacity Building 225 080 28 280 14 117 42 398 19%

Partner Satisfation Test 218 460 18 477 0 18 477 8%

Consultative Forum 201 910 28 669 197 503 226 172 112%

Comunication and newsletter printing 307 830 7 543 87 134 17 013 111 690 36%

Joint Studies 362 538 0 1 704 1 704 0%

Joint MEAL specialist 274 730 53 821 0 53 821 20%

Joint communication specialist 274 730 4 141 0 4 141 2%

Seminaries Workshops and Exchange Visits 135 710 1 988 5 199 154 548 161 735 119%

Laptops and furniture for Specialists 10 000 0 0%

Sub-total Joint Activities 2 015 988 9 531 235 700 384 886 630 117 31%

MONITORING AND EVALUATION Budget Utalization %

Programme Audit 624 320 192 888 59 842 281 120 533 849 86%

Contribution for audit partner systems 0 0 0%

Partner Forum and M & E Partner workshops 901 200 328 139 301 456 491 255 1 120 850

124%

Critical Friends 0 0 0%

Partner Satisfaction Survey 156 080 0 0%

National travel 398 000 65 988 153 092 338 406 557 487 140%

Regional/International travel 56 745 0 0%

Head office Program Coordination 0 17 733 17 733 0%

Head Office Controller Support 0 0%

Sub-total Monitoring and Evaluation 2 136 345 604 748 514 390 1 110 781 2 229 919 104%

Programme Management and Staff Cost Budget Utalization %

Personnel Costs 6 021 210 1 721 210 1 729 680 2 103 746 5 554 637 29%

Sub-total Personnel Costs 6 021 210 1 721 210 1 729 680 2 103 746 5 554 637 92%

Programme Support Costs Budget Utalization %

Equipment 83 000 35 642 46 840 39 972 122 454 148%

Country Office Operational Costs 2 914 551 924 295 752 724 727 982 2 405 001 83%

Sub-total programme support 2 997 551 959 937 799 564 767 954 2 527 456 84%

Total Programme 71 481 694 20 296 801 20 042 750 26 948 741 67 288 292 94%

Administration Overhead Budget Utalization %

Administration overhead (7% of Total Programme Costs) 5 003 719 1 420 776 1 402 992 1 886 412 4 710 180

94%

Sub-total Administration overhead 5 003 719 1 420 776 1 402 992 1 886 412 4 710 180 94%

GRAND TOTAL 76 485 413 21 717 577 21 445 742 28 835 153 71 998 472 94%

Financed by 2014 Utilization 2015 Utilization 2016 Utilization 2017 Total utilization Balance

Ingoing balance 9 824 494 11 683 184 14 653 681 9 824 494

Swedish Embassy 24 147 000 26 170 000 18 669 000 68 986 000

Repayment to Sida -1 753 761 -1 753 761

Repayment to Danida -570 733 -570 733

Utilization -21 717 577 -21 445 742 -28 835 153 -71 998 472

Balance 9 824 494 11 683 184 14 653 681 4 487 528 4 487 528

Annex 6: List of We Effect partners and utilized funding 2015-2017 (all amounts in SEK)

Name of partner Geographica

l area of

head office

Thematic

area(s)

Funding

utilized

2015

Funding

utilized

2016

Funding

utilized

2017

Innovative

funds to

partner

(state

purpose,

amount and

year)

Agile funds to

partner (state

purpose,

amount and

year)

Total Funding

utilized

2015-2017

Notes

regarding

partner, fx.

phasing

in/out- (state

when changes

have

happened)

Associação de Apoio e

Assistência Jurídica as

Comunidades (AAAJC)

Tete Democracy

and Human

Rights

886,409 854,908 879,066.39 90,574

NRMCs

training on

community

score card

methodology

2,710,957.39

Associação de

Desenvolvimento

Sustentável - ABIODES

Maputo Environment

and climate

change

835,610 769,314 841,067.78

2,445,991.78

Associação de Extensão

Rural - AENA

Nampula Rural

Developmen

t

1,357,803 700,588 587,126.93 13,921.64

Establishme

nt of Digital

platform for

disseminatio

n about

agriculture

information

216,145.61 2,875,585.18

Associação de Maio

Ambiente - AMA

Cabo

Delgado

Environment

and climante

change

779,127 849,375 797,430.34 307,422.71

Secure benefits

(2,75%) to the

2,733,355.05

Namanhumbir

community in

C. Delgado

Associação de

promoção de

Cooperativismo

Moderno - AMPCM

Maputo

Rural

Developmen

t

455,284 1,051,422 1,005,78.29 180,222.76

Improvemen

t of the

AMPCM

website

including the

cooperatives’

