MacDonald K. Munyoro




National Association of Youth Organizations (NAYO) Africa

Level of involvement in the CPDE:

NAYO Africa is the current CPDE Youth Sector Global Coordinator and coordinates the sectors work across five regions.

Which is the most significant and paradigmatic story of a development

partnership that you have experienced?

The CPDE Youth Sector was birthed in 2014 – in our growing journey on Development effectiveness we have endeavoured at the country level to make youth footprints. Our experience with the Zimbabwe Multi-Donor Trust Fund (Zim-Fund) – a fund setup to contribute to early recovery and development efforts in Zimbabwe by mobilizing donor resources and promoting donor coordination in Zimbabwe running from 2010 – 2015 provides our most significant development partnership that we have actively interfaced with as youths. The critical focus of the Fund was on infrastructure investments (rehabilitation and/or construction works) in the areas of water and sanitation and energy. In our interaction with Zim-Fund, it is important to note that this was limited to the water and sanitation sector as part of our AAAQ (Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Quality) project on water that had three key main elements: citizen participation; social accountability and policy advocacy through evidence based research. The ‘Urgent Water Supply and sanitation rehabilitation project’ with a grant amount totalling to USD29.65 million was approved to support urgent rehabilitation works – restoration and stabilization of water supply and sanitation services in the Municipalities of Harare,

Chitungwiza, Mutare, Chegutu, Masvingo and Kwekwe. Here it is critical to note that our intervention focused in Harare, Masvingo, Mutare and Chitungwiza were we sought to strengthen civic participation on issues of service delivery as this program had been designed by government and development partners solely without the locals involvement – demonstrate through research the improvements in the quality of water and sanitation services and engage government through the line Ministry of water on issues emerging – this given the watchdog role of Civil Society.

The paradigmatic aspect in the experience is the ability of youth in a process that were not included in to challenge the model and provide an innovative way to question the implementation process through citizen voices and experiences regarding issues of service delivery.


Zimbabwe Gallery

How was the process of Monitoring this Development Partnership?

NAYO has used the AAAQ framework to advance the Right to Water. (SDG 6). To date, NAYO together with the public participation platform members have: developed contextualized AAAQ indicators to achieve the realization of the right to water for Zimbabwe, have carried out a National research on water supply and management titled, “Citizen Participation in Water Supply – Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, Affordability and Quality of water supply in Chimanimani, Chivi, Gweru, Hwange, Mangwe and Marondera Districts”. The research which had a strong focus on citizen participation utilized focus group discussions through a set of questions allowing local people at the grassroots to engage and evaluate WASH service delivery. The outcomes of the research resulted in various advocacy and lobby initiatives which included the demand from citizens for councillors to hold monthly feedback meetings in which progress reports are given; the holding of a meeting between the parent Ministry on Water and Civil Society on issues relating to accountability.

These concerted efforts and the ability of the AAAQ framework to give a human rights face to development issues saw some improvements in water service delivery: households were receiving water for more hours e.g. from four to eight hours in a day; the pressure and volume increased meaning that more households would receive tapped water and local authorities response rate to burst pipes and sewer improved immensely. The AAAQ framework was seen as an approach by local CSOs to assess and evaluate from a human rights based


approach outcomes from the Zim-Fund project component supporting WASH related issues. The AAAQ frameworks use was also strengthened by the new constitutional provision that recognised water as a human rights issue – this created space within the Zim-Fund for CSOs to play a watch-dog role using evidence based research.

Public Participation Platform members are currently developing a National Plan of Action on Citizen Participation in Water Supply and carrying out advocacy efforts at grassroots and national level – this is widely seen as cementing in development policy and interventions the need for diverse actors to work collaboratively.

The community level engagements initiated as part of the research provided citizens and pressure groups with renewed zeal to proactively engage local councillors for the purposes of inclusion and social accountability. For instance in Marondera rural under Chief Svosve, a gender sensitive community committee was established to engage state and non state actors on development projects relating to WASH. NAYO following its participation and mobilization of youth during budget consultations for the City of Harare was invited to sit in the City of Harare Budget Advisory Committee comprised of state, private sector and civil society actors. The inclusion of youth in this was a great achievement.

