Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a support

program to the civil society in Rwanda

PRELIMINARY FINDING DISCUSSION WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

Kigali, 14th of November 2013

Part 1: Theoretical methodological framework

Part 2: Preliminary findings

Part 3: Concluding remarks

Theoretical and Methodological Framework

Part 1

The main categories used in the mapping

An operational concept of CSOs;

A tiered vision of CSOs;

Dynamic view of CSOs structures and processes;

An operational concept of governance;

An operational concept of capacities.

A graphic representation of CSO tiers

Networks Federations

NGO NGOAssociationAssociation

Local grouping

Grass root org. Local

grouping

Second levelorganisations

Formally constitutedNGOs (direct supportor accompanyinggrass rootsorganisations); etc.

Third level org.

Third level org.

Coordinations

Third levelOrg.

cooperativesGrass root

org.Church

cooperatives

Third level organisations

Networks, federations, coordination, associations of churches ...

Church

First levelorganisations

Local associations,grass rootsorganisations;churches andconfessionalmovements; etc.

Capacity building

organisations /training institutions

Fourth level organisations:

platforms, forums, etc

Main methodological features

Participatory approach;

Integration between quantitative and qualitative information;

Integration between information on “factual elements”;

Capitalization of existing knowledge;

Adoption of non statistical methods to foster the representation of differences in the considered universe.

Geographical scope

The mapping considered the whole territory of Rwanda;

Activities have been carried out in Kigali as well as in the 5 Provinces: Rusizi and Rubavu (West) Huye (South) Nyagatare (East) Musanze (North)

Information sources and consultation/data gathering tools

Sources Tools

Documentary sources

1st level CSOs Organisation Fiche Focus group meetings

2nd level CSOs Structured questionnaire

Focus group meetingsIn-depth interviews

3rd level CSOs Analysis greed In –depth interviews

INGOs In-depth interviews Group meetings

Local authorities In-depth interviews

Government bodies In depth interviews

Donors In depth interviews Group meetings

The consulted actors

NGOs CBOs INGOs LAs Gov. bodies

Donors

Rusizi 8 12 3

Huye 11 9 1

Nyagatare 5 8

Musanze 11 13 2

Rubavu 12 18 2

Kigali 10 4 7 3 4

Total 47 64 7 8 3 4

Preliminary Findings

Part 2

The stakes for CSOs in Rwanda making decentralisation work;

fostering social cohesion from below;

supporting innovation processes;

strengthening communication and trust among citizens and public authorities;

facilitating access to information and services in peripheral areas and contributing to social inclusion.

The challenges for CSOs

(re) defining role and position in a changing environment;

avoiding the prevalence of service delivery and reducing dependency from external agendas;

recognition as an autonomous actor;

representation and cohesion within Civil Society;

building the capacity to interact with government and LA and strengthening the capacities for engaging in governance;

recognising and including emerging actors, particularly at grassroots / strengthening the linkage with constituencies.

Spaces for CSOs engagement in governance and policy dialogue

Consultation activities launched by government: law/policy formulation, sector working groups, informal consultation;

Engagement in decentralisation processes: JADF , District/Sector Development Plan, Budget setting and their monitoring and evaluation;

The dissemination of information on rights and public policies;

The exercise of “Voice” functions: collection of complaints, “suggestion boxes”, HR monitoring;

Improving service delivery: Scorecards; Committees for service management;

Improving public policies: support to land reform process UPR a space to be opened.

The differentiated analysis of CSOs

The four levels:

First level organisations

a diffused and multi-faced phenomenon (cooperatives, parents club, church related groups, micro-finance local schemes, students clubs, etc.);

the lack of recognition as actors;

The risk of a role limit to economic activities;

dependency and lack of a capacities;

“de facto” engagement in the governance of common goods at local level;

a large number of organisations but a small number of “strong organisations”;

emergence and decline of “opportunistic NGOs”; lack of recognition as actors; lack of autonomy, dependency and formal structures that

often are under “owners-fathers”; weak linkages with local communities and local actors

(and use of CBOs as beneficiaries rather then recognising them as actors);

shortage of capacities to engage in governance functions; the tendency to stay into a “comfortable space” and to

work isolately and in isolation from other NSAs; high staff turnover and loss of capacities.

Second level organisations

the appearance of very structured CS: many networks and umbrella, mainly at national level but few active member organisations;

unclear functions: representation or project implementation;

lack of autonomy and dependency; the lack of capacity to be a “place for communication” constituencies are seen as “beneficiaries”; emerging conflicts and lack of trust; variable capacities for project implementation but

shortage of capacities to engage in governance; the tendency to stay into “comfortable spaces”.

Third level organisations

Fourth level organisations:

one only platform, but with mixed constituency (and often conflicting interests) and an unclear function: representation or project implementation

no voice, no influence, little capacities;

despite local antennas, lack of capacity to foster “bottom – up” communication;

a (not efficient) megaphone for government policies and a (not efficient) mechanism to foster dialogue and consultation.

Available support to CSOs

Prevalence of grant and project approach; Few International NGOs supporting capacities

and development of national NGOs and CBOs; An approach to “support” that tends to limit

autonomy and to generate dependency; Lack of local capacity building structures and

lack of engagement of other NSAs for supporting CSOs;

Lack of support (including mutual support) for managing divergent interests between CSOs and public authorities.

Concluding remarks

Part 3

A need emerges for supporting CSOs in facing challenges concerning their engagement in governance. Renouncing to support them will imply both the lost of their contributions and the emerging of a drift process.

Supporting CSOs in facing these challenges would require an effort of both donors and government to:a) Recognise CSOs as and actor as a partner;b) Recognise that CSOs are diversified, and recognise informal groups; c) Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and

structures; d) Support institutional capacity building and organisations’ development; e) Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to

partner with CSOs;f) Strengthening/enlarging existing partnership and dialogue spaces,

recognising that a governance space exists that is not overlapping with the space of political institutions;

g) Reinforce civil society out of Kigali and new emerging actors (youth, innovative entrepreneurs, etc.)

h) Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSAs, including at international level.