Home >Documents >Results Report 2011-13 - Oxfam IBIS global/ibis... · 2018-05-01 · IBIS Results Report 2011-13...

Results Report 2011-13 - Oxfam IBIS global/ibis... · 2018-05-01 · IBIS Results Report 2011-13...

Date post:31-May-2020
Category:
View:0 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend
Transcript:
  • Results Report 2011-13

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page II

    CONTENT

    Table of figures and tables................................................................................................................................................. III List of Key Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................................... IV Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. introduction – performance 2011-2013 ......................................................................................................................... 2 2. organisational setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

    2.1 Re-energising Vision and Mission ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Revised strategies and structure .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Programmatic approach – The Change Triangle ....................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Creating room for innovation ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation approach ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Country Focus ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.7 Review key findings/recommendations and management response ........................................................................... 14

    3. Global partnership strategy – results ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Introduction to strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Building Partnerships and Organisational Capacity ................................................................................................ 21 3.3 Coordination with other International NGOs/Alliance2015 partners ........................................................................... 22 3.4 Facilitating synergy between partner organisations for joint advocacy initiatives ................................................ 22 3.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 23

    4. Democratic governance strategy – results ................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Introduction to the strategy ................................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Empower civil society to engage in advocacy ......................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Participation and influence of civil society in democratic development ................................................................ 28 4.4 Advocacy for equitable access to natural resources .............................................................................................. 30 4.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 33

    5. Education for change strategy – results ....................................................................................................................... 34 5.1 Introduction to Strategy ......................................................................................................................................... 34 5.2 Right to quality education – improving learning outcomes .................................................................................... 36 5.3 Support to Education Governance and Emerging Civil Society............................................................................... 41 5.4 Influencing national education policy through advocacy ....................................................................................... 43 5.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 45

    6. Global and danish advocacy – results ........................................................................................................................... 46 6.1 Introduction to Global and Danish Advocacy ......................................................................................................... 46 6.2 Advocacy on education ........................................................................................................................................... 48 6.3 Advocacy on Capital Flight, Tax Evasion and Extractive Industries ......................................................................... 51 6.4 Advocacy on maintaining engagement in Latin America ........................................................................................ 53 6.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 54

    7. Popular anchoring in denmark – results ....................................................................................................................... 55 7.1 Introduction to IBIS’ Popular Anchoring ................................................................................................................. 55 7.2. Outreach to the Danish Public ............................................................................................................................... 56 7.3 Focused growth in membership ............................................................................................................................. 57 7.4 Growth in private fundraising ................................................................................................................................. 58 7.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 59

    8. Financial performance - results .................................................................................................................................... 60 8.1 Introduction to Financial performance ................................................................................................................... 60 8.2 Ensuring a Steady Financial Growth ....................................................................................................................... 60 8.3 Ensuring a solid diversified funding base ................................................................................................................ 62 8.4 Increasing cost-efficiency and effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 63 8.5 Assumptions and risks ............................................................................................................................................ 66 ANNEX1: Evaluations, Reviews, Formative Monitoring and Baselines 2011-13 ........................................................... 67 ANNEX2: Project costs, specified on DAC codes 2011-13 ............................................................................................. 70 ANNEX3: Popular anchoring ....................................................................................................................................... 671

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page III

    Table of figures and tables Figure 1: IBIS’ Strategy Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 2

    Figure 2: Implementation approach builds on the change triangle approach ................................................................... 7

    Figure 3: IBIS’ Programme Monitoring and OPS Process .................................................................................................... 9

    Figure 4: Total income and total utilisation per year........................................................................................................ 12

    Figure 5: Total financial utilisation for 2011-13 per thematic area and programme country .......................................... 13

    Figure 6: Percentage of all thematic programme partners with a partnership development plan. ................................. 21

    Figure 7: Percentage of programmes with joint programming with other international development organisations.... 22

    Figure 8: Percentage of thematic programmes providing funding for partners’ joint advocacy initiatives ..................... 22

    Figure 9: Number of partner initiatives and projects supported by ................................................................................. 26

    Figure 10: Number of IBIS supported advocacy processes supporting youth and women’s rights ................................. 28

    Figure 11: Number of initiatives and projects supported related to extractive industries ............................................. 30

    Figure 12: Percentage of education programmes with examples or models of ............................................................... 36

    Figure 13: Overview of models and approaches .............................................................................................................. 36

    Figure 14: Number of youth participating in IBIS and partner-supported ....................................................................... 39

    Figure 15: Number of school governance bodies strengthened ...................................................................................... 41

    Figure 16: Percentage of programmes supporting CSOs on national level advocacy activities ....................................... 43

    Figure 17: An example of programme linkages and vertical advocacy links .................................................................... 47

    Figure 18: Percentage of Danish schools participating in the Danish education for all campaign per year ..................... 48

    Figure 19: Number of IBIS press hits in Danish media on "tax and extractive industries" per year ................................. 51

    Figure 20: Number of participants in IBIS-supported "Latin America-focused" events in Denmark per year ................. 53

    Figure 21: Number of participants in Danish campaigns per year.................................................................................... 56

    Figure 22: Number of IBIS members and supporters per year ......................................................................................... 57

    Figure 23: Total amount (DDK) raised by private fundraising per year ............................................................................ 58

    Figure 24: Total income per year (DKK in millions) ........................................................................................................... 60

    Figure 25: Percentage of Danida frame funds out of total income per year .................................................................... 62

    Figure 26: Development of key fundraising indicators ..................................................................................................... 62

    Figure 27: Turnover per IBIS head, and stable admin cost (2007-2013) .......................................................................... 63

    Figure 28: Cost category analysis of IBIS expenditures 2011-13 ...................................................................................... 64

    Figure 29: Country-level cost category analyses - Sierra Leone and Mozambique .......................................................... 65

    Table 1: Country engagements, country strategies and TPs in the reporting period ....................................................... 10

    Table 2: Total financial utilisation for 2011-13 per thematic area and programme country ........................................... 14

    Table 3: Partnership intervention matrix ......................................................................................................................... 19

    Table 4: Danish “Education for All” campaign results per year ........................................................................................ 48

    Table 5: IBIS’ brand recognition per year ......................................................................................................................... 57

    Table 6: Fundraising related to Corporate Social Responsibility per year ........................................................................ 59

    Table 7: Key financial indicators 2010-2013 (in thousands DKK) ...................................................................................... 61

    Table 8: Number of IBIS global staff, 2007-2014 .............................................................................................................. 63

    IBIS 15. September 2014

    Vesterbrogade 2b, 1620 København V

    [email protected], www.ibis.dk

    Foto front page: William Vest-Lillesøe

    mailto:[email protected]://www.ibis.dk/

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page IV

    List of Key Acronyms AAP Africa Against Poverty ACE Alliance for Complementary Education ANCEFA Africa Network Campaign on Education for All CBO Community based organisation CECs Chiefdom Education Committees CISU Civil Society in Development Association CO Country office COP Conference of the Parties CSO Civil Society Organisation CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ECHO European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EAPI Quality Education Against Poverty and Inequality EfC Education for Change FFM Formative Monitoring Mission FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent GCE Global Campaign for Education GPE Global Partnership for Education HO Head Office INEE Network for Education in Emergency ICT Information and communication Technology LAPI Latin America against Poverty and Inequality OD Organisational Development OPS Organisational Performance System M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MoE Ministry of Education NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PTA Parent Teacher Association PANT Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination and Transparency PTAs Parent Teacher Associations PDP Partnership Development Plan REDD+ Countries' efforts to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and foster

    conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks SB School Board SMC School Management Committee SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights ToC Theory of Change TP Thematic Programme TVSD Technical vocational skills development UN United Nations WAHRD West Africa Human Rights and Democracy Programme

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 1

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    IBIS has undertaken significant organisational changes that have improved the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation while maintaining a very high level of activity and delivering substantial results in line with the civil society strategy. An organisational strategy has provided the overall framework for the changes. The organisational changes include: 1. closing the regional offices and establishing a

    two-tier system (head office-country offices); 2. strengthening the vertical advocacy linkages

    through a new head office department and a regional advocacy programme;

    3. prioritising institutional and private fundraising in the office setup;

    4. phasing out four country programmes and opening a new country programme;

    5. revising a number of the key policies and strategies to guide our work.

