Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Civil Society Participation in

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 17

									Civil Society Participation in the Governance
of New Efforts to Improve Basic Education:

Lessons from Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mali and
                Tanzania



                 Karen Mundy, OISE-UT
                         with
           Richard Maclure, University of Ottawa
                 Suzanne Cherry (OISE-UT)
                 Megan Haggerty(OISE-UT)
                 Caroline Manion (OISE-UT)
             Malini Sivasubramaniam (OISE-UT)
         Benoît Kabore (Université de Ouagadougou)
           Colette Meyong (University of Ottawa)
            Daniel Lavan (University of Ottawa)
Background
   New efforts to expand access to basic education
    central to national development plans across Africa.

   Official Donors - moving towards a new “compact”
    with governments, providing reliable long term,
    budgetary support for recurrent costs of basic
    education.

   Civil society actors increasingly seen as partners in
    the formulation, implementation and monitoring of
    new efforts. Emphasis on governance and
    accountability

   Dilemmas: what kind of civil society engagement is
    needed, and how to support?
The Study - Goals and Design
   Jointly sponsored – by CIDA, IDRC, University of Toronto and
    University of Ottawa

   Four goals
     – Provide baseline assessment of current capacities of civil society in
       governance of the education sector
     – Provide insight into quality and effectiveness of civil society participation in
       planning and implementation of Sector Wide Approaches to education
       among donor agencies
     – Propose specific mechanisms to enhance participation of CSO‟s
     – Investigate possibilities for longer term support for CSOs to become more
       effective policy advocates and partners.

   Design
     – 8 desk studies, selected with CIDA staff in countries where Canada is
       engaged in a SWAp to basic education. (Conducted by graduate students).
     – 4 field based studies: Tanzania, Kenya; Burkina Faso and Mali, involving
       interviews with civil society organizations, donor organizations and
       government.
     – Case studies prepared using qualitative data analysis techniques
     – Cross-case analysis conducted using the case studies.
     – Analytic report + policy recommendations

   Limits
The Context:
Burkina Faso, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania
Education systems in crisis during the 1980s -1990s
 economic crisis and structural adjustment programs
 In Tanzania and Kenya: reversals in primary enrolments, user fees.
 In Mali and Burkina Faso: low access led donors to fund NGO schools


Mid 1990s
 Democracy reforms in each country.
 Rapid expansion of civil society – especially formally registered NGOs.
 First experiments with systemic efforts to revitalize basic education
 State no longer conceived as the sole party responsible for the design,
   regulation, ownership, and delivery of education.

From 2000
 Movement towards aid effectiveness (“compact”): Country owned plans +
   pooled funding and sector programs in education
 EFA declarations: rapid expansion targets (Mali, Burkina Faso) and free
   primary education (Tanzania, Kenya)
 Decentralization reforms - resources, decision making at local
   government and school level.
 New emphasis on civil society participation in the governance of
   educational systems (but less international funding for CSOs).
  Basic Data from the Four Countries
               Burkina Faso              Mali                     Tanzania                     Kenya
Population     12.8                      13.1                     37.6                         33.5
GDP/Capita     1169                      998                      674                          1140
(PPP- 2004)
ODA as % GDP   12.6                      11.7                     16.1                         3.9
Sector plan    PEDDEB (1999)             PRODEC (1999)            PEDP (2001)                  KESSP (2005-10)
               Pla n Decennal pour le    Progr am decenna l de    Pr imary Educ ation sector   Kenya Educa tion Sector
               Develop pment de l-       development de l-        Develo pment Progr am        Support Prog ram
               Educ ation de Base        education)


Key targets    70% Primary GER 95% primary GER                    Universal free               Universal free
               by 2010         by 2010                            primary (2001)               primary (2003)

               Improved quality          Improved quality         Improved quality             Improved quality
Primary GER
1995                              40 %                   40.5 %                      67 %                       85 %
2004                              53 %                     64 %                     101 %                      111 %
Research participants
                             Burkina Faso          Mali      Kenya       Tanzania

        Total Es timated      154 est.                                   400 est.
   # Ed ucation CSOs/NGOs     127 doc.        127 doc.    302 doc.       202 doc.
      Networks (National,                 6          14              9    7 (5,2)
         Subnational)
             INGOs                        7         10           10         13

        National NGOs                     8         10               5      13

      Subnational NGOs                    4          0               3      13

     National Faith-Based                 2          4               2      2
        Organizations
          Teachers                        1          4               1      1
     Unions/Associations
     Parents Asso ciations                3          1               1      0

   Community or Nonformal                 1          2               1      0
         Schools
     School Committees                    0          4               3      1