data base

366,239.79

Participation

of AMPCM on

53ª FACIM

edition

3,058,950.94

Centro Terra Viva - CTV Maputo Environment

and climate

change

1,956,129 1,560,884 1,906,934.57 5,423,947.57

Justica Ambiental - JA Maputo Land and

natural

resources

2,127,676 1,745,873 1,820,215.86 5,693,764.86

Livaningo Maputo Environment

and climate

change

929,359 904,025 1,027,300.51 685,544.09

International

Conference

against

PROSAVANA

3,546,228.6

Observatório do Meio

Rural - OMR

Maputo Rural

Developmen

t

732,776 662,596 920,813.93 111,091.84

Improvement

of OMR digital

library

2,427,277.77

Associação Rural de

Ajuda Mútua - ORAM

Maputo Rural

Developmen

t

1,531,599 1,585,478 1,470,639.28 4,587,716.28

Unidade de

Desenvolvimento do

Ensino Básico - UDEBA-

LAB

Gaza Environment

and climate

change

1,027,343 894,506 745,750.27 304,464.89

Training

district

platform on

community

score cards

as a tool for

monitoring

117,959.81

Preparation of

the

communities

affected by the

heavy sands

company in

Chibuto

3,090,023.99

União de Camponeses

de Tete - UPCT

Tete Rural

Developmen

t

870,345 817,488 935,091.66 2,622,924.66

União Nacional de

Camponeses de Tete

(UNAC)

Maputo Rural

develpment

and social

economy

2,588,801 2,344,646 3,092,477 8,025,924.48

TOTAL RECEIVED BY PARTNERS 2015 - 2017 49,242,648.55

Annex 7: List of Non-AGIR Partners that Received Small Grants 2015 – 2017

Name of partner Geographical

area of head

office

Thematic area(s) Funding

Utilization 2015

Funding

Utilization 2016

Funding

Utilization 2017

Total funding

Utilization 2015-

2017

AAN (Associação Amigos da

Natureza)

Maputo

Province

Institutional

support(legal

issue, strategic

plan, internal

tools and General

assembly)

177,575 345,878.6 523,453.6

APRODER (Associação para

a Promoção do

Desenvolvimento Rural)

Nampula Legal issues and

community

capacity building

on environmental

mining process

269,376.36 269,376.36

ADECRU (Acção Académica

para o Desenvolvimento das

Comunidades Rurais)

Manica e Sofala Institutional

support 199,475 334,889.57 534,364.57

AMOR (Associação

Moçambicana de

Reciclagem)

Inhambane Environmental

Education

227,992 648,977.56

876,969.56

ADE (Associação

Desenvolver Esperança)

Maputo City Environmental

awareness in

Katembe District

193,647 346,173.73 539,820.73

UPCM (União Provincial dos

Camponeses de Maputo)

Maputo

Province

Institutional

support(General

Assembly and

community

training)

201,782 138,129.74 339,911.74

SINTEL (Sindicato Nacional

Indústria Extractiva)

Tete Institutional

Capacity

207,017 207,017.00

CMA Maputo

Province

Community

capacity on

Sustainable

Agriculture in

Namaacha

District.

165,755.68 165,755.68

NADEC Maputo

Province

Natural

Resources

management and

Land Rights in

Manhiça District

346,051.83 346,051.83

REDE PASTORAL Gaza Participative

management of

345,615.71 345,615.71

Land and NRs in

Bilene District

FONPANA Nampula Institutional

support to

FOPANA and

support to

women’s

empowerment

and voice in the

cotton association

431,831.98 431,831.98

KUBECERA Tete Secure

community rights

on the

exploitation of

their Natural

resources and fair

resettlement due

to bigger

investment in

Moatize district

345,854.15 345,854.15

TOTAL RECEIVED BY PARTNERS 2015 - 2017 1,207,488.00 3,713,122.77

4,923,316.84

Annex 8: We Effect Draft Responses to AGIR Midterm Review

Nr Recommendation Statement and Response

Action and follow-up Responsible

SHORT TERM

1 For the remaining part of the AGIR programme,

the current list of indicators should be critically

assessed and simplified

Partly agree: We Effect undertook revision of

indicators and during the revision of the

subprogramme revision. However we need to

improve gender indicators of the programme

Revise gender

indicators of NACE

Emma – We

Effect

2 The overarching reports for 2017 to 2020 could

be dropped in their current form. One

alternative is to write a short separate report

monitoring and analysing relevant data at the

national/aggregate level that can be used as

points of reference for the lower-level reporting.