    The organisational changes have meant that the annual financial turnover per IBIS member of staff has doubled while our administrative costs have hardly increased, that the Danida frame grant is now down to 44% of total annual financial turnover, and that the amount of funds spent on direct programme activities and partner transfers has gone up.

    The organisational changes are appreciated by our local, national and global partners as our increased focus on vertical linkages adds value at all levels, resulting in joint advocacy initiatives with greater programme impact for both IBIS and our partners. The country offices have the mandate to act and adjust to the local context within the strategic framework established in the country strategies and thematic programmes. Our Organisational Performance System and Global Groups ensure that lessons learned are shared across the organisation and with partners.

    In the field of education, our interventions have tested innovative models which have subsequently become models adopted by the given government. Mother tongue education in Bolivia and complementary basic education in Ghana are such examples. We have been a clear voice in advocating quality education at a time when quantity rather than quality was the driver in development circles. We also take some credit for the Danish government’s increased financial support to education, a doubling from 2010 to 2012.

    In the field of governance, our work with girls’ and women’s empowerment and with tax and extractive industries stands out. Our policy decision that thematic programmes include a gender focus and our strong local partnerships with gender rights groups have paid off, resulting in significant numbers of women being trained and later assuming leadership positions. Our work with extractive industries and tax issues, based on a number of well-researched position papers, has generated serious attention. This has enabled IBIS and our partners to influence national legislation related to extractive industries, and the examples from our partner countries have in turn proved important in the Danish and European debate on the same issues.

    Our popular anchoring and advocacy in Denmark is closely linked to programme priorities. While the number of members dropped from 2011 to 2012, the number of people involved in our campaigns has increased and surpassed 200,000 in 2013. Our focus on strategic partnerships with private companies paid off, exemplified by an innovative partnership with Claus Meyer in Bolivia, and our private fundraising result has doubled in the period. Hence, the overall status of the organisation is healthy, as most financial and programme targets have either been reached or surpassed.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 2

    1. INTRODUCTION – PERFORMANCE 2011-2013

    In 2011-2013, change once again proved itself to be the only constant for IBIS. However, the real success is not the change itself. The real success is our continued deliverance of good, even impressive results, while undergoing strategic changes that aim to secure IBIS’ future added value and effectiveness for the benefit of the poor and marginalised. This positive view of IBIS’ performance, as reflected in this report for 2011-2013, is supported throughout the recent IBIS Thematic Review (August 2013) where the overall conclusion was:

    “ …that IBIS is administering programmes in agreement with the framework agreement and that it is operation with a focus which is in alignment with the strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society.

    IBIS has systems and procedures in place for sound implementation of the programmes and is working with the stated organisational frameworks. IBIS is focused on continuously developing its methodology and programme approach and seeks to ensure learning and improving practices in its works.”

    This report has been produced under the new “Resource Allocation Model”, addressing the outlined performance standards as best possible and taking into account the fact that these standards were not known at the start of the reporting period. The Performance Standards 9-24 have been addressed in different chapters as an integrated part of the report.

    Figure 1: IBIS’ Strategy Framework

    The reporting of development results is designed around our main areas of intervention, with selected key (global) indicators showing an aggregated progress from 2010 (baseline year) to 2013. IBIS perceives the aggregation of the key global indicators to illustrate a valid and reliable trend of achievement within each area.

    The data collection and evidence has primarily been based on our Organisational Performance System (OPS) combined with direct country programme log-frame reporting. This means that definitions are not uniform but context specific, reflecting differences in country interventions.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 3

    We have supplemented the key global quantitative indicators with selected case result narratives, again using OPS as the primary source. The narratives are included both to better inform on actual changes for rights holders and duty bearers and within policy processes, and to address the different aspects of the performance standards. The OPS setup is described in chapter 2.

    This report and the results reported have been structured around our strategic frame as illustrated in figure 1 below. In Chapter 2 we present our organisational mandate and scene for delivering results. Then, in chapters 3-6, we document our development results based on our main strategic interventions: Partnership, Governance and Education, followed by our

    cross-cutting advocacy both globally and in Denmark. Finally, we return to the organisational strategy focus areas to include our Danish popular anchoring in chapter 7 and conclude in chapter 8 with a demonstration of our financial sustainability.

    The reporting years 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been chosen because 1) it follows the period where IBIS has worked with a new country-level strategy after closing of the regional level, 2) several regional programmes and four country programmes were closed in 2010, and 3) in 2011 IBIS adopted a new vision and mission for the organisation.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 4

    2. ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

    2.1 Re-energising vision and mission Within the first year of this reporting period, IBIS undertook a thorough participatory process with questionnaires, working groups and social media discussions to re-energise our organisational vision and mission, thus setting the scene for the results we want to achieve in the future. IBIS’ new vision and mission were approved by the general assembly in November 2011:

    IBIS’ Vision IBIS works for a just world in which all people have equal access to education, influence and resources.

    IBIS’ Mission Together with partners, IBIS combats global inequality and poverty:

    Locally: We strengthen individual rights and opportunities to take part in society by ensuring access to knowledge and good education;

    Nationally: We support democratic development that promotes collective rights and popular participation in policy decisions that benefit poor and oppressed groups;

    Globally: We defend poor people’s interests and find intelligent solutions to structural problems that cause global economic inequality and poverty.

    As shown above, a rights-based approach is inherent to IBIS’ overall vision and mission. Applying a rights-based approach to IBIS’ work offers an opportunity to frame poverty as a symptom of injustice and the approach emphasises that marginalisation, discrimination and exploitation are structural causes of poverty. It allows IBIS and its partners to address the power relations which serve to uphold poverty and inequality. Our approach, common language and added value are detailed in the still valid Board approved Position Paper from 2007: “IBIS and Rights-Based Approaches”.

    To operationalise the new mission and vision, we developed a strategic framework, as illustrated in Chapter 1, and revised a number of central strategies. IBIS’ strategic framework in 2011-2013 involved three key thematic strategies—governance, education and partnership—underpinned by an organisational strategy (2012-15) that sets out our basic mandate, operating structures and financial targets in line with our vision and mission.

