dcp.govmu.orgdcp.govmu.org/english/call for proposals no 2/mapping … · web view. many...
TRANSCRIPT
Decentralised Cooperation Programme
“Mapping study of civil society organisationsin the Republic of Mauritius”Contract no. DCP II/PE1/3.5.2
Final report
March 2013
This project is realised by ARS Progetti
This assignment is supported and guided by the European Union 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation Programme II and presented by ARS Progetti S.P.A.
The views expressed herein are those of the consultants and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
Report prepared by:Gianfrancesco Costantini
Geetanjali Gill
2
Contents
Acronyms 4
Executive Summary 5
1. Background 91.1. Rationale for the mapping study 9
1.2. Objectives 10
2. The analytical categories 112.1. Clearing the ground: defining a concept of civil society for the purpose of mapping 11
2.2. A tiered model of civil society 12
2.3. Sectors and areas of activities 13
2.4. Capacity building 13
3. Methodological framework 143.1. The methodological approach 14
3.2. The scope of the CSO mapping 14
3.3. The sources of information 14
3.4. Information gathering tools 15
4. The context 164.1. An overview of Mauritian CSOs 16
4.2. The legal framework 17
4.3. The policy framework 18
4.4. Resources for supporting CSOs in Mauritius 23
5. The stakes and emerging issues 255.1. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Mauritius 25
5.2. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Rodrigues 27
6. An Analytical view of Civil Society Organisations in Mauritius 306.1. First level organisations 30
6.2. Second level organisations 34
6.3. Third level organisations 41
6.4. Fourth level organisations 42
7. Strategic and operational recommendations 457.1. Supporting CSOs in Mauritius 45
7.2. Supporting CSOs in Rodrigues 47
7.3. Operationalising recommendations 48
Annexes 52Annex 1 – Documentary references 52
Annex 2 – Persons and organisations met (in depth interviews) 54
Annex 3 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings - Rodrigues 56
Annex 4 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings – Mauritius 57
3
Acronyms
AFD Agence Française pour le Développement
AUS Aid Australian Agency for International Development
CS Civil Society
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DCP Decentralised Cooperation Programme
DFID UK Department for International Development
EU European Union
GEF Global Environment Facility
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MACOSS Mauritian Council of Social Services
NCRD National Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled
NEF National Empowerment Foundation
PILS Prévention Information Lutte contre le Sida
RCSS Rodrigues Council of Social Services
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
4
Executive SummaryIn the framework of the 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation Programme II the need was identified to conduct a CSO mapping exercise in order to help to identify the actions required for increasing CSO capacities (i.e. with regards to assessing poverty issues, effectively participating in poverty alleviation actions; monitoring and evaluation; and effectively participating in policy dialogue and decision making). Moreover, the mapping of CSOs was also expected to contribute to the identification of possible synergies between the Decentralised Cooperation Programme II and other programmes.
The study rationale and main features
The rationale for the CSO mapping study in Mauritius is identified in the framework of EU support for the development of CSOs in partner countries. EU policies are based on a progressive and increasing recognition of CSOs as actors in development, policy, and policy dialogue processes . Within this framework, CSOs are expected to play a political role – that is, not only that of an opposition within political institutions, or a “watchdog” from outside institutions, but as a partner, able to actively participate in governance processes at different levels. This role includes: providing information about issues at a local level; serving as a ‘bridge’ between citizens and institutions; serving as a ‘bridge’ between local and international realities; monitoring public policies and public services; and managing “common goods” (e.g. environmental resources, knowledge, information, etc.).
The study was guided by the adoption of an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society organisations” as all forms of grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal, that are characterised by (relative) autonomy from other actors; voluntary and free adhesion of members; independence from family and kin linkages; an action space that is mainly out of “political institutions”; an action that is not aimed at generating “profit”; a legitimate social (but not necessarily juridical) status; a focus on “social responsibility”.
In order to effectively use this concept of CSO defined, it has been imperative to consider the many differences existing amongst organisations. Organisations were therefore considered as related to four main organisational levels: the first level, which includes grassroots groups, self help groups and CBOs (including the informal ones such as the “forces vives”); the second level, composed of NGOs and other intermediary organisations tha produce services and generate knowledge and policy actions, above and beyond any benefit to the member constituency or members; the third level, comprising aggregations of CSOs focusing on a particular sector, geographical area or campaign, such as platforms or umbrella organisations; the fourth level, which consists of general aggregations of CSOs, such as national civil society platforms.
From a methodological perspective, the mapping study – which is taking into consideration both Mauritius and Rodrigues - is characterised by certain features, including:
a) An integration of quantitative and qualitative information;b) An integration between information with “factual elements” (i.e. processes, situations, resources, actions,
etc.) and information with “cognitive elements” (i.e. the representations of reality, the objectives and goals of stakeholders, their expectations, etc.);
c) A capitalisation of existing knowledge and information, based both on the mapping and analysis of available documentary sources (e.g. previous studies, carried out both in the framework of academic research and in the framework of policy making) and on the consultation of key informants and researchers;
d) A participative approach and a focus on participation and collective construction of knowledge based on the recognition of actors involved in social processes not only as “sources of information”, but also as bearers of important perspectives for the construction of a relevant knowledge on social processes and dynamics.
CSOs in Mauritius
Civil society organisations are not a novelty in Mauritius: this tradition contributes to the existence of a large number of associations of different kinds as well as of private foundations: today, approximately 9000 associations are registered with the Registrar of Associations. The number of both associations and foundations experienced an exponential growth in recent years following the issuing of regulations in 2010 that supported
5
the increase of funding to associations and foundations from the private sector through the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
Despite their large number, associations, foundations and other CSOs do not have a well defined role. Many associations are engaged in service provision and charitable activities: referring to CSR-accredited associations which have actively functioned for at least 2 years, there are approximately 500 such associations. Another very large group of registered associations includes: sport clubs and socio-cultural organisations, together with women, elderly and youth organisations which largely carry out social and cultural activities, and which are associated to and receive funds from government ministries. In some cases, organisations and associations are also created as a means for individuals to gain representation on councils related to the government, and thus access to political positions. Some general characteristics amongst the large number of organisations recognised as CSOs can be identified: a) There is a prevailing engagement in service provision; b) “Volunteerism” is a main feature of most organisations. c) Despite the lack of engagement in policy related activities, linkages between organisations and politics exist at several levels.
Policy framework
While the legislation does not appear to define limits and opportunities that influence, in a important way, the functioning of CSOs in Mauritius, over the last 10 years, a policy framework has been progressively set up by the Mauritius government that produces several consequences for CSOs and their development: CSOs are largely identified as NGOs, and they are considered an important partner for government in the implementation of projects and provision of services. A national NGO policy paper was presented in December 2012 by the Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity & Reform Institutions. The NGO policy addresses 5 main areas: Legal and regulatory framework; Funding, Capacity development; Social entrepreneurship (arguing for the setting up of “Social Business Indicators” within umbrella organisations and leading NGOs, and promoting training and education on social entrepreneurship); Partnership and networking, promoting clustering around leading NGOs in project and programme implementation, and arguing for NGOs to act as an advocacy group vis-à-vis government institutions.
In addition to the general government NGO policy, most line ministries have their own approaches, policies, resources and activities for the engagement of CSOs. These policies are not always coherent with National NGO strategy.
Private foundations
An important role in front of CSOs is played by private foundations , including those created by larger and more traditional actors in CSR in Mauritius, as well as those that have been created in recent years as a tool for engaging/managing CSR resources. While foundations fund activities in most sectors, some foundations are engaging themselves in system actions aimed at strengthening the “NGO sector” as a provider of services (such as the setting up of and support of website, the setting up of networks and platforms, the identification and dissemination of innovative practices), and even supporting CSO policy engagement in specific sectors and on specific themes.
The stakes for Mauritian CSOs
The analysis of the context in which CSOs operate has revealed some important stakes for Mauritian CSOs, as well as some issues that CSOs can actively engage with. Many of these issues were also identified during consultations held with CSOs, government actors, and international organisations.
Reconstructing politics from below -Civil society can contribute to the reconstruction of politics not through the creation of “new parties” nor the attempt to occupy political institutional space, but by informing public decisions, monitoring public policies and public services, representing interests, etc. at different policy levels, from the local one (through the establishment of “multi-actors” governance mechanisms) to the national ones.
Local governance - Local governance often appears as a problematic space. CSOs can play a key role in increasing the effectiveness of local governance and the accountability of public services to citizens, by orienting policy decisions at local level; by informing citizens about political processes and policies and their functioning (such as by setting up public policies and public services monitoring mechanisms), and supporting citizens in the identification and analysis of problems emerging at a local level; by participating in the governance of service delivery at a local level in order to make them more accountable to citizens.
6
Reconstructing trust and overcoming divides - examples from both the international and national level show that CSOs can play a key role in re-constructing trust in a context of communal division. In order to play such a role, CSOs should engage in actions that create bridges between communities and groups and avoid targeting specific “communal groups” or defending interests that can be seen as related to specific communal groups. An important step towards the assumption of a stronger bridging role is for CSOs to work in partnerships with other organisations.
Fostering a “change approach” to poverty - Some good practices, and innovative experiences and knowledge concerning the support to change processes have been produced by some CSOs that could be scaled up or used as a basis for development. Among others, these practices include targeting a specific territorial area, focusing on the identification of structures and dynamics that are linked to poverty, recognising and making the most of local knowledge and adopting a multi-sector/integrated approach that includes policy setting. Assuming a change approach to poverty also requires a shift in the focus of CSO activities away from service delivery and project activities (including the focus on the number of actions carried out and on the number of beneficiaries) to a focus on mid-term outcomes and results, described in terms of change in the original situation.
In order for CSOs to be able to assume roles in the four areas discussed above, there is a need for openness to and recognition of CSO by political institutions, as well as a move away from CSOs’ traditional role of “project implementer”. Moreover, there is a need to construct a “social space” for civil society, made up of shared representations, behaviours, social norms, and social meanings that allow relationships amongst CSO to change from competition and fragmentation to the development of a shared vision of civil society. Finally, there is a need to develop capacities of CSOs for playing an active role, taking into account different shapes and features of the different categories of CSOs.
The stakes for CSOs in Rodrigues
Rodrigues presents some specificities regarding the stakes for CSOs. These may be mainly focused around 4 axes: Reinforcing governance and strengthening politics as a “common good” by supporting the setting up of local governance mechanisms that are not dependent upon politics for sharing experiences, co-operation, and speaking with a common voice; promoting Innovation and the approach to poverty by assuming a major role in fostering innovation through the identification of new opportunities and new ways to work on existing resources and on limitations for Rodrigues development; Structuring the space for civil society - by reducing tensions and competition for funds (mainly related to service delivery and project implementation) among CSOs, and by adopting attitudes of cooperation; Building capacities for playing an active role, by promoting partnership among key organisations and the many small NGOs and CBOs.
An analytical view of CSOs
At the “first level”, the study has identified a wide and diversified group of CSOs, including both many registered associations (from sport clubs to women, elder and youth groups, to quasi-NGO and charitable associations, to registered neighbourhood associations), and a large number of informal organisations, such as the so called “forces vives”. First level organisations are normally characterised by being highly vulnerable to politics: it is easy for political leaders and political parties to use grassroots groups as mechanisms for creating consensus. However this relationship with politics can create a divide amongst local grassroots organisations. The thematic foci of most first level organisations is in the areas of social assistance and education, followed by health and gender. Service delivery is the most frequent type of action undertaken by first level organisations, followed by the organisation of beneficiaries for accessing services provided by larger NGOs or by public bodies. From an organisational perspective, first level organisations can appear to be relatively weak. Communication and access to information is another issue for organisations.