Partly agree: Dropping the whole report would

mean losing opportunity to highlight the value

addition of the AGIR as a whole. Perhaps we need

to focus the report on organisational

development, common event, common risk

management and other common processes and a

short analytical report and avoid reporting

similar to the sub-programme reports. The

guidelines could be commonly revised to see how

we can improve both report structures.

Revise AGIR reporting

guidelines

IPOs and EoS

3 At the level of intermediary organisations,

monitoring should more explicitly combine

qualitative and quantitative indicators by (a)

lifting up a limited number of narrative analyses

included in the reporting from POs in a specific

format and (b) focus on quantitative indicators

that are measurable

Partly agree: current reporting is done according

to Guidelines. These need to be revised to allow

implementation of recommendations. It is,

however, good to keep report short and focus on

analysis of results and lessons learned. However,

the current indicators should continuously be

followed-up.

Revise AGIR reporting

guidelines

IPOs and EoS?

4 Annual reports should include an analysis and

assessment of partner organisations, since the

selection and composition of partner

organisations is crucial for programme

performance

Partly agree: Annual reports already include this

information. Not clear what sort of additional

analysis is expected. Introducing a new

assessment is not recommended. We Effect

already conduct and annually follow-up Octagon

assessments.

Clarify

recommendation:

Revise reporting

guidelines

Evaluators

IPOs, EoS

5 Continue with small/agile/innovative funding

modalities, but simplify their procedures.

Partly agree: Small grants pose a high risk

therefore procedures for their access should not

be simpler than they are now. However, a

comparison between IPOs and a time and risk

assessment should be done and possibly guide

new ways of working

Internally “evaluate”

small grants

IPOs and EoS

6 A process towards reducing the number of POs

should be initiated, by separating between (a)

organisations that are assessed to be sustainable

and relevant for continued support after AGIR II

and (b) those that still do not have the necessary

capacity to ‘graduate’ and should be phased out

by giving funding for specific projects that can be

terminated by the end of AGIR II

Do not agree: current criteria for selection POs

are still valuable and have been designed

according to level of civil society development in

Mozambique

MEDIUM TERM

7 In the process of selecting the civil society

organisations eligible for continued support

post AGIR II, care should be taken to find a

balance between Maputo- and provincially

based organisations. Ideally, one civil society

organisation in each of the provinces where

AGIR is active should be identified as candidate

to play an intermediary/lead agency role in a

possible AGIR III in order to secure a more

Partly agree: Agree on balance between Maputo

and provinces. Nevertheless, AGIR POs are

already being encouraged to transfer funds to

their local delegations and focal points in the

provinces to implement action that are within the

realm of their mission and vision. However it

would be very unproductive to assign the role of

intermediary to POs when their mission and

decentralised programme closer to the ultimate

beneficiaries. (IPOs take the lead in consultation

with donors).

systems were not developed with the purpose of

strengthening other organisations.

8 More efforts should be given to coordinate with

other donors supporting civil society in the

remaining phase of AGIR II – particularly those

involved in similar advocacy programmes – in

order to reduce transaction costs

(multiple/different reporting requirements),

avoid overlaps in funding and overstretching the

capacity of the best partner organisations.

Agree: are there any concrete suggestion on the

efforts to be given by the IPOs? We Effect is

already making a lot of effort and has so far

managed to achieve 2 joint funding mechanism.

Success relies a lot on the willingness from the

other donors.

IPOs and EoS

9 AGIR and the other likeminded programmes

should develop a strategy for the eventuality that

the new Law of Associations will copy Ethiopia

and an increasing number of other African

countries and put a cap on the proportion of

external funding allowed for civil society

organisations working through political

advocacy

Partly agree: Advocacy to accomplish civil society

enabling environment and combat civil society

shrinking space should be under POs

responsibility. IPOs and AGIR can play a

supportive role but not take leadership.