    2.2 Revised strategies and structure With the new vision and mission, we formulated a new organisational strategy, thereby defining the direction for a comprehensive strategic revision and focus to ensure alignment and enable effective spaces to deliver development results. Overall, we have successfully completed this process, with only a few elements still

    unfinished, within the reporting period. Relevant development goals for IBIS’ organisational setting from the Organisational Strategy 2012-2015 are addressed below while others are covered in the following chapters:

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 5

    Development Goal: IBIS’ work is guided by a set of clear policies, strategies and principles Strategies:

    Objective: Revised Democratic Governance Global Strategy

    Objective: Revised Education for Change Global Strategy

    Objective: New Denmark Country Strategy Policies and Position Papers:

    Objective: New Youth Position Paper

    Objective: New Climate Change Policy

    Achievement Status

    Democratic Governance, Citizens’ Rights and Economic Justice thematic strategy approved 2012

    Completed – being used to formulate new programmes

    Education for Change thematic strategy approved 2012 Completed - being used to formulate new programmes

    Denmark Strategy approved 2012 Completed – being used to implement Danish advocacy activities

    IBIS Position Paper on Youth approved 2011 Completed – being used to formulate new programmes

    Climate Change Policy approved in June 2012 Completed – being used to formulate pilot projects on the area

    Process and lessons learnt

    Democratic Governance strategy: The revised strategy is based on a number of evaluations at programme level and feedback from the Global Group on Governance1, combined with a thorough context analysis. Key adjustments include:

    Strengthening of vertical links from local to national and international levels, incl. global programmes

    Promotion of multi-stakeholder cooperation (international organisations, private sector, government entities)

    Focus on fewer thematic areas in order to build global expertise, produce high quality evidence and learning and improve opportunities for fundraising

    Requiring a clear result/change orientation of IBIS’ programme interventions One expected added value is to bring partners’ issues to a wider national and global relevant audience. Another is to help mainstream learning, knowledge sharing and action among partners to improve the relevance of issues and the ability to influence changes on national and international policies. Education for Change strategy: The revised strategy builds on the recommendations of an external evaluation of the former strategy, through active participation of the Global Education Group and in dialogue with other relevant stakeholders in programme countries as well as from IBIS’ HO/Board. Key aspects/adjustments:

    Maintaining a strong focus on quality education

    Education Policy and Financing is a new overall goal and strategic line of action

    1 IBIS has an education global group and a governance global group. A global group is composed of staff in the organisation working

    within the same area or theme and the purpose of the group is to promote peer learning and professional development in order to

    have constant focus on improvements and relevance.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 6

    Strengthened focus on youth

    Integration of Education in Emergencies in the global strategy

    Strengthened focus on civil society capacity development and advocacy

    Enabling links vertically (national, regional, global) and horisontally (between education and governance)

    Highlighting importance of documentation of evidence and results, especially of ‘modelling’ and advocacy activities

    One expected added value is to maintain our focus on quality education via the use of pilots and models, thus enabling replication by other stakeholders and/or institutionalisation by government. Another is to help bring local issues and knowledge to the attention of national and global education stakeholders. Denmark Strategy: The new strategy aims to further define IBIS’ political profile in the Danish development debate, and to strengthen the engagement of Danes in IBIS’ work and aims (vision and mission). It defines the thematic advocacy focus of communication as quality education for all and the global dimension in teaching, maintaining a Danish focus on Latin America as well as the structural causes of poverty, specifically tax havens, capital flight and the extractive industry. Youth Position Paper: With the position paper, youth is systematically integrated as a theme in the country strategies and in the revised global thematic strategies, and thus in new thematic programmes since 2011. Previously, youth was often not treated as a group in their own right, but rather as a part of programming for children/adults or civil society in general. IBIS sees young people as potential change agents both within their country and globally. We want to support them to take this role upon themselves through targeted education and/or capacity development for advocacy. Climate Change Policy: The policy provides guiding principles and thematic issues for new and existing programmes and advocacy. It allows for flexibility to enable country offices to focus on areas most relevant to the national context and local partners. As climate change is a new area to IBIS, the ambition is to start with pilots with realistic goals and then build on the experience.

    Development Goal: IBIS’ role and mandate for interventions in fragile settings is clarified internally and the organisation convinces the main donor to support this line of work

    Objective: IBIS enhances the cooperation within Alliance 2015, focusing on South Sudan and Somaliland

    Objective: IBIS develops its niche within education in fragile settings, with a focus on teacher training

    Achievements Status

    Cooperation with Alliance 2015 members has been enhanced, e.g. by participation in an ECHO-funded project in Somalia implemented by Alliance 2015 partner CESVI (2013-2014) and in a joint fact-finding mission to Syria with Alliance 2015 partners.

    Completed

    A review of Education in Emergencies activities was conducted in 2011, and the area was fully integrated into the revised Education for Change thematic strategy.

    In progress

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 7

    Process and lessons learned

    A pre-condition was to achieve humanitarian partnership agreements with ECHO and with Danida. While the application for an ECHO FPA has been completed concerning organisational, financial and administrative aspects, the policy aspect remains outstanding. The agreement with Danida is also outstanding. The internal project to achieve these goals is coming to an end this year, and it will be concluded with an internal lessons learned study. During the period, IBIS has been an active member of the International Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), has participated in a working group on education in fragility, and has contributed to the development of a set of minimum standards for Education in Fragility. IBIS also contributed to the development of a conflict-sensitive education package launched by INEE in 2013. IBIS now uses this package in South Sudan.

    2.3 Programmatic approach – The Change Triangle

    Figure 2: Implementation approach builds on the change triangle approach

    To effectively deliver on strategies, IBIS has adopted an overall programmatic approach best visualised in “The Change Triangle”, which was published by Fagligt Forum with strong IBIS involvement in 2010.

    Hence, IBIS’ overall intervention approach is to link thematic competencies, organisational capacity and advocacy targets right from the planning phase of a partnership or project with one or more civil society organisations or institutional change agents. The logic is that the

    change potential of a CSO, an NGO or an alliance of organisations, is only as strong as the interaction between the three elements. Instead of working separately with different local organisations, IBIS sees it as an added value that we bring these elements together for an individual organisation, or a set of local civil society organisations. The sum becomes more than the individual members.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 8

    2.4 Creating room for innovation The above programmatic approach allows room for innovation through an increased level of synergy, as we can develop and test models within one setting and then provide the same capacity building support to a number of partners. Similarly, by bringing different organisations together in a partnership situation or collaboration, IBIS assists mutual learning, creating a space for innovation and alignment of issues that civil society might focus on in a particular location and country. IBIS might not select the particular issues but, by bringing organisations together, we can assist an advocacy issue analysis and decision-making process. IBIS’ added value contribution is that we enter into partnerships and collaborations with these alignments and advocacy focuses right from the beginning, and with experience from other places and countries, and perhaps before a local partner sees the importance of advocacy versus a needs-based approach.

    Another space for innovation is created by our clear focus on two thematic areas combined with our change triangle implementation approach and supported by our organisational structure and strategies. The combination allows IBIS to

    create, assist and work with vertical links on a local partner’s specific interventions, programme objectives or advocacy goals in a programme country assisted by a country strategy, and through national level coalitions and networks in a programme country, over regional partners, coalitions and networks to global decision makers in settings such as Brussels, Copenhagen or New York.

    The clear thematic focus also allows IBIS to direct the attention of duty bearers at various levels (sub-national, national, regional and global) to issues which we have helped to identify and document directly together with the affected local people as rights holders at their own location.

    Overall, IBIS’ work with innovation focuses on creating spaces (structures/processes) that are conducive to the creation of new ideas through mutual learning and the incorporation of new evidence-based approaches. Concepts to limit risks and test development outcomes are developed and piloted with a view to potential future replication if considered successful. Examples are provided in the chapters that follow.

    2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation approach The overall conclusion of the latest IBIS Thematic Review carried out by Danida is that we have a “comprehensive and well-articulated process for a monitoring and learning approach to [our] reporting formats. The processes and frameworks are seen to be well implemented although some of the indicators included in the framework could be enhanced”.

    Our monitoring system is applied to all IBIS’ programme activity and is as an integrated part of our programme management cycle approach.

