Kryticous Patrick Nshindano
Civil Society for Poverty Reduction
Which is the most significant and paradigmatic story of a development
partnership that you have experienced?
On 9th December, 2016, the “Civil Society Perspective on the Seventh National Development Plan (7NDP 2017-2021)” Report was launched in Lusaka and officially handed over to government by Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR) on behalf of the Citizens and the CSO Alliance on the 7NDP.
In 2005, before the rest of the World had their Agenda 2030, Zambia started on a journey towards the long-term Vision 2030 of becoming a prosperous middle income nation. The journey requires the country to make a stop every Five years, and revise the roadmap through a National Development Plan that guides national prosperity and poverty reduction strategies.
With every stop to review and reflect on national progress, it became apparent that national development planning must be the collective effort of every
Zambian. It is not the preserve of a handful of organisations and government planners in boardrooms deciding the course of social change for over 15 million Citizens.
It is for this reason that Inclusive Partnership in national development has been the main aim of CSPR’s coordination of Civil Society to take part in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of the countries NDPs since 2000. The CSOs report itself is the outcome of a long process of alliance building, negotiations, campaigns, citizen mobilisation, research, reviews and consolidation of the collective views of Zambians on what the next NDP should contain. The immediate success lies in how much the submission influences the final government plan and ultimately reduce poverty in Zambia.
How was the process of Monitoring this Development Partnership?
Indeed, a year ago through the leadership of CSPR such was the task that lay ahead of a united front of 17 thematic lead CSOs that work on different social economic areas ranging from Gender, Water and Sanitation, Health to Mining and Trade. The mission was simple but not easy: influence government to come up with a national development plan that makes the voices of the poor count.
For Citizens like Jackson, an eight-year-old pupil from Mansa in rural Zambia, this was an opportunity to inform a fully packed conference of government planners to expand the school feeding program in his district and for Mrs. Nsemiwe from Zambia Land Alliance it was a chance for her organization to demand that government prioritize Women's Land Rights and end inequality. For the grassroots based organizations in the Provinces this was the opportunity to take development all the way down to the village communities. On the other hand, the process brought government to the table to negotiate with Citizens on how we can move towards our National Vision 2030 within the Sustainable development agenda.
What eventually made such a seemingly difficult process task possible was
ownership of the process by every citizen and interest groups that took part. Other than the government roadmap, preparation of the CSOs Perspective was the most important 7NDP formulation process in terms of coordination and inclusiveness. Every inch of dedication from research and consultation can be measured in each section of the over 150 paged CSOs report. At the Launch, government remarked the CSOs Perspective as the single most significant document that they look forward to during drafting of every NDPs in the last 10 years.
Testament to this was that for the first time in the history of Zambia, national consultation symposiums on the development of the 7NDP were jointly organised between government and the civil society organisations bringing together the Private Sector, CSOs, Government, Corperating Partners and general public.
As we anticipate the government launch of the 7NDP this year we are convinced than ever before that it will pursue transformative social economic development shaped by the Voices of the Poor in Zambia.
What type of monitoring of government-led DPs is occurring in your country?
Yes as per the story example above.
Open to all stakeholders,
and include their ideas
Open to all stakeholders, but doesn’t include their ideas
Open to a few, chosen stakeholders, and include their ideas
Open to a few, chosen stakeholders, but does not include their ideas
Not open at all
Which are the actors or development agents that had participated in
the Development partnership that you describe in this story?
How could you define the dialogue process between the
multistakeholders involved in the Development Partnership?
Lack of proper listening, cycling the same arguments, no learning.
Encouraging listening and taking voices into account
Could you explain how the four-development effectiveness principles were used
as monitoring criteria in the experience you are presenting?
By clicking on the round circles in the graphic you could read more about how the principle has been used.
Key Primary Tool
Principle not used in the monitoring
“Through the multistakeholder symposiums, the country decided on the development model form sector based planning to an integrated approach and further agreed on key priority areas which all partners will have to focus and support”.
