Post on 09-Aug-2015
transcript
1
FRAMEWORK CONTRACT BENEFICIARIES 2009
FRAMEWORK CONTRACT EUROPEAID/127054/C/SER/multi Lot 7
SPECIFIC CONTRACT N° 2013/325822-2 WITH TRANSTEC
Evaluation of the Impact of EU Support
to Civil Society in Ghana
VOLUME I: FINAL REPORT
Dr. Nancy M. Drost, Team Leader
Ms. Marie T. Mayoux, Expert 2
Dr. Seidu Al-hassan, Expert 3
June 2014
Contrat Cadre BENEFICIAIRES 2009 EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi
Lot 7- Governance & Internal Affairs - Lettre de Marché N° 2013/325822/2
2
“This Report was prepared with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views
expressed in this report are those of the consultants and do not necessarily reflect those of the
European Union”
3
Contents Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 10
2. Findings ........................................................................................................ 15
2.1 Relevance .................................................................................................................................. 15
2.1.1 Have the objectives of the various thematic programmes/ instruments been clearly defined, and have they provided a focus and a strategy for beneficiary organisations to execute their projects? 15
2.1.2 Has the funding provided by the EU been complementary to the development and growth of the beneficiary organisations? 16
2.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1 In what ways has EU funding contributed to the effectiveness of beneficiary CSOs in executing their mandate? 18
2.2.2 In what way has the effectiveness of a beneficiary organisation been influenced by the size of the grant? 19
2.2.3 What are the views of different stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the beneficiary organisation? 20
2.2.4 Has EU funding contributed to the formation of networks of CSOs/NGOs? 21
2.2.5 Has EU funding facilitated collaboration and institutionalized engagement between CSOs, state agencies and other donor initiatives? 23
2.3 Impact ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.1 In what way has EU funding contributed to capacity building of beneficiary organisations? 24
2.3.2 What has been the contribution of EU funding to changes/improvements in related sector policy in Ghana? 26
2.3.3 What has been the intended and unintended impact of EU funding in terms of the beneficiary organisation and community/sector? Has the impact been in line with sustainable development and gender equality? 27
2.4 Sustainability ............................................................................................................................. 30
2.5 Complementarity/Coherence ................................................................................................... 33
3. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................... 36
3.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 45
4
Acronyms AA Affirmative Action ACDEP Association of Churches Development Programme ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa BUSAC Business Sector Advocacy Challenge CBO Community Based Organisations CDD Centre for Democratic Development Ghana CEA Country Environmental Analysis CIKOD Center for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development CoWIG Coalition of Women in Governance CS Civil Society CSOs Civil Society Organisations CU Concern Universal DA District Assembly DCD District Coordinating Director DCE District Chief Executive DCMC District Citizens Monitoring Committee EBDRA Evangelical Presbyterian Development and Relief Agency EC Electoral Commission EDF European Development Fund EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights EU European Union FBO Farmer-based Organisation FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade FNF Friedrich Naumann Foundation FSD Forestry Service Division GAWE Ghana Association of Women Entrepreneurs GDCA Ghanaian Developing Communities Association GHC/GHS Ghana Cedi – Currency of the Republic of Ghana GIF/GIFNets Governance Issues Forum/Governance Issues Forum Network GIRAF Governance Initiative for Rights and Accountability in the Forest Management GII Ghana Integrity Initiative GKS Gub-Katimali Society GNCRC Ghana NGO coalition for the rights of children HAP Humanitarian Accountability Project ICT Information and Communications Technology IEA Institute of Economic Affairs IFDC International Fertilizer Development Centre IGI Independent Governance Institution ILGS Institute of Local Government Studies IDEG Institute for Democratic Governance INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MMDA Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assembly MP Member of Parliament MTDPs Medium Term Development Plans NANDRIEP Nandom Deanery Integrated Programme for Rural Development NCCE National Commission on Civic Education NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NHIS National Health Insurance Scheme NRE Natural Resource and Environment NREG Natural Resource and Environmental Governance NSA Non State Actors PAS-GARU Presbyterian Agriculture Station PARED Partners in Rural Empowerment for Development PSO Private Sector Organisation PWDs Persons with Disability RAAP Rural Action Alliance Programme
5
ROM Results Oriented Monitoring SADA Savannah Accelerated Development Authority SARI Savannah Agricultural Research Institute SILDEP Sisaala Literacy and Development Programme STAR Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Responsiveness in Ghana SWEGG Savanna Women’s Empowerment Group-Ghana SYPPA Society for Youth Policy & Poverty Alleviation VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement VSLA Village Savings and Loans Association WEG Women Gate Foundation WILDAF Women in Law and Development in Africa WIP Women in Politics YARO Youth Action on Reproduction Order
6
Executive Summary
The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the impact of EU's support to civil society in Ghana
under the various thematic programmes, instruments and the European Development Fund (EDF). In
particular, the evaluation focuses on the extent to which EU's support has had an impact on civil
society, its achievements, and the growth and development of the individual civil society
organisations. Moreover, it assesses programme performance and impact. The complementarities
of the various thematic programmes and instruments are also examined. Finally, this evaluation
provides useful lessons and recommendations for the future of the EU Delegation's engagement with
civil society.
The Terms of Reference for this evaluation asks for the instruments to be evaluated according to the
following aspects: 1) Relevance, 2) Effectiveness, 3) Impact, 4) Sustainability and 5)
Complementarity / Coherence. Sixteen questions are included under these five categories of
analysis. At the same time, since each programme and instrument has its own objectives and the
projects funded under them their own intended results, these would also be assessed to a great
extent. However, this evaluation focuses primarily on civil society support.
The information for the evaluation was collected through three main methods: content analysis of
relevant programme and project documents, interviews and field visits. The research team placed a
priority on verifying findings at different levels. Thus, after reading the project documentation, they
would interview the grantee or manager of the fund. This opened the way to an investigation that
could follow from grant partner (NGO or CSO), to smaller CSO or CBO, and finally to community level
(farmer-based organisation, women’s group). In addition to reviewing documentation, holding
interviews and visiting sites, two round table discussions were held. The objectives of these meetings
were to 1) discuss achievements, their driving forces and constraints; 2) obtain collective views about
EU support to civil society; 3) develop a theory of change about what types of EU support would lead
to a desired vision of transformation.
Key Findings and Conclusions
Overall, EU support to civil society over the past seven years has been a good investment. Investing
in civil society has been a safe bet. Civil society has freedom to express itself within an open political
environment. Trends in funding civil society have moved away from establishing parallel systems to
government and filling service delivery gaps to advocating for goods and services, promoting social
accountability, lifting the voices of the vulnerable, and involvement in drafting laws, policies and
legislative instruments. Civil society has gained considerable credibility in some areas, making it a
worthy partner, a partner to count on.
The following key findings and conclusions give a balanced view of the situation of EU-supported civil
society programmes.
1. Most EU-supported Calls for Proposals address pertinent issues and attract appropriate CSOs.
However, some CSOs will answer calls and win grants, even though the issue is not related to
their mission and vision. Selecting only established organisations with a track record in the
proposed area may exclude new organisations that could potentially be more effective. When the
EU takes a risk to fund organisations to implement projects in new areas, this may have
implications, both positive and negative, for impact and sustainability.
2. Smaller localised CSOs and CBOs have been involved in EU-supported projects, but not always
empowered to develop and grow. Although grassroots organisations are active on the ground,
they do not always get the recognition they deserve.
7
3. CSOs ability to innovate their operations and communications, especially through the use of ICT,
is limited, although some organisations are taking the lead.
4. Service providers or consultants to projects, meant to mentor CSOs and build their capacity, are
mostly appreciated. In some cases, this technical assistance may not be merited or is provided
inappropriately.
5. Even though its guidelines are strict, the EU will make considerable effort to be flexible with
project budgets and work plans. Still, CSOs find it hard to negotiate these arrangements, often
perceiving the EU to be inflexible.
6. The EU is praised by CSOs for providing some long-term (3-5 year) funding opportunities for
projects. In addition to these, there is a range of EU support given for shorter time periods. The
size of the grant and the length of time for the project do not necessarily correlate to success,
although generally longer-term projects have a greater likelihood of achieving expected results.
7. CSOs are organised into many different types of networks. Advocacy networks are the most
successful and sustainable.
8. CSOs have proved that with EU support, they can enter into dialogue with government and
influence policy. They have also added value to legislative processes by providing relevant
research, informing decision-makers. However, for many organisations how to do effective
advocacy continues to be a challenge.
9. EU support provided capacity building opportunities for different types of CSOs, which led to their
growth and development. Some CSOs, depending on their situations, continue to require
capacity strengthening in some areas.
10. Except for a few CSOs, the concept of Social Accountability is not well understood or put into
practice.
11. Some Calls for Proposals are explicit about how gender issues should be addressed. Others,
such as the NSA/LA guidelines, are vague leading to projects that are mainly gender-blind or
gender-neutral, not taking into consideration gender and social analyses.
12. CSOs are instrumental in creating awareness and new ways of doing business among district
administrations. Changes in good governance occurred after long periods of sustained efforts
through donor-led programs. It is unclear whether these changes are reversible or not, and
whether they can be expanded (for example to IGF) without considerably more advocacy efforts
from CSOs and think tanks.
13. Gains in sustainable development are evident in all sectors which received EU support.
Communities are empowered when they see tangible results from their advocacy efforts.
14. Visibility of EU support to civil society is mostly limited to branding on publications and sign
boards and publicity at conferences. At community level, EU support is not recognized as much
as the CSO grantee or partner, which is the immediate contact.
15. The Governance section has established a coherent set of interventions through very different
instruments and mechanisms.
8
16. EU funding of CSOs has not only significantly influenced policy and local development, but it has
also complemented the efforts of other donors and the Government of Ghana.
17. In the wake of achieving middle income status, expectations from the public are rising because of
the development of the extractive sector and the signing of the West Africa-wide Economic
Partnership Agreement. This is the time for civil society to catch the wave of anticipation and
work to ensure that the people of Ghana share these benefits.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
These recommendations are designed to stimulate discussion of ways forward for the EU and civil
society within a changing context of aid and development. On the eve of the new EDF and with the
challenge to develop a new Road Map for working with CSOs, these recommendations should
provide further guidance on how to achieve greater relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability
and coherence.
Relevance
Because of the diversity of civil society actors in Ghana, the EU should continue to provide different types of support to international and local NGOs, cooperatives or groups, chambers of commerce, and community-based or grassroots organisations. Attention should be paid to capacity building, research and knowledge dissemination, networking and structuring of networks, advocacy campaigns, and mentoring opportunities for CSOs. Every effort should be made to support newcomer CSOs to bring out new voices.
Working through local CSOs promotes ownership of development processes at the ground. However, local CSOs, the grassroots of democracy, have not equally benefited from the projects. EU support should add more value to this essential segment of civil society. Support should be provided to enhance local CSOs' contributions to governance and development processes so that they can play their roles as actors in governance and accountability, partners in fostering social development and key stakeholders in promoting inclusive and sustainable growth.
The growth and development of CSOs, and their networks and coalitions would be enhanced with more effective communication strategies.
Effectiveness
Technical assistance to CS projects should be demand-driven and not an obligatory prerequisite to having a grant.
Given the nature of CSOs and their activities, the EU should be flexible with its contractual arrangements while at the same time not compromising CSOs’ obligations of quality programming, and transparency and accountability in achieving expected outcomes.
Expectations, modalities and administrative procedures should be differentiated for longer and shorter term CSO projects.
EU should prioritize giving support to already established and issue-based networks, which have already strategically mobilized state agencies, political parties, media and citizen groups.
Both the EU and CSOs should re-examine the “how’s” and “why’s” of advocacy, and how civil society can be more effective in advocating to government.
Impact
CSOs with grants that include capacity development should be more accountable for the changes as a result of capacity building activities.
The Social Accountability Platform should take a pro-active role in moving social accountability initiatives forward with both Government and CSOs, so that
9
concrete benefits to communities are realized more predictably.
Calls for Proposals should encourage in-depth social/gender analysis of project participants in order to address discrimination and bring about transformation.
Sustainability
Continuous advocacy efforts are required by civil society in order to sustain the gains of EU-supported projects and initiatives.
The EU should strategically fund civil society advocacy efforts that are consistent with their funding of government programmes, so that citizens are able to see their efforts lead to sustainable development and good governance. It can do this in both strategic and practical ways.
The EU brand within the context of its support to civil society should not only be guided by standard branding regulations, but by a deeper communication strategy.
Complementarity/Coherence
As donor support changes, most mechanisms for coherence will have to be housed within national institutions and co-managed by GoG and CSOs. This has particular relevance for initiatives like the Social Accountability Platform, but could be increasing relevant to STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund in its future iterations.
EU efforts towards donor coordination should be maintained with its continuous promotion of the role of civil society for sustainable development.
Final Conclusion
The EU Road Map for engagement with civil society should be forward-thinking, not business as usual, but an “emergency preparedness” guide for when donors diminish their budgetary support and influence, leaving civil society and government to negotiate Ghana’s middle-income status and all it entails.
10
1. Introduction
Evaluation of the Impact of EU’s Support to Civil Society in Ghana
An active civil society is one of the essential elements of modern democracies. Probably the most
important role played by civil society organisations is to link the interests of the citizens with
government policies. When civil society voices their interests and advocates to government, it is able
to influence the process of policy formulation and implementation.
Ghana is one of the African countries with an active civil society that has a long and fruitful history of
positively influencing the development of the country. Various civil society organisations and non-state
actors have been involved in reaching remote and underserved communities with services such as
water and sanitation, education and micro-finance. Increasingly these groups and organisations have
become more engaged in advocacy activities guided by rights-based approaches.
These approaches are in line with the EU’s engagement with and support for civil society
organisations and non-state actors in Ghana. In this respect the European Union Delegation in Ghana
provided funding for a wide variety of civil society initiatives in various fields ranging from social
accountability, election support, human rights and gender, to environment, food security and support
to small and medium enterprises. Under the various programmes and funding instruments, during the
10th EDF, the EU provided EUR 24,526,852.58 to civil society organizations out of its total budget of
€454 million. Therefore, the total contribution to civil society allocated during the 10th EDF was a
significant 5.4% (see Volume II annex for details).
The EU’s support to civil society in Ghana has proceeded from 9th to 10
th EDF with the explicit intent
to support civil society, especially within its governance programme. Given the Communication, “The
roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external
relations,” 2012, and the recently released (December 2013) guidance on “EU Country Roadmaps for
Engagement with Civil Society 2014-2017,” this evaluation is timely. At the beginning of the 11th EDF,
the EUD in Ghana is preparing to design its roadmap with civil society – this evaluation should be a
useful reference point for discussion.
The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the impact of EU's support to civil society in Ghana
under the various thematic programmes, instruments and the European Development Fund (EDF). In
particular, the evaluation focuses on the extent to which EU's support has had an impact on civil
society, its achievements, and the growth and development of the individual civil society
organisations. Moreover, it assesses programme performance and impact. The complementarities
of the various thematic programmes and instruments are also examined. Finally, this evaluation
provides useful lessons and recommendations for the future of the EU Delegation's engagement with
civil society.
The Terms of Reference for this evaluation asks for the instruments to be evaluated according to the
following criteria: 1) Relevance, 2) Effectiveness, 3) Impact, 4) Sustainability and 5) Complementarity
/ Coherence. Sixteen questions are included under these five criteria of analysis. At the same time,
since each programme and instrument has its own objectives and the projects funded under them
their own intended results, these would also be assessed to a great extent. However, this evaluation
focuses primarily on EU support to civil society.
The information for the evaluation was collected through three main methods: content analysis of
relevant programme and project documents; interviews and field visits. The research team placed a
priority on verifying findings at different levels. Thus, after reading the project documentation, the
11
evaluation team members interviewed the grantee or manager of the fund. This opened the way to
an investigation that could follow from grant partner (NGO or CSO), to smaller CSO or CBO, and
finally to community level (farmer-based organisation, women’s group). In addition to reviewing
documentation, holding interviews and visiting sites, two round table discussions were held. The
objectives of these meetings were to 1) discuss achievements, their driving forces and constraints; 2)
obtain collective views about EU support to civil society; 3) develop a theory of change about what
types of EU support would lead to a desired vision of transformation. (See Volume II annex for details
on evaluation methodology.)
The EU and Civil Society
2007 marked the time when the EU put in place new financial architecture. When the Multi-Financial
Framework (MMF) 2007-2013 was introduced, it opened up new possibilities for CSOs in Ghana to be
funded directly and not through partners in Europe. Ghanaian CSOs were able to answer both global
and local Calls for Proposals. This has made the EU a favourite donor among CSOs – not only
because of the local facility, but because of the range of opportunities and the length of time for
funding. Because of the credibility they receive when they have an EU grant, CSOs are able to
leverage other EU grants or funding from other donors. The EU provided civil society with a number
of opportunities to apply for project grants. From 2007, there were six new Thematic Programmes
financed from EU budget, in addition to funding directly under the EDF:
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
Investing in People
Sustainable management of natural resources and energy
Migration
Food security
Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development
For the purposes of this evaluation, the Migration theme was not included. The following section
provides a short summary of each programme / instrument which was studied under the evaluation.
