Support models for CSOs at country level: synthesis report

The six "Nordic" donors - Canada, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the UK - commissioned a review of alternative models of support to civil society. This document is the result and aims to review these experiences. The paper considers possibilities for improving direct support to NGOs/CSOs through country level support models, sheds light on constraints and possibilities of different types of support models, and increase outreach to a wider range of civil society organisations and reduce transaction costs.

The paper reviews the findings concerning donor?CSO relations as far as funding modalities are concerned, and in particular how this is influenced by framework conditions both in the partner and donor countries. The chapter then looks at a revised structure for classifying the support modalities, partly in light of the framework conditions discussions, but mostly as a function of the results from the field work. The findings in the six country case studies( Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) provide material for a number of proposals regarding future donor support to civil society development at the local level. Among other things the authors highlight that donors face a number of different risks when working with civil society in a developing country, where the most important forms can be seen to be financial or fiduciary risk; results risk; structural; and reputational/political.

The paper concludes that the decisions by Nordic donors coupled with the actual trends seen all point towards more use of joint and indirect support modalities, and also a move from project funding to core or programme aid. These trends are in line with the general shifts in bilateral aid and the Paris Agenda, with focus on strategic management, and concerns for more local ownership and building of capacities for planning, implementing and reporting on results.

Additional conclusions and recommendations include:

• as donors shift to managing resources through more strategic instruments, there is a need to strengthen accountability, results focus and transparency
• recognising that the new support modalities and increased funding levels imply new and perhaps greater levels of Risk, the parties should include risk analysis and risk management as an important component of larger joint donor?CSO undertakings
• preparation and management of the contracts regulating the relations between the parties, and in particular that includes better specified performance criteria for intermediary agents, requires more skills and management attention by donors
• best practice management structures for shared and strategic funding mechanisms should be based on clarity of functions and separation of roles: policy dialogue and policy setting; resource allocation and performance monitoring; independent appraisals of funding proposals.