10 Assessments should finally be made of the

relevance/possible advantages of including new

donor(s)

Agree. It may not be good that all donors

assemble to fund one programme. Diversity is

important and reduces risk of civil society

dependence on one donor (e.g. impact of the

Mexico City Policy).

LONG TERM. FUTURE SCENARIOS

11 Remove the overarching objectives and common

results framework from AGIR and make it into

Partly agree: It would be unproductive to engage

into this exercise with just a few years remaining

four independent sub programmes with their

own objectives and results. Common and shared

services and activities between the sub

programmes in terms of administrative as well

as professional support can be continued based

on needs

before the end of the programme. Perhaps the

recommendation could be useful for future

similar programmes. However it is important to

consider some sort of coordination especially on

results and processes related to civil society

capacity development, networking, visibility and

context and risk analysis etc.

12 The programme should measure outputs and

short-term outcomes through qualitative and

quantitative indicators, while long-term policy

outcomes and impact should be

measured/analysed separately against relevant

indicators at national level putting the CSO

contributions in context (i.e. together with

international trends, Mozambique’s political

economy, the private sector etc.). With this, it

will be recognised that civil society has

important contributions to change without a

futile search for attribution

Partly agree: AGIR has already outcomes that

could be measured through quantitative and

qualitative indicators. Discussion on this should

focus on the need to improve reporting

mechanisms aiming at showing outcomes and

impacts that the programme is not reporting

fairly. The common overarching indicators, such

as country assessments etc,, could be removed as

they are beyond IPO control.

13 A stronger focus and concentration in terms of

geography/thematic areas and partners have the

potential to be more effective. In such a

scenario, it would be possible to differentiate

between different types of programmes – e.g.

establish separate funding modalities for

different types of organisations: (a) Highly

professional/strong Maputo based CSOs, (b)

National/local networks, (c) Provincial/district

based CSOs in need of more capacity

strengthening. It is essential to establish a

Do not agree: AGIR should respect the principle

of equality. Concentration in the terms presented

seems that some Maputo based organisations are

more professional than the ones based in the

provinces and criteria are not clearly displayed. It

is our understanding that all civil society

organisations be them smaller or bigger,

National, Provincial or locally based, older of

recently established play an equal role in their

own capacity and context and should not be

judged in reference to their location, area of work,

age, etc. It is, however, important to promote

separate modality for reaching more provincial

and local level CSOs – if this becomes a priority

complementarity, articulation and coordination

amongst CSO organisations.

14 While the ‘nationalisation’ of the intermediary

organisations in terms of staff is commendable,

systematic assessments should still be made as

to what extent national civil society

organisations may have “graduated” to a level of

competence and capacity where they can

become future intermediary organisations in

their own right. Several and more differentiated

models could also here be included – one with

national civil society organisations as

intermediary organisations for a selection of

partner organisations and another where

international civil civil society organisations

continue as intermediary organisations based

on their comparative advantages (special

competence) and partner organisations’ needs.

Partly agree: National civil society organisations

could gradually take over the role as

intermediaries. This also is applicable to all other

development areas and sectors. The process of

taking over should, however, be natural and

endogenous, not a creation from AGIR, so as to

avoid that POs deviate from their core businesses

and missions to take over a role that was never in

their plan.

15 The current programme set-up could be

substituted with a multi-donor fund of a type

established in other countries. The fund will be

led by a common secretariat and a governing

board with representatives from donors and

civil society, screening proposals and taking

funding decisions. The fund may have several

thematic priorities/sub programmes, and

should support a combination of short-term (1-2

years) projects and longer-term (3-5 year)

programmes. National and local level civil

Partly agree: We need to be cautious about too

much concentration of funding versus the need to

diversify sources of funding to civil society;

similar experiences in Mozambique tell us that

boards and managers of such big funds can be

easily co-opted or highly influenced or be under

pressure by political agendas; approve support to

civil society on technical basis alone may not help

to contribute to strengthen civil society through

support weaker organisations

society organisations apply for funding based on

technical, budgetary and time guidelines, with

openings for entering into partnership with

external/international partners. The Secretariat

reviews all proposal and suggest/decline

funding. The Secretariat is responsible for

monitoring and evaluation and may also provide

advice and capacity strengthening to national

civil society organisations