Which was the monitoring role of the CSOs?

Involvement as

project partners


Bringing in consultation and

involvement of the community

affected by the project

Research and



What type of monitoring of government-led DPs is occurring in your country?

"In our country, the process is for selected stakeholders who, in most instances, are apex bodies within civil society or the private sector. This participation is ad-hoc and is seen as seeking to legitimize development processes as inclusive. The inputs of the few stakeholders hardly translate into development policy as the processes surrounding this would have been rolled out in government line ministries. The space to then influence becomes limited".

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?



Kyrgyz Republic










Private Sector


Other Agents

Civil society participation was limited to the level of leading National Coalitions, and other agents were donors and development partners such as Africa Development Bank (AfDB).

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

What kind of monitoring processes is being done?

Ad hoc exercises

(specific for the process)

Regular reviews/on-going


Qualitative/quantitative assessments

or evaluations.

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

Used somehow

Principle not used in the monitoring

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 AAAQ framework that we used to conduct a research on water and sanitation is a human rights based tool – in utilizing this our aim was to allow the government and other development partners to appreciate the essence of the HRBA approach. Key elements in this were participation of the citizen (as rights holders) and the government (as rights bearers

Not at all

Key Primary Tool

How did the government or other stakeholders react after

you have presented the monitoring initiative/some monitoring results?

When we presented the results, the reactions were mixed – in the case of government, the results were not well received as these showed gaps in the quality of water and sanitation services despite investments and queried the water governance architecture which was filled with inconsistencies and corruption. In the case of development partners, those already working in Water and Sanitation such as GiZ were welcoming of the results and appreciated the HRBA dimension in their analysis

Monitoring experiences from CSOs like the one in my story happen in my country...

This trend has been dominant for decades in the country and stems from the mistrust that government has in relation to the work of CSOs – CSOs are largely seen as driving regime change agenda and such their role is always curtailed and kept at a minimum.



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

The capacity grown through the organisation trajectory:

NAYO’s key competences are a strong and influential Youth Umbrella Body for youth organizations working in Zimbabwe. NAYO ‘s work spread from national , regional and international level. NAYO  is  premised  on  the  notion  that  youth  have an  integral  role  to  play  in  the development of the nation; a voice and platform throughout the spectrum of Zimbabwean societal concerns. The  growing  marginalization  of  youth,  increasing  unemployment  of youth and social exclusion, gender based violence and  inequalities, the vulnerability of youth and women to HIV and AIDS, among other key issues prompted youth organizations  to  seek a common platform  to address  these challenges in 2011

Key competences

Research; Policy Advocacy; community mobilization and engagement; Monitoring and evaluation

Which are, in your opinion, the capacities needed to conduct a good monitoring of Development partnerships?

Enhanced capacity on social accountability tools.

Skills to dialogue and engage government at different tiers.

Research as this is the bedrock for successful advocacy actions.

Strengthened coordination within civil society organizations.

Skills to engage local communities and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to be a part of development partnerships monitoring.

To which extent has this experience been articulated through networks and
shared at regional level in other countries?

"The experience has not been articulated or shared at this level”

Which is the projection of the organisation/network at the moment

in their national and international context?

"NAYO will continue to monitor the implementation of Zimbabwean policies and Development partnerships, by engaging and participating as CSO stakeholders in relevant processes for Zimbabwe. The Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP), a new development initiative to curb poverty in the country provides an opportunity for NAYO to strengthen its work on monitoring. NAYO together with local CSOs have actively participated in the National consultations of the IPRSP process and advocated successfully in the implementation matrix for CSO inclusion and monitoring role."

"NAYO also envisions in the future sharing monitoring experiences with regional CSOs and regional blocs such as the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), the African Union among others as this is critical in creating the political will and space for CSOs to positively influence development outcomes through monitoring. Our experiences will be critical in the near future in documenting the capacity of youth CSOs to lead and take active roles in Effective Development Cooperation."



© 2016 CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness. Design and content: UBORA Services