         Researchers                      4          1               1      3

          Total CSOs                     36         50           36         53
        in our Sample
    Development Partners                  5          9       5 (4,1)      9 (5,4)
       (Donors & IOs)
         Government                       4         21               5      2
Civil Society Engagement: Burkina Faso
   Ten year sector plan (PDDEB, 2002-2011):
     – partial budget support, decentralization and regional planning.
     – Limited CSO involvement in design: top down, but later buy in by CSOs
     – CSOs play an increasingly active role in monitoring the sector plan, via, joint
       missions, regional annual planning.
     – Key innovation = FONAENF (jointly managed fund as part of SWAp)

   CSOs active in education (154 est).
     –   INGOs/NGOs (Plan, OSEO, Catholic Relief,Tin Tua, FAWE) - temporary or permanent
         roles in service delivery?
     –   Teachers Unions (critical of PDDEB/govt)
     –   Private schools, Faith-based groups, CBOs (Nonformal education providers)
     –   Parents and Mothers Associations (at school level and national, but weak capacity).
     –   Cadre de Concertation en Education de Base (f. 1995) -emerging subregional policy role,
         but focused on consultation rather than effective oversight/accountability.


   Key changes:
     –   Growth of “complementary” service providers - INGOs and NFE
     –   Well institutionalized coalition (efforts to act at regional level).
     –   Government/CSO interactions increase: but not regularized.
     –   Limited direct relationships between main donors and CSOs
    Civil Society Engagement: Mali
   10 year Sector Plan (1999).
     – Some pooled funding and direct budget support
     – Decentralization - local officials responsible for school construction, local
       planning, teacher hiring and payment, some curriculum
     – CSOs report strong role in design (though some marginalized); DECLINING
       involvement in ongoing monitoring, unclear access to Ministry.

   National-level policy role for CSOs? (est. 127)
     – Community schools‟ (in 1990‟s), a wide NGO movement brought about major
       policy change; Groupe Pivot formed but lost momentum after direct USAID
       sponsorship stopped and its attempts to act as a subcontracting unit failed.
     – Government: history of “bypassing” existing organizations in major reforms:
       School management committees bypass parents associations; Decentralization
       of hiring bypasses teachers unions.
     – Considerable tension between INGOs and NGOs
     – CSOs threatened by government demands for “harmonization” of resources (1%
       budgets for govtl oversight, 60% for infrastructure)
     – While CSOs see important need for national coordination, so far no effective
       national coalition (ongoing leadership struggles)

   Education sector program can intensify existing divisions within civil society:
    especially between NGOs, teachers‟ unions, parents associations.

   Building local accountability a goal: but too little attention to link between
    local accountability to national level CSO capacity for policy dialogue.
    Civil Society Engagement: Kenya
   Sector support program (2005/10)
    – Follows renewed declaration of free primary education and massive
      increase in enrolments.
    – Pooled funding with major resources directed and controlled by schools.
    – CSO‟s consulted but engagement not regularized.

   CSOs in education
    – Disfunctional NGO umbrella group - continued threats of deregistration
    – Teachers unions, Parents associations, Faith-based groups, INGOs,
      NGOs, significant child protection and education subsector networks.
      Faith groups and private sector groups want more control over schools.
    – Elimu Yetu Coalition (f. 1999, 110 members) - funded by the
      Commonwealth Education Fund. Significant early work contributed to
      UFPE, budget tracking after PRSP; but currently disorganized.

   Major challenges and lessons
    – Coalitions - often fragile, can loose focus after FPE or sector program
    – Government may encourage CSO competition - and effectively diffuse
    – Local school committee oversight - sets up parallel control structures
      that bypass local government and may not feed into national democratic
      politics.
Civil Society Engagement: Tanzania
   Sector support program (2001)
    – Follows abolition of school fees and rising enrolments; like
      Kenya, the country had previously achieved UFPE.
    – Pooled funding; decentralization to district level and school.

   Changes in CSO engagement
    – Government acknowledges role for CSOs - especially
      technical expertise/innovation - but still wants to control CSO
      activities
    – Of all the cases, strongest CSO coalition, developed in part
      through CEF funding. Clearest example of evidenced-based
      research and effective use of transnational “boomerang”
    – However, also most contentious relationship between CSOs
      and government (especially 2005-6). Illustrates tensions
      between “watchdog” and “complementary” roles.
    – Major challenges exist in engaging local level actors in
      educational policy issues.
    General findings:
   „‟Invited spaces” for civil society organizations in educational policy
    growing. (NB: Governments control the “invitations” while donors
    control pace of decision making.)

   “Created spaces” evident in many of the cases – experiments in
    budget tracking and expenditure monitoring, advocacy campaigns,
    national debate, coalitions. Depends heavily on transnational CSOs.

   CSO “Winners” at the policy table = those organizations that provide
    capacity and expertise to the formal sector (often INGOs)

   Broad agreement among CSOs that common voice/co-ordination
    needed to be effective in policy dialogue.