Democracy and Human Rights
In order to address some of the recommendations of the EU Electoral Observation Mission following
the 2008 Elections on the need to further deepen and consolidate Ghana’s democracy in line with the
objectives of good governance, the EU made available EUR 7 million to support independent
Government institutions (IGIs) involved in the electoral process. In addition, the EU provided almost
two million Euro to civil society organisations through the European Instrument for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR). Of the five objectives of the EIDHR, the one relevant to civil society is the
second: “strengthening the role of civil society in promoting human rights and democratic reform, in
supporting the peaceful conciliation of group interests and, in consolidating political participation and
representation.” (Source: EIDHR Strategy Paper, 2011-2013).
Eighty organisations responded to the local EIDHR call and 7 were selected. Two of them focused on
supporting peace and credibility of the election process, while the other 6 chose to address the
problem of women’s participation and representation in politics. All projects received around Euros
300 000 from the EU, and three of them, led by advocacy networks (Abantu, WILDAF, IDEG)
amounted to Euros 600,000 and were co-funded by several donors.
In addition, for the same implementation period (2010-2013) a global EIDHR call allocated 716 000
Euros to Plan Sweden for a Juvenile Justice project implemented by the Ghana Coalition for Rights of
the Children and Child’s rights international. This represented 80% of the project’s budget. This
project was not directly related to the election process.
12
Investing in People
The EU’s thematic programme - Investing in People - aimed at achieving increased income security,
improved working conditions, improved economic and human rights and protection against health
risks for rural women entrepreneurs in Northern Ghana. The specific objective is to empower rural
Ghanaian women in informal shea processing, by strengthening their collective voice and bargaining
power, equipping them with relevant business management and technical skills, improving their
access to social and financial services, and directly connecting them to large international buyers. The
programme was implemented in the northern region of Ghana by PlaNet Finance under the Market
Access through Cooperative Action: Empowering Women Informal Workers using microfinance,
education and ICT project. PlaNet Finance worked through partnership with two local CSOs, namely,
Maata N Tudu and Grameen Ghana. The length of the project is three years. It was supposed to have
ended in December 2013 but received a six months extension at no cost to the EU. Total budget for
the period 2011-2013 for the ‘Investing in People’ programme stood at EUR 1,350,000. Out of this the
EU contributed EUR 888,000 representing 64.51% of the total budget.
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
Communities are the most vulnerable and weakest, lack relevant and sufficient information in the
forestry sub-sector, least involved in decision making yet they feel the most impact of the illegal
logging. Yet, governance of the country’s natural resources and the environment sector is poor and
uncoordinated. Through the ENRTP, the EU assists developing countries and partner organisations
address environmental and natural resource management issues. Under the ENTRP thematic
programme, the EUD supported two international CSOs (Care International, and Tropenbos
International) to implement projects totaling €2,999,265. The EU also contributed a total of €1m to the
Governance Initiative for Rights & Accountability in Forest Management (GIRAF) project implemented
by Care and its partners. The EU further supported the Integration of Legal and Legitimate Domestic
Timber Markets into Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) project implemented by Tropenbos, in
the amount of €1,999,265.
Care International’s project was implemented in partnership with three CSOs: Civic Response,
Friends of the Earth-Ghana (FoE-Gh) and Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational
Development (CIKOD). These organisations are members of Forest Watch Ghana, a platform which
influences forest governance in Ghana. Tropenbos International is implementing the project in
partnership with government institutions: Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) a research
institution under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of Ghana and the Forest Services
Division (FSD) of the Forestry Commission (FC).
The direct and indirect beneficiaries of the two initiatives include Ghanaians working in the formal and
chainsaw milling sector; community-based forest enterprises and men and women in forest-
dependent communities, local level institutions such as Community Resource Management
Committees and Traditional Authorities.
Food Security
The EU's Food Security Thematic Programme Strategy (FSTP) primarily aims at improving food
security of the poorest and most vulnerable. Specifically, the programme strategic priorities include
supporting the delivery of international public goods with emphasis on contributing to food security
research and technology, linking information and decision making to improve food security response
strategies, exploiting the potential of continental and regional approaches to improve food security
and addressing food security in exceptional situations of transition, and in fragile and failed states.
Other priority areas include promoting innovation to combat food insecurity and fostering advocacy
13
and advancement of the food security agenda, harmonization and alignment with development
partners and donors. Four projects were implemented. These are the Northern Ghana Food Security
Resilient Project (NGFSRP) by ADRA, the Food and Agriculture Recovery Management (FARM Plus)
by CARE International, Ghana, the Farmers' Agricultural Production and Marketing Project (FAMAR)
by ACDEP and the Sustainable Livelihoods Programme for Vulnerable Households in the Upper West
Region by Plan Ghana. Together these projects accounted for EUR 6,117,856 of EU funding. In terms
of percentage EU’s contribution to these projects stood at 89.5%, 90%, 53.46% and 90% for
NGFSRP, FARM-Plus, FAMAR and Sustainable livelihoods programme for vulnerable households,
respectively. The grantees for the four projects, namely NRFSRP, FARM Plus, FAMAR and
Sustainable Livelihoods Programme for Vulnerable Households in the Upper West Region were
ADRA, CARE UK, ICCO Netherlands and Plan Ireland Charitable Assistance Limited.
Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development
The NSA program was launched in 2010 with an envelope of nearly two million Euros allocated via a
Call for Proposals. The overall objective was to “contribute to an increased performance of non-state
actors and their networks in ensuring a more effective, committed and nationwide engagement of
communities in local planning and decision making processes as well as to support the development
of a more comprehensive and harmonised approach for social accountability in Ghana.” The four
grantees -- Christian Aid, CDD, SEND-Ghana and Basic Needs started their projects in 2011 and
expect to finalize them before the end of 2014. Three of the grantees were monitored by ROM mid-
2013.
European Development Fund
In 2010, the EU through the EDF allocated EUR 8 million to two pooled funds: STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund. Other donors include DFID, DANIDA and USAID.
STAR stands for Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and Responsiveness in Ghana. Thus,
its objectives are to strengthen the capacity of CSOs to enable citizens to claim their rights. Toward
this aim, civil society is funded to engage in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring. STAR
offers both competitive and responsive grants, depending on the proposal and type of organisation.
STAR-Ghana currently manages 150 grants.
STAR-Ghana offers CSOs opportunities to work in the themes of health, education, oil and gas,
democratic governance. It also offered support to organizations willing to work on the 2012 elections.
This was to enable STAR-Ghana to contribute to peaceful conduct of the elections and also facilitate
citizen engagement with political parties on their manifestoes.
STAR-Ghana has provided funding to ten Select Committees of Parliament. It also engages with the
media to facilitate a constructive collaboration between the civil society organisations and the media.
BUSAC Fund has a number of objectives related to the private sector in Ghana. Its major activity is
advocacy with Business Sector Associations, Private Sector Organisations and Farmer-based
Organisations. In enhancing their capacity to do advocacy, PSOs will lessen the constraints on their
operations, growth and profitability to create a more enabling business environment. Since its
inception, 720 grants have been awarded.
14
All the findings make references to these programmes / instruments and the projects that fall under
them.
The following report is organized in the following way. Under each of the evaluation questions is a
brief answer in summary. The answer is followed by points which further elaborate on the answer.
Evidence from all the programmes / instruments is given in relatively similar order: NSA, EIDHR,
STAR, BUSAC, Food Security and Environment. This sequence is followed so that the reader can
follow the same pattern throughout the report. Conclusions to each answer are not provided in the
Findings section, but in the section on Conclusions and Recommendations.
For each of the evaluation questions, there are conclusions and recommendations.
Recommendations are elaborated and followed by guidance notes. In some cases, these are
extensive. They are meant to be of use to both the EU and CSOs, and in some cases Government.
Many of the Recommendations suggest new approaches to moving forward, and therefore require
more discussion and consultation. They pose challenges to all stakeholders in how they envision a
more dynamic civil society from the grassroots.
15
2. Findings
2.1 Relevance
2.1.1 Have the objectives of the various thematic programmes/ instruments been clearly
defined, and have they provided a focus and a strategy for beneficiary organisations to
execute their projects? Thematic programmes / instruments that appealed to tangible and compelling activities and results
provided a much clearer focus for beneficiary organisations to execute their projects than those with
more abstract objectives. Objectives related to elections, rural entrepreneurship, food security and
environment were easily taken up by CSOs already preoccupied in these areas. BUSAC Fund added
value to existing PSOs, allowing them to sharpen their business strategies. NSA and STAR-Ghana
challenged CSOs to go into new directions, which were not always well defined or sustained.
The guidelines of the NSA Call for Proposals focussed on effective engagement of communities in
local decision making processes, but did not provide enough information about the nature and the
scope of potential activities. As it was, the Call could almost be read as an invitation to produce
knowledge “for more comprehensive and harmonised approach to social accountability,” such as
carrying out action-oriented research with the purpose of reviewing past experiences, identifying the
most appropriate and effective mechanisms to promote social accountability, developing best
practices for engaging communities in local decision making and monitoring. These were high
expectations for CSOs, most of which had limited experience with the concept of “social
accountability,” even though many were working with communities to advocate for their needs to local
government. At the time, one CSO, SEND-Ghana, had worked explicitly within the framework of
social accountability, having implemented the HIPC Watch project with the World Bank.
Nonetheless, the response to this Call for Proposals by civil society was massive: 86 organisations
attended the information session, and 70 concept notes were received. Even though most projects
titles caught the gist of the wording of the guidelines of the Call, only 19 out of the 70 concept notes
were assessed as relevant.
Much clearer, the objectives of the EIDHR call for proposals were highly relevant to the country’s
needs at the time. There was concern expressed by all facets of civil society, including a great push
by media, for peaceful elections. The Call for Proposals triggered a wide response from civil society.
The issue of representation of women in politics was also considered very relevant by CSOs.
Also with a focus on elections in addition to other themes, STAR-Ghana, the multi-donor pooled
funding mechanism for CSOs, published a series of Calls for Proposals. These included: Improving
Access to Justice, Democratic Governance, Health Sector, Education Sector, Media, Oil and Gas,
Election 2012, Sustainability, Leadership Development. Some CSOs say that they “are forced to
address themes that are not always relevant” because they are not consistent with their strategic
plans. However, this small grants approach opened up possibilities for smaller and lesser known
CSOs to receive funds for projects and initiatives that they may not have had in the past. STAR’s
thematic areas provide space for CSOs to branch off into new areas. For example, the “oil and gas”
theme is a newer area for CSOs, but it is a crucial domain because the heightened expectations of
Ghanaians following the oil discovery. Transparency and accountability are crucial to ensuring not
only national stability but helping avoid the oil curse. STAR also has invitational calls and a strategic
opportunity window for prospective projects that do not specifically fall within its themes. Offering
these opportunities challenges CSOs and pushes them in new directions.
Donor funds to civil society usually go to non-governmental and civil society organisations (NGOs,
CSOs) for development projects. Civil society in the private sector has been largely left to fend for
itself, yet it has just as much or more potential to drive development as the non-profit sector. PSOs
16
are part of civil society and have a role to play in creating an enabling environment for greater
opportunities. BUSAC Fund is the only project of its kind in Ghana designed to stimulate the business
environment. Once they are oriented to the nature of the fund and its advocacy objectives, PSOs
respond readily.
BUSAC Fund both called and sought out proposals that were relevant to the needs of PSOs because
they were able to propose what they wanted to do through concept papers and proposals. In its first
phase, BUSAC issued a general call for proposals. In its second phase, BUSAC Fund provides PSOs
opportunities to do business advocacy in the areas of agriculture, industry, service delivery and
climate change. It also has a dedicated rights-based fund for women and persons with disabilities for
greater opportunities. Its second phase Calls have allowed civil society and private sector
organisations to open up their thinking about how the business sector can provide them with a more
enabling environment.
Investing in People’s objectives mainly centre on empowering women informal workers operating
small businesses in the rural areas of northern Ghana. The focus has been on linking these poor
women entrepreneurs to international markets. The programme objectives are therefore clear and
match very well with the vision and missions of PlaNet Finance and its partners, Grameen Ghana and
Maata N Tudu.
The objectives of EU’s support to CSOs within the EU's Food Security Thematic Programme Strategy
(FSTP) were clearly defined to include increased agricultural production, reduced post-harvest losses,
improved capacity of farmer based organisations (FBOs) in marketing for agro-based products and
improved organisational, business management and life skills of targeted FBOs. The programme
focus was also on stimulating agricultural investments and innovation by small farmers and reducing
poverty through improved access to food and social protection particularly for those affected by food
price hikes in Northern Ghana. These objectives are well in line with the vision and missions of large
international NGOs like ICCO and Plan Ireland and well established regional NGOs like Care
International who have been working in food security and poverty reduction areas for many years.
EU support to CSOs within the environment subsector was highly relevant because the support
emphasised on accountable governance in the forestry subsector and the need to efficiently manage
the country’s natural resources. Environmental CSOs view the environment as the bedrock for
national development. EU support to Care International and its implementing partners allowed them to
strengthen their advocacy activities for good governance. Through the support CIKOD and Civic
Response were able to carry out new activities such as the organisation of forest forums and
advocacy on environmental governance
2.1.2 Has the funding provided by the EU been complementary to the development and
growth of the beneficiary organisations? EU funding has been complementary to the development and growth of most of the beneficiary
organisations. Some could take greater advantage of the opportunity than others. Those who were
already involved in the thematic area used the funds to strengthen and add value to their existing
programmes. Some who obtained a grant, but were not duly invested in the thematic area, did not
always use the opportunity to branch out into new areas of programming. Many small organisations
which received limited funding as partners or sub-contractors remain constrained in their growth and
development.
NSA funds provided all grantees and their partners a focus and an opportunity for strategic
development. The majority of them were research and advocacy-based CSOs that were already
engaged in research on governance and, to various extents, had developed actions with local
communities and authorities (SEND, IDEG, GII, BN and CDD).
17
For each of the hundreds of CSOs/ CBOs who have been mobilised under these projects, (one or
more per district) the relevance of the NSA cannot be assessed. Very little information on these
organisations is documented. For those visited during the evaluation, the match between the role they
play in the project and their own core objectives is questionable. For example, WEG, a self-help group
established by and for women living with HIV and AIDS, and to a lesser extent GKS, a generalist
NGO, are implementing activities which are outside their core mandate. On the other hand, SYPPA,
which promotes accountability and create platforms to dialogue with duty bearers, and GAWE which
organises women entrepreneurs, both found the role they play in the projects consistent with their
mandates.
EIDHR did provide a focus and strategy for some of the funded organisations, but not all of them.
Women’s rights activist organisations such as Abantu and WILDAF, and advocacy groups like IDEG
were able to integrate their respective EIDHR projects in already strongly established strategies and
experiences. During interviews, their leaders maintained that EU support was critical in enhancing
their knowledge base and that this practical experience on a larger scale was used to sharpen their
general strategy. For others such as Concern Universal, GDCA, FNF/CDD and IEA, the objectives of
the Call for Proposals were not directly connected with their vision or experience.
For large, well-established organisations, STAR funds are an opportunity to do some strategic work in
areas which complement their growth and development. They are used to the bureaucratic back-and-
forth, the development language and emphasis on advocacy. However, for smaller organisations –
NGOs, CBOs and service delivery organisations – this type of funding instrument, and all the
baggage that comes with it, is not familiar. For some CBOs, they can only experience limited growth
and development with STAR grants. The grants are often not large enough or not given for a
sufficient amount of time to see an initiative to completion. They often operate in situations in which
networking possibilities are few. Mostly, they exist to serve their community or specific groups. Thus,
a CBO with one small STAR grant will, in many cases, not be able to use that grant as strategically as
larger, more linked-in organisations.
This is not altogether the same for BUSAC Fund. Because of the focussed nature of the grant and
the formulaic steps involved in carrying out the advocacy plan, PSOs of all sizes can use the
opportunity to grow and develop. The advocacy plan provides a focus for PSOs to promote a more
enabling environment in which to do their business. All BUSAC grantees know the five steps they
need to take to implement their advocacy projects, and their goals for advocacy are clear to them.
For many PSOs, especially the smaller ones and those located in districts, BUSAC offers an
unprecedented opportunity for organisational and personal growth within the context of their
enterprise. With BUSAC funds, even business associations and cooperatives that have been
dormant have sprung to life with a new purpose in advocacy. This was the case for the Manya Krobo
Mango Cooperative which became active, collected members’ dues and has recently purchased a
motorcycle for their own Technical Inspector.
The EU’s food security programme largely complemented the needs of CSOs. The funds were used
to purchase equipment, construct agricultural infrastructure like dams, warehouses and for organising
capacity development activities for target farmers. Similarly, the EU’s environmental programme
contributed to strengthen CSOs’ service delivery and capacity development. CSOs have been able to
establish and work with intermediary structures to monitor forestry and environmental governance
issues. This approach expands coverage making it possible for more poor communities to participate
in the development process.
18
2.2 Effectiveness
2.2.1 In what ways has EU funding contributed to the effectiveness of beneficiary CSOs in
executing their mandate? With EU funding, most organisations have become more effective in executing their mandates. Some
were able to enhance their financial management and administrative capacity through the
implementation of larger projects. Others were able to deepen and add more rigour to their
programming, particularly research and advocacy-oriented CSOs. Moreover, others were able to
become more innovative and test new approaches. Some were able to increase coverage. The
ability of CSOs to use EU funds to their full advantage was commensurate with the project’s relevance
to their mandate.
