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.