   However, most coalitions/networks face major challenges:
     –   Competing interests or loss of focus
     –   Weak capacity - especially in evidence based policy engagement
     –   Limited or unreliable resources
     –   Difficulties in working at sub-national levels
Government-CSO Relationships
Governments
   – Often try to limit or contain CSO roles, usually to service delivery
     rather than advocacy/criticism. (NB - threat of deregulation).
   – Wish to preserve control, but are struggling to do so alongside
     decentralization and increased oversight by international donors
   – Respond to distinct constituencies (“teachers” “parents”).
   – Often pick “winners” - those with clear capacity and expertise, and
     elite links (FAWE, AKF) - “divide and rule” strategies.
   – Want to see CSOs “on plan” - and sometimes mention the need to
     harmonize and pool NGO resources with government.
   – Are skeptical about NGO capacities, criticize their accountability.
   – View CSOs as “temporary gap fillers” - not permanent partners.
   – Avoid formal, regularized roles for civil society in policy processes

CSOs
   – Not clear on where they fit into new decentralized governance
     structures
   – Want to be both “on plan” and independent/autonomous
   – Rarely work through parliamentary mechanisms.
   – Prefer more regularized relationships - but lack capacity
Donor - CSO Relationships
   Official Donor Organizations
     – Formally supportive of CSO participation - but often vague when asked
       “participation for what” - (“accountability” vs. “capacity” vs. “citizenshp”)
     – Unclear how to fund in context of sector approach and country ownership -
       different views on right roles for CSOs. (esp. teachers unions,
       nongovernmental schools).
     – Often unfamiliar with INGOs and domestic CSOs working in education -
       bilateral aid a separate “silo”.
     – Can play a major role in ensuring CSO participation.
     – Interesting experiments: FONAEF, Foundation for Civil Society,
       Commonwealth Education Fund.
     – Need to develop a portfolio of approaches to support civil society to play
       distinct policy roles in education – research, advocacy,monitoring,
       innovation, grassroots voice, mobilization.
   CSOs
     – Only a privileged few have a direct relationships with major donors
     – Are afraid that new sector approaches will further limit their ability to access
       major donor organizations.
     – Also believe they have a role to play in monitoring donors and their
       promises (accountability not a one way street).
     – Want to maintain independence/autonomy - fear fads among donors and
       seek to manage risk.
    Supporting Southern CSOs - Lessons
   Jointly managed pooled funds: (Govt-NGO-Donor) can build out service
    provision in the formal system. However, such funds also set up contractual
    relations with limited policy autonomy for funded actors. (Burkina Faso)

   Contractual relationships between government and NGOs - for service
    provision or technical expertise - often prove problematic, even when part of
    the official SWAp (Kenya).

   Governance and Civil Society Funds (pooled or not) - rarely deal with
    education specific issues. Key constituencies - teachers professional
    associations, parents associations, civics ed., neglected (Kenya- Tanzania)

   For coalitions/networks to survive and act as national forum on education.
    Both reliable core support + autonomy from funders is needed

   Using national EFA coalitions as intermediary funding bodies as may erode
    effectiveness (lessons from Groupe Pivot, evidence in Tanzania, Kenya).

   Transnational CSO linkages are often key resources for local CSOs - allow
    for effective advocacy and cross-national learning. (However too much
    dependency can erode the autonomy of national coalitions and CSOs).
Three Key Challenges for CSOs:
   How to be “partners” with government and be
    critics/advocates capable of holding governments
    responsible? [requires independent funding]

   How to coordinate civil society actors,
    domestic/intersectoral and domestic/international to
    achieve effective policy voice?

   How to mobilize local communities around the right to
    education, and deal with decentralized governance
    structures, while maintaining national role?
Three Key Challenges for Donor Organizations
1. Clarify: “why CSO participation?”
        Accountability: Independent capacity for research, monitoring?
         For local community oversight? National/local oversight processes
         linked?
        Service provision? (clarify if this is temporary gap filling or
         permanent role; is mainly resource mobilization or innovation).
        Voice/citizenship: how do local, national, and transnational level
         forms of collective engagement in education matter?

2. Evaluate strengths/capacities/potential of CSOs in light of these
     answers.
        Context matters
        Don‟t neglect: teachers unions; transnational linkages; national
         coalitions; smaller and sub-national groups.

3. Develop a diverse portfolio of support mechanisms
        Different mechanisms suit different objectives. At least some must
         allow for CSO autonomy and self-definition.
        Redundancy not always inefficient (“network” better at addressing
         reversals and competing than “hierarchy”)…
New Architecture for Educational Governance
                              The State
                     DEMOCRACY        MINISTRIES        Official
       Voice          Politicians     Policy Makers     Compact




   Civil Society           Local Control
                                                Education System
CSOs           Citizens                        School       Ministry




                      International Community
                    Civil Society/ INGOs
                                    Official Donors

								
To top