As a whole, first level organisations are characterised by a diffused process leading to the transformation of grassroots organisations into NGOs (and thus, into second level organisations), providing services to “external users”, rather than simply supporting their constituency. This phenomenon is supported by the mechanisms concerning the access to private sector funds, which allows mainly “recognised” NGOs to receive support.
The differentiation of second level organisation is not as high as amongst first level organisations . In fact, most organisations at this level are NGOs; and there are also increasing numbers of foundations as well as a few non-profit companies (but both of which largely function as traditional NGOs). Most second level organisations are
7
engaged in service delivery: in some cases on a project basis, while in other cases, managing permanent centres for service delivery. A few organisations are involved in policy-related activities. An even smaller number of organisations are involved in research activities.
Engagement in service delivery is seldom focused on the achievement of defined results or on the production of change. More often, it is related to an approach based on the centrality of activities: second level CSOs tend to focus their attention on the activities that they carry out and on the “beneficiaries” they target. Moreover, while many CSOs provide services to beneficiaries in a permanent and consistent manner, they can only access funds for “projects”. Therefore, they often suffer from irregular funding and a high turnover of staff. Many other organisations provide services as “projects” without giving consideration to the consistency of their actions. In both cases, mechanisms for assuring sustainability from both technical and financial perspectives are seldom defined and seldom implemented.
While occasional cooperation can emerge based on opportunities (including the pressure of external actors such as donors and private foundations) or specific needs, and some preferential relationships can emerge between organisations, structured cooperation and especially the sharing of knowledge, experiences and practices are very weak. A further phenomenon related to competition and funding dynamics is a general tendency to avoid assuming public positions that can be considered to be touching sensitive issues.
Third level CSOs include sector and geographic umbrella organisations and coordination bodies. This group of organisations is extremely weak in Mauritius. While occasional cooperation and coordination occurs amongst second level CSOs, there are only limited instance of networking (both at first and second levels). However some emerging networks exist, sometime with a formal organisational framework, others through informal structures.
Fourth level CSOs consist of “general” platforms or umbrella organisations. In Mauritius it is possible to identify one only permanent organisation at this level: MACOSS (the Mauritius Council of Social Services). Other general coalitions have been created in the past, but mainly for discussing specific issues. MACOSS focuses largely on the implementation of activities, which potentially places it in competition with member organisations.
Given the fact that MACOSS’ members only represent a fraction of the total number of CSOs accredited to the NEF/CSR, the legitimacy of MACOSS as a representative body for all Mauritian CSOs is called into question as well as the relevance of its actions.
Strategic and operational recommendations
This study also provides some key operational recommendations, primarily relevant for those actors playing a role in supporting civil society development. However, the recommendations are also relevant for CSOs themselves, in order to launch a debate over the role and functions that they can play. The Decentralised Cooperation Programme (DCP) may assume a leadership role in transforming the following recommendations into concrete actions.
These recommendations are meant to be a starting point to foster debate amongst stakeholders; and it is hoped that this debate will result in a “roadmap” for the development of CSOs in Mauritius. Thus, it is the stakeholders themselves who can directly play a role in taking many of these ideas forward.
Recommendations focus on:a) Recognising the governance role of Civil Society, and avoiding an “opportunistic” approach to CSOsb) Recognising Civil Society at grassroots level, and avoiding the transformation of CBOs into something else c) Reinforcing Civil Society as a vehicle of innovation, and avoiding an approach based on the use of CSOs as
a tool and as an implementing agency for plans set by other actors d) Qualifying and improving CSOs’ actionse) Supporting vertical and horizontal integration/structuration
Recommendations were also defined for supporting CSOs in Rodrigues, mainly focusing on: the reinforcement of cooperation structures and platforms; the overcoming of political divides; the fostering of innovation and the support to internationalisation and access to knowledge.
8
1. BackgroundThe 9th European Decentralised Cooperation Programme I, which ran from September 2005 to March 2010, aimed to enhance the capacity of Non State Actors (NSAs) to undertake poverty reduction actions using a participatory approach, and to complement government efforts to enhance state, civil society and private sector actions in the fields of poverty alleviation, good governance, SMEs, and natural resource management. In follow-up to this programme, the 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation Programme II was launched in October 2012.
The DCP II emphasises the achievement of “poverty reduction in synergy with other NSAs and empowerment and poverty alleviation programmes and initiatives”. This overall objective has two main purposes: a) to reinforce the capacities of NSAs with the aim of improving their strategic planning, implementation and monitoring of poverty alleviation projects; and b) to foster a more coherent and informed approach to poverty issues among decision makers and NSAs, with the aim of improving the policy dialogue between the state and NSAs. DCP II intends to achieve an improvement in: the quality of NSA projects; the capacities of CSOs to address poverty issues; the capacity of CSOs to monitor project implementation; CSO participation in policy dialogue and decision making; and the complementarities between DCP and other ongoing programmes.
DCP II identified the need to conduct a CSO mapping exercise in order to help to achieve its intended results. In particular, the exercise would help to identify the actions required for increasing CSO capacities (i.e. with regards to assessing poverty issues, effectively participating in poverty alleviation actions; monitoring and evaluation; and effectively participating in policy dialogue and decision making). Moreover, the mapping of CSOs was also expected to contribute to the identification of possible synergies between the Decentralised Cooperation Programme II and other programmes. As such, the CSO mapping exercise will involve the analysis of CSO actions and CSO partnerships with other actors, as well as the identification of government and donor interventions for supporting NSAs.
Following the launching of an international call for tenders for the implementation of a CSO mapping study, DCP II awarded the bid made by ARS Progetti S.P.A., an international consulting company based in Rome, Italy. ARS Progetti contracted a team composed of Gianfrancesco Costantini as Key Expert, and Geetanjali Gill as Local Expert to carry out the study.
This document is the final report of the mapping study, which was carried out in the month of February 2013.
1.1. Rationale for the mapping study
The rationale for the CSO mapping study in Mauritius is identified in the framework of EU support for the development of CSOs in partner countries. EU policies are based on a progressive and increasing recognition of CSOs as actors in development, policy, and policy dialogue processes. This recognition is an important element of the Cotonou Agreements (Principles Article 2; Chapter 2), as well as in recent EU policy documents1. Within this framework, CSOs are expected to play a political role – that is, not only that of an opposition within political institutions, or a “watchdog” from outside institutions, but as a partner, able to actively participate in governance processes at different levels. This role includes: providing information about issues at a local level; serving as a ‘bridge’ between citizens and institutions; serving as a ‘bridge’ between local and international realities; monitoring public policies and public services; and managing “common goods” (e.g. environmental resources, knowledge, information, etc.).
A second element which forms part of the foundation of the mapping study is the recognition of CSOs as a diversified group of actors, i.e. bearers of different interests and with different features and needs. Results from the many initiatives carried out in the framework of the 9th EDF has led to the acknowledgement of the diversity within and amongst CSOs. As a fact, while actions within these initiatives were at the start targeted at NSAs as a undifferentiated group (i.e. encompassing NGOs, CSOs, trade unions, private sector foundations, professional associations, etc.), it soon became clear that unless a more
1 2010, Structured Dialogue on the involvement of CSOs and Local Authorities in EC development cooperation, EC reference doc. N°12, January 2011, Engaging non-state actors in new aid modalities, No. 12.
9
differentiated approach was taken (i.e. recognising NSA actors’ different interests, and their different social dynamics), the support given to the NSA sector would not be very effective. Experiences from the 9 th EDF revealed the need to identify a plurality of groups and levels within the wider community of civil society organizations, as well as the need to recognise that a variety of different demands exist in relation to the strengthening of civil society actors2.
A third element instructing the mapping exercise is the recognition of two kinds of approaches for strengthening CSO capacities: one aimed at building the basic capacities of CSOs; as well as a more strategic one that focuses on the better positioning of CSOs in order to play a more effective “partner” role in development and policy. The first set of approaches focus on the reinforcement of skills related to project cycle management and to the management of CSOs as organizations (e.g. internal governance, leadership, accounting and financial management, etc.), as well as on basic capacities related to the implementation of activities and advocacy. This approach characterized most first generation programmes that supported CSOs (e.g. standardized capacity building activities, “training of trainers”, and the development of training manuals for CSOs). In contrast, the second set of approaches, which characterises most second generation programmes, is based on an analysis of the actual and potential roles and positions of CSOs in the framework of local/regional development processes. In this framework, capacities to be reinforced are not related to a single model of a CSO (i.e. “one size fits all”), and capacities cannot be defined without the analysis of specific groups of CSOs and their position within local development and policy dynamics.
1.2. Objectives
The general objectives of the mapping study are to provide an overview of the structure and existing capacities to contribute to the national development of CSOs in Mauritius; to understand their roles, structures, and legal framework; and to identify the capacity building needs for their more effective contribution to society.
Within this framework, the CSO mapping study has the following specific purposes:
a) to carry out a mapping of CSOs and their linkages with both national institutions and development partners, also including a SWOT analysis of CSO participation in development and cooperation processes and the formulation of recommendations in areas (s) to be reinforced so to enable CSOs to actively play their roles;
b) to identify key organisations and structures in civil society as well as their key constraints faced in terms of service delivery, advocacy, policy dialogue and networking as well as their primary capacity building needs;
c) to identify areas for improvement, strategies for capacity building and sustainability of CSOs, and to prepare a roadmap for a more structured civil society and the effective participation of CSO in policy dialogue and sustainable development processes.
2 Floridi M. et al., Étude de capitalisation des programmes d’appui au renforcement des capacités des acteurs non étatiques sous le 9ème FED, 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civilsociety/documents/final_rep_capit_study_fr.pdf)
10
2. The analytical categoriesThe study was guided by a set of concepts and theories that are briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.
2.1. Clearing the ground: defining a concept of civil society for the purpose of mapping
Often, civil society organisations (CSOs) are identified as “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs), and “charitable organisations”. In other cases, CSOs are defined as “all organisations without the realm of the government and that of the market” (for instance, this was the approach used in the Civil Society Index study carried out in Mauritius in 2006)3.
However, there are problems with the use of both of these definitions. The first definition appears to exclude from “civil society” most actors that are not involved in service provision; yet these actors play an important role in representing the interests and voices of citizens, and some groups set up by citizens aim to solve problems or to foster the common good.
The second definition appears to include all organised actors within society (e.g. religious groups, families, NGOs, clubs, political groups that are not participating in political institutions, criminal groups, etc.), resulting in the equivalence of CSOs with all “collective actors”, and eventually, the equivalence of “civil society” with society as a whole.
As such, these two definitions offer little value as an analytical tool: in the first case, a too large area of society is excluded, while in the second, too much of society is included.