    The system includes overall guidelines to programme monitoring, a description of a 5-step approach to monitoring at programme level and ten toolbox papers2. These have been gradually developed, tested and adjusted in a participatory process involving head and country office staff and our global programme M&E Group in order to ensure ownership throughout IBIS.

    2 The guidelines, 5-step process and tools are accessible

    from IBIS’ Global Learning System database and http://ibis-admin.org/ .

    http://ibis-admin.org/http://ibis-admin.org/

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 9

    Figure 3: IBIS’ Programme Monitoring and OPS Process

    All the principles, steps and methodologies concerning the monitoring of projects and activities which IBIS implements directly or supports partners to implement, are used in the annual programme and country level monitoring and learning approach, called the Organisational Performance System (OPS).

    A typical thematic programme works with a number of partners, mainly civil society organisations. All projects implemented by partners, or implemented directly by IBIS in fragile contexts, have agreed objectives, indicators, strategies and activities that are continuously monitored in partnership with IBIS and sometimes with the wider group of partners. Our thematic programme setup is, in other words, a platform for joint analyses, implementation and monitoring of development activities and advocacy initiatives among partner organisations sharing the same vision and aspiration for change and concrete results in the fields of education and democratic governance.

    The annual monitoring system setup works with both down- and upwards feedback mechanisms and accountability, and involves at

    micro-level the local constituency and partners, at meso level the different partners and the country office and at global level head office, IBIS’ board and other external stakeholders.

    Hence, at the local project monitoring level, it involves partners’ own monitoring and reporting to IBIS, but also IBIS’ own monitoring of partners’ progress before a joint assessment of progress, challenges and lessons learnt takes place.

    At the programme level, there is continuous monitoring involving all partners, through formative monitoring missions and other planning and monitoring interventions such as the annual partnership forums. All programmes are subjected to a final evaluation lead by an external consultant.

    Key principles for the monitoring system are:

    • Partner participation: Monitoring is a joint activity between partners and IBIS - and target groups, where relevant. Although some donor demands as to monitoring are indispensable, the monitoring of the single projects in the TP should as far as possible be based on the

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 10

    partners’ own priorities and agreed roles and responsibilities between partners and IBIS.

    • Mutual learning: Monitoring methods should promote learning for IBIS and partners. This entails data being accessible to all interested parties and reports being discussed with direct stakeholders before finalisation.

    • Sharing of learning: Monitoring results from the Thematic Programme’s many single projects with or without partners should be shared with all partners (for example at the annual Partner Forums).

    • Coordination and alignment: Respecting partners’ monitoring systems implies being in constant dialogue with partners in order to enable a merging and alignment of IBIS’ monitoring to partners’ setups. Capacity building of IBIS staff and partners should be prioritised when necessary and, in the case

    of multiple donors to one partner organisation, IBIS should support the alignment of reporting, based on the partner’s priorities.

    • Keep it simple: Few, good key indicators are preferable to a high number of indicators which are never used or become “information graveyards”. Considerations regarding costs of the monitoring activities in terms of money as well as manpower and opportunity costs are important.

    • Verification: If surprising results are achieved, it is important to triangulate the knowledge, e.g. by asking other stakeholders and using other methodologies to verify the results.

    2.6 Country Focus IBIS has maintained its focus on Africa and Latin America throughout the reporting period. Table 1 below provides an overview of our programme countries and the relevant country strategies and thematic programmes for each country. For Latin America, after the closure of three programme countries prior to 2011, the strategy has been to develop a smaller but more focused programme to combat poverty and inequality.

    The table also shows that IBIS implements its thematic programme activities consistently with local partners in all countries. In 2013, this was done with more than 220 partners, hence on average about 20 partners in a programme country, excluding the regional programme partners.

    Table 1: Country engagements, country strategies and TPs in the reporting period

    Continent Programme country

    Country strategy

    Thematic programme Thematic programme period

    Number of partners (2013)

    Africa Ghana 2012-16 Education 01/2010 - 12/2014 26

    Governance 04/2013 - 03/2017 11

    Liberia 2012-16 Education 07/2011 - 12/2016 3

    Governance 06/2012 - 05/2017 6

    Mozambique 2013-17 Education 11/2011 - 09/2016 7

    Governance 05/2013 - 04/2018 15

    Sierra Leone 2013-17 Education 01/2009 - 12/2014 12

    Governance 04/2011 - 12/2014 9

    South Sudan 2012-16 Education 01/2014 - 06/2015 4

    Latin America Bolivia 2012-17 Education 05/2012 - 04/2017 9

    Governance 05/2012 - 04/2017 16

    Guatemala 2012-16 Education 04/2012 - 03/2016 20

    Governance 05/2012 - 04/2016 23

    Nicaragua 2012-16 Education 04/2012 - 03/2016 14

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 11

    Governance 04/2012 - 03/2016 13

    Regional Africa AAP/Advocacy 04/2011 - 03/2014 20

    Latin America LAPI/Advocacy 07/2010 - 12/2013 16

    West Africa WAHRD/Governance 04/2010 – 03/2015 3

    Europe Denmark 2013-16

    2.6.1 Adding new programme countries As part of the restructuring of IBIS to a two-layer organisation (cutting out the regional level), country programmes were developed in 2011 and 2012 and, via a strengthened focus on fragility, IBIS’ Board decided to name South Sudan a new programme country in 2012. A country strategy is the first step to framing an IBIS intervention and for South Sudan, this was approved in March 2012. The education thematic programme inception phase was approved in late 2013 to start implementation in 2014. The programme builds on the experience gained by and the recommendations of the IBIS Accelerated Learning Programme (ALP). This programme was implemented in South Sudan in 2007-2012 with support from Danida Humanitarian funds, and

    has a focus on both Education in Emergencies and more long-term activities, such as supporting the strengthening of the South Sudanese civil society’s capacity and voice in securing the right to education for all.

    IBIS’ mode of intervention in South Sudan has gradually shifted from self-implementation and working closely with the duty bearers (District Authorities, officials, teachers etc.) in the humanitarian setting to a stronger focus on civil society and right holders with a view to long-term development. Depending on the context and a close monitoring of risks, IBIS carefully selects the most appropriate partners and designs the partnerships to meet the defined goals.

    Organisational Development Goal: The structure of IBIS must be conducive to working effectively together and interacting well with relevant stakeholders and partners in developing countries and in Denmark and Europe Organisational Strategy 2012-2015 Objectives:

    Country strategies for all IBIS countries have been approved by the end of 2012 and are the basis for the thematic programme development.

    New countries. The programme in South Sudan fully developed in 2012-2013. The investigations in francophone West Africa lead to a decision in 2012-13 about a new programme country (Mali or Burkina Faso) and to the start of programme activities in the chosen country late 2013.

    Achievements Status

    All programme countries had updated country strategies at the end of 2012

    Completed

    The country strategy and an education thematic programme were in place in South Sudan at the end of 2013. Due to the violent conflict in Mali in 2013, Burkina Faso was chosen and programme activities started in the shape of a joint project application with BørneFonden to CISU in 2013.

    Completed

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 12

    Narrative discussion and lessons learned: In 2011, four IBIS offices were closed (Angola, Peru, Ecuador and Honduras). The closures were part of a wider restructuring of IBIS from a three-layer organisation (country, regional and head office) to a two-layer organisation (country and head office). The rationale for the new structure was to further empower the South in line with the Paris Principals and the Accra Declaration and the consequent devolution of aid budgets to the South. Furthermore, the country and head office model is a logical consequence of IBIS’ decentralisation policy, which encourages greater local involvement and accountability. The recent Danida Thematic Review assessed the new setup positively, underscoring that: “…in general the new setup is working well and is appreciated by all involved”.