For some grantees (SEND, IDEG), EU funds deepened their effectiveness because it allowed them to
undertake the research that is required to do evidence-based advocacy. The 3-year funding gives
them time and resources to invest in or organise to meet longer term objectives. CDD and CA used
the grant to acquire, through ad hoc in-house training, knowledge which is necessary for them to be
effective in implementing Social Accountability projects. This is a new area of expertise that they
intend to incorporate in their portfolio by “learning by doing,” a lengthy process requiring iterative
phases of self-reflection.
Women’s rights organisations, advocacy organisations and already established networks gained more
than generalist CSOs from EIDHR support because they could use the funds strategically within a
complementary programme framework.
For STAR-Ghana, the majority of grantees were able to use their grants to benefit their constituents,
advocate for changes from duty bearers and improve their organisational development capacity.
Youth for Life in Tamale said that STAR’s staff is helping them to put together a manual for their
Board of Directors. RUMNET’s director said that the best thing about STAR is that it encourages
CSOs to concentrate more on results than activities.
The advocacy activities that PSOs do with BUSAC funds are essential to improving their businesses
because they address key bottlenecks to greater business potential and profitability.
Investing in People’s PlaNet Finance’s project has contributed to supporting CSOs to deliver better
quality services to targeted rural women entrepreneurs. Coverage has expanded to 10,000 women
shea butter processors. The project was able to innovate through the use of ICT whereby targeted
women entrepreneurs were provided with video training and access to mobile phones. The funds
have also been used to create a website to market quality shea produce.
With EU’s support with the Food Security programme, CSOs like Care International, ACDEP, ADRA
have been able to build on their previous food security initiatives. The FAMAR II built on its phase one
while Farm Plus built on its previous 2 phases: FARM I and FARM II. Building on previous initiatives
did not only promote continuity and consistency but also it helped to consolidate gains. Capacity
development and advocacy were used by all beneficiary organisations for empowering smallholder
farmers to be able to link up well to agricultural service providers and to access market. In using these
strategies the CSOs demonstrated their innovativeness in a difficult sector:
ADRA worked to increase agricultural production and reduce post-harvest losses as well as
improving the capacity of Farmer Groups in marketing for agro-based products.
FARM Plus ensured access to food for all and increased social protection particularly for
those affected by food price hikes in Northern Ghana.
ACDEP adopted a value chain approach which helped to effectively link small producers to
appropriate markets.
19
Inventory credit schemes and village savings and loans associations (VSLAs) were also
effectively used by Farm Plus and Plan Ghana to strengthen agricultural investment.
The Northern Ghana Food Security Resilience Project included an HIV/AIDS component
thereby providing a strong link between healthy labour and agricultural production.
All four projects showed synergy in their objectives towards attaining food security and poverty
reduction. The projects jointly emphasised increased productivity, value addition, improved storage to
minimise post-harvest losses and increased access to market.
EU support to the Environment programme has increased CSOs’ organisational capacity in terms of
managing bigger projects, logistics (vehicles) and people or partners, especially when the partners
have varied or diverse needs and demands. Though, they all have different needs and interests the
three organisations, namely, Care International, CIKOD and Civic Response, were able to work
together to successfully implement the GIRAF project. The organisations were able to divide labour
among themselves, as well as deepening their individual activities.
2.2.2 In what way has the effectiveness of a beneficiary organisation been influenced by
the size of the grant?
The size of the grant is most often attached to the time period of the grant. The length of time for the
grant and the EU’s ability to be flexible in timing and activities is often more important to CSOs than
the size of the grant. The size of the grant is not always commensurate with the CSOs ability to
achieve expected results. However, given the length of time and size of grant, NSA, EIDHR,
Investing in People, and most Food Security and Environment projects were successful. Short-term
food security, STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund projects are sometimes challenged to complete their
objective given the size of the grant and the project’s duration.
There are considerable differences between long- and short-term grants. First of all, long-term grants
usually cover all project costs, including staff, transportation and office equipment. Also some support
is woven in budgets for organisational development, networking and capacity building. On the other
hand, short-term projects, particularly single grants, usually cover programme costs of activities, but
not staff or organisational development. If a CSO takes on a short-term grant, it has core funding or
larger projects to support it. This is usually the assumption, although it is not always the case. Some
organisations take on short-term projects because they simply need to survive.
Whether the time frame is short or long, the level of effort to get a project off the ground is often the
same. Many projects suffer delays in implementation, most at the inception stage. One of the
reasons for delay is that staff can only be hired when funding is available. Once they are hired, they
need to be oriented, trained and deployed before they can begin to implement activities. CSOs also
experience challenges in implementing several projects at the same time because staff time and
resources are stretched to the limit. As a result, CSOs tend to accumulate “backlog” and “over-dues.”
In addition, short-term funding leads to job insecurity. Many CSOs only hire staff for a year at a time –
because of these conditions, staff with lower capacity are often recruited.
The three-year NSA funding was critical to some CSOs’ organisational development and growth.
Even so, the correlation between effectiveness of the organisations and the size of NSA grants is
unclear at the level of national research and advocacy-based CSOs. Most projects suffered from
delays during the course of implementation, some of these were related to inadequate absorptive
capacity among partners or within the lead organisation. For example, some grantees were stretched
between two EU-funded projects.
20
Overall for EIDHR, the size of the grant was adequate for the scope of the projects and appropriate
for grantees’ management capabilities.
Many STAR grantees, particularly smaller CSOs, received grants or sub-grants for short periods of
time, when they really needed core or long-term funding to be able to achieve their objectives. For
some, STAR was a temporary solution to the continuous problem of shortage of funds. Similarly,
BUSAC grantees may take more than a year to do a successful advocacy campaign, but many of
BUSAC’s grants are for less than a year. This means that about half the PSOs are not able to
accomplish all their advocacy objectives during the time frame of the grant. If they show promise,
some PSOs receive additional funding for subsequent stages, post-dialogue or follow-up activities.
The EU support to the Investing in People project has been flexible. The project was extended by 6
months at no cost to EU. The project will now end in June 2014. The extension was meant to give
PlaNet finance and its partners the chance to complete the outstanding activities such as provision of
generators to communities.
2.2.3 What are the views of different stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the
beneficiary organisation? Generally, because of the overall relevance of EU support to civil society, the views of different
stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of beneficiary organisations is positive. All stakeholders
have something to gain, and few have anything to lose. Most projects tend to see stakeholders as
“partners” to some degree, and great efforts are taken to preserve non-antagonistic relationships,
especially within the context of advocacy activities. Most CSOs ensure that their stakeholders
formally participate in the project, even if it is just to attend training, workshops or meetings. This
makes them feel valued as stakeholders. CSO initiatives are appreciated by government officials,
especially at district level, because they help to put in place legal instruments, structures, systems and
procedures to make their work easier. Complaints coming from stakeholders were largely from sub-
grantees or sub-contractors on funding issues.
MMDAs are the targets of advocacy activities for many of the EU funded projects. For example,
under the Food Security programme, smallholder farmers in Nalerigu and Nandom under FARM Plus
were able to engage DAs to decentralise the sale of fertilizer at the sub-district level which helped
farmers to gain increased access to fertilizer. However, they are also the beneficiaries. Most projects
provide training to government officers on their roles and responsibilities and on issues to which they
should be aware. Under the Environment programme, Assembly persons and traditional authorities
have been sensitised on the magnitude and disbursement of royalties accruing to various stool lands
in the district from the District Assembly. Others help to accelerate development or progress in
certain areas when the government is constrained to do so. For example, with BUSAC funding, the
Progressive Traders Association involved several stakeholders in cleaning up the Tamale Central
Market during a period of time when fires in market places were rampant all over the country. This
solved a major problem for the Tamale Municipal Assembly.
District Assembly members and officials expressed their satisfaction with CSOs’ implementation of the
concept of Social Accountability. Engagement with citizens in the areas of planning, disbursements
monitoring and communication have improved everywhere. However, situations vary between
districts. In Yendi, where one CSO has worked for more than six years, the district monitoring group
enjoys more latitude to intervene than in Ga South, a recently created district, where internal
monitoring through RCC and Assembly members is more prominent. In any case, even though
communication is still rather top down in some districts, officials are very satisfied with CSOs’ relations
with communities. A Tamale Municipal Assembly representative praised a CSO’s sensitisation
campaign: “People now understand our challenges.” In Ga South, the Assembly notes appreciatively
that “SEND needs to do more to educate communities that the assembly is here for them.”
21
Likewise, results of discussions with staff of the Forestry Service Department of the Tarkwa Nsuayem
Municipal Assembly indicate that the Department values EU’s support to CSOs very much. It enjoys
maximum cooperation from other stakeholders in the forestry sub-sector, especially community
members. Interview results show that the support has significantly empowered staff of the Forestry
Service Department to be able to carry out its mandate to protect Ghana’s forest and natural
resources. The Deputy Manager of the Forestry Service Department summarises this by saying that
‘The EU support has brought about the forest forums. The forums have popularised our mandate,
activities and information. Our message on the need to protect the forest and natural resources is
going down well to the communities and this is as a result of EU’s funding to CSOs.”
Local CSO and CBOs appreciate the opportunities available through beneficiary organisations, but
want more support to accomplish their own objectives. For example, although the capacity of local
partners to grantees of Social Accountability projects has improved through various types of training,
this capacity building would be enhanced if it was more systematic for organisational development
and less directly operational for project activities. CBOs usually just acquire the knowledge which
they share with communities during the workshops they organise. Moreover, because of their status
as local partners, they do not benefit from the added credibility that usually comes from collaborating
with an EU-funded program.
In addition, these local partner organisations do not receive any significant portion of the grant. Large
CSOs or research and advocacy-based CSOs expect their partners to work mostly voluntarily.
Voluntarism is considered a condition for self-motivation and effectiveness of the local advocacy work.
As volunteers, they receive a small stipend for each activity (the annual total being between 600 and
1,000 GHS according to SYPPA partner to IDEG and AVCA partner to SEND). This limits them from
planning ahead or attracting staff on a long term basis. Their staff tends to join larger organisations
once they have gained sufficient experience. To boost funding, they try to become partners in various
unrelated projects with different NGOs or CSOs, irrespective of their own core agenda. In addition,
this generates among small CSOs an ongoing local competition, which discourages them from
spontaneously teaming up in networks. Several local CSOs expressed their objections to this
approach to partnering, which creates dependency and hampers their effectiveness.
Communities and beneficiaries have a great appreciation for the work of beneficiary organisations.
Within the NSA programme, overall results show that citizens’ understanding has deepened and their
participation in planning processes and management of the DACF has increased. Surveys taken as
part of project monitoring show that many respondents feel empowered by their knowledge of local
governance. Similarly, the Investing in People project is appreciated by women who are organised in
ways that help them to aggregate their commodities thereby attracting buyers/exporters. This is
working effectively because the women processors have been well educated on their economic rights.
In the same way, community participation in the food security programme was significant. Results of
interviews with many stakeholders show satisfaction with the improved economic and socio-cultural
situation of beneficiary communities.
2.2.4 Has EU funding contributed to the formation of networks of CSOs/NGOs?
Enhanced networking is considered a positive outcome and an asset by most organisations. EU
funding has contributed to the formation of networks to some extent, although “network” means
different things in the various projects. Often, a network just brings together people or organisations.
There are networks of women’s (NetRight) and farmer-based organisations. Another example in the
Investing in People programme is the Star Shea Network, which provides a marketing facility for
women. BUSAC works with many professional and business associations which are also networks.
CSO networks are mainly for coordination or information sharing, and they range in their effectiveness
to promote change. Since most of the EU-funded projects have an advocacy component, the real
issue is whether these networks consider themselves to be active coalitions which lobby for major
22
policy change. There are few examples of powerful CSO advocacy networks in Ghana – related to
women’s issues and environment. Emerging coalitions are in the business sector. Compared to
other networks, advocacy networks are more vibrant and sustainable at all levels.
Networking has been enhanced by the NSA, but not to a large extent. Most of these research and
advocacy-based CSOS had strongly established linkages for many years or decades. Most of them
did not implement the type of research that the guidelines of the Call for Proposals proposed
(reviewing past experiences) which might have given them an opportunity to liaise with other
specialised organisations.
For EIDHR grantees, the creation of new coordination platforms and networks strengthened
collaboration and mutual understanding among CSOs, and between them and government
institutions. Networking is a key element of most of the election related-projects, their methodologies
aimed at harnessing collaboration of a wide range of state agencies and other institutions, such as
political parties, media and local citizens groups. EU support has been instrumental in providing
credibility to these efforts. Ad hoc networks and platforms have been formed during the election
period and some of them seem sustainable, at least until the 2014 elections, while others, were not
meant to be sustained in the long term.
Advocacy organisations such as Abantu, WILDAF and IDEG already have established networks.
Because of the ways that women’s groups are structured, some of them are very vibrant and active.
This is particularly striking with WILDAF-initiated CoWIGs who, because of their local influence,
demanded official recognition through CoWIG ID cards. The positive impact of EU support to civil
society has made more of a difference to local groups who focus on women rights. EU support was
an opportunity to mobilise them, and also to broaden them within a large but issue-based collective
action, such as the advocacy for the Affirmative Action Law or peaceful elections. The projects which
had existing networks with a wide range of partners -- politicians, donors, government agencies, high
ranking religious leaders and citizens groups in remote towns -- have been particularly effective.
One of STAR’s three pillars is Fostering Linkages. Linkages are fostered between civil society, media
and parliament in different configurations. However, not all STAR projects were linked up within
networks. Some, especially district-level CSOs and CBOs with small grants and short time frames, do
not seem to be in the loop. Those CSOs working in a more isolated manner will not have as many
opportunities to leverage their STAR experience for additional support.
For BUSAC Fund, networking through stakeholder meetings is a must for all projects because it is
one of the steps involved in advocacy. However, the networking coming out of stakeholder meetings
is not always formalised. Many associations continue to work alone. Because of this and the need to
have a more effective lobby for business in Ghana, BUSAC Fund has stepped up its action in
encouraging the formation of coalitions. Currently, eleven coalitions of PSOs are involved in different
national issues through invitational grants. One example is the coalition led by the Peasant Farmers
Association which is pursuing the cattle ranching law in Ghana. Another is a coalition of associations
in the building industry, which is looking at building standards.
Investing in People’s Star Shea Network facilitates aggregation of produce and linking of women to
markets. Local partner CSOs to the project, namely Grameen Ghana and Maata N Tudu, incorporated
a social business component to the market network which emphasises the maximisation of group or
cooperative profit rather than individual dividends.
The Food Security programme has contributed to the formation of networks of farmer-based
organisations (FBOs) formed by ACDEP. The FBOs are networked at the community level through
district to regional levels.
23
In the Environment programme, active networks have been formed and strengthened to collectively
advocate for good governance in the forestry sub-sector. Networks like KASA used evidence-based
advocacy in a concerted and coordinated manner that allowed it to speak with one voice about
forestry governance and natural resource management. With the facilitative role of KASA, CSOs
organised an annual parallel review forum which fed into public sector’s annual sector policy review
process. In addition, CSOs in collaboration with the Northern Ghana Network for Development have
been able to create a number of civil society platforms for improving governance in key thematic or
specific sectors of the Ghanaian economy (e.g mining, forestry, land degradation, etc) as well as
policy reform. Moreover, the Civil Society Platform on SADA has contributed to improving good
governance and accountability in SADA’s environment activities. The Media Alliance for Sustainable
Development platform through KASA also enabled journalists to report on environment and natural
resource issues affecting northern Ghana.
2.2.5 Has EU funding facilitated collaboration and institutionalized engagement between
CSOs, state agencies and other donor initiatives? Institutionalised engagement has been facilitated through EU funding to a great extent. CSOs
engage with each other, especially within network/coalition, partnership and sub-contracting
arrangements. CSOs are also formalising their engagement with local authorities and ministries,
especially in the Food Security and Environment sectors. Other projects facilitate regular contact with
local government for the purposes of advocacy. There was no significant institutionalised
engagement between CSOs and other donor initiatives. However, the private sector, including banks,
was featured significantly as a partner to CSOs in their activities with BUSAC Fund, Investing in
People and Food Security.
With NSA funding, SEND was able to provide upon request detailed reports on how, where and when
District Assemblies made commitments to local monitoring groups and what actual changes followed.
This shows effective collaboration with District Assemblies to access information. SEND also
monitors amounts received by PWDs through the DACF.
The EIDHR provided grantees with an opportunity to get direct exposure to local politics and to
engage with a wider range of social and political actors. However, for several and very different types
of NGOs (Plan Sweden, GDCA, IEA), engaging with non-traditional interlocutors (justice institutions,
political parties at national or at local level), proved very difficult. This hampered to a great extent the
effectiveness and impact of their projects. For example, IEA, because it was very conversant with
political parties at central level, obtained general pledges from central decisions makers, but for lack
of knowledge of the internal dynamics of political parties, it underestimated the need to lobby women
wings and local politicians to make them nominate women.
A good example of collaboration without external incentives is provided by Abantu, whose strategy is
to strengthen the relationship between governance think tanks such as IDEG and IEA and the
women’s rights movement. This translated into concrete actions, such as providing training to IEA’s
target groups or contributing to broaden its platform by including references to affirmative action.