In this CSO mapping study – similarly as in most recent CSOs mapping studies carried out in the framework of EU actions for supporting CSOs - an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society organisations” as all forms of grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal, that are characterised by:- (relative) autonomy from other actors (thus organisations that do not depend in their decisions on state and
political institutions, nor on religious institutions and market actors4);
- voluntary and free adhesion of members (thus organisations to which it is not compulsory to participate, because of legal or social obligations);
- independence from family and kin linkages (thus organisations that are not a direct emanation of family or kinship related institutions)5;
- an action space that is mainly out of “political institutions” (thus organisations that do not directly participate in political elections and in the functioning of political institutions, such as political parties, parliament, representative democracy institutions, government - however, CSOs can interact with these institutions);
- an action that is not aimed at generating “profit” (however, organisations carrying out economic activities aimed at generating resources to be reinvested for achieving organisation goals are to be considered as CSOs);
- a legitimate status that is not necessarily linked to legal frameworks and provisions, but to the fact of being a group created by a group of citizens to support a cause/solve a problem;
- a focus on “social responsibility”, e.g. is operating in favour of the collective interest and of social and economical development (this will imply that organisations directly promoting the particular interest of specific individual, group or “party” will be not be included as CSOs).
3 2006, The Civil Society Index Study Republic of Mauritius, MACOSS.4 The operational consequence of this is that both trade unions and enterprise organisations – and in general organisations directly involved in industrial/labour relations and in contract negotiation activities, thus defending the interest of a specific group of actors in the labour market - will not be considered as “Civil Society Organisations”. Moreover, because of their dependency on enterprises, “private foundations” will also not be considered as CSOs.5 As a consequence of this, in most cases “family foundations” will not be considered as CSOs (family foundations would be considered as CSOs only if it is clear that the family/individuals providing the patrimonial basis for the foundation’s activities is/are not guiding the organisation itself).
11
2.2. A tiered model of civil society
In order to effectively use the concept of CSO defined above, and in order to define a set of feasible strategies and recommendations for supporting CSOs, it is imperative to consider the many differences existing amongst organisations. Viewing CSOs as a differentiated group of actors allows for the identification of: actors to be analysed; the dynamics, roles, and positions of CS actors; as well as effective ways to support CS actors.
In this framework, there is a need to recognise different functions and social dynamics: from grassroots engagement to “high level” institutional engagement, CSOs tend to “function” in different ways, tend to be characterised by different dynamics and to play different roles. Even a particular function (e.g. voicing citizens’ interests) tends to work in a differentiated way at different levels.
In order to analyse these different functions and dynamics, four main organisational levels have been considered:
- the first level, which includes grassroots groups, self help groups and CBOs (including the informal ones such as the “forces vives”) are normally made up by collective actors who are both members of the group and beneficiaries of the group activity;
- the second level is composed of NGOs and other intermediary organisations which are characterised by the fact they produce services and generate knowledge and policy actions, above and beyond any benefit to the member constituency or members;
- the third level comprises aggregations of CSOs focusing on a particular sector, geographical area or campaign, such as platforms or umbrella organisations;
- the fourth level consists of general aggregations of CSOs, such as national civil society platforms.
It is important not to view these four levels as hierarchical levels: organisations placed on these levels are not “superior” or “inferior” to each other. The levels described above are merely a descriptive tool, and have an analytical function.
Moreover, the proposed model does not have any pretention to be exhaustive or to comprise all organisations: often organisations can be identified that cannot be placed on one single level or that function in boundary areas between levels. For example, most “network based organisations” (such as “Caritas” or “ANFEN” in Mauritius) are “umbrellas” or platforms, as well as “second level” organisations. Similar examples can be provided for first level organisations (that tend to shape themselves as NGOs) as well as for organisations at other levels.
12
As such, the “borders” between the different levels should not be considered fixed or as definite separations. There is a continuous movement of organisations among the different levels. The levels or tiers are a dynamic space rather than a stable structure.
The study gives special attention to the dynamics occurring within border areas, as well as to the emergence of groups of organisations that participate in more than one level. The different strata of organisations will be assumed as reference areas for identifying dynamics and capacity building needs. When relevant, other features (e.g. engagement in specific sectors) will also be considered in order to identify emerging CSO sub-groups to be included in strategies for supporting CS development and engagement in policy making and governance.
2.3. Sectors and areas of activities
In this mapping study, limited importance has been attributed to sectors and areas of activities. While an organisation’s engagement in a defined “sector” may be an important feature of the organisation itself, it does not define the position of the CSO in civil society as a whole, nor in the more general governance space.
This mapping study recognises two facts:
a) CSOs can play a social and political role that is not directly related to their sector of activity. Participation in local governance and policy dialogue, and the capacity to represent interests and actors need not be linked to particular sectors. Moreover, CSOs can mobilise on issues that are not directly related to their “sector focus” (e.g. in the case of education or sports organisations mobilising on issues related to the environment);
b) “Categorisation” of CSOs according to their sector of activity often generates segmentation within civil society and a reduction of CSO roles to that of “service providers”, and in the case of a few organisations, “knowledge provider”.
2.4. Capacity building
This CSO mapping study views capacity building as a set of processes concerned not only with the transfer/development of skills, but as linked to three different sets of dynamics:
- dynamics related to skill development and the transfer/acquisition of skills by individuals (these are the processes normally linked to “training”);
- dynamics related to the development of organisational features and capacities (i.e. internal factors allowing an organisation to play a certain role, to use available skills and resources and to develop new skills);
- dynamics related to the relationships between an organisation and its environment that influence their potential of playing a role, carrying out actions, etc. (this set of dynamics concern the relationships between CSOs and with the “CSO community”, as well as those between CSOs and public authorities, private sector, etc. and including also the legal environment).
13
3. Methodological framework
3.1. The methodological approach
From a methodological perspective, the mapping study is characterised by certain features, including:
a) An integration of quantitative and qualitative information;b) An integration between information with “factual elements” (i.e. processes, situations, resources, actions,
etc.) and information with “cognitive elements” (i.e. the representations of reality, the objectives and goals of stakeholders, their expectations, etc.);
c) A capitalisation of existing knowledge and information, based both on the mapping and analysis of available documentary sources (e.g. previous studies, carried out both in the framework of academic research and in the framework of policy making) and on the consultation of key informants and researchers;
d) A participative approach and a focus on participation and collective construction of knowledge based on the recognition of actors involved in social processes not only as “sources of information”, but also as bearers of important perspectives for the construction of a relevant knowledge on social processes and dynamics. This would require that analysis and data collection are not simply carried out by the experts’ team, but are shared, cross-checked and validated through the consultation of stakeholders.
These four main features have guided the definition of information sources and data gathering tools for the study.
3.2. The scope of the CSO mapping
The study has focused on two main geographical areas: Mauritius and Rodrigues.
In Mauritius, the need to take into account differences amongst regions and districts has been considered. Specific activities were carried out in order to analyse emerging processes in different areas.
Rodrigues was considered as a whole. As such, geographical differentiation was not made in the collection and analysis of information on the island.
3.3. The sources of information
The study was based on two sets of information sources: documentary and live.
Information sources
First degree information sources Second degree information sources
Documentary sources
EU policy documents and EU CSP Reports on EU funded programmes and projects
National Policy documents Reports on major donors programmes and initiatives concerning CSOs/NSAs in Mauritius
Policy documents from CSOs Research reports on CSOs and development in Mauritius
DCP I and DCP II reports and studies Evaluation reports of CSO support initiatives by other donors
CSOs’ documents on resources, activities, statute, etc. CSO Mappings
Main international donor websites and policy documents (European Donors; UN agencies;
WB etc.)Live sources EU staff involved in CSO support activities Scholars engaged in CSO analysis and experts
from international organisations
14
First degree information sources Second degree information sourcesGovernment representatives engaged with CSOsDCP staffRepresentatives of NSAs (including CSOs, Trade Unions, Private foundations, CSO Platforms etc.)Representatives from donors engaged in initiatives supporting CSOs and NSAsRepresentatives of CSOs at various levelsCSOs’ activities and offices
3.4. Information gathering tools
To explore these different sources of information, the following tools have been used:- 50 in depth interviews with stakeholders, including CSOs (NGOs, CBOs, Platforms, etc.), international
organisations, governmental and semi-governmental bodies, private foundations and other key informants
- 6 focus groups meetings, with an attendance of 40 CBOs- 25 semi-structured questionnaires to NGOs - 31 semi-structured questionnaires to CBOs - Analysis of documents (policy documents, reports of projects for strengthening NGOs, NGOs’
brochures, academic studies, websites, etc.)- Field visits to projects and “poverty pockets” in different regions in Mauritius and Rodrigues- Visits to CSOs’ offices and to CSO managed services
15
4. The context
4.1. An overview of Mauritian CSOs
Civil society organisations are not a novelty in Mauritius: citizens’ organisations played a key role in the Independence movement in the country and in the setting up of the Republic. Moreover, a long tradition exists both with regards to the engagement of organisations related to specific social groups in the provision of services, and private sector actors supporting citizens’ initiatives. Finally, in recent decades, citizens’ movements and trade unions have often played an important role in the Mauritian societal and political environment, providing a voice to social groups and fostering policy and legal reforms.
This tradition contributes to the existence of a large number of associations of different kinds as well as of private foundations: today, approximately 9000 associations are registered with the Registrar of Associations. The number of both associations and foundations experienced an exponential growth in recent years following the issuing of regulations in 2010 that supported the increase of funding to associations and foundations from the private sector through the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
Despite their large number, associations, foundations and other CSOs do not have a well defined role. Many associations are engaged in service provision and charitable activities: referring to CSR-accredited associations which have actively functioned for at least 2 years, there are approximately 500 such associations. Another very large group of registered associations includes: sport clubs and socio-cultural organisations, together with women, elderly and youth organisations which largely carry out social and cultural activities, and which are associated to and receive funds from government ministries. In some cases, organisations and associations are also created as a means for individuals to gain representation on councils related to the government, and thus access to political positions6.
Not only is the role assumed by organisations not always clear, but the extent to which they can be considered as part of “civil society” is also often unclear: the state registry includes not only “autonomous” organisations but also those that have been created within the framework of government action and that respond to government in their activities. Moreover, the registry includes associations that foster the interests of specific groups (as in the case of some private sector organisations). Yet further complexity is added by the fact that some kinds of organisations are registered under different registers (as is the case of “Foundations” and “non-profit companies” that are registered with the Registrar of Companies); and further more associations are not registered at all (as in the case of many “movements” and local groups).
Some general characteristics amongst the large number of organisations recognised as CSOs can be identified:
a) There is a prevailing engagement in service provision. Organisations engaged in policy related activities (e.g. policy dialogue, public advocacy in front of Local Authorities and Government; promoting policies and policy changes, etc.) are very few in number. There are no organisations focusing on human rights, and only a few focusing on citizens’ rights7.
b) “Volunteerism” is a main feature of most organisations. Relatively few organisations have more than one paid staff. While most organisations rely on their members and on the support of volunteers, often members are not active in the life of organisations and finding “active” volunteers has become increasingly difficult. Moreover, although a large amount of resources have been invested in training, volunteers are often still under or ill-qualified for the carrying out of NGO activities.
c) Despite the lack of engagement in policy related activities, linkages between organisations and politics exist at several levels. Organisations often seek out the support of political actors for their operation. Also often,
6 In most councils established by government, from the Mauritian Olympic Council to the National Economic and Social Council to those related to specific ministries (Women, Youth, Elders, etc.), members are elected by the associations registered in the specific sector, so often “ad hoc” associations are created to foster the election of a person. An individual being a member of several associations, and being a member of the boards of several associations is a common phenomenon.7 While there was once a national branch of “Amnesty International”, it is not functioning. A former leader of Amnesty International recently set up another CSO called ‘Dis-Moi’. Most organisations working on the defence of “rights” and on the advocacy of citizens’ rights largely focus on “consumers’ rights”.