    One of the weaknesses of the new generation of country strategies and programs, which is clear from IBIS’ internal assessments as well as from the Danida thematic review 2013, is the low level of risk analysis and risk management measures. This weakness can potentially jeopardise the ability to steer the strategies and programs. However, this has been addressed since late 2013 when developing new thematic programmes.

    IBIS’ strategic decision to strengthen its presence in West Africa led to the approval of Burkina Faso as a new programme country in December 2012. A programme strategy is to be developed. A country analysis has been concluded, exploring possible partnerships and alliances, amongst others with Welt Hunger Hilfe, the German Alliance 2015 member. A joint proposal with Børnefonden regarding “Strengthening of local partnerships to improve the quality of primary

    school education in Banzega province, Burkina Faso” was submitted to CISU in December 2013 (approved in 2014).

    In late 2013, IBIS received notice from the Bolivian government to leave the country by early 2014. A task force was set up to react to this sudden and surprising announcement.

    2.6 Programmatic Financial Overview In the period 2011-2013 IBIS total spending was 683,9 mi. DKK. During the period, there was a markedly increase, as the annual spending was 200,5 mi. DKK in 2011, 206,7 mi. DKK in 2012 and

    276,6 mi. DKK in 2013. The increase corresponds well with the levels of total income over the period. Chapter eight provides more information on the income side of our results.

    Figure 4: Total income and total utilisation per year

    The increase in overall spending during the period took primarily place on activities within the two thematic focus areas, education and

    governance. These experienced both an increase in spending from 2011 to 2013 of about 50%.

    The programme country with the highest financial spending in the three-year period was

    211,8 202,2

    277,3

    200,5 206,7

    276,6

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    300

    2011 2012 2013

    Income

    Spending

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 13

    Bolivia with 125,3 mi. DKK followed by Mozambique with 112,1 mi. DKK. After these two countries, there is a group of programme countries consisting of Ghana, Guatemala and Nicaragua that each has about half of the financial spending as compared with the first two countries. These three countries are followed by

    Liberia and Sierra Leone who both has an overall spending of about 40 mi. DKK. As South Sudan only got a country strategy in 2012, it predictably has the lowest financial spending among the eight programme countries with about 20 mi. DKK for the three year period.

    Figure 5: Total financial utilisation for 2011-13 per thematic area and programme country

    In the reporting period, IBIS has primarily worked within its two thematic areas, education and governance, and, using OECD’s DAC codes to disaggregated the overall spending in the period, the analysis shows that the financial utilisation is almost even between the two sectors. The education thematic area used 277,0 mi DKK, while 288,0 mi. DKK was spent within the governance sector.

    The figure below shows that the distribution between the two thematic areas was relative even for each of the three years. In 2013 there was a beginning of a small gab. This was primarily the result of an increased spending in Mozambique and Nicaragua in 2013 as compared to previous years.

    Figure 6: Total expenditure for the Education and governance thematic areas per year

    125,3

    54,8 60,0 45,6

    112,1

    61,5

    39,7 19,4

    -

    40,0

    80,0

    120,0

    160,0

    Totalspending

    70.000.000

    80.000.000

    90.000.000

    100.000.000

    110.000.000

    120.000.000

    2011 2012 2013

    Governance Education

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 14

    The table below shows the financial spending by country and thematic area. It shows that Mozambique is the programme country with the highest financial utilisation with the governance area, whereas Liberia was the programme

    country with the highest utilisation in the education area. For Liberia, the table also reflects that its governance thematic programme only started mid-2012.

    Table 2: Total financial utilisation for 2011-13 per thematic area and programme country

    Education Governance HIV Other Total

    Bolivia 34,517,786 20,196,515 70,618,348 - 125,332,649

    Ghana 32,698,936 22,095,127 - - 54,794,063

    Guatemala 19,028,048 39,726,382 4,246,874 - 63,001,304

    Liberia 40,419,562 4,148,635 995,078 - 45,563,274

    Mozambique 27,456,398 84,674,244 - - 112,130,642

    Nicaragua 8,381,586 52,871,169 219,416 - 61,472,171

    S. Leone 23,858,556 15,859,415 - - 39,717,971

    S. Sudan 19,222,340 174,750 - - 19,397,089

    HO 71,370,128 48,303,721 612,158 42,164,688 162,450,694

    Total 276,953,338 288,049,958 76,691,872 42,164,688 683,859,856

    It is also worth noting that IBIS and HIVOS were jointly in charge of the administration of the Global Fund financed grant to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Bolivia and Guatemala. These HIV /AIDS activities are part of our Alliance 2015 joint programming. Lastly, the

    spending under the category “other” for HO relates to activities like fundraising and smaller individual projects supported through HO. Se Annex 2 for further details on financial programme spending.

    2.8 Review key findings/recommendations and management response In August 2013, a Thematic Review commissioned by Danida was completed. The review covers the current reporting period well but timing has only allowed us to draft and receive approval of our

    management response. Action to follow up and change practices etc. will be included in the next strategic plan.

    An overview of other reviews, evaluations and formative monitoring missions is provided in Annex 1.

    Recommendations IBIS response and follow-up plan

    Strategic framework and approach

    1. IBIS should initiate a process where policies and strategies with different time spans are updated, aligned and combined into an overall simplified strategic framework that also indicates how key priorities and result areas are to be monitored and be complementary to addressing some of the more specific recommendations highlighted in the review.

    IBIS will re-visit the strategic framework with the purpose of ensuring a better coherence between objectives, time frames and other interrelated issues. IBIS agrees with the need for specifying how to monitor the strategy level. This revision process will be included in the annual plans for 2014 and is expected to be concluded before the end of 2014 with the approval of the Board. That said, IBIS will continuously adjust the strategies in order to remain responsive towards contextual changes.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 16

    2. The Partnership Strategy should be updated to include some of the recent lessons learned from partnership-based change, with increased reflection of IBIS’ added value to partners with standardised benchmarks and indicators developed. Both partnership assessments and the partnership development plans should follow more clearly the principle of ‘mutuality’ where IBIS’ own performance and commitments are also regularly assessed as a basis for dialogue with partners on joint strategies, support modalities and objectives.

    IBIS will start a specific process related to the Partnership Strategy, which was developed before the development effectiveness principles were agreed. This process will include how to work methodologically with a concept like added value. The revision of the Strategy will also reflect relevant outcomes of the on-going Review of Global Planning Processes and Tools in the thematic programmes. Throughout 2014-2015, IBIS will implement partner risk assessment based on self-assessment as a tool for increased ownership and mutuality, e.g. through MANGO Health Check.

    3. IBIS should continue to develop its human rights-based approach by integrating key concepts of rights and rights fulfilment into the Change Triangle and applying an empowering approach to programme monitoring where beneficiaries are more actively involved in data gathering that can also be used for monitoring government commitments and evidence-based advocacy.

    Over the next year, IBIS will address the explicit need for a joint re-examining of the Rights-Based Approach Paper and the Change Triangle. IBIS agrees with the need to be more specific on evidence-based advocacy, and how data is provided, and would like to study different approaches as to how partners can involve their constituencies in monitoring.

    Organisational structure & management

    IBIS is recommended to pursue its on-going efforts to review human resources and its global personnel policy and manuals in view of the recent shift to the Country Focus Model, paying particular attention to the area of finance and administration where country offices have taken on a larger responsibility since the re-organisation.