Both STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund give opportunities to groups which have never had a chance to
interact with government officials. STAR-Ghana’s projects have mobilised thousands of people to
hold their local officials accountable for public services, especially health and education. While this is
a positive step for citizen’s groups, it does not necessarily lead to change. Although it is being
developed, there is no formal mechanism in place yet for local government to respond or act on
citizen’s demands.
With BUSAC funds, groups who are able can explore the full potential of their initiative. Through the
identification of stakeholders, new and unique partnerships are formed, leading to local and even
24
national impact. For example, the Manya Krobo Mango Growers Association has teamed up with
Ghana’s Atomic Energy Commission to eradicate the effects of the fruit fly on crops. This builds on
existing work by the Commission which is funded by another donor. It has also started a network of
farmers called the Citrus and Mango Development Forum, which has its office within the Crop
Directorate at the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Investing in People’s Market Access through Cooperative Action project improved the value chain
system during its first year of operation by collaborating with other actors. The shea value chain is
facilitated by Star Shea Company, which plays an important role as an intermediary organisation
between women shea processors and final buyers of nuts and butter. There is an effective
coordination of private sector actors in the value chain. Sheanut and sheabutter producers have been
linked to international buyers like Loders and Alvia.
In the Food Security programme, ACDEP, CARE International and Plan Ghana collaborated well with
state agencies like MOFA and SARI. For instance, under FAMAR, decentralised departments such as
MOFA and SARI helped to train farmers on agronomic practices. The experience of Plan Ghana also
shows that MOFA helped to monitor input and produce market prices which farmers largely used for
planning their farm businesses. MOFA also worked with the FBOs and helped to train community
agricultural extension agents or lead farmers who served as para-agricultural extensionists. ADRA
has been able to facilitate a strong link with rural banks and they have started providing small loans to
smallholder farmers.
In the Environment programme, the linkage between international companies and locally based
organisations in the extractive industry has been strengthened by the CSOs. CSOs have facilitated a
stronger link and positive working relationship between community members and the FSD on the one
hand and traditional authorities (paramount chiefs) on the other. The support to the FSD to
accomplish its role in collaboration with communities has brought about a reduction in illegal chainsaw
operation. In addition, the project’s forest forums have helped the FSD to market its mandate and
activities to the general public and to the communities. The FSD and communities now view
themselves as partners rather than enemies.
2.3 Impact
2.3.1 In what way has EU funding contributed to capacity building of beneficiary
organisations?
A significant aspect of most EU-supported projects is capacity building. This occurs through many
different types of events and processes. CSOs recognize that they need to improve their capacity in
several areas in order to be more effective. Most CSOs do not have explicit capacity building
strategies or undertake capacity assessments before training. Likewise, after learning takes place,
capacity development and expected changes are not assessed. For these and other reasons, even
with capacity building investments, some CSOs continue to lack credibility because of capacity
issues. This is evident in poor performance and high delivery costs leading to low value for money;
weak documentation and limited influence. Other CSOs take full advantage of the capacity building
opportunity for organisational and staff development, leading to greater legitimacy. In any case,
capacity building opportunities are regarded highly by CSOs and continue to be promoted on a range
of topics and issues.
One reason why EU support for capacity building may not have the desired effect is because of the
design of the Call for Proposals which emphasises products (results) and not processes.
Implementing CSOs, in spite of their numbers and critical roles, are “invisible” in project design, and,
as such, their capacity building needs are not always taken into account. NSA support could have
25
made a greater difference to the capacity of small CSOs who, under the grantees, implement aspects
of projects or benefit from activities, such as training of trainers. Overall, project activities that are
purported to enhance capacities at local levels are not systematically measured or reported.
The EIDHR opportunities gave CSOs hands-on experience in managing ambitious projects with
enhanced administrative and financial management skills. One of the criteria that the EU used to
select CSOs is their experience of managing large projects. Hence, in theory, they should have
sufficient management capacities. However, in many instances, their logical frameworks, outcomes
monitoring systems and final evaluations are far from meeting EU standards. Logical frameworks are
not always well conceived, especially the identification of indicators and risks. Monitoring systems are
often unable to provide decision makers with the relevant and timely information that would enable
them to adapt their project management strategies to the reality of the environment in which they
work. It must be noted that the EU format for interim reports, which are mostly-activity centered and
disconnected from the logframe indicators and risks, is not conducive to assisting CSOs improve their
monitoring performance.
STAR has an explicit capacity development framework and a process from which grantees can apply
for technical assistance from staff and service providers. STAR provides technical assistance to its
projects for financial management, monitoring and evaluation, advocacy, gender and social inclusion
(GESI) and organisational development. It also provides cross-learning opportunities. One
successful aspect of STAR-Ghana capacity building programme is its work with partners on
monitoring and evaluation. STAR realizes that many of its grantees do not have capacity for M&E
when they write the grant proposal, so it provides this technical assistance after they win the grant.
Initially some CSO thought that there were too many “processes” involved in developing a results
framework. However, once grantees undergo the process of developing their results framework, they
are able to make a shift to working for results rather than just implementing activities. Grantees are
able to set realistic targets and monitor them. “We put in place good M&E systems and are using
them for other projects.” For some organisations, this assistance is valued to the greatest extent
because they do not have capacity in these areas.
BUSAC Fund provides advocacy skills to its grantees in a course called “How and Why to Advocate.”
It also provides financial management training to PSOs so that they can better manage both their
grant and their associations. Capacity assessments of participants are carried out before training.
Due to the training’s relevance to their vision, one grantee noted, they will “never go back to the way
they were before.” They have “knowledge to last forever,” another PSO exclaimed. BUSAC Fund, as
part of its grant to PSOs, also supports service providers to provide technical assistance to grantees.
EU funding through Investing in People and the Market Access through Cooperative Action project
has contributed to capacity building of PlaNet Finance, Grameen Ghana and Maata n Tudu. The
organisations explained that they have learnt about new products (e.g shea loan, equipment supply,
etc) in the shea sub-sector and how to contribute to reducing poverty using the shea value chain.
CSOs who were the EU contract holders for Food Security involved many smaller CSOs at the local
level: YARO, SILDEP and RAAP participated in the implementation of the Sustainable Livelihood
project by Plan Ghana; EBDRA took part in the FAMAR II; and PARED, NANDRIDEP, PAS-GARU
and PRONET NORTH participated in FARM Plus. As a result of their participation, their staff capacity
was developed in key areas such as project proposal writing, project management, leadership,
community mobilisation, advocacy, networking, collaboration and report writing.
The impact of EU funding in protecting Ghana’s forestry and natural resources can be attributed to
increased capacity development of decentralised departments, CSOs (international NGOs, local
NGOs and CBOs) and community members. Capacity of NGOs/CSOs has been built to champion
advocacy on sustainable forest management at the district and community levels. Capacity of partner
26
CBOs such as New Generation Concern, Conservation Foundation, Environmental Protection
Association of Ghana and Rural Development Youth Association have been built in many areas:
forestry governance, gender, community empowerment, advocacy and sustainable development.
2.3.2 What has been the contribution of EU funding to changes/improvements in related
sector policy in Ghana? Major policy changes at different levels have been brought about, mainly with EU support through
NSA, EIDHR, STAR-Ghana and the Environment programme. There were no explicit sector policy
changes through BUSAC, Investing in People or Food Security instruments, although their
contributions to private sector, farming and marketing practices were significant.
A major policy change has been brought about by SEND’s advocacy through NSA support. The
Ministry of Local Government no longer takes deductions from the DACF, at least in the 50 districts
where SEND’s focal NGOs, DCMCs, are present. Another positive change at national level is the
enforcement of the policy regarding PWDs’ share of the DACF, which is largely attributable to the four
NSA-funded programs, to the PWD umbrella organisation and several similar programs. However,
this enforcement is a work in progress and large variations can be observed between districts
regarding how PWDs access and control their fund.
Overall social accountability, the main intended impact, seems to be improving. This is evident in the
long list of commitments and some tangible changes that district officials made in their communication
procedures and attitudes towards citizens. All organised citizens groups expressed their enthusiasm
about being able to approach district officials, and being recognised by them. District Assemblies
have engaged in improved public relations exercises, such as town hall meetings and radio shows.
Given support to women’s networks through EIDHR, The Affirmative Action Law is about to pass in
2014, due to sustained efforts from women rights networks with many donors’ support including EU to
a great extent. The campaign was so successful that the bill has made critical steps towards the final
Parliament debate. This initiative started many years before EU funding and visibly gained momentum
and wide support during the funding period.
STAR-Ghana’s partners have involved in the development and reform of 11 critical bills, some of
which have been passed into law: Renewable Energy Bill, Mental Health Bill and Petroleum Revenue
Management Bill. In addition, STAR’s partners have also been involved in policy analysis and
dissemination of related information. Examples of this work are: disclosure of 7 petroleum contracts
to the public, and posting of information on grants received by the District Directorate of Education
and the schools in one particular district.
BUSAC Fund’s PSOs all have a policy element to their advocacy proposals, although some of the
issues are localised. More significant are BUSAC’s involvement in supporting the development and
strengthening of legislative instruments, such as one to regulate the sales of chemicals. In addition to
PSOs, BUSAC also works with the Ghana Federation of the Disabled and civil society groups in
mining areas. For these types of organisations, BUSAC is providing funds for advocacy for better
legal instruments and bye-laws to ensure that their livelihood potential is enhanced and protected.
The Federation of the Disabled has revised with the support of BUSAC, a legislative instrument under
the Persons with Disability Act. It is preparing to take a more major role in addressing national
strategic policy on the private sector
Through support from the EU’s Environment programme, KASA and Forestry Watch networks have
been articulate and critical on the need to improve good governance and transparency in the
harvesting and use of natural resources in the forestry sub-sector. They have strongly advocated for
the need to enforce the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) agreement and the
27
Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA). In order to address environmental and forest sector
challenges, Ghana commenced negotiations on a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) in 2007
under the EU FLEGT Action Plan. VPAs are legally binding agreements between the EU and timber
producing countries on the exported product to the EU market in order to maximize revenues and
reduce losses for Ghana. The signing of the VPA in November 2009 was the culmination of intensive
negotiations between the Government of Ghana and the EU, and country-wide multi-stakeholder
processes involving the government, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders.
FLEGT/VPA aims at ensuring sustainable development through open, economic and legitimate use of
forestry resources, particularly timber that has always been illegally chain sawed. Other policy-level
achievements include:
Advocacy platforms have contributed to increased transparency and accountability in the
forestry sector. Revenue accruing to the sector in the form of royalties is now being publicly
disclosed.
As a result of advocacy work by CSOs, the Forestry and Wildlife Policy has undergone a
review process.
The Ministry of Environment Science and Technology engaged civil society in the National
Climate Change Policy processes for which KASA took responsibility for drafting a chapter in
the policy.
2.3.3 What has been the intended and unintended impact of EU funding in terms of the
beneficiary organisation and community/sector? Has the impact been in line with
sustainable development and gender equality? EU support, to a great extent, has brought about the intended benefits to the beneficiary organisations
and their communities. More indirectly but significantly, EU support to elections ensured peace and
security. Direct and immediate benefits to communities are more evident in the Food Security
programme. Initiatives under other programmes, particularly related to social accountability, may take
more time to come to fruition before they directly benefit communities and their members. Overall,
local level efforts toward gender equality could be strengthened for greater impact.
It is difficult to clearly determine the extent to which EU-supported projects have impacted on the
results related to elections, considering the weight of national and regional factors. But altogether
these projects have reached, and certainly influenced, tens of thousands of Ghanaian citizens. Peace
and security during elections, a paramount national concern, was achieved to the greatest extent,
even in districts which had been selected by the projects on the basis of indicators for potential
violence. No violent incident was reported, even in the difficult aftermath of the presidential election.
The Kumasi High-level meeting attended by political parties and CSOs, and led by IDEG, was critical
in creating a cordial environment and an atmosphere conducive to issue-based campaigns.
Although the objective of peaceful elections was fulfilled, the goal of greater representation of women
was not reached. In spite of tremendous efforts made by CSOs at all levels, results at district level
are worse than before (14% decrease). However, in an interesting paradox, impacts are higher than
immediate outcomes. In communities visited by the evaluation team, there is a visible increase in the
level of awareness on the need for women to participate and win elections, which has not translated
into votes. Women contestants testify that their knowledge and attitudes have developed
tremendously as well as their determination to continue the struggle until success is achieved.
Women and marginalized groups are primary targets for all these social accountability programs.
However, for lack of gender analysis, specific women’s or gender issues are not well defined, and the
relevance of the projects to their needs is not altogether guaranteed. Local groups are supposed to
include women’s representation, but it is unclear how, in practice, women issues can emerge out of
the long list of issues raised by male representatives (youth, farmers, PWDs etc). Therefore, the
28
empowerment of “citizens” is prioritised over women empowerment. In many instances, some women
did get empowered by participating in project activities, but this was more a by-product than a project
result expected from a planned intervention.
PWDs have a much higher profile in all the projects because of the national policy which allocates
them 2% of DACF. All four projects were very relevant to PWDs. They are almost systematically
invited to contribute, their involvement is monitored (IDEG, FNF/CDD), and efforts are made to enable
their access to project sites and activities. Many activities focus on empowering PWDs so that the
policy could benefit them in concrete terms in each district. To strengthen the PWD position,
advocacy also takes place at national level, jointly with Ghana Federation of the Disabled which is a
partner of all projects.
In any case, the impact for beneficiaries of social accountability programmes is varied. Although
engagement between district authorities and communities has been institutionalized, citizens groups’
level of information about District plans and finances was too limited to enable them to dialogue with
authorities, let alone monitor budgets and expenditures. Therefore, it is no surprise that in monetary
terms, changes at community level are not so remarkable.
In many ways, this is because the most targeted fund, DACF, is not replenished by central authorities
on a regular basis. Moreover, the fund does not automatically provide financial support according to
legal entitlements. According to the BN partner in Walewale, to apply for funds, citizens tend to self-
define within the administrative categories that enable them to request support from GoG schemes: “I
am a PWD or a female petty trader or a small scale farmer or a visually impaired person.” Then each
of the vulnerable persons, including PWDs, has to enter a competitive, lengthy and unpredictable
process of submitting applications for income generating projects, critical health care, or for
community schools. They form groups to coordinate individual applications, and in some instances
(like in Ga South) to establish priorities before sending their applications to the District authorities.
This lengthy process may not yield any benefits in the end.
The nature of the design of BUSAC Fund projects lends itself to sustainable ends. Successful
advocacy campaigns have not only energized PSOs, but the entire community affected by the
change. Most small organisations used to see public officials as remote and inaccessible, and many
government staff were alienated from civil society. One of the advocacy steps involves bringing
together all stakeholders, including PSOs and government officials, around the table to a level playing
field. “We can express ourselves without fear and intimidation.” This step is transformative because
the players see value and inter-dependence in each other’s contributions.
Thus, once BUSAC-funded groups have successfully met their advocacy goal, they go on to pursue
other issues that stand in the way of their business goals. Once the Vegetable Growers Association
in Tamale secured their urban land tracts from municipal authorities, they went on to advocate for
better animal control and garbage regulation. Once mango growers in five districts had anti-bush-
burning bye-laws put into place, they started to tackle climate change issues. “Until we have
achieved all our goals, we will continue to engage in post-dialogue.” This statement points to the
possibility of positive unintended impact and multiple spill-over effects. On the other hand, the last
batch of grants to be assessed showed that a few more than half the grantees had fully reached their
goals. Others were still at various stages of advocacy, even though their funding had run out.
STAR can document many intended and unintended impacts. However, its efforts to promote GESI –
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion – are not as positive as expected. Despite STAR’s support to
women’s organisations, particularly large national groups and the gains they have made, GESI has
not made the desired impact at the grassroots. Targeted groups for GESI are women, persons with
disabilities and people living in remote geographical areas. Without skills in social/gender analysis, it
is difficult for grantees to apply the concept of GESI to these groups. Therefore, efforts to address
29
them are often superficial and mostly given lip service. The ability to take up GESI is made more
difficult by the fact that it is meant to be mainstreamed – a process which introduces more ambiguity.
Unless grantees work directly to understand and address the specific and strategic needs of these
groups and their systemic causes, it is unlikely that real gains will be made in social/gender equality at
district and community levels.
Investing in People’s impact is in line with both gender equality and sustainable development goals.
Women shea butter processors have started using environmentally-friendly (eg energy saving)
methods of processing butter. Furthermore, the project has contributed to increasing standards of
quality in the shea industry leading to the production and refinement of shea butter and shea nuts. As
a result, the Shea Company has been able to increase the volume of exports from 17 MT in 2011 to
62 MT and more than 100 MT in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Selling through Star Shea Network
enables women to make 68% margin because of improved quality of shea commodity in the market.
With better profits, women have the confidence to access social schemes and government
programmes meant to improve their lives i.e. National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS).
With support from the EU food security programme, CSOs reached out to areas like Damongo and
Bole that were previously perceived as inaccessible communities. As a result, many more poor
farmers are able to participate in the development process. Smallholder farmers have been
empowered to change the ways of production and marketing. As part of the change, smallholder
farmers have started engaging agricultural service providers like input dealers and tractor operators.