16
leaders and members of organisations can be connected with persons engaged in political institutions. Giving support to political parties at a local level and particularly in electoral periods can also be a feature of smaller organisations. The attempt to maintain “good relationships” with all political parties (i.e. to appear non-partisan), and to not “embarrass” politicians is a concern for many organisations at different levels (thus, CSOs refrain from engaging on issues that involve politics and policy making; and in many cases, policy action is carried out through direct communications between CSOs’ leaders and government/parliament members).
4.2. The legal framework
Registrar of Association Act
As previously stated, most CSOs in Mauritius function under the “Law of associations” or “Registrar of Association Act”. This law requires all groups of citizens to be registered as an “association” in order to be recognised as a legal entity, to be able to receive funds, to carry out activities, and to open a bank account . However, the legal right for informal (non-registered) associations to exist and to carry out activities, in accordance with human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international law has been guaranteed by an amendment to the Registration of Associations Bill, issued in 2008.
Unlike many other countries, registering an association is a relatively simple operation in Mauritius. The creation of an association shall be communicated within 14 days from its creation and a new organisation shall be registered within three months from the foundation providing to the Registrar with a set of documents, including: (a) 2 copies of the rules of the association; (b) a list of the members, showing their names, occupations and addresses; (c) a list of the officers, showing their titles, names and addresses; (d) a certified copy of the minutes of proceedings of the meeting at which the rules were approved and the officers were appointed; (e) a notice of the address of the office of the association; and (f) the prescribed fee.
The role of the Registrar – which functions under the Ministry of Labour - is not that of “approving” associations but simply of registering them. As such, the Registrar only carries out a formal control with respect to the legal requirements for the creation of associations. An association shall not be registered where it does not comply with the Registration of Associations Act, or where: (a) any of its objects is unlawful; (b) it is engaged, or is about to engage, in activities likely to cause a serious threat to public safety or public order or has made, is making or is likely to make, available any resources, directly or indirectly, to a terrorist or a terrorist organisation or for the purposes of terrorism; (c) its rules are not clear or are ambiguous; (d) its name (i) is the same as that of a registered association or so resembles that of a registered association that the public may be deceived or misled; or (ii) is, in the Registrar’s opinion, objectionable or otherwise unsuitable; or (iii) in the case of a foreign association, its registration would not be in the interest of Mauritius.
All associations are registered under the same registry, without differentiation made according to their sector or activity8; and some CSOs consulted in this study felt that this was problematic. However, given that this mapping study assumes that CSOs can play an active role in governance and policy dialogue, without any reference to their sector engagement or activities, the current “open” legal framework should be considered a resource rather than a liability.
In addition to associations of persons, federations and confederations of association can also be registered; and they have a juridical personality allowing them to receive and manage resources.
8 Associations under the Registrar can be engaged in any of the following sectors: (a) Amateur athletics, (b) Arts, (c) Assistance to, or protection of physically or mentally handicapped people, (d)Assistance to refugees, (e) Charity, (f) Civil or human rights, (g) Consumer protection, (h) Culture, (i) Democracy, (j) Ecology or the protection of environment, (k) Education, training, and enlightenment, (l Elimination of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or any other legally proscribed form of discrimination, (m) Elimination of poverty, (n) Health or physical well-being, (o) Historical preservation, (p) Humanitarian or disaster relief, (q) Medical care, (r) Protection of children, youth, and disadvantaged individuals, (s) Protection or care of injured or vulnerable animals, (t) Relieving the burdens of government, (u) Religion, (v) Science, (w) Social cohesion, (x) Social or economic development, (y) Social welfare, (z) Any other activity that is determined to support or promote public benefit.
17
Despite the openness of the “law of associations”, some civil society groups chose not to register themselves and to maintain an “informal structure”: this may be seen as a way to maintain a movement-like dimension to the group, as well as to maintain clarity about the fact that the organisation does not endeavour to “collect resources”. Particularly in recent years, the main goal of registering an association is often to access resources.
Other relevant legal frameworks
The law of associations is not the only relevant law regarding civil society organisations. Some other relevant legal frameworks that exist are mentioned below:
- The company laws, which regulate the creation and management of “non profit companies” and of “foundations”. The main differences between “associations” and non-profit companies/foundations are: “associations” require members to pay an association fee, while this is not required in non-profit companies; non-profit companies can have a “limited liability”; foundations are related to the presence of a patrimonial asset (currently, the patrimonial asset required is relatively low in Mauritius; and foundations have been increasingly created because foundations are recognised as a vehicle for “CSR”, and private companies can therefore easily maintain control over resources provided as CSR to their own foundation).
- The parliament acts recognising an association as a special public interest, often implying that public resources can be provided directly to the mentioned association and that representatives of the government are in the association board or council (this is the case of many “welfare” focused associations).
- The parliament or government acts that establish councils or funds under the responsibility of a Ministry (e.g. the Ministry of Youth, the Ministry of Women, etc.): associations can be recognised as permanent members of these councils (e.g. in the National Youth Council some national associations – e.g. the Scout Association and the Girl Guides Association – are recognised as “Youth associations” having a representative in the council); moreover, local associations can be registered under the ministries at district level and obtain funds from ministries.
- The act establishing the Mauritius Council of Social Services (MACOSS), as an “umbrella organisation” for Mauritius NGOs: it is established as a preferential channel for communication between government and CSOs and defines the way MACOSS functions and is funded.
- The laws regulating the establishment and functioning of other organisations that often play an active role within civil society, at national and local levels, such as trade unions (that in Mauritius represent a very diversified group of organisations9) and cooperatives (that often play a role in the organisation of groups of producers not only in economic activities, but also in local development actions).
There has been a tendency to use law (and the establishment of new laws) to make CSOs or organisations related to civil society mobilisation and functioning permanent. This phenomenon produces little sustainability of organisations established through legal acts, and also generates two major issues: a greater dependency of these organisations upon government funds (and therefore a greater tendency of these organisations to back away from playing a policy role or a critical role in front of public authorities); and a “crystallisation” of the organisation themselves that often arrests their ability to function according to “civil society dynamics” and forces them to function according to “public administration mechanisms” (e.g. focusing on the respect of regulations and on the continuity of the organisation itself, rather than on objectives, goals or the representation of citizens’ interests).
4.3. The policy framework
While the legislation does not appear to define limits and opportunities that influence, in a important way, the functioning of CSOs in Mauritius, over the last 10 years, a policy framework has been progressively set up by the Mauritius government that produces several consequences for CSOs and their development: CSOs are largely identified as NGOs, and they are considered an important partner for government in the implementation of
9 About 400 trade unions, most of which are “company based” organisations, exist in Mauritius. However some federations and confederations also exist as general category trade unions. Very few trade unions maintain relations and collaborate with CSOs, such as NGOs and CBOs (e.g. among others, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Private Sector Workers); and a very small group of NGOs and CBOs collaborate with trade unions. Recent movements which have arisen for specific environmental issues have presented an opportunity for collaboration between trade unions, NGOs and other kinds of CSOs.
18
projects and provision of services. A key initiative in this framework has been the launching of the “Strengthening of the NGO Sector in Mauritius” project with the technical support of UNDP in 2007.
More specifically, this government framework focuses on the identification of NGOs as partners in service-delivery projects for poverty alleviation.
The main elements that make up this policy framework include:
- the National Policy on NGOs;
- the establishment of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) framework and guidelines;
- the establishment of the National Empowerment Foundation as a major vehicle for funding and guiding the struggle against poverty, as well as for involving CSOs as a major “service provider”;
- the NGO Trust Fund;
- the NSA Unit;
- the ministries’ policies for supporting CSOs.The National Policy on NGOs
A national NGO policy paper was presented in December 2012 by the Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity & Reform Institutions. This document follows up the engagement taken in the Government Programme 2012-2015. The core of the governmental policy on NGOs is the adoption of the concepts of “social entrepreneurship” and “social marketing” and the idea to promote a shift in the NGO sector towards “sustainability, autonomy and effective service delivery to vulnerable groups”. The core measures provided under the policy are: the establishment of an “NGO Trust Fund” providing annual grants; the establishment of a “Non-State Actors Unit” to pursue volunteer development programmes; and the development of the “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) Policy.
The policy was defined by a working group in which only two persons can be said to be representative of civil society (namely, the Secretary of MACOSS and the Programme Coordinator of MACOSS). Validation workshops were also held, involving the University of Mauritius, CSOs and the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India. Despite these workshops, a wide group of CSOs (including some key NGOs) do not consider the policy as being the product of a participatory process, nor even a consultative one.
The NGO policy addresses 5 main areas:
- Legal and regulatory framework, arguing for greater transparency and better governance within NGOs, as well as through self-regulation under the umbrella organisations and leading NGOs (recognised as MACOSS, the Mental Health Federation, the NCRD);
- Funding, arguing for the use of performance driven funding, for one centralized source or coordinating mechanism to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, for “NGO-driven” funding within the CSR10, and for income generating projects by NGOs;
- Capacity development, arguing for the setting up of a “Common Capacity Building Strategy”, for a “social entrepreneurship and social marketing culture”, and for increased volunteering by youth and elders;
10 The concept of “NGO-driven” is not defined within the policy paper. However it seems to be primarily understood as the use of NGOs as a main vehicle for the implementation of CSR activities. The original regulation allowing companies to create “Foundations” as a vehicle of CSR has been recently changed with the imposition of some limits (for instance, while in the past it was possible to accumulate financial resources within foundations, now the funds provided to foundations should be used within a term of 24 months). While NGOs are used for implementing services, often NGOs themselves are the ones that are in charge of both the identification of activities to be carried out, as well as for finding companies interested in supporting these activities. The adoption of such an approach is often generating an overload for CSOs (NGOs particularly): the result is that their main engagement tends to be that of looking for resources to sustain their activities. Moreover, giving CSOs (or NGOs) the responsibility of identifying the actions to be supported tends to reduce the relevance of development actions: these are defined not according to an analysis of emerging needs, but according to the “capacities” and “vocations” of the NGOs engaged in service delivery. There are further concerns with the idea of focusing on “income generating” projects by NGOs. Because the idea of “income generation” is linked to that of “social entrepreneurship”, there is a risk of distorting the role of CSOs: it may result in more and more organisations engaging in micro-economic activities that are both external to their original focus and with little relevance as solutions to local and national issues.
19
- Social entrepreneurship, arguing for the setting up of “Social Business Indicators” within umbrella organisations and leading NGOs, and promoting training and education on social entrepreneurship;
- Partnership and networking, promoting clustering around leading NGOs in project and programme implementation, and arguing for NGOs to act as an advocacy group vis-à-vis government institutions.
The policy posits itself to be relevant for both Rodrigues and Mauritius.
The “social entrepreneurship” concept in the National NGO Policy
A clear definition of the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is not provided within the NGO Policy paper. However, according to the paper “social entrepreneurship offers a scope and scale for the NGOs to indulge into viable business model with the beneficiaries (persons with disabilities, poor, delinquents, etc.) being treated as valuable customers and consumers and not as passive recipients”.
The policy views social entrepreneurship as an answer to the need for NGO “financial sustainability” and as a space for NGOs to explore “long term partnership with private sector” (beyond fundraising), and engagement in economic activities and social mobilisation at community level.
