CHAPTER 3 Inception Phase: Context Analysis and CSO Needs Assessment

CHAPTER 3 INCEPTION PHASE:

CONTEXT ANALYSIS AND CSO
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Alliance will build on the extensive experience gained by IUCN NL and WWF
NL of working with CSOs, businesses, and governments to achieve positive change in
LLMICs. This field-tested knowledge will be used to create the environment in which
tripartite partnerships will be set up. In this chapter we detail how we will use this
experience in the inception phase of the program.

Figure 6: LONG-TERM GOAL:

A summary of the Theory
of Change highlighting
the inception phase:
Context analysis of
policies, businesses, CSOs,
inclusiveness, and landscape
+ CSO needs assessments.
IPGs WATER PROVISIONING, FOOD SECURITY, AND CLIMATE RESILIENCE SECURED
Section 2.1
Accountability OUTCOMES ON:
Ceiling INCLUSIVE AND GREEN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT PRACTICES AND POLICIES
THE JOINT STRATEGIC PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE:
EFFECTIVE CSO LOBBY & ADVOCACY FOR BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Section 2.1a Section 2.1c

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES ON: PARTNERSHIPS ESTABLISHED FOR INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES ON: ENABLING
LOBBY & ADVOCACY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF JOINT SOLUTIONS ENVIRONMENT, GENDER AND INCLUSIVENESS

1. 2. 3. 6. 7.
Tripartite CSO-business CSO-CSO CSOs maintain CSOs lobby for
partnerships and CSO-government partnerships operational space gender and
partnerships inclusiveness

Outputs

Section 2.1b
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES ON: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LOBBY & ADVOCACY

4. 5.
CSOs have the skills and tools CSOs are able to critically
needed to critically engage with monitor and analyze business
businesses and governments activities and public policies

Outputs Outputs

Chapter 3
CONTEXT ANALYSIS + CSO NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

73
 The Alliance has defined a step-by-step approach for the inception phase of the
program. The following steps will be carried out in the last few months of 2015 and
during 2016:

A. Final selection of countries and landscapes

B. Selection of key CSO partners
C. Setting the baseline and context analysis
D. CSO needs assessment
E. Joint intervention strategy

A. Final selection of countries and landscapes

The provisional selection of countries and landscapes has been set out in section 1.3.
The quick scan we used was based on previous activities in these landscapes by the
Alliance partners, interviews with key opinion makers from other donors, knowledge
institutes, and businesses, and a desk study of independent, CSO, and government
analyses and plans for interventions.

This work resulted in more detailed conclusions than can be found in the country
profiles (Annexes 1 to 9). These set out the broad directions of the interventions we feel
are needed to address priority issues in the landscapes, including the capacity-building
needs of CSOs and lobby & advocacy targets.

Together with our Theory of Change, these profiles form the starting point for
discussions with CSOs during the inception phase. The profiles are not cast in stone,
but should be seen as a means to scope and structure our concrete intervention
strategies at the landscape level.

B. Selection of key CSO partners

Once the contract has been signed between the Alliance and MFA-NL, the Alliance
will select one or two key partners in each landscape to launch the program in January
2016. During the course of the year we will gradually expand our cooperation with a
wider range of CSOs. The Alliance will of course build upon their existing networks of
CSO partners, of which several are IUCN members, and at the same time assess their
capacity and willingness to act against the specific focus of this program.

The Alliance will select key CSO partners that are able and willing to act as a supportive
nucleus to other CSOs and have the trust of other CSOs. With assistance from the
Alliance, they should be able to work in accordance with the Istanbul principles on
CSO effectiveness. In particular, they should operate in a transparent manner and be
accountable to their constituencies. We will use our CSO assessment tool to establish
whether women and representatives of vulnerable groups are adequately represented
by the CSO. In addition, selected key CSOs should have an adequate knowledge base,
sufficient financial means, and a credible track record. These key CSO partners will be
invited to undertake a further scoping exercise for a joint program.

74
 CHAPTER 3 Inception Phase: Context Analysis and CSO Needs Assessment

Box 6: According to the Istanbul Declaration CSOs are effective if they:

Istanbul Declaration on CSO
effectiveness
1 Respect and promote human rights and social justice
2 Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women’s and girls’ rights
3 Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation
4 Promote environmental sustainability
5 Practice transparency and accountability
6 Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity
7 Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning
8 Commit to realizing positive sustainable change

C. Setting the baseline and context analysis

In January 2016, once the key CSO partners have been contracted, a context analysis
will be made to serve as the baseline at the landscape level and for monitoring program
implementation. The baseline will consist of the elements described below and those in
the monitoring and evaluation plan described in Chapter 5.

Boundaries and scale analysis

Whereas landscape boundaries can be defined and mapped, for example by defining
the boundaries of a river watershed, the boundaries of the societal subsystem can
be complex. Stakeholders may live in the landscape they value, but may also reside
elsewhere, for example in a city that depends on food and water from a landscape.
Similarly, companies may depend on a landscape via international trade and be located
in other countries.