“The new integrated approach and the localisation of SDGs and other international commitments into the national development framework were from the realisation of low focus of results despite making economic progress (macro indicators) and aims to reducing wastage, focus on high impact national priorities but also human development."
“The process took a multi-stakeholder participation including private sector, government, cooperating partners and civil society. key was the solicitation of input as opposed to “for your information” consultations.”.
This remains a challenge due to CPs “low confidence” in national systems which would allow for public scrutiny but also partner priorities that may be in conflict with national priority.
Ownership of development priorities by developing counties
Recipient countries define the development model that they want to implement.
Focus on results
Having a sustainable impact should be the driving force behind investments and effort in development policy making
Partnerships for development
Development depends on the participation of all actors, and recognises the diversity and complementarity of their functions.
Transparency and shared responsibility
Development co-operation must be transparent and accountable to all citizens.
How has the Human Rights Based Approach been used as
monitoring criteria in the monitoring experience you are describing?
“The programming was based on the HRBA approach under the theory that:
Citizens develop a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities in order to
access and enjoy essential services for poverty reduction
Citizens create a critical mass demanding for the necessary changes to ensure the
adequate provision of access and quality of these services
Citizens on their own or through organised institutions (formal or informal) are able to
take advantage of the spaces in decision making processes and accountability or create these
spaces when not currently available
Duty bearers recognise that citizens accountability goes beyond electoral accountability and
is consistent throughout the development cycle ”.
How did the government or other stakeholders react after
you have presented the monitoring initiative/some monitoring results?
“The respective government agencies which we were partnering with i.e the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of National Development Planning were very open and encouraging to the idea of third party monitors as this allowed for a wider reach than they would but also opened space for citizen participation…”
Monitoring experiences from CSOs like the one in my story happen in my country...
“Every five years but also during reviews of the plans usually mid-term i.e after 3years. Further to this multi-stakeholder technical reference groups are usually setup to monitor development results on a number of national program areas..."
Which capacities do you consider as key in order to realise this monitoring experience?
Capacity to relate, by participation in coalitions and networks of CSOs to engage engaging at multiple levels,
with the community and a variety of stakeholders
Capacity to foster dialogue with government and other stakeholder. Convene around a common landscape
Communication and outreach capacity. Counting with media in reaching and influencing public opinion.
Capacity to conduct evidence-based research and policy papers.
Capacity to commit and act, through a well-elaborated strategy for lobby and advocacy.
Capacity to conduct Lobby and Advocacy representing right-holders, from a legitimate, accountable and trustworthy representation.
Capability to mobilise public support and create and maintain operational space. Contributing to the public debate and maintain legitimacy of representation.
Capability to ensure organisational sustainability (with financial sustainability and capability to attract and retain qualified staff)
Capacity to adapt and renew, pro-act to changing external contexts. Organizations should be able to monitor changing circumstances and respond accordingly.
Capacity of culture of learning and innovation in the organisation. Developing an own learning agenda
Which are, in your opinion, the capacities needed to conduct a good monitoring of Development partnerships?
“Local context understanding (Prevailing environment I.E Political, Social and Economic.)
Good knowledge of Global Principles.
Local content understanding (Policy & Legal provisions, National priorities, Targets...)
Which adjective o word could synthetize the experience you have explained?
Inclusive Partnership would synthetize the process for me, We have two extreme ends. The first story, i.e on national development plans, is a good example of what works when there are inclusive partnerships and stakeholders coming together for a common goal. The second demonstrates that where there are no inclusive partnerships, the process is not as effective and it’s the reason why the process in Zambia, despite submitting monitoring data on the 2nd round monitoring of the global partnership, was not done in the same spirit of the Busan commitments.
To which extent has this experience been articulated through networks and
shared at regional level in other countries?
Not so much, shared through reports and presentations at forums but not so extensively as one would love, including within the region. This could also be attributed to limited resources for learning and sharing within the region
Which is the projection of the organisation/network at the moment
in their national and international context?
”Coordination of other CSOs around policy input and monitoring for development corporation especially around poverty reduction"