In the introduction of the NGO Policy paper, the main benefits to be derived by NGOs in adopting the social entrepreneurship approach are summarised as follows:
(i) achieving financial sustainability and thus enabling the NGOs to develop a strategic orientation of their programmes and effectively serve their beneficiaries;
(ii) loosening the dependence of NGOs on the requirements of traditional funds providers;
(iii) contributing towards the scalability of social ventures of NGOs and creating the possibility of serving a larger number of beneficiaries;
(iv) creating the opportunities for NGOs to enlist the services of professionals and thus contribute to the professionalisation of the NGO sector. This can also be supplemented by the implementation of ‘paid volunteers’ programmes; and
(v) supporting the economic empowerment for vulnerable groups of society.
Assuming the need to recognise NSAs and CSOs as actors in policy making and policy dialogue, a clear gap emerges in the policy framework: it identifies CSOs as NGOs and it emphasises their role in delivering services to “the poor, the delinquents, the disabled and other groups of vulnerable people”, who are referred to as beneficiaries, customers and consumers, but not as citizens holding rights.
The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) andthe National Empowerment Foundation (NEF)
The National Empowerment Foundation is a government owned not-for-profit company, that since January 2010, has had the role of managing the “Trust Fund for the Social Integration of Vulnerable Groups” (TFSIVG).11
The NEF also houses the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programme, which is aimed at directing the use of the funds provided by private companies under the CSR legislation (a company can use a percentage of their income - originally up to 2% and now up to 1.5 % - to support NGO or private foundation activities; 50% of these funds must be used for poverty alleviation activities).
Some activities related to the use of the Trust Fund for the Social Integration of Vulnerable Groups are directly managed by the NEF (including the provision of subsides, the construction of social housing schemes, etc.), while others are carried out through the engagement of NGOs in service-delivery and project implementation.
The NEF places much emphasis on NGO capacity-building as well as on the targeting of actions. However in many cases, funded projects are failing to achieve their goals, and in most cases, projects are conceived and formulated by considering activities and the number of beneficiaries to be “assisted”, rather than the objectives
11 Created in 1999, the TFSIVG is based on the older programme, “Trust Fund pour la lutte contre l’exclusion” which was created in 1995.
20
and goals to be achieved. Moreover, in many cases, NEF activities risk to not be able to tackle “social exclusion dynamics”12.
Several additional issues concerning the CSR scheme have also been mentioned by CSOs consulted in this study:
- A “top-down” approach was used to establish the guidelines for the use of CSR funds with the result that external agendas have been imposed on CSOs;
- The need to submit projects to CSR Committee for approval often results in cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, which in turn reduces the interest of companies (especially the smaller ones) in supporting NGOs’ activities);
- Some important actions such as research and policy/governance actions are not included among those that can be funded – and as a result, the opportunity to improve the quality of project/development actions are lost;
- Prioritising “poverty alleviation” actions hinders the ability to access funds for activities aimed at reducing social exclusion factors/structures, and it also drives some NGOs to alter the focus of their activities in order to more easily access funds;
- Many organisations with adequate records of activities claim to have been unable to obtain CSR accreditation, which increases their perception of there being a lack of transparency in the accreditation process;
- Changes made to the CSR guidelines also increase the perception amongst NGOs of a lack of transparency in the process, and increases the difficulties of small NGOs and small companies to abide by changing regulations;
- CSR funds are provided for actions up to 12 or at maximum 24 months, however, this time frame is too short for actions aimed at local development;
- Related to the point before, CSR funding mechanisms do not meet the needs of most NGOs applying to the CSR for funding: while most NGOs deliver services continuously through time, CSR only funds project-based activities – and as a result, NGO programmes experience a constant “stop and go” in activities (which will lead to a breakdown of trust in relationships between the service provider and the service users, a dispersion of project resources, a turn-over of staff, and loss of resources invested in capacity building, etc.);
- The limited amount of resources allowed by CSR to go towards general/administrative costs in NGO projects reduces the capacity of organisations at a central level since most resources are used for project implementation/service delivery.
NGO Trust Fund
Set up in 1999 under the Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity and Senior Citizens Welfare & Reform Institutions, the NGO Trust Fund is aimed at supporting both project and operational costs of a selected group of NGOs. In order to obtain financial assistance from the NGO Trust Fund, civil society organisations should:
a) be run on a non-profit making basis;
b) work towards the (i) empowerment of the disabled, the elderly, the homeless or such other vulnerable groups; and (ii) promotion of the welfare of the community in general;
c) be registered under the Registration Act; and
d) be approved by the Committee.
The committee which approves NGOs’ requests for support is composed of a chairman who is nominated by the Minister; representatives of the Ministries of finance, education, health and social security; and two persons
12 In addition to the relative low capacity of some NGOs, there are other key factors which are contributing to the low efficacy of NEF actions. Since actions are directly targeted to the “poor” and not towards territories or regions, stigma is often reinforced (e.g. most new housing schemes – often involving the action of NGOs – are reproducing patterns of territorial segregation; and the same can be said of actions concerning education or job creation). Also, because of inadequate analysis of poverty mechanisms, poverty is simply identified with a lack of adequate access to services, goods or income. As a result, actions are aimed at providing these elements, rather than eliminating/mitigating “social exclusion factors”. Finally, while most actions claim to be aimed at “activating” the poor to take initiatives for exiting poverty, in reality, most actions consider the poor as beneficiaries or customers/clients; and as a result, dependency patterns are reinforced.
21
involved in social work and who are nominated by the Minister (and one of whom is a representative of MACOSS). Since most NGOs in Mauritius respect points a, b, and c in the criteria, the selection of NGOs to receive support is largely dependent upon decisions made by the committee itself.
The Non-State Actors (NSA) Unit
The Non-State Actors Unit (NSA) was set up in November 2009, and was officially launched on the occasion of the International Volunteer Day on 5 December 2009. The NSA Unit is located within the Ministry of Social Security, and is supported by the UNDP.
The main functions of the NSA Unit are as follows: (i) building capacity of NGOs; (ii) providing adequate financial/technical support for programme implementation; (iii) setting up a professional corps of paid volunteers for NGOs to tap into; and (iv) providing an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system for programmes.
In the framework of the activity of NSA Unit, a working group of stakeholders (i.e. the Ministry of Social Security; the NGO Trust Fund; the NEF; the EU funded DCP (Decentralised cooperation Programme), and MACOSS) was established in order to set a common policy for capacity building and training, in coherence with the National NGO Policy.
In addition, the NSA Unit is promoting pilot activities which aim at engaging a wider range of CSOs (thus not only NGOs) in actions for local development and the eradication of poverty. These actions are currently being carried out in some “poverty pockets” in Mauritius and Rodrigues.
Policies at a ministry level
Despite the formulation of a national NGO policy, most line ministries have their own approaches, policies, resources and activities for the engagement of CSOs; and unlike NEF policies and the national NGO Policy, ministry policies very often involve community based organisations and small organisations. In many cases, these “ministry based policies” are based on:
- the setting of “councils” focusing on general and specific issues (health, substance abuse, etc.) or social categories (elders, women, children, youth, etc.);
- grants-in aid, including the fact that some services are delegated/contracted to NGOs;
- the presence of decentralised service centres (e.g. Citizen’s Advice Bureaus, youth centres, social security/pension offices, community centres, and women’s centres) that are found in all districts and in most large villages, towns, and cities in Mauritius.
However, a risk can be identified in this framework: in most cases, CSOs are used as vehicles for disseminating information, for facilitating the distribution of benefits (both material and immaterial), and for facilitating ministry access to “beneficiaries”. Generally, CSOs are not considered to be actors with the ability to inform policy formulation and participate in Structured Dialogue (SD) (with a view to making policies more relevant and effective); rather, they are considered to be simply recipients of information and resources.
Councils are normally not able to be an effective dialogue or policy forum through which political decision making is actually influenced by civil society. On the contrary they often tend to represent “bottle necks”, which reduce the space for policy involvement of CSOS: agendas are formulated according to government perspective, as well as the identification of relevant CSOs. The participation of CSOs in most “councils” is limited13, and the capacity of CSOs (and particularly NGOs) to influence policies is largely related to their capacity to directly enter in contact with ministers or with senior ministry staff. While CSOs participate to a greater degree in local councils, in fact they are spaces for the distribution of resources and for the communication of ministry agendas more than spaces for policy dialogue.
As a result, not only CSOs are excluded from contributing to policy making, but dynamics that foster the dependency of grassroots organisations on public bodies can be created. In turn, grassroots organisations
13 In the Committee which manages the NGO Trust Fund, as well as in Councils set up under line ministries, CSO representatives are a minority amongst members; most members are representatives of government bodies or are nominated by a minister. As such, these councils tend to be more accountable to government and political parties than to CSOs or citizens.
22
become increasingly vulnerable to political dynamics (e.g. depending upon the relationships with government or opposition parties, to access resources, and to gain visibility and power at a local level).
Local authorities
Especially for small CSOs, local authorities represent a source of funding and support. Local authorities – such as village councils and municipalities – can potentially offer privileged spaces for engaging CSOs in local governance and policy making; and this role would be relevant both as a way to launch initiatives aimed at reducing social exclusion factors at a local level as well as a way to foster decentralisation, in line with current reform processes.
However in reality, local authorities – even more than central government – reduce the role of CSOs to that of service provider, or even worse, to that of a vehicle for generating consensus. Local authorities support CSOs in their role of diffusing “benefits” to needy persons, and carrying out local projects (and mainly those which deliver assistance), but not in the setting up of local governance mechanisms.
There are three main causes for this scenario: the first is the low level of autonomy that local authorities possess, and the fact that the scope of their actions is mostly limited to the management of infrastructure; the second is that local authorities (elected authorities as well as officers in decentralised government bodies) are more accountable to their “chiefs” in political parties or in administration bodies upon whom they depend, than to citizens; the third is the fact that local authority mandates last only 2 years: a time too short for those elected to engage themselves in anything other than the implementation of short term, quick, and visible activities (such as small infrastructural work, or “assistance activities”).
4.4. Resources for supporting CSOs in Mauritius
Rapid economic growth and the social development achievements that have characterised Mauritius in past decades (despite unemployment, degradation of conditions in the labour market, and unchanged levels of poverty and social exclusion) has meant that the country is no longer a recipient of international aid (except for very small amounts).
The reduction of international support to Mauritius has had significant implications for CSOs. It has meant that CSOs are dependent upon the state (through ministries and the NGO Trust Fund) and the private sector (through the CSR scheme) for funding. Additionally, it has resulted in a marked reduction in the level of international exposure and networking for Mauritian CSOs. This means that Mauritian CSOs now have limited access to new ideas, experiences and practices, knowledge transfer and development, as well as a limited critical external regard. An extremely small number of CSOs continue to participate in international networks and maintain cooperation and partnerships with international NGOs14.
Currently, the following sources of support are available for CSOs in Mauritius:
- Private foundations, including those created by larger and more traditional actors in CSR in Mauritius (such as MCB Foundation, the Rogers’ Foundation, the Foundation Medine – Horizon, the Foundation Nouveau Regard, etc.), as well as those that have been created in recent years as a tool for engaging/managing CSR resources. While foundations fund activities in most sectors, some foundations are engaging themselves in system actions aimed at strengthening the “NGO sector” as a provider of services (such as the setting up of and support of the Act Together website, the setting up of networks and platforms, the identification and dissemination of innovative practices), and even supporting CSO policy engagement in specific sectors and on specific themes.