    IBIS will continue to develop the basic concepts, areas of responsibilities / cooperation as well as global guidelines for strengthening human resources (HRD and HRM) at HO and in partner countries. As part of the planned review of the CO structures in 2014, IBIS will consolidate and/or amend the CO structures, including finance and administration in 2014-2015.

    Governance as a thematic focus

    It is recommended that IBIS defines some key indicators for each objective area in the governance strategy so that lessons learnt, and similarities and variances in what works under what conditions are tracked more systematically across countries in the IBIS governance portfolio. Identifying constructive entry-points for addressing governance failure in fragile contexts (in line with the often extensive and detailed context analyses), with more attention paid to the effects of interventions on social norms and fabrics in the on-going monitoring and risk management, is also recommended.

    IBIS will put the issue of establishing key indicators on the agenda of the Global Governance Group to strengthen the ownership of the follow-up on this recommendation. The Global Governance Group is a key player both in agreeing on indicators, and as a learning hub for tracking lessons learnt for what works under what conditions. The group (composed of governance programme managers and HO senior governance staff) will in 2014 be assigned the task of analysing and developing minimum requirements for indicators, data collection / use of global index, and monitoring formats. Decisions on the recommendation will be taken at the end of 2014. IBIS agrees with the need for entry-points for addressing governance failure in fragile contexts, and will develop this – also learning from the development of IBIS’ education and fragility approach.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 17

    IBIS should clearly define the interface between HO and CO at the national level, i.e. between the global programmes and country programmes. This ensures that country offices assume the main responsibility for IBIS’ activities in their respective countries, thereby focussing global programme capacity on the linkages to country programmes and provision of selected technical capacity to partners in the country programmes.

    A separate review was conducted of the AAP/LAPI programme, providing a more in-depth analysis of the programmes, incl. the interface between HO and CO. In general, strategic partners who can receive ‘core funding’ have linked up and must continue to link up directly with HO to guarantee the linkages from the national to the international level. Local partners, who are supported with more traditional capacity building initiatives, are the main responsibility of the CO. Exceptions to the latter can be made if a local partner is involved in a very sensitive case, as the HO link, all things considered, provides more protection from politically motivated reactions.

    Monitoring, evaluation & learning

    IBIS should identify a number of indicators which reflect the strategic objectives of IBIS and report on them consistently over the period of the strategic plans (This should be considered in connection with a streamlining of the strategic framework as outlined in the section

    on strategic frameworks ), allowing for aggregation across

    countries. In addition, a few targeted indicators could be selected to illustrate performance on areas of particular attention.

    During 2014, IBIS will work on qualifying the result framework, including continuing the on-going process of improving the annual objectives. The strength of the monitoring framework is expected to facilitate a more strategic use of indicators. The question of aggregation is valid, but also very difficult, not only in technical terms, but also because, by looking for a few targeted indicators, we run the risk of losing important information about the complexity of the whole picture.

    IBIS should define more clearly what it regards as good capacity development. It should also establish both standards for the support given, and measurable objectives which can be reported on over a period of time in order to better track performance in terms of developing capacity for advocacy.

    IBIS will engage in a process of defining good capacity development; furthermore, the proposal of defining standards should be considered, but must be balanced against the different organisational strengths of partners in Latin America and Africa.

    Danida should engage with IBIS in defining acceptable indicators for delivery of capacity to local partners, thereby focussing on IBIS’ added value. This type of indicator may differ from what Danida has usually focussed on in terms of acceptable results reporting.

    This recommendation is directed towards both Danida and IBIS. IBIS will design a process with partners to pin down and define more precisely the added value.

    Risk management

    IBIS should include a risk section in Country Strategies and programme documents that identifies significant internal and external risks and prescribes general risk management procedures and mechanisms. Such risk management plans should consider explicitly potential impact of risks on programme performance and should prioritise risks in terms of consequence and likelihood.

    IBIS will by the end of 2015 have developed and implemented a global, institutional approach, methodology and procedures regarding risk management and planning, including definition, mitigation, monitoring and reporting of risks. Furthermore, IBIS will update and strengthen the existing global template for national contingency / security plans in 2014.

    IBIS should report consistently on the selected risks with a forward-looking approach, formalise risk management procedures (reactive and proactive) and consider developing an integrated risk and results

    As above. In 2015, IBIS will have developed, formalised and implemented global procedures for risk management, including planning, monitoring and reporting.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 18

    monitoring framework through which results and developments in selected risks are monitored to make it clear how risks influence performance.

    Financial management

    Acknowledging the fact that IBIS has taken measures to become more cost aware in its operations since the last review, the RT recommends that tools and mechanisms are further developed to have a closer link between programme and finance monitoring so that levels of investment comparable to results are regularly tracked and analysed.

    Bearing in mind that IBIS has implemented a 46% reduction in staff per million DKK turn-over since the last review and the fact that IBIS has implemented a model for cost distribution which is widely praised, IBIS is continuously working to strengthen cost-efficiency. In 2014-2015, IBIS will, in close relation between programme and finance, develop and implement methodologies and tools with the intention of systematically planning, monitoring, documenting and analysing costs and investments compared to results achieved, with a particular focus on development of unit cost concepts.

    It is recommended that IBIS continues to pursue a simplification and streamlining of administrative systems for financial management to make them more transparent and user-friendly for both financial and programme staff.

    IBIS will implement more user-friendly administrative systems, including a web based time registration system in 2014 and a financial management and reporting tool for financial and programme management staff by the end of 2015.

    In relation to the use of external auditors, the RT recommends tendering for a new external auditor every 3-5 years and notes that IBIS plans to tender in 2014. Concerning performance audits, it is important to have the external auditor utilising internationally recognised auditors from the countries in question to ensure good understanding of the country context. This applies specifically to Sierra Leone (IBIS in Sierra Leone is following up in order to assist in finding local qualified

    auditors.).

    IBIS will conduct a tender for the institutional external auditor in 2014. IBIS is aware of the Danida formal requirements concerning auditors. However, the present auditors in SL (Deloitte) are not performing well and the CO gets complaints from partners on this. An alternative is being sought.

    The RT urges IBIS to continue its rollout of a whistle-blower package with increased outreach to staff at all levels on how to use its provisions in case of suspected anomalies.

    IBIS will continue to implement the whistle-blower policy for all staff at HO and national levels in 2014.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 19

    3. GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY – RESULTS

    Global Partnership Strategy

    IBIS’ Vision IBIS is workingworks for a just world in which all people have equal access to education, influence and resources. Together with our partners, IBIS combats global inequality and poverty

    Partnership: overall strategic goal To strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to claim and use individual and collective rights to improve the lives of underprivileged people

    Selected Global Result indicators Year 2010 - Baseline Year 2013 - Result

    % of Thematic programme partners with Development Plans based on Partner Assessments

    55% 85%

    % of Thematic programmes providing funding for joint advocacy initiatives with partners

    50% 79%

    % of IBIS Thematic programmes which held annual partners forums 71% 79%

    3.1 Introduction to strategy IBIS defines partnership as a relationship between parties where a mutual agreement has been established, committing each organisation to a set of agreed principles and actions over a defined period of time.

    IBIS believes that the success of a partnership depends on the extent to which ownership, commitment and power are shared by the partners. Although IBIS takes the final decisions regarding financial issues related to programme implementation, IBIS consciously seeks the highest possible degree of mutuality, participation and commitment between IBIS and south partners and between partners, and equality in decision-making, rights and responsibilities. All IBIS’ Education and Governance programmes worldwide are guided by the content and methodologies established in the Global Partnership Strategy.

