You are on page 1of 21

Mapping of the civil society and

project identification of a support


program to the civil society in
Rwanda
PRELIMINARY FINDING DISCUSSION
WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

Kigali, 14th of November 2013

Part 1: Theoretical methodological framework

Part 2: Preliminary findings

Part 3: Concluding remarks

Part 1
Theoretical and Methodological
Framework

The main categories used in the mapping

An operational concept of CSOs;

A tiered vision of CSOs;

Dynamic view of CSOs structures and processes;

An operational concept of governance;

An operational concept of capacities.

A graphic representation of CSO tiers

Main methodological features

Participatory approach;

Integration between quantitative and qualitative


information;

Integration between information on factual


elements;

Capitalization of existing knowledge;

Adoption of non statistical methods to foster the


representation of differences in the considered
universe.

Geographical scope

The mapping considered the whole territory of


Rwanda;

Activities have been carried out in Kigali as well


as in the 5 Provinces:
Rusizi and Rubavu (West)
Huye (South)
Nyagatare (East)
Musanze (North)

Information sources and consultation/


data gathering tools
Sources

Tools

Documentary sources
1st level CSOs

Organisation Fiche

Focus group meetings

2nd level CSOs

Structured
questionnaire

Focus group meetings


In-depth interviews

3rd level CSOs

Analysis greed

In depth interviews

INGOs

In-depth interviews

Group meetings

Local authorities

In-depth interviews

Government bodies

In depth interviews

Donors

In depth interviews

Group meetings

The consulted actors


NGOs

CBOs

INGOs

LAs

Rusizi

12

Huye

11

Nyagatare

Musanze

11

13

Rubavu

12

18

Kigali

10

Total

47

64

Gov.
bodies

Donors

Part 2
Preliminary Findings

The stakes for CSOs in Rwanda

making decentralisation work;

fostering social cohesion from below;

supporting innovation processes;

strengthening communication and trust among


citizens and public authorities;

facilitating access to information and services in


peripheral areas and contributing to social
inclusion.

The challenges for CSOs

(re) defining role and position in a changing environment;

avoiding the prevalence of service delivery and reducing


dependency from external agendas;

recognition as an autonomous actor;

representation and cohesion within Civil Society;

building the capacity to interact with government and LA


and strengthening the capacities for engaging in
governance;

recognising and including emerging actors, particularly at


grassroots / strengthening the linkage with constituencies.

Spaces for CSOs engagement in


governance and policy dialogue

Consultation activities launched by government: law/policy


formulation, sector working groups, informal consultation;

Engagement in decentralisation processes: JADF ,


District/Sector Development Plan, Budget setting and their
monitoring and evaluation;

The dissemination of information on rights and public


policies;

The exercise of Voice functions: collection of complaints,


suggestion boxes, HR monitoring;

Improving service delivery: Scorecards; Committees for


service management;

Improving public policies: support to land reform process

UPR a space to be opened.

The differentiated analysis of CSOs

The four levels:

First level organisations

diffused

and

multi-faced

phenomenon

(cooperatives, parents club, church related groups,


micro-finance local schemes, students clubs, etc.);

the lack of recognition as actors;

The risk of a role limit to economic activities;

dependency and lack of a capacities;

de facto engagement in the governance of


common goods at local level;

Second level organisations

a large number of organisations but a small number of


strong organisations;

emergence and decline of opportunistic NGOs;

lack of recognition as actors;

lack of autonomy, dependency and formal structures that


often are under owners-fathers;

weak linkages with local communities and local actors


(and use of CBOs as beneficiaries rather then recognising
them as actors);

shortage of capacities to engage in governance functions;

the tendency to stay into a comfortable space and to


work isolately and in isolation from other NSAs;

high staff turnover and loss of capacities.

Third level organisations

the appearance of very structured CS: many networks


and umbrella, mainly at national level but few active
member organisations;

unclear functions: representation or project


implementation;

lack of autonomy and dependency;

the lack of capacity to be a place for communication

constituencies are seen as beneficiaries;

emerging conflicts and lack of trust;

variable capacities for project implementation but


shortage of capacities to engage in governance;

the tendency to stay into comfortable spaces.

Fourth level organisations:

one only platform, but with mixed constituency


(and often conflicting interests) and an unclear
function: representation or project implementation

no voice, no influence, little capacities;

despite local antennas, lack of capacity to foster


bottom up communication;

a (not efficient) megaphone for government


policies and a (not efficient) mechanism to foster
dialogue and consultation.

Available support to CSOs

Prevalence of grant and project approach;

Few International NGOs supporting capacities


and development of national NGOs and CBOs;

An approach to support that tends to limit


autonomy and to generate dependency;

Lack of local capacity building structures and


lack of engagement of other NSAs for
supporting CSOs;

Lack of support (including mutual support) for


managing divergent interests between CSOs
and public authorities.

Part 3
Concluding remarks

A need emerges for supporting CSOs in facing challenges concerning their


engagement in governance. Renouncing to support them will imply both the
lost of their contributions and the emerging of a drift process.

Supporting CSOs in facing these challenges would require an effort of


both donors and government to:

a) Recognise CSOs as and actor as a partner;


b) Recognise that CSOs are diversified, and recognise informal groups;
c) Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and
structures;
d) Support institutional capacity building and organisations development;
e) Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to
partner with CSOs;
f) Strengthening/enlarging existing partnership and dialogue spaces,
recognising that a governance space exists that is not overlapping with
the space of political institutions;
g) Reinforce civil society out of Kigali and new emerging actors (youth,
innovative entrepreneurs, etc.)
h) Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSAs, including at
international level.