- Special international funds, such as the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) (managed by UNDP), and the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS (managed by an NGO – and in the case of Mauritius, by PILS): while these funds have limited amounts of resources, they use innovative approaches to engage CSOs. The GEF-SGP supports small CBOs to launch local development initiatives aimed at sustainable use or recovery of environmental resources, while also often partnering CBOs with more experienced NGOs for technical support. The sub-granting scheme in the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS places focus on
14 These organisations are largely engaged in specific areas, in which global movements are more visible (such as gender, environment, HIV/AIDS and GLTB). Most organisations which are engaged in the delivery of services for assisting the poor or needy/vulnerable people are not involved in international networks/partnerships.
23
monitoring and evaluation, effectiveness, and transparency of support. A main feature of both funding schemes is the coupling of funding with technical assistance.
- The UNDP supports CSOs through its “Non-Governmental Organisation Sector in Mauritius Programme” (SNSM) which was implemented by the Mauritius Council of Social Services (MACOSS) and the Ministry of Social Security. It also supports specific pilot initiatives in Mauritius and Rodrigues.
- The EU is the main provider of support to CSOs through two main channels: the Decentralised Cooperation Programme (DCP) and the Thematic programmes. The DCP has been funding projects and training/capacity building activities under different schemes, including large grants for more established NGOs and small grants for smaller NGOs. While DCP funds have been mainly used to support poverty alleviation initiatives, they are now also being used to support the establishment and strengthening of CSO networks/platforms and the development of policy dialogue and local governance initiatives). Under the thematic programmes, the main initiative in Mauritius has been the NSA – LA thematic programme, which supports initiatives undertaken by CSOs (as in Mauritius activities have not concerned Local Authorities, as in other countries). Some CSOs applied directly to international calls for proposals which are managed centrally by the EU (e.g European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy, “Investing in People”, etc.). In all cases, grants (through restricted/open calls for proposals) are given to CSOs. However – particularly in the framework of DCP - assistance has also been provided to CSOs for project formulation and for project implementation.
- Bilateral cooperation agencies and embassies also provide funds to CSOs, normally on a project or adhoc basis. There is no formal coordination amongst donors. Main bilateral donors include: AusAID, DFID, AFD, USAid, the American Embassy, and JICA.
- International NGOs and organisations – such as IUCN – are also providing resources to CSOs, particularly in the environmental sector and in the HIV sector. In some cases, projects carried out or supported by international NGOs have resulted in the creation and development of local NGOs (this was the case for the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, an NGO which manages terrestrial environmental protection initiatives in Mauritius; and more recently the case of “Shoals”, an NGO engaged in the protection of marine resources in Rodrigues).
In addition to these sources of support, and the funding channelled through government and CSR, some CSOs – mainly faith based organisations – also receive individual donations (often collected through public collection of funds). Examples include the resources raised through the Zakhat, as well as through the Catholic Church and Hindu temples and communities. The ability of CSOs to access these resources can shield them from some external pressure. However, these resources largely support service delivery activities.
Training and capacity building opportunities
A specialised institution for providing training and capacity building opportunities to CSOs is currently lacking in Mauritius. Capacity building and training is occasionally provided by MACOSS, the University of Mauritius, and the Mauritius Institute of Training and Development (MITD). Opportunities provided by MACOSS and by the academic institutions mainly consist of training courses.
Moreover, support and capacity building to CSOs is provided by some key organisations, in a systematic way (as in the case of the ANFEN network) or in the framework of specific projects (as in the case of CEDREFI, some women/gender organisations, and PILS). Support provided by key organisations mainly focuses on the development of capacities, often also including the provision of technical assistance and of coaching activities.
Capacity building and training opportunities are offered by DCP and in a less systematic way by UNDP, NGO Trust Fund and other governmental organisations.
MACOSS is currently carrying out a campaign for the building of a training institute for NGOs, mainly focusing on the creation of a physical space for hosting activities. Many key NGOs do not support this initiative.
24
5. The stakes and emerging issuesThe analysis of the context in which CSOs operate has revealed some important stakes for Mauritian CSOs, as well as some issues that CSOs can actively engage with. Many of these issues were also identified during consultations held with CSOs, government actors, and international organisations.
Due to the specific context of Rodrigues (i.e. territorial dimension and population, political status, economic resources, political dynamics and the specific features of CSOs), it is important to differentiate the analysis of stakes and emerging issues. As such, stakes and emerging issues are presented separately for Mauritius and Rodrigues in this section.
5.1. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Mauritius
a) Reconstructing politics from below
As elsewhere, political institutions are facing a crisis of legitimacy, as well as of their capacity to represent citizens and to govern emerging processes. In this context, while citizens lose trust in political institutions, there is a tendency for political institutions (including government structures, political parties and the institution of representative democracy) to act as a “separate”, self-referent body, with a limited capacity to understand social dynamics and limited accountability to citizens. Many phenomena that can be linked to these political dynamics, such as – among many others - a growing ineffectiveness and inefficiency of public policies, an increasing emergence of cases of corruption and mal-utilisation of public resources at different levels, a tendency to use public services as tools for increasing consensus, and difficulties in coordinating policies among different ministries.
Civil society can contribute to the reconstruction of politics not through the creation of “new parties” nor the attempt to occupy political institutional space (which can be seen as two indicators of the lack of a space in which civil society can effectively communicate and dialogue with political institutions), but by informing public decisions, monitoring public policies and public services, representing interests, etc. at different policy levels, from the local one (through the establishment of “multi-actors” governance mechanisms) to the national ones.
In order for CSOs to assume an active role in this context, political institutions/public bodies15 must be open to and must recognise CSOs and their potential roles. Political institutions must not view civil society in an opportunistic way, such as: (a) using CSOs as simple service providers; (b) “co-opting” CSOs within councils and committees that are actually managed and “dominated” by the government and political parties; and (c) using CSOs as vehicles for generating consensus or electoral support.
However, CSOs must also practice a similar openness and recognition of the existence of a specific space and role for CSOs in policy. CSOs should engage themselves in policy while moving away from the relatively “comfortable” and familiar space related to service provision.
b) Local governance
Local governance often appears as a lacking function or at least as a problematic space. As previously discussed, despite the diffusion of ministries’ antennas at a regional level and regulatory changes, decisions and authority are still held by central bodies; the space for local authorities is limited. Moreover local authorities often function as though they are in a permanent pre-electoral period. As a result, there can be: ineffective local governance and management of emerging issues; dependency of local authorities upon political parties and/or to government; and lack of accountability to citizens.
CSOs can play a key role in increasing the effectiveness of local governance and the accountability of public services to citizens. Their contribution to local governance can be provided in three main ways: (a) by orienting
15 Under the term “political institutions” it is possible to include the government and ministries, the parliament and all related institutions (including political parties represented or competing for being represented in parliament), the “representative democracy” bodies at the different levels.
25
policy decisions at local level, offering to local authorities information on dynamics, processes and needs emerging at local level; providing local authorities with “technical information” on relevant issues and on the policies and decisions to be taken; and making visible to public authorities the actors that emerge in society; (b) by informing citizens about political processes and policies and their functioning (such as by setting up public policies and public services monitoring mechanisms), and supporting citizens in the identification and analysis of problems emerging at a local level; (c) by participating in the governance of service delivery at a local level in order to make them more accountable to citizens.
These functions go over and beyond those related to a simple “service delivery” (wherein citizens are viewed as beneficiaries, recipients, clients or customers), which is currently the role most assumed by Mauritian CSOs. Performing a local governance function would not require CSOs to abandon their engagement in service delivery entirely, but it would require them to change their approach and focus in service delivery. First, they would need to assume a “right based approach” (thus recognizing citizens as right bearers, and service delivery as a way to support the exercise of rights). Second, they would need to move away from simple service delivery towards a greater role in innovation (including “service design” mechanisms to allow the transfer of the capacities and responsibility on service provision to public or private providers in the mid-term. Third, they would need to empower citizens to participate in service governance and provide support to them for the monitoring of social problems emerging at a local level.
c) Reconstructing trust and overcoming “ethnic” or “communal” divides
In Mauritius, there is widespread recognition of the existence of communal divisions in politics and their influence upon public and social services. The phenomena of “self-segregation” (i.e. people belonging to a particular “community” not approaching organizations or public officers that are recognized as belonging to other communities), and “communal accountability” (i.e. politicians approaching and speaking firstly to members of their own “communities”) are common. Moreover, although a very small number of CSOs are framed by communal identity, a much larger group of CSOs are framed by their religious beliefs and communal divides. Furthermore, some CSOs take part in umbrella organizations and platforms based on communal linkages.
Direct consequences of this situation include:
- lack of trust amongst CSOs and of citizens towards CSOs (often their positions on policy issues are viewed as a consequence of their communal linkages);
- limitation of the efficiency and effectiveness of development actions (that are often unable to effectively involve relevant stakeholders);
- lack of independence and autonomy of CSOs themselves (they are not willing to create “problems”, or more seriously, they are directly dependent upon their linkages with communal politics);
- the use/manipulation of grassroots organizations by politics.
However, examples from both the international and national level show that CSOs can play a key role in re-constructing trust in a context of communal division. In order to play such a role, CSOs should engage in actions that create bridges between communities and groups and avoid targeting specific “communal groups” or defending interests that can be seen as related to specific communal groups. An important step towards the assumption of a stronger bridging role is for CSOs to work in partnerships with other organisations.
Most new informal movements that have recently arisen strongly claim that they are inclusive and representative of all ethnic groups in the country. These movements in some ways not only address environmental issues for example, but they also work to promote social cohesion at different levels. On the other hand, there are very few more organised CSOs which have the goal of social cohesion as their central aim, and focus on the issue of bridging communal divides and overcoming social exclusion based on communal belonging.
d) Fostering a “change approach” to poverty
26
Despite efforts and resources aimed at poverty eradication in Mauritius, poverty (and extreme poverty) appears to be a permanent phenomenon (according to the World Bank about 7% of the population is considered poor, despite the growth of GDP per capita and the improvement of social development indexes). In Mauritius, poverty has been defined as a “lack of income” (thus a poverty line has been set by the Ministry of Social Security for accessing subsides and services provided to the poor), and/or as a set of problems or issues (lack of housing, lack of income, drug and alcohol addiction, mono-parental families, etc.). While most NGOs also seem to share this definition of poverty, a small few also equate poverty with an inability to achieve MDGs.
However, these approaches to poverty often lead to an ineffective response to poverty eradication: CSOs’ activities, as well as those of many public bodies, in most cases focus on provision of services and goods, rather than on fostering and supporting social change processes. As a result, despite intentions, there is an increase in dependency of the poor rather than their empowerment.
However, there are some good practices, and innovative experiences and knowledge concerning the support to change processes which have been produced by some CSOs that could be scaled up or used as a basis for development. Among others, these practices include targeting a specific territorial area, focusing on the identification of structures and dynamics that are linked to poverty, recognising and making the most of local knowledge and adopting a multi-sector/integrated approach that includes policy setting.
Assuming a change approach to poverty also requires a shift in the focus of CSO activities away from service delivery and project activities (including the focus on the number of actions carried out and on the number of beneficiaries) to a focus on mid-term outcomes and results, described in terms of change in the original situation.
There is also a need for CSOs to recognise the complex nature of poverty in Mauritius. Generally, the nature of poverty in this multi-ethnic country is not understood, and there is little consensus. All actors which intervene in society must make an effort to ensure that all groups are being reached by poverty projects/programmes, and that poverty projects are appropriate to the needs of each group (as the nature of poverty, causes of poverty, and manifestations of poverty tend to differ for each ethnic group).