Other boundaries, often administrative, may be relevant from a management

perspective. Landscape planning may be a provincial responsibility and these
administrative boundaries may not necessarily coincide with the biophysical
boundaries of the landscape, while water quality standards may be regulated by
national law. To further complicate matters, problems with local impacts may require
solutions at the national or international level (climate change being the most extreme
example).

The boundary and scale analysis will therefore determine the different scales and
landscape boundaries for this program. This analysis will be followed by an analysis
of the ecosystem-based IPGs and a stakeholder analysis for each landscape in order
to define problems, solutions, and actions at the required scale: local, national or
international.

State and pressure analysis of ecosystem-based IPGs

Using existing information and a survey of the most up-to-date information available,
we will carry out a threat analysis to determine the relevant threats facing IPGs and
their supporting ecosystems and the actions that have already been undertaken
to counter these threats. For example, with the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education we will gather the best available information on hydrological impacts in the
Zambezi. Where relevant, we will combine and exchange knowledge and information
with other strategic partners active in selected landscapes.

75
 Stakeholder analysis
The Alliance considers all organizations and people with an interest in the landscape,
in particular in the IPGs it provides, to be stakeholders. Therefore the stakeholder
analysis will cover all relevant players, such as the CSOs, donors, government agencies,
the private sector, local communities – with a special emphasis on women and
vulnerable groups – and other relevant organizations, such as knowledge institutions.

This may even include parties that are located outside the landscape, such as
multinational companies, international organizations, and banks and investors.
In this analysis we will take great care to avoid overlaps between this program and
other similar (donor) interventions. The stakeholder analysis will look into each
stakeholder’s respective interests and highlight where interests converge and where
conflicts might arise.

Political and legal context

The key questions here are what are the main policies and regulations that have an
impact on our landscapes, and what are the main frameworks for decision-making
and how do they function? We will not only focus on the “usual suspects” like natural
resource policies, but also on investment regulations, economic development policies,
and compliance mechanisms such as EIAs. At the same time, we will analyze the
existing institutional arrangements that we will be able to use, such as water user
associations, environmental commissions, and forest boards, to foster inclusiveness
and to set up democratic and equitable governance systems.

Social context
This part of the analysis will answer the following questions: Which social groups are
dependent on the IPGs delivered by the landscape? What is the impact of these groups
on the landscape? What is the position of women and vulnerable people within these
groups? and How can they become involved?

Private sector context

The expansion of agro-commodity production and mining and related infrastructure
developments have excessive impacts on the IPGs in the landscapes in which we work.
The private-sector interests behind these are often obscure and not transparent. To
make an in-depth assessment and develop a strategy for engaging with business we
first need to take the following steps:
• Compile information from existing sources, such as Chambers of Commerce,
databases held by financial intelligence agencies (e.g. Thomson Reuters), annual
reports, and tax sources.
• Ground this information in the landscape by using GIS data and linking them to
water use and land tenure.
• Establish local/national/global links between CSOs and businesses.
• Check compliance with existing regulations.

D. CSO needs assessment

During the CSOs needs assessment, the profiles laid down in the country and
landscape selection will be combined with the visions of the CSOs we decide to work
with. With this group of CSOs we will work to reach agreement on the intended results
of the cooperation. These agreements will further specify the desired intermediate
outcomes and outcomes toward securing ecosystem-based IPGs through lobbying and
capacity building.

76
 CHAPTER 3 Inception Phase: Context Analysis and CSO Needs Assessment

Based on the jointly agreed outcomes, the Alliance and the CSO partners will prepare
an elaborate assessment highlighting which CSO capacities need to be improved. First,
we will concentrate on strengthening the capacities of the CSOs in the area of lobby
& advocacy and strengthening the foundations of the CSOs to ensure their long-term
viability.

The needs assessment will include an inventory of the general organizational

weaknesses of the CSOs and any skills they lack. It may include strategies to improve
the level of funding and activities to help CSOs to develop best practices as set out in
the Istanbul Declaration. With stronger capacities the CSOs will be better equipped
to achieve the outcomes and continue to voice the interests of vulnerable groups and
nature after the program finishes.

This outcome-based approach for coalition building, combined with the application of
basic selection criteria, will ensure sufficient coherence of the cooperation, while at the
same time allowing for diversity.

E. Joint intervention strategy

Based on the needs assessment and the analysis done in the earlier stages of the
inception phase, the Alliance will then develop a joint intervention strategy with the
CSO partners. The strategy will be based on landscape-specific Theories of Change
and an implementation plan and budget. The strategy will again be a joint effort of the
CSOs and the Alliance partners and may differ from landscape to landscape.

77
 © Zig Koch / WWF
Gold prospector using a bateia (wooden platter) at the Juruena
prospecting site. Juruena National Park, Brazil.

78