Understanding that there is strength in number, farmers are joining cooperatives in order to access
benefits such as credit from commercial rural banks. FAMAR II formed gender-sensitive farmer
based organisations at the community level (1,400 CBOs), district level (12 DFBOs) and regional level
(3 SFBOs). Farmers’ ability to repay loans is largely due to increased availability of market channels
which has been facilitated by CSOs such as ACDEP. Farmers’ income under the FARMAR project
rose by almost 40%.
New opportunities have impressed on community members the need to be transparent and
accountable. Plan Ghana had to place an embargo on Bulinga community denying the farmers funds
because their leaders could not account for project monies. The Bulinga community sanction has
positively changed the leadership behaviour of farmers, particularly in the areas of good governance,
transparency and accountability. Similarly, VSLAs have also promoted transparency and
accountability through the culture of savings, succeeding in helping farmers to mobilise resources to
mitigate climate change disasters. In addition, farmers are generating income by charging for storage
in community warehouses. Thus, income generating and savings habits have been created or at least
strengthened by CSOs, particularly Plan Ghana.
As a result, farmers have generally learned how to efficiently manage project funds. CSOs introduced
inventory credit and provided warehouses to communities which helped to reduce post-harvest
losses. Group storage in designated warehouses was supported by post-harvest extension education
which provided knowledge and skills to farmers. The inventory credit scheme has helped to increase
farmers’ incomes in good years when farmers had yields far above their subsistence need. This was
made possible by the fact that ADRA’s project contributed to reducing food insecurity from a 4 month
period to only one month. In all, more than 40,000 smallholder farmers benefited from the EU’s
support in terms of increased yield, income and capacity.
Under the EU’s Environment programme, communities organised forest forums, so that they were
empowered to demand their rights to natural resources. Results of discussions show that community
members have started questioning the effectiveness of forest laws such as tree tenure, concessions
and land boundaries. They are demanding explanations on inconsistencies of tree protection and
ownership. Communities are able to hold contractors and companies to their social responsibility
agreements whereby 5% of the contract sum is allocated to communities.
30
2.4 Sustainability This section addresses the following questions:
Are the results of completed EU funded project visible/ detectable/ streamlined?
Are activities funded by EU still ongoing beyond the funding phase?
What evidence is there to prove the sustainability of the action?
To what extent have other stakeholders including state agencies contributed to sustaining the action beyond EU funding?
To a great extent, the results of completed EU-funded projects are visible and sustained. For projects
in the livelihoods, food security and environment sectors, activities are still ongoing beyond the
funding phase with PSOs, women’s and farmer-based groups. Entities that were considered donor-
driven have now been nationalised. Some CSOs have successfully sought funding to continue
activities. The sustainability of other projects under NSA, EIDHR and STAR is more precarious. To
continue advocacy activities, they are more reliant on funding. In any case, some of the gains of their
projects are evident and benefitting communities.
NSA: The projects funded by the NSA-LA program are still ongoing – many results have not yet been
achieved. It is thus too early to assess their sustainability, but one can predict that some results are
likely to be sustained. For example, it is expected that Districts Assemblies monitored by SEND’s
DCMCs will strive to keep their funds deduction free. Moreover, those which have committed to
providing recurrent support for PWDs will continue to do so.
With social accountability projects, exit strategies are based on the assumption that local citizens
groups will be empowered and able to access social protection schemes and local funds, such as
DACF. It is assumed that the livelihoods of their members will improve to the extent that they sustain
advocacy activities on their own. So far this assumption has not proven true, but it raises enough
hope for them to keep up with their advocacy activities.
In all cases it seems that progress made towards transparency and accountability is still NGO-led,
and limited to NGOs scope of intervention, rather than embraced by local government. The concepts
are applied to priority areas on which NGOs programs focus: school feeding, health, PWD funds.
However there are some exceptions. In Salaga, the local citizens group is now lobbying the Electricity
Corporation without support from any NGO. Similarly, there are some district officials, for example in
Yendi, who reach out to communities on their own initiative.
Still the results of these inconsistent efforts in social accountability mean that large areas of public
actions are not monitored by the public. The DDF is monitored by consultants even in districts where
the DACF is closely monitored by CSOs and local groups. However, the IGF, definitely the most
important fund in terms of local development, is not under CSOs scrutiny.
In reality, local CSOs and CBOs will probably experience difficulties to sustain their advocacy and
monitoring activities if external support comes to a halt. Their financial situation is extremely
precarious. Funds from DACF are uncertain, given the fact that the fund is not replenished by central
authorities on a regular basis. Local CSOs who partner with NGOs on successive projects will strive
to continue to support their constituents in spite of variations in projects’ objectives.
EIDHR: Women’s networks who supported women during elections continue to do so, but on a
smaller scale. Even without funding, they sustain their advocacy activities towards achieving their core
objectives. WILDAF follow-up indicates that the local groups it initiated (CoWIGs) keep advocating for
women’s issues at District level and some of their members keep contesting elections. Approximately
30% of women who contested elections in 2010 are still active and want to contest elections across
31
the 25 districts covered by the project. WiLDAF is yet to get funding to support district elections, but is
serving on other networks that work to ensure greater women’s participation and law reforms. The
Gender Centre is implementing the Women in Leadership project which is based on model, “We
Know Politics.” With sponsorship from the Dutch Government, it seeks to build capacity of other
women not targeted under We Know Politics, but who are interested in political leadership.
Gains obtained by CSOs through lobbying political parties will be sustained only by joint efforts from
actors other than CSOs. Advocacy from DPs, media, IGIs and MPs will be required to guarantee
political parties’ adherence to the commitments they have signed.
STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund:
STAR provides grants to CSOs with the option that they can use the funds to grant to other CSOs or
CBOs. Once the project is over, the granting CSO may be able to continue its work, but may not be
able to continue to support the CBO partner with resources. This may lead to a situation of “one-off”
support, unless the CBO is linked up with other opportunities. The project intervention may not be
sustained if there is no further support. On the other hand, some groups will continue to function
whether or not they have funds because they operate on a voluntary basis. For example, Basic
Need’s self-help groups continue their voluntary patient advocacy work, whether or not they have a
STAR grant. However, they may be more innovative and more effective if they have funding for their
activities.
There is considerable evidence to show that BUSAC’s achievements are sustainable. Some of these
are well depicted in the media. On the ground, they are evident in new structures (markets, offices),
strengthened associations, partnerships, plots of land and legislative instruments. Sustainability is
built on BUSAC’s recipe for success and well established methodology: the impetus comes from the
bottom-up and is demand-driven; capacity building for advocacy using the five-step method;
experience sharing for better motivation; competitive consultancy services; funds with capacity
building to leverage opportunities. Sustainability of BUSAC’s outcomes is driven by the viability and
profitability of businesses operating in an enabling environment.
Investing in People: The gains of the Investing In People programme have been sustained at the
community level. The EU’s support has contributed to the establishment of important local institutions
such as community social funds and viable networks like the Star Shea Network. These are working
to promote improved access to health services and foreign markets for women.
The Star Shea Network continues to aggregate commodities in the shea value chain for export. The
community social funds are functioning and members make regular contributions. The groups operate
joint or group bank accounts to save money. Implementing partners (Grameen Ghana and Maata N
Tudu) are now capable of using the experience gained from the present project to source for more
funding for scaling up. Maata N Tudu succeeded in winning a new EU-funded project in 2014.
Food Security: The results of completed EU funded projects are visible in the communities.
Activities funded by EU are still ongoing beyond the funding phase. The wells and dams are still
functioning, even though they are highly dependent on rains to function well. The EU-funded food
warehouses for storing farm produce are also in use at places like Tanina and Ducie. The revolving
fund is still active.
The ACDEP Agribusiness Financial Services and the SFMC are functioning well. The financial
services unit continues to grant credit to farmers while the SFMC serves a permanent marketing
channel for farmer groups. Local institutions like the FAMAR’s community agricultural extension
agents are still functioning. Out of the 12 secondary farmer based organisations (SFBOs) formed by
the FAMAR project 10 are well organised and are functioning very well. In addition, District Food
32
Security Networks, FBOs and peer teachers, all established or strengthened during the project, are
still functioning.
EU’s support to CSOs towards achieving food security shows clear signs of sustainability at the
community level as a result of enhanced knowledge and skill. Smallholder farmers are using the
knowledge and skills learnt from EU supported projects to improve their farm enterprises and have
formed farmer organisations which are functioning well in various ways including search for market,
engagement of agricultural service providers, women’s participation in agriculture, etc, all aimed to
improve farmer welfare. Some of them have been able to support farmers with financial services
either directly (establishing financial services) or indirectly (linking farmers to financial institutions).
Similarly, at organisational level, it can be concluded that EU’s support is highly sustainable because
beneficiary CSOs have witnessed increased capacity to design projects or write winning proposals.
For example, ADRA is currently implementing with AGRA an Integrated Productivity Improvement and
Marketing Project with support from DANIDA.
Environment: EU support in the environment sub-sector is sustainable at both community and local
governance levels. At the community level, there is evidence of increased participatory planning,
implementation and monitoring of the forestry and natural resources. More so, the increased
awareness of forestry laws resulting from EU’s support has led to a positive response by community
members in planting and/or protecting trees.
EU support has largely contributed to increased community awareness on forestry and natural
resource management issues. The communities are playing a watch-dog role in the forestry sub-
sector. Previously, communities did not know the laws governing the forest and natural resources and
stayed far away from the FSD which aided illegal lumbering and other land problems such as land
degradation. Now, they monitor the activities of chainsaw operators and saw millers (e.g. demand for
permits) and raise pertinent questions regarding transparent and accountable use of forest revenue,
tree tenure and land rights. Further, with increased awareness of forestry laws, community members
have developed keen interest in planting and/or protecting trees, showing their desire to participate in
managing the country’s forest and natural resources. As such, civil society engages in a careful
balance between playing watch dog to and being a partner with the government. In its efforts to work
with government in protecting its forests, civil society takes care not to strain its relationship with
government officials to a point in which they become ineffective advocates.
EU’s support to CSOs in the forestry sub-sector has greatly benefited decentralised departments of
the District Assemblies. The Forestry Services Department has seen the need for good governance in
the forestry sector. Both FSD and District Assemblies have bought into the idea of the forest forums
and have begun sponsoring them. The staff of the Forestry Services Department works closely with
CSOs to implement EU forestry and natural resources projects. For example, the Forestry Services
Department supports the work of CSOs by reviewing some of the laws and making their staff available
for sensitisation meetings in the communities.
KASA is in transition to become a local NGO with an organised management structure which will still
maintain its identity and visibility with mentorship from CARE International. Civic Response is
designing the Phase 2 of GIRAF to consolidate the gains derived from Phase 1. Civic Response
strengthened the capacity of 11 forest forum facilitators that continue to function effectively. The
facilitators have started writing project proposals in order to continue similar forestry activities.
33
2.5 Complementarity/Coherence This section addresses the following question: To what extent has EU funding been complementary
to efforts of Ghana Government, other EU initiatives and those of other donors? In answer to the
question, the emphasis in most cases, is on other EU initiatives within the 10th EDF. In addition to the
large programmes making up the National Indicative Programme, a number of cross-cutting issues
were prioritized. They featured largely in both EU’s support to the Government of Ghana and for civil
society.
The EU Delegation systematically organizes the complementarity between NSA/civil society inputs
and Government during policy formulation through two types of consultations: a meeting which is part
of the identification mission and a restitution workshop at the end of the mission. Civil society
representatives are always invited to these meetings, but not too many attend. One could surmise
that CSO leaders do not really own the process because funding is meant to support only
Government. For GDSP I – a combined consultation took place with government and civil society
before preparing the guidelines and for GDSP II, a “structured dialogue was organized before the
preparation of the Civil Society Roadmap guidelines.
The commitment to include civil society at policy and program formulation stage is in progress. There
is room for improvement in the area of CSO participation in the monitoring of GDSP. The EU
performance assessment framework used for monitoring its contributions includes social
accountability, popular participation and CSO involvement, but it is not yet fully utilised. On
Government side, the performance monitoring system for decentralization is not finalized. Therefore,
CSOs cannot use these systems as the access point they need to monitor government’s indicators for
success. This leaves CSOs to develop their own ways to monitor programmes, which may not be as
pertinent to Government.
The Non-State Actors programme complements the EU’s sector budget support for Ghana’s
decentralisation reform, the first of the three major areas identified under the governance chapter of
the 10th EDF Country Strategy 2008-2013. The interventions of the EU’s Governance section are
placed within the overall framework of social accountability. Thus, social accountability provides the
conceptual basis for the complementarity between the government’s decentralisation programme and
the NSA/LA. While NSA/LA fosters demand for good governance, the government, on the supply
side, is expected to improve the transfer of funds from central level to MMDAs.
Although the two EU-funded programmes were meant to complement each other, coherence between
NSA/LA and GDSP was somewhat compromised by the government’s lack of clarity on its
performance indicators for GDSP. The government has not yet finalised its performance monitoring
system for its decentralisation programme.
34
On the other hand, CSOs’ advocacy objectives are not always well defined. In NSA-LA funded
programs, research and advocacy CSOs, like many NGOs, work with vulnerable people in remote
areas, toward general objectives, such as better communication with district officials. Also, many
organisations, including research and advocacy CSOs, are working with persons with disability (PWD)
to ensure their entitlement to 2% of the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF). Most CSOs have
not engaged in specific and targeted advocacy campaigns within the framework of social
accountability. Given gaps in government systems and services, the needs of the public are
overwhelming. One would expect that think tanks and advocacy networks would work from this larger
picture and raise many and varied crucial issues, such as need to increase and optimize the transfer
of financial resources to MMDAs. Given improvements in access to government audit and MMDAs
reports, especially through the internet, research and advocacy organisations should be able to
design and carry out advocacy campaigns around these larger issues. An exception is SEND-Ghana
which has successfully campaigned against government deductions to the DACF.
A much clearer government decentralisation agenda would fuel a civil society advocacy agenda that
is consistent with government priorities and with the EU’s goals for its support to social accountability.
Thus, to bridge communication between CSOs and the government, the EU funded a Social
Accountability Platform, from which would emerge common tools and best practices in social
accountability. The Platform harmonizes efforts by civil society on the ground, so that District
Assemblies are able to better respond to more unified efforts and approaches of engagement. The
Social Accountability Platform provides the EU with one clear mechanism for coherence for this
aspect of its governance programmes.
The EIDHR Call for Proposals addressed timely issues regarding the upcoming elections. In Ghana
in 2009, in a context of relative stability, the EU and most political analysts recognised that the fragile
nature of the democratic process and potential tensions could affect the 2010 District elections and
2012 Presidential and Parliamentary elections. In addition to these potential problems, another
worrying weakness of the democratic process was identified: women occupy less than 11% of the
seats in parliament, and their number had fallen further during the last elections. EU’s support to IGIs
and to CSOs through EIDHR was complementary. According to CSOs’ reports and testimonies, key
IGIs engaged with CSOs in strategic and effective ways during the election process. The EIDHR
projects are also coherent with EU programs that aim at strengthening Local Authorities, as well as
the relationship between them and local CSOs. Through these EIDHR projects, many CSOs have
been able to more effectively operate in the political arena. They are better acquainted with local
authorities’ dynamics and constraints and are in a better position to plan with them in future.
Moreover, in line with NSA projects, demanding social accountability and transparency will also be
more legitimised in districts where newly elected women assembly members have been supported by
a large movement during their campaign.
Complementarities between EU’s EIDHR and other donor-funded projects has been enhanced
throughout the election period because of women’s networks who gathered a large range of
supporters towards clearly identified objectives (AA Law and women contestants). The same has
been achieved by the IDEG network which was effective in gaining nationwide cooperation to avoid
political violence.
STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund were proposed at the same time as part of the EU’s support to
Democratic Participation and Civil Society. Both were funded by the EU within a multi-donor pool.
STAR-Ghana was consistent with both EIDHR (election support) and NSA/LA (social accountability
and decentralisation). STAR-Ghana was complementary to the EU’s support of government because
it was seen as activating the demand side of accountability. This complements the EU’s support to
sector ministries, departments and agencies in the quest to reduce poverty and promote
accountability.
35
At the time, all three programmes were seen as distinct from each other. However, STAR through its
thematic calls embraced all issues included in the EIDHR and NSA. This contributed to
complementarity, but also to some duplication. In several cases, the same CSOs, as grantees or their
partners, were funded to do similar projects under more than one instrument. With smaller
organisations, particularly those with budgets of much less than $500,000 per year, coherence and
complementarity from a macro perspective are not so relevant. However, on the ground, many
CSOs and CBOs are involved in social accountability activities, engaging and advocating to their
District and Municipal Assemblies. In some areas, there may be some duplication of efforts,
especially when CSOs are not well networked or coordinated.
BUSAC Fund, as a unique civil society tool, pushes from the bottom up for better business in ways
that are consistent with the Government growth policies. However, in the absence of a government
strategy on public-private partnership and limited ensuing dialogue at national level, BUSAC’s
strategic impact will not be felt – even though it has great potential to make a difference to the private
sector. As both funds are going into a third stage, this is an opportunity to re-assess
complementarities and establish relevant objectives designed to meet the challenges of the new time
frame.
Investing in People is consistent with EU’s goal to reduce poverty in the context of sustainable
development and in line with Ghana’s Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA). The
GSGDA places emphasis on expanding services to meet the MDGs and developing a healthy labour
force to support higher growth and structural change.