In order for CSOs to be able to assume roles in the four areas discussed above, there is a need for openness to and recognition of CSO by political institutions/public bodies, as well as a move away from CSOs’ traditional role of “project implementer”. Moreover, there is a need to construct a “social space” for civil society, made up of shared representations, behaviours, social norms, and social meanings that allow relationships amongst CSO to change from competition and fragmentation to the development of a shared vision of civil society. Finally, there is a need to develop capacities of CSOs for playing an active role, taking into account different shapes and features of the different categories of CSOs.
5.2. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Rodrigues
a) Reinforcing governance and strengthening politics as a “common good”Deep political divides exist across all areas of social life in Rodrigues, from political institutions to village level organisations. As a result of such a divide, the joining of resources, which could produce advantageous results for the whole community (e.g. in the use of natural resources) is hindered.CSOs can also be susceptible to division. However, CSOs can also play a key role by supporting the setting up of local governance mechanisms that are not dependent upon politics for sharing experiences, co-operation, and speaking with a common voice.
b) Innovation and the approach to povertyRodrigues is a small, relatively isolated island, with a relatively small population. As such, limited space and resources, and limited opportunities for economic and social activities are serious issues. In fact, these are major factors leading to emigration towards Mauritius: and it is frequent the case that the most resourceful persons, such as educated youth, are the ones who are leaving. Yet traditional “job creation” and poverty alleviation measures tend to have little efficacy in Rodrigues: such measures often result in an increased dependency upon the state and external actors.
27
In order to identify and carry out effective actions against poverty, CSOs must assume a major role in fostering innovation through the identification of new opportunities and new ways to work on existing resources. Despite the fact that they often have a limited capacity, CSOs are probably best placed to be able to access and make the most of information and resources coming from abroad, as well as to test actions that can eventually be scaled up.
c) Structuring the space for civil societyVillage committees and CBOs are the main actors engaged in the setting of the Rodrigues Council of Social Services that also functions as a vehicle for communication with government. However, there is a lack of specific spaces for supporting the development of partnerships and for sharing information amongst CSOs (and particularly NGOs). In order to build up these spaces, CSOs should be encouraged to adopt attitudes of cooperation which would reduce tensions and competition for funds (mainly related to service delivery and project implementation.
d) Building capacities for playing an active roleIt is widely recognised that both in terms of policy dialogue, and project/service identification and implementation, most CSOs in Rodrigues have limited capacities. This can be largely attributed to the fact that most CSOs are working (and have been created) at a grassroots level. However, some key organisations exist in Rodrigues (e.g. among others, Shoals and Carrefour) that can assume the role of strengthening the capacities of others. Also in this case, a shift from competition towards cooperation should be supported.
Good and promising practices
Taking into account the stakes and issues related to CSOs’ engagement as actors in Mauritian development listed above, some practices and cases that can be considered and built upon for further development are identified below.
a) Local development initiativesIn the framework of GEF-SGP, a wide set of initiatives has been implemented in Mauritius and Rodrigues, bringing together community based organisations, NGOs and other supporting agents in actions aimed at fostering local development and protecting/enhancing local environmental resources. Activities have included both economic production and social engagement in the defence of resources, and all have been characterised by certain features: the centrality of local CBOs in identifying and formulating the project/action; the implementation of activities aimed at analysing local resources, opportunities, obstacles as a key element of project formulation and development; the strengthening of CBOs in analysing their situation and the local setting; the presence of experienced NGOs for the provision of technical expertise to support CBO actions (not requiring CBOs to play the role of professional bodies); a continuous monitoring of actions and the continuity of follow up after the project finalisation, to secure sustainability; a direct or indirect linkage with the governance of natural environment at a local level, eventually including the involvement of local authorities or of public relevant actors; and the documentation of activities.
b) Networking and strengthening local actorsNetworking is a key element of the actions of certain NGOs, which rather than directly managing service delivery at local level provide support to smaller local NGOs and CBOs engaged in services. Two different but interesting cases are that of Caritas and Adult Non Formal Education Network (ANFEN). In the first case, the central body of the organisation is supporting local actions and formalising local demands into wider frameworks and projects. In the second case, the network provides to members a set of specialised and qualified services, allowing for an improvement of local actions; however actions carried out at a local level are identified and decided by local actors.An even stronger attitude to support local initiatives characterises some organisations which work on “rights issues”, such as Women in Networking, Genderlink and the Collectif Arc en Ciel: in these cases, the core action of organisations is related to the strengthening of local actors. A main feature of these networks is permanence in time: the relations among actors are not project based or occasional, rather they are based on sharing a common long term agenda and perspective and on the fact that continuous monitoring/relationships are maintained through a variety of means.
c) Engagement in policy and enhancing the recognition of rightsAs in the case of PILS, some organisations are engaged in the provision of services, but are also able to maintain and develop a main focus on policies. In such cases, service provision is not the “core” of the organisations, rather it is one of the tools used to enhance the recognition of rights.
28
In order to maintain the focus on policy, organisations engage in: networking, supporting smaller organisations, generating information and knowledge, promoting public communication and visibility of the considered issues in the media, and engaging government (not providing services for government, but asking the government for public services or for improved public services).
d) People’s participation in setting and implementing policiesParticularly when dealing with environmental management, the direct involvement of citizens in the setting and implementation of policies is a requirement for policy effectiveness. Several organisations engaged in promoting the protection of marine resources both in Mauritius and Rodrigues have some interesting practices. These practices have been based on the engagement of stakeholders. For example, fishermen communities have been engaged in the analysis of emerging problems and in the identification of possible solutions, as well as in the fostering of negotiation and policy setting processes, involving on the one side local stakeholders and on the other government and legislative bodies. In these processes, NGOs have largely played a facilitating role. In order to ensure the effectiveness of people’s participation, NGOs did not directly play the role of “representatives” (this role remained with local actors). To enhance the policy impact of actions, NGOs should also avoid assuming the role of “regulator” (this role should remain with government).
e) Information and networkingCombining information and networking is the core of an initiative supported (and directly implemented) by the Fondation Nouveau Regard du Groupe CIEL. The Foundation has set up a website for the exchange of information and knowledge amongst CSOs on “social issues” (www.actogether.mu). While the use of the website is diffused amongst Mauritius organisations, it has mostly been used to diffuse information on the foundation’s activities. Websites without an active networking action and which do not attribute an active role to “users” risk becoming ineffective information tools.
f) Integrating legal action and public information The Chagos Refugees Group represents a particular and interesting case. This NGO has been integrating different means for advocating the rights of people from Chagos: while some other organisations limited their actions to asking government for benefits for specific groups of people (as the inhabitants of outer islands), the Chagos Refugees Group integrates the use of public information and media, direct contacts with government, and legal action into their advocacy efforts, not only to access benefits but also to realise the recognition of rights. A similar multi-faceted approach can also be used with regards to other issues.
g) Social mediaSocial media – such as Facebook and Twitter - are assuming a greater role in the mobilisation of “social energies”. However, they are scarcely used by structured CSOs. Amongst others, an exception in Mauritius is Azir Moris, which uses social media both for diffusing and accessing information and as a tool for advocacy and for organising concrete actions. Actions using social media require a well set strategy (in the case of Azir Moris, the strategy of remaining an informal organisation), yet they tend to have little effectiveness if based on a “traditional” approach to information and communication.
29
6. An Analytical view of Civil Society Organisations in Mauritius
6.1. First level organisations
At the “first level”, the study has identified a wide and diversified group of CSOs, including both many registered associations (from sport clubs to women, elder and youth groups, to quasi-NGO and charitable associations, to registered neighbourhood associations), and a large number of informal organisations, such as the so called “forces vives”. Also at this level these are organisations that function within “network based NGOs” such as Caritas (actually “network based” organisations work very much at a decentralised field level with local groups and communities). Some groups at this level are also created in the framework of ministry activities (e.g. youth, women, elders, agriculture, etc.). Finally, also included at this level are many “cooperative organisations” (such as savings cooperatives).
A further group of organisations to be included in the first level are (informal) movements that are created for defending communities and territorial areas from external interventions that can potentially damage the communities themselves and their environment (e.g. infrastructure), or for asking for services. In a few cases, they carry out defensive or advocacy functions through public manifestations, marches and activities; while in most cases, they establish direct linkages with politicians and political parties.
First level organisations are normally characterised by being highly vulnerable to politics: it is easy for political leaders and political parties to use grassroots groups as mechanisms for creating consensus (normally by exchanging consensus with benefits, such as the provision of goods and services). This relationship with politics can create a divide amongst local grassroots organisations: on the one side, “forces vives” and policy/advocacy organisations focusing on giving voice to local needs/people tend to be considered as being politically biased; on the other side, CSOs that don’t want to be considered as such tend to assume the shape and role of NGOs and charity organisations focusing on service delivery, or that of “clubs” working under the umbrella of public authorities.
The thematic foci of most first level organisations that submitted questionnaires for this study is in the areas of social assistance and education. A relatively smaller percentage (about 27 %) is engaged in health and gender related activities (in this case activities also often include training and information dissemination).
Thematic Focus
Food &
Agricultu
re
Socia
l Assi
stance
Health
Gender
Envir
onment
Housing
Educati
on
Governan
ce0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A smaller number of first level organisations are involved in agriculture and food security activities. It is interesting to note that the percentage of organisations involved in governance and policy activities is equal to 0, and that of organisations engaged in environmental activities is also very low (under 5%). Clearly, organisations tend to focus on the thematic areas for which resources exist. Also, organisations that are engaged in areas such
30
as governance and influence on policy making tend to maintain a low profile – not participating in meetings and preferring to maintain informal organisational structures.
An analysis of the activities carried out by first level organisations reveals a stark finding.
Activities Conducted
Service delivery is the most frequent type of action undertaken by first level organisations, followed by the organisation of beneficiaries for accessing services provided by larger NGOs or by public bodies (including subsidies and housing facilities provided by NEF). In a smaller but relevant percentage (30%), organisations are engaged in some advocacy activities (mainly targeting the general public to sensitising people about specific problems). A slightly smaller percentage (25%) participate in thematic councils, often established in connection with public policies at national, district and local levels by different ministries (e.g. women’s council, youth council, elders council etc.).
In addition, when asked to identify the outcomes of their actions, first level organisations overwhelmingly point to access to services.
31
Servic
e del
Advocac
y
Monitorin
g public
policies/
servic
es
Particip
ation in
Councils
Organisa
tion of ben
eficia
ries
Implem
entati
on of contra
cts
Researc
h
Right d
efence
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Outcomes of Actions
Servic
e acce
ss
Satisfa
ction of local
needs
Change
in polici
es
Innovation in
servi
ces
Bridgin
g betw
een ac
tors0
102030405060708090
100
Although the clear majority of first level organisations point to access to services as the impact of their actions (and no organisations said that they were implementing policy related activities), one-third of organisations still believe that their work results in policy-related outcomes. This percentage of organisations aiming at having outputs related to local needs and problems is lower (and this is clearly an indicator of an ongoing transformation from having primarily the identity of a first level “community organisation” to assuming the identity of a “second level” NGO, mainly producing services for a public that is not the constituency of the organisation itself) and even less organisations are dealing with innovation and with bridging function (i.e. the function of establishing communication between the community and other external actors or among different communities).