    A partnership needs to take its point of departure in a shared overall claim for rights, social change and a shared understanding of the specific objective and strategies related to the programme or project level if IBIS is to engage into it. However, IBIS profoundly respects that a partnership builds on diversity in visions, histories and cultures and that the strengthening of a

    partner’s own organisational identity, mission, strategies and values is crucial for the success and sustainability of a partnership.

    Figure 7: Partnership building

    The partnership must respect differences and at the same time be able to work on common areas as illustrated above.

    One of IBIS’ crucial roles is to facilitate synergy and collaboration between different types of civil society organisation and other innovative stakeholders that hold different and complemen-tary skills and knowledge in order for them to jointly advocate for change. The different types of actors that IBIS will typically establish partnerships with are as follows:

    Constituency based organisations, e.g. movements, community groups, traditional structures, trade unions, student groups and

    IBIS Partner

    Partnership

    Activities

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 19

    networks/alliances, these being local, national or international, are considered as the primary and legitimate agents of change.

    NGOs, e.g. local or national NGOs providing services, capacity building or supporting advocacy, research institutions and other actors, can be agents of change and important supporters of constituency based organisations.

    Government institutions, local or national level state institutions and other government entities, and international institutions can be

    important operational partners if conducive to the promotion of citizens’ rights and participation and to the delivery of services.

    Today, all IBIS’ programmes and projects in Africa and Latin America are organised in close partnership with more than 220 different civil society organisations and national and local government institutions. The matrix below illustrates that the partnership approach and mode of intervention vary according to the specific context.

    Table 3: Partnership intervention matrix

    Context Weakly organised civil society Emerging civil society Well-established civil society

    Main partners (in prioritised order)

    • National and local government institutions

    • International NGOs • Emerging national and local

    CSOs, CBOs and networks

    • CBOs and CSOs • INGOs as intermediaries • National and local

    government institutions

    • Networks and Alliances

    • Constituency-based CBOs and CSOs

    • Networks and Alliances

    Inter-vention mode

    • IBIS implements directly, but in close collaboration with government institutions

    • Close coordination with INGOs

    • Incipient activities with emerging NGOs and CBOs

    • Funding to well-defined partner projects implemented in close facilitation by IBIS

    • Organisational and programmatic capacity development of partners

    • Core funding to partners’ own strategic plans

    • Partner to partner capacity building supported by IBIS Focused capacity building in specific IBIS competency areas

    In choosing who to enter a partnership with, IBIS works with three overall selection areas:

    Basic alignment and performance

    Strategic programme alignment

    Financial performance

    Within the first selection area, IBIS uses a number of standards among which respect for basic human rights, plurality, gender equality, transparency and the overall PANT principles are among the most important. However, a partner also has to be willing to engage in sharing of information and mutual learning. The second selection area evaluates the strategic programme fit between a partner and IBIS. Here IBIS wants to engage in partnerships with partners who are - or have the potential to become - change agents on social and economic justice issues which contri-

    bute positively to our own development goals. IBIS wants to engage with a good number of partners in a thematic programme, typically around 10 to 15 partners, and looks for a good plurality of different kinds of organisations (local CSOs, national associations or networks, research institutions, government agencies etc.) as well as new and innovative organisations. Lastly, we look for partners who can act together and contribute to links between different programme levels within a thematic programme.

    If these two selection areas have been positive for both the partner and IBIS, IBIS conducts a financial due diligence of the partner’s organisation to see if and how a financial partner-ship with the partner is possible, including the involved potential financial risk to IBIS.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 20

    The operationalisation of a partnership is expressed in a Partnership Development Plan (PDP). IBIS has developed a simple and flexible participatory partner assessment process to assess strengths and weaknesses related to all important internal and external organisational aspects of a partner. Based on the outcomes of this assessment and closely related to the specific advocacy or change objectives of the partner organisation, a specific PDP is agreed between IBIS and the partner organisation, consisting of selected organisational and professional capacity building items necessary to achieve the planned results within a specific period of time.

    A clear division of tasks and responsibilities between IBIS and the partner on how to implement the PDP is a crucial part of the plan itself. The plan includes the estimated cost, timing, participants and responsibility for delivering the specific processes and results for each capacity building element.

    As part of IBIS’ strategic added value to the partnership, IBIS staff directly provides or facilitate specific elements of the capacity building agreed upon in the development plan, while others will be provided through intermediaries or other partner organisations. A second part of IBIS’ added value is our capacity to facilitate contacts and strengthen relationships, information flows and the exchange of experience between our partners both vertically and horisontally within the country, between countries as well as with international organi-sations, networks and research organisations.

    The agreed development plan is monitored closely, mutual lessons are learned and the plan is renegotiated annually. The ambition of this circular and systematic approach to partner capacity building, and a third part of IBIS’ added value to the local civil society, is that IBIS’ partners become increasingly autonomous and legitimate drivers of change, capable of adapting to contextual changes and of interacting with other change agents in joint advocacy initiatives for democratic change.

    3.1.1 Reflections on the strategy Our partnership strategy is a key human rights-based approach for IBIS. It implements and integrates the PANT principles (participation, accountability, non-discrimination and transpa-

    rency) into both our own and our partners’ intervention modes, and in this way it strengthens the institutionalisation of human rights approaches into local institutions in our programme countries.

    Through the partnership approach, IBIS supports civil society in holding the state accountable to its citizens, within both education and governance sectors, and realising the rights of marginalised men and women, children and youth and the collective rights of indigenous people. In this perspective, rights are central to IBIS’ work and become the main tool for civil society actors in advocacy vis-à-vis the state.

    Our partnership strategy means that our support and work is done through and by partner organisations at different levels. This supports the overall goals of the Danish Civil Society Strategy (2008) in the areas of promotion of local participation and ownership, harmonisation of external support, building local democracy and result-orientedness.

    In this way, it has also been our main approach to support organisational and professional capacity among different types of partner organisations, and strengthen partners’ collaboration in order to be able to engage in advocacy and policy dialogue locally, nationally and globally.

    The strategy was adopted in 2008 and has not been revised in the reporting period. However, a revision is planned in 2015 as recommended in the recent Thematic Review (2013), which will take into account lessons learnt with strengthening coalitions, involvement of the private sector and results orientation of capacity building, and respond to the review recommendations and the new Danish Civil Society Policy. In assessing the implementation of the strategy in 2011 – 2013, we have chosen to focus on three important aspects: 1) Building partnerships and organisational

    capacity; 2) Coordination with other international

    organisations/Alliance 2015 partners; 3) Facilitating synergy between partner

    organisations for joint advocacy initiatives.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 21

    3.2 Building Partnerships and Organisational Capacity The figure below illustrates our achievement in relation to one of three chosen key aggregated indicators: Formulation of Development Plans with all civil society partners in the thematic programmes based on Partner Assessments (OPS 2011).

    The Partnership Strategy was implemented together with 85% of all IBIS’ civil society partners

    globally in the whole period. The remaining 15% are new partners that have joined us on a continuous basis in the existing programme countries and the initiation of the thematic programmes involves some process time before partnerships become active.

    Figure 6: Percentage of all thematic programme partners with a partnership development plan.

    Source: IBIS Organisational Performance Reports

    3.2.1 Selected results

    Global - The capacity development of partners as spelled out in the Partnership Strategy has had a prominent role in IBIS programmes from 2010 to 2013. Monitoring and OPS reports indicate that IBIS’ programmes focus on a variety of capacity building issues, such as rights-based approach training, advocacy skills, strategic planning, internal democracy, programme development, M&E, leadership, proposal writings skills, coalition building, administrative and financial skills, documentation skills, gender equality, and constituency building. Global - In OPS reports from 2010 to 2013, partner organisations and IBIS staff state that the assessment process and elaboration of joint development plans strengthen mutual confidence and learning. The dual focus on organisational and professional capacity building has a positive impact on programme results. Assessments and PDPs are strong instruments to enhance results orientation, to prioritise the support of the partnership, and to establish clarity of roles and

    responsibilities between IBIS and the partner organisation.

