Support models for CSOs at country level: Zambia country report

Zambia is ranked among the poorest countries of the world. International support is substantial and a joint assistance strategy has been set up between donors and the Zambian government. Civil society organisations play an active role in the implementation of this strategy, however were not involved in the design or planning stages. This report is one of six reports reviewing the experiences of different models for supporting civil society. It attempts to shed light on the different support models to civil society currently in use by the donors in Zambia, and how it affects civil society and its societal impact in general.

The report is intended to contribute to the development of a strategic policy framework for Nordic+ ( UK, Ireland, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Norway) support to a vibrant, pluralistic and democratic civil society. The study was carried out through a range of in-depth interviews with twenty CSO, all Nordic+ donors, USAID, the EC, the World Bank, the Netherlands Embassy, GTZ, relevant government authorities and the National AIDS Council. This study only looks at support models at country level and does not include funding of NGOs/CSOs from the donor head offices.

The study shows that Zambia is a “normal” developing country in terms of the cooperation between the three main actors of development cooperation, the Government and the public services, the civil society and the international donors.  It also has a well‐developed systems for governing this cooperation, at least the between the Government and the donors.  The civil society consists of networks and umbrella organisations, larger, often urban‐based CSOs (NGOs), CBOs and non‐traditional CSOs (traditional chiefs etc). Although cooperation between the Government and the civil society functions relatively well, there is still some suspicion between the actors. In addition the fact that none of the donors have spelled out clear and measurable objectives for their civil society support makes the assessment difficult, and models cannot easily be evaluated without knowing what they are intended to affect.

The following recommendations are made:

• donors, either individually or in groups, should identify objectives for their support
• civil society in Zambia should identify common causes, where applicable, and where constituencies have defined agendas
• steps should be taken to improve dialogue between actors
• donors and civil society alike should attempt to find meeting places for development of programmes, sharing of good practices and quality assurance, ensuring an outreach beyond the formal systems in use today
• donors should further develop their own coordination and discourse on civil society support, in formal and more informal networks
• donors and CSOs should develop strategies that mitigate and reduce risk
• the  model which uses an intermediary agent for managing either unilateral or joint funding should be explored further
• the creation of a societal fund with a board made up of “prominent, but independent” individuals governed by transparent guidelines, might help tot mitigate some of the risks identified in the study.