EU’s support to CSOs in Food Security has been consistent with the work of other donors in
Northern Ghana on food security and livelihood issues. These include CIDA, DANIDA, DFID, and
USAID. Major efforts of these donors are in the areas of agricultural productivity, marketing,
agricultural financing and agribusiness. IFAD, WFP, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation also provided support to smallholder farmers. Although some of these
donors are still supporting food security projects in Northern Ghana, the EU has made a strategic
decision not to continue to fund food security projects, but instead to support the government in the
area of agricultural development with a specific emphasis on infrastructure.
The Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (ENRTP) programme
addresses environmental and natural resource management issues. The programme assists partners
in meeting their obligations under Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs) and in achieving the
Millennium Development Goal on environment and complements targeted actions from geographical
programmes. Key stakeholders in environment and natural resource management, particularly the
Forest Services Department have been deeply involved in the activities of CSOs working in the
forestry and natural resource areas.
The EU’s environment programme has a balanced portfolio with similar contributions to government
and civil society. In the Forestry sector, the EU is funding 15 CSOs – international, local, community-
based – all of which are involved in ensuring social responsibility in the sector. These projects are
linked to strengthening CSO engagement in multi-stakeholder processes around the VPA in Ghana.
The EU has also made efforts to apply joint donor approaches to analytical work and capacity building
in line with the HAP and Paris Declaration. For example, on Natural Resources Management a joint
approach is emerging supported by a joint Country Environmental Assessment (CEA) funded by
DFID, RNE, AFD and the World Bank. The EU is also using the CEA in the preparation of its
Environmental Profile. The EU’s support harmonizes well with support from other development
partners: CIDA, World Bank, DFID and UNDP. Most of these initiatives are on climate change and
sustainable land and water management.
36
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1 Conclusions
Conclusions related to Relevance
1. Most EU-supported Calls for Proposals address pertinent issues and attract
appropriate CSOs. However, some CSOs will answer calls and win grants, even
though the issue is not related to their mission and vision. Selecting only established
organisations with a track record in the proposed area may exclude new organisations
that could potentially be more effective. When the EU takes a risk to fund
organizations to implement projects in new areas, this may have implications, both
positive and negative, for impact and sustainability. (Evaluation Question 2.1.1)
Not all CSOs equally benefited from EIDHR projects or contributed to creating impact. The most
successful projects were designed and implemented by CSOs which were already organised in issue-
based movements, coalitions or networks. Their long-term vision was based on a profound analysis
of the issues and accumulated practical experience. They were able to conceptualise lessons
learned from their experience and from others’. This is particularly the case with women’s networks.
Their project design encompassed the complexity of the realities they wanted to change and made
room for activities at all levels, from national campaigns to providing support to individuals in all
regions.
The least successful projects were designed and implemented by CSOs, INGOs and think tanks that
lacked the experience and vision for the issues that they had undertaken, such as women political
rights or juvenile justice. Many aspects of their strategies proved unrealistic and they tended to limit
their scope of action to the layer of the society they know best, for example national level decision
makers or women in rural areas. Apart from women’s rights organisations, most grantees have not
sufficiently integrated gender analysis in their strategies to enable their projects to be fully relevant to
women. These weaknesses and potential risks were often visible in the applicants’ limited lists of
experiences and in their weak logical frameworks but were underestimated during the proposal
evaluation process.
Some CSOs will apply for funding for projects and initiatives which are outside their mandate, simply
because the opportunity allows for much-needed financial support. The organisation may propose to
branch out, build their capacity in new areas or focus on new target groups. However, when the
project is over, the organisation often goes back to “business as usual” with assistance from other
donors. In this case, the opportunity to sustain the action has not been incorporated in the
organisation’s priorities or perhaps it does not have the capacity to carry on. In the end, the EU
investment has been mostly lost.
On the other hand, some CSOs, particularly local CSOs and CBOs, have to stop project activities if
their partnership with the grantee ends or if funding ends. In this case, the activity may be in line with
the CSO’s mandate, but the situation is not viable for continuing. Similarly, the EU investment is lost.
2. Smaller localised CSOs and CBOs have been involved in EU supported projects, but
not always empowered to develop and grow. Although grassroots organisations are
active on the ground, they do not always get the recognition they deserve. (Evaluation
Question 2.1.2)
Most EU instruments and programmes for CSO support include provisions for “partnering.” These
include NSA, EIDHR, Food Security, Environment and STAR. In many projects, grantees are able to
grant down to local CSOs and CBOs on the ground, who implement activities as partners, focal
37
organisations, sub-contractors, network members. From the development perspective, these
relationships are seen as partnerships. The strength of these partnerships is a key factor of the
impact, and more importantly of sustainability, of project results. Partners are expected to keep on
promoting the issues and monitoring the situations after the end of the funding period.
The trend of downward granting applies to international NGOs, their local NGO partners at national or
regional level, their CSO partners at district level, and finally CBOs or FBOs in communities. Granting
down has advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, hundreds of local CSOs and CBOs
partnering in projects have benefitted from having their organisational capacities built through
numerous training events. They are able to participate in various and successive projects as partners
to larger CSOs and NGOs, building up their experience to assist their constituents.
On the other hand, they are not equal partnerships. In fact, these front-line CSOs and CBOs are
largely invisible in project design and implementation. They are barely mentioned in proposals and
reports. Most Accra-based research and advocacy organisations with some offices in other regions,
work within the context of national and international programs and institutions. Beside the personal
engagements of their leaders for an equitable spread of resources, the organisations’ interest in
giving away powers and funds to regions and districts is not certain.
Thus, there are limitations to these partnerships, which are observable in both subtle and more
obvious forms of “gate keeping.” Gate keeping may be evident in these forms – the more influential
partners may:
construe an agenda which is not entirely owned by the CSO, but usually reflects other interests
speak or write for the CSO when they could represent their own findings or views, especially at higher-level functions, i.e. conferences, workshops
limit opportunities by not sharing knowledge or procedures which would give CSO more autonomy
absorb CSOs time for doing their own work by holding frequent meeting and training events.
These types of gate keeping are not done purposely to confine smaller CSOs. However, because of
a tight resource base, there is no doubt that power and control come into play. According to their
level, local partners are given fewer resources and their involvement in project activities is mostly in a
volunteer capacity. Thus, they have few funds to move forward with their own objectives. They gain
experience and knowledge mostly through informal processes -- “learning by doing” -- missing out on
the good practices of others. Although they are given some training, the full impact of their capacity
development is difficult to assess for lack of documentation. Many lose staff to larger CSOs and
NGOs because they are in such a precarious position. Some local CSOs protest the conditions under
which they are partners, because from their grassroots perspective, they see themselves as taken
advantage of by “big projects with big money.” They are somewhat resentful of having to be a partner
with inadequate financial incentives.
Donors are more comfortable if proven NGOs and CSOs sub-grant down to the level of the
community because the responsibility for granting and all it entails falls on them. The larger national
NGOs and CSOs recruit front-line CSOs and CBOs as sub-contractors. They do not desire a
relationship of dependency with them. As such, they do not see them as full partners, and therefore
do not take responsibility for their organisational development and solvency.
In this situation, the autonomy of the CBO is diminished, and thus, fewer CBOs are flourishing,
according to a recent study commissioned by STAR on the political economy of civil society in Ghana.
Smaller CSOs and CBOs desire to enter into the mainstream but are prevented by gate keepers
which insist that their community spirit should remain intact, unaffected by bureaucratic complications.
38
CSOs at the grassroots, even with educational and literacy challenges, have considerable potential to
lead their own processes within a supportive and enabling implementing environment. Generally,
they have more capacity than they are given credit for. They are able to articulate inequities and
injustices from their grounded standpoint and can address issues in ways that are viable and
sustainable without the administrative and bureaucratic entrapments of gatekeepers.
3. CSOs ability to innovate their operations and communications, especially through the
use of ICT, is limited, although some organisations are taking the lead. (Evaluation
Question 2.1.2 )
In many countries, the momentum for activism by civil society is driven by ICT and social media. In
Ghana, for many years, the major method of communication is radio, particularly community radio.
The use of mobile phones for messaging is also becoming more popular in Ghana. SEND-Ghana is
starting to use phone calls and responsive menus to educate citizens about the activities of their
district assemblies. A number of STAR-Ghana grantees, i.e. PensPlusBytes, Savannah Signatures,
are using ICT in creative ways for communication. However, the use of ICT and social media to
mobilize the public is not widespread. Most CSOs are using the same types of face-to-face meeting
platforms to gather support for advocacy and other issues. There is a need for CSOs to take up the
challenge and use ICT and other technologies in innovative ways to mobilize the public.
Conclusions related to Effectiveness
4. Service providers or consultants to projects, meant to mentor CSOs and build their
capacity, are mostly appreciated. In some cases, this technical assistance may not be
merited or is provided inappropriately. (Evaluation Question 2.2.1)
Smaller CSOs and CBOs seem to be satisfied with STAR Ghana’s support. They praise STAR for
being “pro-active” in building capacity before capacity gaps become obvious, especially in grassroots
organisations. Some medium and larger CSOs are somewhat dissatisfied with STAR’s mandatory
requirements to accommodate service providers. Some find that the amount of staff time given for
additional meetings or training events held by service providers is excessive, even holding up their
ability to implement. Others find that service provision in certain areas is not required, inappropriate,
or not of good quality. “Service providers are not always ‘under control.’” They are not always
committed to the needs of the beneficiaries.” A few grantees felt that they had lost the ownership of
their own project to service providers. Moreover, some service providers took over as the “voice” of
the project, having so little confidence in the participants to speak for themselves.
In any case, given the slim staff complements of programmes like STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund
and the hundreds of grants they manage (for STAR, a ratio of 30:1), the need for service providers or
external consultants is inevitable. The institutionalization of the service provider concept entrenched
in each project is unprecedented. Although there seem to be many advantages to the service
provider concept, there are also some disadvantages. Too much intervention by donors is
counterproductive to spirit of civil society, which should embody independence, creativity and
spontaneity.
5. Even though its guidelines are strict, the EU will make considerable effort to be flexible
with project budgets and work plans. Still, CSOs find it hard to negotiate these
arrangements, often perceiving the EU to be inflexible. (Evaluation Questions 2.2.2)
CSOs need to commit to long-term budgets, sometime up to four years. However, during that time
costs can rise significantly, even more than predicted. Staff salaries and fuel prices are mostly
implicated in budget constraints. In addition, funds do not always arrive as expected due to inflexible
procedural issues. Moreover, CSOs experience too many restrictions on eligible expenditures.
39
Finally, EU procurement procedures are sometimes unduly burdensome for CSOs, especially with
source and country of origin rules.
Work plans are also mostly inflexible. This complicates implementation when the lead time for project
start-up is so long that communities’ priorities have changed or that some planned activities are no
longer relevant. Even so, sometimes the EU has not given room to either modify or change activities.
Some projects which have not completed implementation of activities during the contracted time
frame were asked to stop and give back the funds. Other projects were allowed no-cost extensions to
complete activities.
The EU’s ability to be flexible with project funds has allowed some CSOs to improve their
performance. Changes are possible, but most require a lengthy and cumbersome process,
sometimes impeding or slowing progress. If requests for changes are made before implementation
starts, the EU is more flexible in its arrangements.
6. The EU is praised by CSOs for providing some long-term (3-5 year) funding
opportunities for projects. In addition to these, there is a range of EU support given for
shorter time periods. The size of the grant and the length of time for the project do not
necessarily correlate to success, although generally longer term projects have a
greater likelihood of achieving expected results. (Evaluation Question 2.2.2)
CSOs appreciate opportunities for longer term funding because they are able to accomplish higher
level outcome results requiring implementation of a range of complex activities. In addition, those
research and advocacy-oriented CSOs need time to do research before and after their interventions.
Apart from some NSA and EIDHR projects, the time frames of many EU-supported projects range
from 6-18 months. These include some STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund grants, among others.
These shorter-term projects are meant to accomplish specific objectives with more targeted and
strategic activities.
Some of the food security projects, i.e. Farm Plus, had wonderful ideas, but they were too complex.
They were over-ambitious – wanting to achieve so many things within a short period of time (20
months). When projects are too ambitious, they become focussed on results rather than on the
principles, protocols and procedures required to achieve them. In the end, this situation is counter-
productive. These short-term projects end abruptly, just at the time farmers start to think about
adopting new technologies. In contrast, BUSAC Fund gives many short-term grants for advocacy
processes. The objectives are clear and focused, and activities are outlined in steps to a logical
conclusion. The balance between project objectives, the activities required to meet them, time frame
and resources poses a quandary for many CSOs which are determined to “bite off more than they can
chew.”
Short-term funding should be seen as a boost – a chance to accomplish a strategic initiative related to
a specific change in practice, programme or policy, a change to stand out and make a name for
themselves. Instead, CSOs often fall into full project mode, taking their time, getting bogged down
with logistic or other operational issues, and missing the strategic mark. “The duration of some
projects is just too short to accomplish or sustain anything meaningful” (Evaluation Workshop,
Tamale). This situation is not helped by EU regulations and heavy administrative procedures.
40
7. CSOs are organised into many different types of networks. Advocacy networks are the
most successful and sustainable. (Evaluation Question 2.2.4)
Network formation and coalition building are priorities for CSOs in theory, but in reality, they are more
difficult to achieve. Some of the reasons for this are that CSOs do not always see each other as
equal partners and do not want to be burdened with each other’s weakness and problems. Some
CSOs are limited to networking in their own geographical area or institutional affiliation. As a result,
they are also less receptive to receiving or sharing information. Because of their compelling common
interests, advocacy networks seem to be more cohesive and sustainable than networks with other
objectives. There are many more opportunities to strengthen advocacy networks in the thematic
areas funded with EU support.
8. CSOs have proved that with EU support, they can enter into dialogue with government
and influence policy. They have also added value to legislative processes by providing
relevant research, informing decision-makers. However, for many organisations how to
do effective advocacy continues to be a challenge. (Evaluation Question 2.2.5)
Many EU-supported CSOs and projects have focused on advocacy activities. CSOs can play a role in
improving the quality and effectiveness of public policies and promoting fair management of public
resources. For example, CSOs in the forestry sector, though criticized by the government, also
offered the government alternative ideas of improving forestry governance and effective natural
resource management. Advocacy activities are valuable to districts so that they are constantly
reminded of the needs of their communities. They are able to use the research and information for
their own advocacy activities at regional and national levels.
Currently, for the most part, advocacy activities have a “project base,” rather than a “popular base.”
They are fuelled by the support of EU and other donors. In light of the fact that the Government of
Ghana will soon become more independent of its donor partners, civil society will need to come to
grips with how to do advocacy outside of the project context and within a more responsive activist
platform.
Now, large research and advocacy-based CSOs take on the major responsibility for advocacy
activities at the national level. However, more and more, local CSOs desire to represent themselves
and lead their own initiatives. The impact of advocacy work is maximised when the ultimate
beneficiaries do it themselves rather than others advocating on their behalf.
BUSAC Fund has an effective methodology for advocacy – simple and proven. PSOs themselves
carry out advocacy activities that are grounded in an evidence base, and rely on dialogue and non-
antagonistic approaches. Advocacy initiatives, such as those required by BUSAC grants, require
voluntary efforts on the part of group leaders and members. Effective leadership and voluntarism are
crucial to these processes.
Apart from certain organisations that stand out for their advocacy initiatives and campaigns, other
organisations that receive EU support are engaged in research, advocacy training and general
sensitisation activities with communities on local government issues. Not all CSOs that purport to do
advocacy actually follow through with specific issue-based campaigns.
41
Conclusions related to Impact
9. EU support provided capacity building opportunities for different types of CSOs, which
led to their growth and development. Some CSOs, depending on their situations,
continue to require capacity strengthening in some areas. (Evaluation Question 2.3.1)
EU support has provided CSOs with ways to improve their organisational, human and physical
capacity. Particularly, for food security projects, physical capacity (equipment, machinery) was
essential to meeting objectives. CSOs have been able to hire staff in order to cover larger areas in
attempts to coordinate greater number of communities to participate in development processes, i.e.
monitoring forestry and environmental governance issues. All agree that their knowledge and skill
base has been improved through the experience of implementing EU-supported projects. Finance
and administration practices have improved. Some CSOs say they have been able to manage bigger
projects through larger grants, and this has improved their ability to handle logistics, people and
partners with diverse needs.
10. Except for a few CSOs, the concept of Social Accountability is not well understood or
put into practice. (Evaluation Question 2.3.2)
The decentralisation context is critical to the effectiveness of social accountability programs. This is
clearly accounted for in EU governance programs which articulate support to government institutions
and to civil society in a comprehensive and coherent manner. NSA opportunities are meant to bring
about nation-wide engagement of committed communities in effective local planning and decision
making processes. However, impact of this EU-funded thematic program on democracy is uneven.
Research and advocacy-based CSOs, considering their potential influence on democracy, have not
taken sufficient advantage of the opportunities to accelerate and optimize the decentralisation
process. Other examples of their ambiguous position can be found in other EU-supported programs.
For example, during the elections period, research and advocacy-based CSOs and other NGOs
complemented government efforts to maintain security, but they did not lobby political parties on
issues about decentralisation and accountability. Only women rights organisations took that risk.