    As a way to promote partners’ financial autonomy, IBIS can demonstrate a very positive tendency towards supporting the strategic plan of both larger NGOs and coalitions in almost all IBIS programme countries. In the partnerships where no strategic plan exists, IBIS supports and facilitates the elaboration of a strategic plan. This is to ensure clarity of, and a sense of ownership in relation to the objectives and advocacy ambitions within the partner organisation, and to be able to define the organisational and professional competencies that are required to achieve them. Sierra Leone - A concrete example of the partnership approach is with our partner, the Knowledge for Community Empowerment Organisation (KoCEPO), who in the reporting period developed strongly in their work with advocacy for youth empowerment. IBIS facilitated capacity building concerning themes such as self-esteem, skills and leadership, support to youth involved in mining operations, and training of local authorities and young people in

    0%

    30%

    55% 85% 85% 85%

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 22

    the laws and rights of democratic participation. In 2012, KoCEPO became a focal point for the civil society forum in Kono district. This forum has since this time produced remarkable results based on advocacy campaigns in the areas of transparency and accountability regarding the transfer of infrastructure and health budgets from central to local level and the promotion of women and youth candidates in local elections.

    3.2.2 Deviations and lessons learned It is a challenge for some IBIS programmes to

    provide adequate support, quality facilitation and close field monitoring in relation to the agreed PDP. Different factors cause this situation: o Too many partners or too few IBIS staff to

    actually plan together with the partners

    and support the implementation of the PDP, or a combination of the two.

    o Partners located in different geographic areas make it difficult to continuously follow up on plans and for IBIS to actually add value to partners’ own development and advocacy processes.

    The annual Partner Forum for partners in a thematic programme is referred to in many monitoring reports as an important learning and joint monitoring space that broadens the horisons, builds mutual trust and facilitates innovation between the participating partner organisations and IBIS.

    3.3 Coordination with other International NGOs/Alliance2015 partners

    Figure 7: Percentage of programmes with joint programming with other international development organisations

    IBIS is definitely satisfied with the increasing tendency towards collaboration with other international organisations, as we believe this strengthens our impact and thus ultimately benefits our target groups. We find that our strategic focus on selective collaboration over recent years has strengthened both cost effectiveness as well as quality of outcomes for partner organisations. Knowing that the ambitions of our partner organisations and of our own global strategies to support and capacity build civil society require a strong organisational and financial set-up, IBIS will pursue further coordination in the years to come.

    3.3.1 Selected results In the reporting period, coordination with other international organisations at national level has taken on many different shapes, from joint advocacy initiatives to joint project management and sharing of office facilities with other Alliance 2015 members in 60% of our countries of collaboration. Sierra Leone - In 2011, IBIS entered a consortium, consisting of Concern Worldwide (an Alliance 2015 partner), Action Aid International, Save the Children, Plan Sierra Leone and International Rescue Committee, which, during the course of one year, managed to produce a common

    43% 29%

    57%

    71%

    29% 43%

    71%

    57%

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    2010 2011 2012 2013

    IBIS education

    IBIS governance

    IBIS total

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 22

    concept note and later a formal application in response to DFID’s education priorities. The six organisations are very different: some have a strictly humanitarian approach, some are strictly self-implementing and others (like IBIS) implement mainly through local CSOs using advocacy as an important tool. However, together the six organisations have found they also supplement each another and, through coordination and alignment of priorities, have been able to provide more strategic support to the local Education for All programme. For example, the new common M&E system creates common capacity building and learning opportunities.

    Liberia - IBIS, Welt Hunger Hilfe (WHH) (Alliance 2015 partner) and Medica Mondiale implemented in 2010-2013 the “Reintegration and Recovery Program in South East Liberia” (RRP) phase 3, financed by BMZ through the Kreditanstalt für Wiederafbau (KfW). WHH is the lead organisation, implementing infrastructure, WASH and an agriculture component, Medica Mondiale has the responsibility for the protection and empowerment of women, and IBIS is responsible for the education component consisting of, for example, youth technical vocational skills development (TVSD) and teacher training to enhance the quality of education. According to the evaluation of RRP 3 (2013), increased synergy and complementarity between the three organisations and the different components of RRP 3 has been achieved and will continue and be further strengthened in RRP4 in 2014.

    Mozambique - IBIS initiated in 2011 and 2012 efforts to align advocacy activities on changing national extractive policies by organising an international conference with more than 150 people in attendance and six roundtables with the participation of 50 – 75 people. The conferences and roundtables were implemented together with Civil Society Support Mechanism and supported by DFID, Irish Aid and a number of INGOs. They caused heated debates in the national media and in the Frelimo party central committee. The president publicly explained the

    policy choices of the government, including the urgent need to review public strategies, which resulted in the preparation of new oil and gas legislation, ready for approval in 2014, which requires that contracts are made public and that local communities are compensated.

    Guatemala - IBIS in Guatemala and DanChurch Aid have collaborated closely during the entire reporting period from 2011 to 2013. Most recently, our two organisations have worked closely with a group of partner organisations from Central America on a proposal to administer and implement the Danida human rights component for civil society empowerment. The project started in 2013 and is planned for a three-year period.

    International - IBIS worked closely with Publish What You Pay and EURODAD concerning the revision of the transparency and accounting directive in the EU. Among the important results, companies will now be required to disclose payment to governments over 100,000 euros on a project-by-project basis. NGOs were able to push back the suggested exemption rules. Through frequent meetings with the Ministry for Business, the Danish Business Authorities and the Ministry, the scope of the lobby work was broadened to also include the blacklisting of tax havens and automatic exchange of information, as well as pushing for Danish implementation of the EITI Initiative.

    3.3.2 Deviations and lessons learned The level of collaboration with Alliance 2015

    partners has been lower than expected. Several OPS reports indicate that some INGOs are reluctant to invest the required energy and resources in this field due to increased competition and different approaches to partnerships, results and development.

    Where collaboration and coordination with INGOs have been particularly successful, this has been related to a specific issue or task with like-minded organisations.

  • IBIS Results Report 2011-13 Page 22

    3.4 Facilitating synergy between partner organisations for joint advocacy initiatives

    Figure 8: Percentage of thematic programmes providing funding for partners’ joint advocacy initiatives

    Figure 4 shows that, from 2010 to 2013, IBIS has increasingly used an alignment approach which supports a number of different partner organisations around common capacity building processes and a clear common advocacy objective. We see this tendency in the reporting period as very positive, since it allows both IBIS and our partners to harmonise their own activities towards a common objective, which in most cases creates better results and a greater impact for the same level of resources.

    3.4.1 Selected results

    Ghana – IBIS, together with a civil society partner, supported the establishment of a Complementary Basic Education (CBE) alliance from 2011 to 2013 (consisting of national, regional and local CSOs working actively with CBE in close collaboration with the two Education for All coalitions). This is considered an important innovation in the way advocacy at national level is normally dealt with in Ghana. For the first time, the organisations with practical expertise came together to focus on one common advocacy process for the approval of a CBE policy (containing the models developed by the partners), including proposals for its implementation and financing.

    The Alliance for Complementary Education (ACE) project in Ghan

of 78/78
Results Report 2011-13
Embed Size (px)
Recommended