In addition to the relatively nominal collective level of experience, social accountability programs suffer
from the fragility of their conceptual grounding. They develop mostly out of the theoretical context of
economics and political science, from which they only import some buzz words such as “supply and
demand”. Some of the conceptual bases that were foundational to development in previous decades
have disappeared. For example, gender analysis is not taken into account, and this has
consequences for the practical and political needs of more than half of the population.
A comprehensive and harmonised approach to social accountability, one of the expected results of
this program, is yet to be constructed. Research and advocacy-based CSOs as well as GoG and DP
program staff are still on a learning curve. Guidelines for the Call for Proposals were developed
without sufficient conceptual and practical information for CSOs to operationalise. The NSA Call for
Proposals tried to fill this gap by requesting action research on social accountability and case studies
of previous experiences. However, these have not yet been produced. Although, the most
experienced research and advocacy-based organisations were selected, apart from SEND which has
been engaged in social accountability advocacy projects for more than 10 years, grantees are still
“learning by doing,” acquiring basic knowledge during the implementation of their projects.
The most visible impact of these programs on citizens’ groups is that hopes are raised. Social
accountability projects are based on the assumption that the empowerment of local citizens groups
will enable them to access social protection schemes and local funds like DACF. Citizens’ groups
keep up with their advocacy activities, even though the benefits have not yet materialized. The
42
reasons for this are known: planning is difficult as long as funds are not coming down in a predictable
way, and local officials are still upwardly and not downwardly accountable.
11. Some Calls for Proposals are explicit about how gender issues should be addressed.
Others, such as the NSA/LA guidelines, are vague leading to projects that are mainly gender-
blind or gender-neutral, not taking into consideration gender and social analyses.
(Evaluation Question 2.3.3)
CSOs are dominated by men. At CSO meetings and workshops, there are usually more men than
women – in Northern Ghana, attendance by men significantly outstrips women. Projects, unless
specifically directed to women, uphold the interests of men, especially in political spheres. This
situation exists, even though there have been countless training events for CSOs in the name of
Gender Equality.
Projects continue to give lip service to bettering the condition and position of “women and the
marginalised.” Women’s issues are usually combined with those of disadvantaged groups, even
though women comprise more than half of the population in Ghana.
Calls for Proposals are not consistent in how they address gender issues. Although, the EIDHR Call
was explicit in its objectives for gender equality, the NSA Call did not specifically address issues for
gender equity. STAR-Ghana is intentional about mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
(GESI), and works with its partners to improve their proposals, monitoring frameworks and reporting
to reflect GESI. Even so, gains made toward GESI are nominal, unless they are deliberately planned
to address specific inequities and their causes.
In any case, most CSOs, to a large extent, are not looking at systemic social and economic barriers
and how to combat them. Challenging existing gender relations of power and control is still a
sensitive issue, especially for generalist CSOs. Most stay on the safe side of providing equal
opportunities for men and women, rather than examining the inequities embedded in those
opportunities. Most plan interventions without consideration of the risks to further entrenching
inequitable social- and gender roles.
Conclusions related to Sustainability
12. CSOs are instrumental in creating awareness and new ways of doing business among
district administrations. Changes in good governance occurred after long periods of
sustained efforts through donor-led programs. It is unclear whether these changes are
reversible or not, and whether they can be expanded (for example to IGF) without
considerably more advocacy efforts from CSOs and think tanks. (Evaluation question
2.4)
Continuous advocacy will be needed to ensure that duty bearers, i.e. tax collectors, will not revert to
their previous practices at local level. Knowledge and skills imparted to individuals tend to fade away
if the context does not allow for their use. Without continued research, advocacy and monitoring,
gains made in policy advances may be lost. For the time being, follow-up programs will probably
attract funding from other donors, because advocacy and social accountability projects are donor
priorities in Ghana.
13. Gains in sustainable development are evident in all sectors which received EU support.
Communities are empowered when they see tangible results from their advocacy
efforts. (Evaluation question 2.4)
43
Gradually, the public is arriving at an understanding that rights-based approaches are more effective
than needs-based approaches to development. They understand that their participation in demanding
their rights is a more sustainable approach to accessing quality services. As such, the Social
Accountability concept is completely consistent with rights-based approaches. District citizens’ groups
are now aware of their rights to access social schemes. They are enthusiastic about the respect they
receive from duty bearers in response to their priorities. Tangible and intangible benefits are
intertwined in their appreciation of rights. To mobilize citizens, CSOs insist on both aspects.
CSOs involved in the implementation of EU-supported programmes related to food security,
environment and Investing In People largely adopted rights-based approach in the design and
implementation. This has worked effectively at deepening participation, innovation, continuity and
sustainability of EU sponsored projects.
For example, through a rights-based approach, EU support for food security produced evidence of
these gains:
increased agricultural production
reduced post-harvest losses
stimulated agricultural savings
strengthened value chain for cash crops
increased forward linkages to industry
strengthened market competiveness
improved capacity of farmer based organisations (FBOs) in marketing for agro-based
products and business management.
In addition, for the small-scale farmer or entrepreneur, being part of a collective or cooperative,
provides better opportunities than remaining independent. These collectives not only provide farmers
with a more efficient way to do business, but it also provides them with a natural platform for
advocacy. Cooperative marketing offers better bargaining power than farmers selling individually.
Cooperative farming works well in so far as there are intermediary organisations to organise and link
these farmers with financial institutions or buying directly from them. Indeed, knowing that there are
agents on the ground supporting farmers and that farmers will not divert inputs to other non-
productive use, banks will develop keen interest in supporting farmers and agricultural development.
In the environment sector, CSOs were successful in facilitating institutionalized engagement between
CSOs, state agencies and other donor initiatives. They engaged in effective networking and joint
monitoring collaboration for sustainable forest management. Civil society platforms have contributed
largely to increased natural resource and environmental protection; improved governance and
accountability; and increased coverage of environment and natural resource issues.
14. Visibility of EU support to civil society is mostly limited to branding on publications
and sign boards and publicity at conferences. At community level, EU support is not
recognized as much as the CSO grantee or partner, which is the immediate contact.
(Evaluation Question 2.4)
The EU brand is not as prominent as other donors’. Although the EU logo appears on most
administrative and communications materials, the significance of the EU brand is not well known. The
reasons for this could be related to civil society’s inability to relate to the donor “personality” of the EU
– what the EU stands for vis-à-vis a particular strategy, sector or programme. Because the EU
provides funding in many areas, and in collaboration with others, its profile and brand is perhaps less
identifiable than other donors, who are well known for their specific contributions. In any case, the EU
brand brings significant credibility to the beneficiary organisation and to the project.
44
Conclusions related to Complementarity / Coherence
15. The Governance section has established a coherent set of interventions through very
different instruments and mechanisms.
The concept of social accountability provides the basis for the complementarity between the
government’s decentralization programme (supply side) and the NSA/LA instrument (demand side).
To translate the concept into effective practices, the EU funded a Social Accountability Platform so
that CSOs, the Ministry, and District Assemblies are able to better unify efforts and approaches of
engagement. STAR-Ghana also activates the demand side of accountability and complements the
support to sector ministries, departments and agencies in the quest to reduce poverty and promote
accountability, while BUSAC Fund, as a unique civil society tool, pushes from the bottom up for better
business in ways that are consistent with the Government growth policies. EIDHR support to CSOs
was complementary to EU’s support to IGIs during the election process. EIDHR funded projects are
also coherent with EU programs that aim at strengthening Local Authorities, as well as the
relationship between them and local CSOs.
16. EU funding of CSOs has not only significantly influenced policy and local
development, but it has also complemented the efforts of other donors and the
Government of Ghana.
At donor level, the EU has also made efforts to apply joint donor approaches to analytical work and
capacity building in line with the HAP and Paris Declaration, for example, on Natural Resources with a
joint Country Environmental Assessment and on decentralization with the donors’ group.
Final Conclusion
17. In the wake of achieving middle income status, expectations from the public are rising
because of the development of the extractive sector and the signing of the West Africa-
wide Economic Partnership Agreement. This is the time for civil society to catch the
wave of anticipation and work to ensure that the people of Ghana share in these
benefits. (Evaluation Question 2.5)
At this point in time, civil society is at a crossroads. There is a gap between national-level and district
and community-based civil society organisations. There are pockets of energy within civil society’s
areas of concern, particularly natural resources. However, within governance and decentralisation,
many CSOs are doing the same things without seeing significant change. “Social accountability” is a
phrase that everyone uses, but that few understand.
People with disabilities have a powerful lobby which is slowly making progress toward enabling
legislation. However, many other “vulnerable groups” and minorities have yet to make their voices
heard. Women, who are not a minority in Ghana, are not well represented in leadership, either in
government or civil society. Overall, very few CSOs are engaged in large-scale advocacy campaigns.
The elections provided a unified impetus for free, fair and peaceful voting. However, given current
national issues, such a corruption, use of national resources, youth unemployment, constraints to
local industries and the situation of social services, CSOs seem to be complacent. They are not
catching the fire that these injustices should inspire. Perhaps they are not unified, or maybe they are
too comfortable in their own pattern of activity.
45
While donor support is planned to come to a halt in a few years, Ghanaian citizens are likely to
demand more from their government institutions, in particular from locally elected ones, and to be
willing to exert more control over decisions which directly affect them. Civil society organisations are
expected to increasingly play a facilitating and interfacing role between citizens and government – the
NSA grants contributed to their capacity be effective in these roles. However, CSOs have not
prepared to take on the full load of responsibility that these roles entail.
Donors, like the EU, are providing a cushion between government and civil society. As long as this
“safety net” holds, this situation does not promote a sense of urgency. However, when the donors’
influence is minimized and civil society is left alone to deal with government, the modalities will
change. The government may not feel the same pressure to listen to civil society, and civil society
may have to take a stronger activist stance to make itself heard.
3.2 Recommendations
Recommendations related to Relevance
R1. Because of the diversity of civil society actors in Ghana, the EU should continue to
provide different types of support to international and local NGOs, cooperatives or groups,
chambers of commerce, and community-based or grassroots organisations. Attention should
be paid to capacity building, research and knowledge dissemination, networking and
structuring of networks, advocacy campaigns, and mentoring opportunities for CSOs. Every
effort should be made to support newcomer CSOs to bring out new voices. (This
recommendation is related to Conclusion 1)
Calls for Proposals through the EU’s instruments and programmes should have different aims
and objectives. Some calls should be thematic, some issues-based, some allowing for new
voices to be raised. For example, EIDHR should continue developing issue-based, as
opposed to thematic, Calls for Proposals, with objectives based on clearly identified issues,
focused on achievable results in a limited timeframe, and coherent with long-term EU
objectives.
The pre-requisites to answer EU-supported Calls for Proposals, for example, those included
in PADOR, often exclude certain types of CSOs from applying, leaving them to partner with
larger, more credible CSOs or international NGOs. This often means that their organisational
goals are side-lined in favour of the partner’s agenda. Moreover, this often implies that the
same group of CSOs win projects time after time. Few new faces have the chance to gain
EU support. Following the example of STAR, there should continue to be opportunities for
smaller organisations to pursue their own aims and objectives without the encumbrances of
divergent partnerships.
Generally, EU-supported Calls for Proposals should encourage applicants to embed their
proposal within a sound conceptual framework. This should not only include situation
analyses – a description of the status quo, often expressed in terms of SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats) – but a deeper understanding of the socio-cultural,
economic and political implications of how change and development takes place.
Given the situation in which successful CSOs apply and win funds again and again through
EU-supporting Calls for Proposals, they should be required to show that they are building on
lessons from earlier EU-supported projects and that potential for greater impact is
46
incremental. Many organisations continue to say that they are “learning by doing” over and
over when in fact, they have had opportunities to develop best practices.
Given the fact that most CSOs find answering Calls for Proposals “cumbersome” and in some
cases too difficult to deal with, efforts should be made by the EU to boost the number of local
calls and to streamline the application process. This may mean more effort up front to get
quality proposals, i.e. more orientations to the application form, a multi-staged process,
feedback mechanisms and negotiations.
Calls for Proposals should not be strictly confined to competitive processes. Although the
competitive process is fair to agencies of similar experience, it disadvantages CSOs which
are new to the process, but which may have relevant experience. The evaluation table
should include extra points for organisations which have the desired experience or qualities to
meet the objectives of EU support to civil society.
As in the past, there is the need to continue to ensure that EU-supported Calls for Proposals
are specific to Ghana. In this way, they can add value and complement support provided by
bi- and multi-lateral, thematic and regional actions.
Calls for proposals should include an organisational development component that clearly
shows how the project builds on the CSO’s existing and future programming.
EU-supported projects should select partners with the appropriate experience and capacity to
implement the project and capitalize on the opportunity for growth and development in the
area of specialization.
Generalist NGOs or think tanks who intend to make a strategic move by embarking in new
directions for advocacy, social accountability or women rights project should first invest in
problem analysis with appropriate research tools, and then to develop a multi-layered
methodology to be applied to all stakeholders and not only to their traditional target groups.
These applicants without the appropriate experience and capacity to implement the project,
but who convincingly show their willingness to branch out in new areas, should be partnered
with and mentored by a CSO of similar size and type for the purpose of accountability. A
medium-term strategic plan that reflects the new priorities should accompany the proposal.
Continuous financial support and engagement in the form of technical assistance should be
provided to CSOs who implement essential activities and processes to ensure sustainable
development. Exit strategies should accompany project implementation plans so that single
funding agreements do not end in lost opportunities.
R2. Working through local CSOs promotes ownership of development processes at the
ground. However, local CSOs, the grassroots of democracy, have not equally benefited from
the projects. EU support should add more value to this essential segment of civil society.
Support should be provided to enhance local CSOs' contributions to governance and
development processes so that they can play their roles as actors in governance and
accountability, partners in fostering social development and key stakeholders in promoting
inclusive and sustainable growth. (This recommendation is related to conclusion 2)
Civil society at the grassroots should be allowed to flourish. EU support should aim at
increasing local CSOs' capacity to effectively perform their roles as independent, visible and
recognized development actors. EU funding to NGOs to provide sub-grants to CSOs and
CBOs may appear to be an effective approach, but caution should be taken to ensure that
partnerships are empowering. Partners to CBOs should assume roles that are more enabling
47
(capacity building, transfer of technology, facilitating contacts and access to information) and
less hand-holding.
Given the nascent state of many CBOs, grant facilities may need to adopt new modalities for
funding and accountability. The EU should make funding and opportunities more accessible
to grassroots civil society. Local funds could be set up in key CSO hubs in Ghana, i.e.
Tamale, Ho. An objective third actor, apart from the granting organisation and the grantee,
could be involved in mentoring local CSOs and monitoring their grants to ensure transparency
and accountability.
An EU representative should be placed in Northern Ghana for the purpose of supporting and
monitoring CSO projects. The EU should host regional development fairs to underscore
successes of local CSOs; these should be attended by Government, EU member states,
international NGOs and other DPs.
STAR should give grants to organisations within a context of support. One-off grants given to
CSOs in relative isolation may not be effective. CSOs should be linked to each other in
existing, established and active networks and coalitions. This way, they will be able to
leverage their EU funding, share experiences and keep in the communication loop for new
opportunities.
Partnering arrangements with local CSOs should include direct funding for the requisite
number of staff, either full-time or part-time, depending on the nature of the project and the
staff time required. There should be a clear understanding about the differences between
staff and volunteers, and the obligations of each. Volunteers should not have to be out of
pocket for direct project expenses.
Applicants and their partners should plan for and monitor capacity building for local CSOs.
This should include pre- and post- training capacity assessment. Records of training should
be kept and training outcomes monitored.
Local CSOs should be able to access the intangible benefits of projects, such as exposure to
national conferences and other networking opportunities that could help them to increase their
knowledge base and credibility. The EU should continue to invite CSOs to meetings and
events, but ensure that local CSOs are also included. It should be a condition that grantees
bring representatives of local partners to all regional and national events.
Each grantee, particularly BUSAC Fund and STAR-Ghana grantees, should be teamed up or
networked to with their local business and/or professional association or Chamber of
Commerce for greater support.
All CBOs receiving support should be situated so that they are able to continue to fulfill their
purpose when the STAR grant ends. One year before the end of the implementation period,
specific exit strategies should be defined by the EU and the grantee to ensure that each
contributing organisation at local level are provided with conditions for sustainability. This will
also contribute to the sustainability of results.
Future support to CBOs should build on existing community structures, especially those
created by District Assemblies. An example is the District Food Security Network (DFSN).
The creation of new structures often leads to unnecessary competition and duplication of
efforts. This is important for achieving continuity and sustainable development. More so,
newly created institutions die early after the exit of the CSO that created them.
48
R3 The growth and development of CSOs, and their networks and coalitions would be
enhanced with more effective communication strategies. (This recommendation is related to
Conclusion 3)
EU-funded CSOs should demonstrate their ability to communicate effectively with their
constituents, partners and coalition or network members. This may involve several options:
o cell phone mass messaging
o e-mail, social media and other communications media
o web-sites or web pages, so that information about them is accessible to other CSOs
in and outside Ghana.
In general, CSOs should explore the use of communication technologies to get their
messages across to wider audiences and create a critical mass of support for their advocacy
platforms.
Recommendations related to Effectiveness
R4. Technical assistance to CS projects should be demand-driven and not an obligatory
prerequisite to having a grant. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion 4)
Grantees should decide if they need technical assistance, and what types of technical
assistance they require. The use of service providers should inspire less dependence as time
goes on.
Some of the service providers hired to give assistance to CSOs are private sector
management consultants. They may not be appropriate for CSOs who have a non-profit,
voluntary orientation to their work. Efforts should be made to match service providers’
experience with the types of organisations that they will assist. Grantees should have choices
of who provides technical assistance and through what medium.
BUSAC Fund should share with other EU-funded projects the process for accreditation of its
service providers. With STAR Ghana, they should start a roster of service providers that could
be used for other EU-funded projects.
The use of project mentors – specialists who see projects through to meeting their objectives
– could provide a useful function to all types of CSOs, particularly if mentor use reflective
processes, such as after-action reviews, meant to inspire learning and knowledge
management.
The concept of project mentorship should gradually be modified into a more lateral model,
such as “peer assists.” The peer assist model would engage the leadership of CSOs to
provide advice and assistance to each other, rather than involving outside consultants. This
may just involve a paradigm shift in thinking about how the current roster of service providers
is used. It was noted that one Executive Director of a CSO was recruited as a project monitor
when he should have been employed as a mentor or hired to facilitate a peer assist.
Another strategy that has not been fully explored with CSOs is “community of practice.”
STAR-Ghana has initiated communities of practice to some extent. Given that it has grantees
49
working on seven different themes, STAR could experiment with different models of
communities of practice for sharing experiences and best practices.
Most EU-supported instruments and programmes have not fully explored the concepts of
being a “learning organisation” or working through “knowledge management” strategies. The
EU and its CSO partners should focus as much on learning as they do on monitoring and
evaluation.
R5. Given the nature of CSOs and their activities, the EU should continue to be flexible with its
contractual arrangements while at the same time not compromising CSOs’ obligations of
quality programming, transparency and accountability in achieving expected outcomes. (This
recommendation is related to Conclusion 5)
The EU should consider itself a partner with the CSO in the project and not just a grant
administrator. The EU should champion the CSO and the project by putting in place rules
and procedures to ensure its success.
The EU should understand that its support to CSOs is different from its payment to the private
sector for goods and services. Therefore contracts should be more flexible and more
consistent with the mission, vision and operating environments of CSOs. For many CSOs,
participation and involvement of communities is paramount to the implementation process. In
honouring communities, CSOs often need to remain flexible.
EU contract regulations with CSOs should not impede implementation as long as CSOs are
following due diligence in their procedures.
Consideration should be given to inception or start-up phases which sometimes take longer
than planned.
EU contracts departments should assist CSOs with budgets, especially in predicting changes
in the value of currencies, good and services over the project’s life.
As long as the CSO is implementing activities according to the design of the project,
consideration should be given to extensions if the activity schedule is delayed.
EU personnel should not only consider financial and administrative records in its assessment
of performance on the contract. They should also go to the project site and discuss the
issues with CSO staff.
R6. Expectations, modalities and administrative procedures should be differentiated for
longer and shorter term CSO projects. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion 6)
Both the EU and the CSO should come to terms with realistic objectives, activities and
budgets for project and initiatives, based on the time frame. These should be commensurate
with the experience of the CSO.
Contracts and agreements for short-term initiatives (6-18 months) should be based on
“lighter” administrative procedures which allow for accelerated implementation of activities.
50
EU support to CSOs in the attainment of agricultural growth and development, and food
security should stress long term projects and partnerships between international or national
NGOs and local NGOs/CBOs to ensure that the latter are mentored for success.
There is the need to provide incentives for project staff to stay longer on EU-supported
projects to avoid loss of institutional memory. This may require the design of longer term
projects instead of the ones experienced by CARE International, ACDEP and Plan Ghana
(only 20 months).
Manuals or implementation guidelines should be developed before project start-up, especially
for short-term, strategic initiatives. This has worked well for BUSAC Fund which works with a
five-step programme for advocacy. STAR Ghana and its partners could also develop
guidelines for the various types of initiatives it funds because many have common elements
and stages.
For BUSAC Fund, a study of how much time it takes for PSOs to go through each advocacy
step should be done to determine more realistic timelines for grants. To offer incentives to go
through the steps more effectively, the grant could be given in stages without a specific
timeline. This way, PSOs can work at their own pace – some slower, some faster –
depending on their capacity and the complexity of the issues.
R7. EU should prioritize giving support to already established and issue-based networks,
which have already strategically mobilized state agencies, political parties, media and
citizen groups. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion 7)
Case studies on successful women’s networks should be developed in order to learn lessons
on how they are built up from local levels and able to sustain their advocacy activities in the
medium to long term.
STAR-Ghana has three pillars: grants, capacity building and fostering linkages. The third
pillar prioritises linkages between media and civil society; civil society and parliament; and
media and parliament. This pillar should be extended to bringing together grantees which are
not connected to networks related to their themes, i.e. education, health. All grantees should
be members of viable networks at district, regional and national levels.
National CSO advocacy platforms should be supported to include more members
representing district and regional organisations and issues. Concerted and coordinated civil
society initiatives will have more impact.
Networks and coalitions founded or supported with BUSAC funds should join together in a
larger lobby for a more unified voice at national level.
BUSAC Fund should consider lending its experience to and teaming up with other EU-funded
projects on taxation, i.e. Christian Aid and its grantees, to establish a stronger voice for these
issues.
51
R8: Both the EU and CSOs should re-examine the “how’s” and “why’s” of advocacy, and how
civil society can be more effective in advocating to government. (This recommendation is
related to Conclusion 8)
The EU should support research and advocacy-based CSOs, but only for programs that
combine research with advocacy campaigns and on clearly identified policy issues.
CSOs’ advocacy should be people-centred and people-led in order to make the desired
impact on policy change.
District-level CSOs’ advocacy processes and activities should be aligned to DA development
plans, so that civil society and DAs can work together to see plans through to implementation.
There is the need to promote strong coordination between CSOs and public authorities to
prevent duplication, overlap and parallel systems, as well as ineffective and unsustainable
interventions.
CSOs generally promote non-antagonistic approaches to advocacy through dialogue.
Dialogue may not be the only strategy for advocacy. Other non-violent actions may be
alternatives when dialogue reaches a stalemate. CSOs should creatively apply their own
advocacy methods as appropriate to the situation.
Following the lead of BUSAC fund and the experiences of other CSOs, management
seminars could be organised with Government and provided to District Assembly officials on
how to handle multiple “asks” from advocacy activities, giving some advice on more effective
ways that district officials can engage in dialogue and post-dialogue steps with civil society.
BUSAC Fund should team up with other CSOs to hold seminars in Accra and Tamale for EU-
funded advocacy organisations to compare experiences of carrying out advocacy activities at
national and district levels.
Recommendations related to Impact
R9: CSOs with grants that include capacity development should be more accountable for the
changes as a result of capacity building activities. (This recommendation is related to
Conclusion 9)
Proposals should include a section that outlines a capacity building strategy for the use of
funds budgeted for training and other related events. These should not only include capacity
building for carrying out activities, but for aspects of organisational development. Specifically,
areas like project planning, community engagement, advocacy, networking and monitoring
will enable CSOs to become stronger to influence policy at the national level.
CSOs which partner or sub-contract with local CSOs should provide capacity strengthening
opportunities for organisational development, so that their added value is built by the EU-
supported project. As provided in STAR grants, capacity building options should include how
to access local funding sources, generate internal income and write grant proposals.
Immediately after signing agreements with CSOs, EU officers or their representatives should
systematically collaborate with the grantee to revise the logframe, build the monitoring
system, and draft the guidelines for the final evaluation. This will provide a clear orientation for
project implementation and highlight any capacity gaps to be addressed.
52
All CSOs who implement training programs should do a “before and after” capacity
assessment to determine what has actually changed in the practices of the participants and
their organisations and why.
R10: The Social Accountability Platform should take a pro-active role in moving social
accountability initiatives forward with both Government and CSOs, so that concrete benefits to
communities are realized more predictably. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion
10)
With the EU’s support to government decentralisation, “social accountability” modalities
should be structured according to supply and demand sides. The Government (supply side)
with support from the EU should lead the process in these ways:
o Strengthen the monitoring of decentralisation
o Put in place a monitoring infrastructure (staff, computers, vehicles, etc.)
o Make database and information available to the public, particularly to civil society
o Use information to make improvements to systems and programmes.
The EU and Government should agree that end-users’ feedback is essential to have effective
monitoring.
On the part of civil society (demand side), it should:
o Use the monitoring framework to collect information on programmes
o Put in place a feedback mechanism to support decentralisation efforts.
The Social Accountability Platform should facilitate this process, particularly with Government
and its social accountability office.
Civil society feedback may also be solicited from the EU before subsequent tranches are
given to Government in support of GDSP.
If EU is providing budget support to the Government for policy level work in setting up a
monitoring framework, indicators and guidelines for decentralisation, then it should work
directly with a research and advocacy-based CSO under a signed agreement. The CSO will
monitor how this process is undertaken. The CSO will advocate to and dialogue with
Government to ensure progress of the decentralisation process, with a time frame
corresponding to the compact’s transition period.
Take the opportunity of the upcoming NSA final evaluation to finally learn about the realities of
social accountability. In order to do this, develop strong guidelines for these evaluations,
including an emphasis on quantitative results, i.e. in how many districts for how many people
did services or benefits materialize.
Classify the different types of CSOs and their roles within the social accountability framework.
For example, small rights-based advocacy organisations who challenge institutions should not
be requested to implement large-scale programs, unless they have a strong popular base.
R11. Calls for Proposals should encourage in-depth social/gender analysis of project
participants in order to address discrimination and bring about transformation. (This
recommendation is related to Conclusion 11)
The phrase “women and vulnerable groups” is a catch-all for meeting requirements to
address the “poorest of the poor.” EU-supported Calls for Proposals should not use this
language, and instead encourage gender analysis to identify gender issues. In the case of
53
“vulnerable groups,” both vulnerability and gender analyses should be required. As Ghana
enters into a more advanced stage of its development, EU support should respond by
understanding the specificities of poverty and inequity, so that gaps may be filled and
stereotypes eliminated. For example, many small CSOs partnering with EU grantees have
special interests and identities which need to be further explored and assisted within the
context of advanced development, i.e. an organisation led by women with HIV and AIDS.
Otherwise, a “one size fits all” approach to women and vulnerable groups will lead to general
and thus, ineffective strategies. People with Disabilities are particularly concerned that the
nature of their disabilities is disaggregated, and that special interventions meet their specific
needs.
Multi-donor CSO funding facilities, like STAR-Ghana, should function to strengthen the
capacity of CSOs that represent the voices and interests of groups who are distinctively
disadvantaged in society.
CSOs should ensure that gender analysis is mainstreamed throughout out the project design.
The EU should check that the gender paragraph usually found in applications is consistent
with the intervention logic and with the list of risks. Mitigating measures should be identified to
address structural constraints so that women can equally access each and every benefit
expected from the project.
The use of gender analysis according to EU guidelines, i.e. gender toolkit, should be made
compulsory for all EU applicants and grantees, if they do not have access to a similar
resource of the same quality.
CSOs should invest in a gender analysis of their own organisations and proceed with the
internal changes which are necessary to carry out their vision of a gender-sensitive
organisation and Ghanaian society.
Recommendations related to Sustainability
R12. Continuous advocacy efforts are required by civil society in order to sustain the gains of
EU-supported projects and initiatives. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion 12)
The EU should support civil society to create a more enabling environment to achieve its
development goals.
EU should focus on funding and supporting the capacity of CSO coalitions which engage in
issue-based advocacy campaigns since they have been proven to lead to sustainable gains in
policy development.
The EU should maintain social accountability as a cross-cutting principle of the policy
dialogue agenda in relation to budget support.
Large NGOs and think tanks should develop and engage in long-term advocacy plans at
national and local level, independently of external funding opportunities.
All actors should promote advocacy among DPs, media, IGIs and MPs to guarantee political
parties’ adherence during each and every election to the commitments they have signed.
All actors should implement Affirmative Action principles in all decision making arenas,
including NGO leadership and EU-funded programs.
54
R13. The EU should strategically fund civil society advocacy efforts that are consistent with
their funding of government programmes, so that citizens are able to see that their efforts lead
to sustainable development and good governance. It can do this in both strategic and
practical ways, given the following examples. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion
13)
18. There is high demand for similar interventions like those provided by Care International
(dams, wells, etc); ACDEP (extension services and market accessibility) and Plan Ghana
(inventory credit, warehousing). EU plans to support agricultural infrastructure during the 11th
EDF should integrate civil society concerns at every step through consultative processes and
also through the funding of corresponding advocacy initiatives.
EU’s support to CSOs in the oil and gas sector should ensure that CSOs work effectively
towards managing the social and environmental impact of oil and gas activities. EU’s support
to CSOs should emphasise the governance issues.
VPA has made impact, but for the impact to be sustainable, community members should be
involved in the monitoring process. This may however require capacity training on key areas
like stakeholder roles and responsibilities, participatory forestry monitoring, and sustainable
development.
BUSAC Fund should promote their idea of Public-Private Partnerships in districts as a way to
solve administrative bottlenecks for local government, such as with the Procurement Act.
Local shopping and procurement could be promoted through business fairs, especially for
agricultural inputs.
R14: The EU brand within the context of its support to civil society should not only be guided by standard branding regulations, but by a deeper communication strategy. (This recommendation is related to Conclusion 14)
The EU should establish a “niche” within which it supports civil society. This should be
defined during the road map exercise. Key areas of priority for civil society are coalition
building; networking and information sharing; and building capacity of district- and community-
level organisations. The road map should provide the EU with a more identifiable personality
for which to brand.
The EU should portray itself as a partner to civil society, diminishing to some extent its role as
an administrator of civil society support. Names and faces should be associated with this
partnership, not only a logo.
The EU should ensure that its beneficiary organisations stand behind the intent of the brand
by putting in place clear standards for quality programming.
Recommendations related to Coherence
R15. As donor support changes, most mechanisms for coherence will have to be housed
within national institutions and co-managed by GoG and CSOs. This has particular relevance
for initiatives like the Social Accountability Platform, but could be increasingly relevant for
STAR-Ghana and BUSAC Fund in its future iterations. (This recommendation is related to
Conclusion 15)
55
No longer will CSOs be able to use the excuse that they are “dancing to the tune of the
donor,” as the reason why CSOs take up some issues and not others justifying their claim
with the statement that their activities are donor driven. The implication is that most
CSOs are not really acting from an independent, self-driven stance. In this regard, CSOs,
in particular think tanks, should be encouraged to make the necessary changes in their
strategic positioning so as to be independent from donors’ agenda and financial support.
R16 EU efforts towards donor coordination should be maintained with its continuous
promotion of the role of civil society for sustainable development. (This recommendation is
related to Conclusion 16)
There is the need for government of Ghana, EU and other donors to strengthen discussions
and dialogue among themselves. Donor groups discussions and joint planning will be critical
to efficient management of the transition period with government and civil society.
Regular joint monitoring of government and civil society projects and sharing of best practices
during planned meetings with other donors will help strengthen complementarity or
coherence.
Final Recommendation
R17: The EU Road Map for engagement with civil society should be forward-thinking, not
business as usual, but an “emergency preparedness” guide for the moment when donors
diminish their budgetary support and influence, leaving civil society and government to
negotiate Ghana’s middle-income status and all it entails. (This recommendation is related to
Conclusion 17)
Given the fact that major EU-supported CSO projects are coming to an end and new ones are
beginning, the EU should be more deliberate about collecting lessons, particularly on NSA
projects. This would involve more than monitoring visits, ROMs and formal evaluations. It
should be a dynamic and iterative learning and sharing process within the network of CSOs
and their partners on the ground. A special process should be designed to collect and
document these lessons.
Results and lessons from EIDHR projects should be collated into a user-friendly brochure for
its application to 2016 elections. These should be discussed at the meeting with CSOs to
inform them about the new HR call for proposals and guidelines.
Civil society should hold its own consultations around the EU Road Map before it enters into
dialogue with the EU. In aid of this:
o Civil society needs to build a critical mass around shared areas of concern. This implies
that civil society at all levels should become unified and strategic on issues, expressing
them in manifestos and advocacy campaign plans. This will involve CSOs partnering and
working together in new and more equitable ways. Currently, the media is taking up the
challenge of holding officials accountable for corruption because civil society
organizations are not organized or positioned to do so.
o There have been times when groups of CSOs have come together over certain issues.
Good examples of successful coalitions for advocacy have been in the women’s, PWD
56
and environment movements. During elections, the peace movement was also active in
solidarity. However, many CSOs exist outside of active networks and coalitions, and this
type of isolation is counter-productive to the role that civil society is supposed to play in
society. Given the opportunity of the 11th EDF, CSOs should form coalitions around the
three major themes of the new NIP.
o CSOs need to choose identifiable leaders in these key areas. These leaders should have
credibility with the government duty bearers, as well as with civil society at all levels.
The EU Governance Section has facilitated a great deal of the EU’s support and work with
civil society. However, it is not enough to isolate civil society within one section – civil society
involvement, if it is to be effective, belongs in all sectors and all EU officers need to take up
the responsibility to provide opportunities for CSO consultation and involvement in their work.