Funding Sources
member fee Users fees Private Other0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Almost all first level organisations collect fees from members (in fact, this is generally a basic requirement for all associations). However, as in most cases membership fees do not represent adequate resources for the sustenance of activities, most organisations are also supported by private companies. This also indicates that many first level organisations assume the shape of an NGO in order to access external funding (e.g. CSR funds). In many cases, organisations are also using other sources of funding, such as funds from ministries (grant-in-aid) and local authorities. Despite the organisations’ overwhelming engagement in service delivery, only very few
32
organisations collect “users’ fees” (i.e. fees from their beneficiaries). As a result, services provided by first level organisations are therefore almost completely dependent upon external from resources.
From an organisational perspective, first level organisations can appear to be relatively weak:
- In many cases they lack a proper office and equipment. As such, they frequently use community centres or other structures made available by other CSOs or NSAs, or by public authorities;
- While most of these organisations– especially those that are registered – have a formalised structure including an assembly, a board, a president and other institutional positions and functions, they tend to depend heavily upon a leader or a small group of leaders (normally including the founder of the organisation). Moreover, in most cases, such formal structures do not function properly.
- The organisations do not have planning tools. Management is performed on a project basis, as well as on the basis of arising opportunities. This implies, especially for quasi-NGO organisations, a kind of “intermittent life”: the organisation ‘wakes up’ when an opportunity arises and ‘sleeps’ when there are no activities or funds.
- Many organisations base their activities on the mobilisation of volunteers (sometimes providing small subsides to them). The presence of paid staff is not a frequent phenomenon and normally is diffused in relation to projects (as a consequence, a high mobility exists for paid staff who “follow the money” and go from organisation to organisation).
- Due to the relative ease of registering an association, many first level CSOs – such as neighbourhood or temple/church based groups - transform themselves into registered NGOs, accredited to the CSR programme. By doing so, they increase their ability to directly access funds: they do not need to enter into partnerships with larger CSOs or NGOs.
- About 50 % of first level CSOs who submitted questionnaires are members of MACOSS (the official umbrella of Mauritius NGOs). Becoming a member of MACOSS is considered by some as a way to access resources, such as information and training; while others consider it a way to increase their legitimacy as an NGO (and thus potentially easing their access to funds). According to MACOSS, about 2/3 of its approximately 300 member organisations have weak structures, with little or no activities.
- Professional capacities of organisations, as well as their capacities in analysis, and project formulation and management are normally low. In some cases this is due to the fact that organisations solve local problems when they arise (e.g. as for a neighbourhood movement). In other cases, this is connected to the fact that organisations are dependent upon external support/guidance (e.g. as for organisations linked to ministries), or have been created as a way to support “needy people”. When organisations belong to larger networks (e.g. Caritas or the networks for non-formal education and care of people with handicaps), their capacities are strengthened – particularly in the area of service delivery - by the “umbrella organisation”. This “umbrella organisation” also normally provides qualified professional support in the implementation of activities.
- Communication and access to information is another issue for organisations. Among those that submitted questionnaires and participated in focus groups, communication is often pointed to as a main capacity building need. These organisations commonly use the internet (about 50 % use the internet not only as a way to access information, but also as a way to communicate, e.g. the use of social networking).
As a whole, first level organisations are characterised by a diffused process leading to the transformation of grassroots organisations into NGOs (and thus, into second level organisations), providing services to “external users”, rather than simply supporting their constituency. CBOs and “forces vives” often assume the shape of NGOs and transform themselves into 2nd level organisations in order to gain ‘legitimacy’ and to access funds. This phenomenon is supported by the fact that a large part of private sector funds (that always used to support local initiatives) is now channelled through the CSR scheme, and therefore, is only awarded to “recognised” NGOs that have been established for at least 2 years.
The danger is that the transformation of first level organisations into NGOs will produce a governance void at the grassroots level: organisations that were originally created to mediate between citizens and public authorities (e.g. most “forces vives”) are increasingly focusing on service provision while the “policy space” of mediation is
33
increasingly occupied by “communal” leaders who are often characterised by their strong linkages with political groups/parties.
Moreover, the transformation of first level organisations into NGOs tends to reinforce the perception of grassroots organisations as being beneficiaries rather than “actors” for policy debate and policy setting at a local level; and organisations providing basic services and distributing benefits tend to lose the capacity to “represent” people, provide information, and voice concerns (as they will be viewed as attempting to access more resources for their own activities). They will also be viewed as lacking the ability to provide technical knowledge for informing public decisions.
Rodrigues: village committees and grassroots associations
A main difference between Mauritius and Rodrigues is that in the latter, first level organisations are at least formally recognised as governance actors. In Rodrigues, there are almost 100 village committees that are composed of community representatives and representatives of local CSOs. Recently, the number of people in these committees - that are voluntary bodies and not public local authorities – was increased to 17 so as to allow representation by local organisations. Often, there are also several CSOs operating in small villages (however a feature of poorer communities on the island is the lack of local CSOs).
Rodrigues village committees and first level organisations find a coordination space and a common voice under the “umbrella” of the Rodrigues Council of Social Services (RCSS) – which also is registered as an association.
RCSS has also recently tried to represent NGOs, but this attempt was not supported by many NGOs that see themselves as having a different nature and different interests from those of village committees and grassroots organisations.
Grassroots organisations in Rodrigues are mainly characterised by low capacities and lack of access to resources. The tendency of grassroots organisations in Rodrigues to transform themselves into NGOs is lower, probably in part due to the islands’ relative lack of access to funds in the CSR scheme (a relatively low number of companies are based in Rodrigues, actions undertaken in Rodrigues are not visible for the general public in Mauritius, and participating in the CSR scheme is often considered to be too complicated for smaller firms).
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for first level organisations in the area of capacity-building can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information
- The role of CSOs (local development, rights, services) - Civil society and political society - The analysis of local issues- The opportunities for supporting local development- Local governance
Institutional and Organisational capacities
- Autonomy - Leadership and governance in CBOs - Management of relationships with politics - Management of relationships with other NSAs- Visibility - Project identification- Mobilisation of people and volunteers
Needs related to context - Recognition as actors- Support mechanisms not requiring a transformation- Local governance mechanisms
6.2. Second level organisations
Second level organisations include NGOs, charities and other CSOs not being the direct emanation of a “community” or in which a sharp distinction exists between the organisations’ members and the organisations’ “beneficiaries”. The differentiation of second level organisation is not as high as amongst first level
34
organisations. In fact, most organisations at this level are NGOs; and there are also increasing numbers of foundations as well as a few non-profit companies (but both of which largely function as traditional NGOs).
Most second level organisations are engaged in service delivery: in some cases on a project basis, while in other cases, managing permanent centres for service delivery (e.g. in the case of education and health centres, shelters and rehabilitation centres etc.). A few organisations are involved in policy-related activities (mainly through the provision of advice to ministries and government officers, and rarely through “public” advocacy actions). An even smaller number of organisations are involved in research activities.
Despite the large number of organisations, very few play a key role in the CSO community. More specifically, very few possess the following features: recognition as key actors and references by other organisations; attitude to play a role in setting agendas for CSO community; engagement in generating and diffusing information; engagement in supporting other CSOs (e.g. “forces vives” and CBOs); fostering platforms and other collective bodies; and engagement in policy and governance areas. In some cases, CSOs which aim to play a key role in the CSO community are treated as peripheral to the CSO community because of their lack of resources (their lack of resources is a direct consequence of their choice not to involve themselves in service delivery.
Key organisations
Among CSOs playing a key role in Mauritius, the following can be named:
CARITAS and ANFEN (Adult non formal education Network), that play a key role in nationwide networks of local organisations, offering them capacity building, support in project formulation and management, professional support in the implementation of activities, and support in fundraising; however, policy activities are seldom carried out by these organisations.
PILS, which partly to its role in channelling funds from the “Global Fund against HIV/AIDS” to CSOs in Mauritius, supports other organisations in the same and related sectors with funds and capacity building. Importantly, it is also consistently involved in carrying out policy actions aimed at engaging the government in service provision in the sector.
CEDREFI (Centre for Documentation, Research and Training for the South West Indian Ocean), which supports small CBOs and grassroots organisations, produces knowledge, and is engaged in the setting up of local governance and local development initiatives. This organisation, however, has limited resources and often functions as a consulting/research organisation. It is also an example of an organisation that is heavily dependent upon its leader.
WIN (Women in Networking), created on the basis of a network of women’s organisations, is an open organisation with free membership (registered as a non-profit company, no membership fees are required). It carries out capacity building and policy actions (through largely centred around women in politics).
Gender Link, a national chapter of a regional organisation, is involved in supporting the setting of local mechanisms for identifying, implementing and monitoring actions focused on gender issues (e.g. political participation of women, women’s voice, etc.).
Collectif Arc en Ciel, an organisation focusing on gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual (GLTB) rights, is engaged in the provision of support, the strengthening of smaller groups and organisations, and in a wide set of advocacy and policy activities.
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, though mainly engaged in the management of natural protected areas and research, it is also engaged – though perhaps not consistently – in policy activities. Also, it does so without taking a public stand on controversial issues; rather, it provides information both to government and other environmental organisations. It also supports some smaller organisations.
In Rodrigues, key organisations are even fewer:
Carrefour, the organisation regrouping Catholic organisations, plays an important role in promoting reflection and action on general policy issues (and in the past it has been a main actor in the debate over Rodrigues’ autonomy). It also often provides support to other organisations.
Shoals, the main environmental organisation that specialises in the marine environment; Shoals is involved in delivering services (such as the management of protected areas), in policy (fostering the adoption of specific policies for protecting local environmental resources), and in the strengthening of local groups engaged in environmental management.
35
Differences amongst second level organisations exist in the following areas:
- Organisational dimension and capacitiesIn this area, at least two main groups can be identified: a) well established organisations, having a professional staff, adequate access to resources, better capacities in service delivery; and b) organisations focusing on service delivery, but mainly supporting needy communities through the provision of goods and “voluntary work”. There are very few NGOs which can be classified in the first scenario (a). According to MACOSS, there are not more than 50.
- Sector engagementIn this area, at least two groups of organisations exist: a) organisations characterised by strong sector specialisation, including well established organisations working on issues such as environment, gender, health, or the provision of specialised care; and b) organisations working on the general issue of “poverty alleviation”, often providing different kinds of services based on emerging opportunities or on demands emerging in targeted communities.
- Nature of organisationsWhile some organisations exist as a central group of people involved in providing services, carrying out policy activities or supporting other organisations, a second group of organisations exists that is based on a network of local organisations which are coordinated, guided and supported by a “mother” or “umbrella” organisation.
In addition to these areas of differentiation that characterise “mainstream” NGOs, there are also emerging phenomena that require discussion:
a) Faith based organisations: though not a recent phenomenon, these organisations are often characterised as having complete autonomy from usual funding sources; also, they sometimes do not participate in the general NGO/CSO community.
b) “Informal NGOs” or “Invisible CSOs”: these are groups of people often characterised as having adequate capacities, and that refuse to register, access funding, or to engage themselves in projects/service delivery. These organisations are largely engaged in contributing “policy advice” and information, and they often target decision makers (e.g. Democracy Watch), or support movements and policy actions - often through the use of web-based social networks (e.g. Azir Moris).
The following dynamics within second level organisations have emerged:
An almost exclusive focus on servicedelivery with little attention to results
Engagement in service delivery is seldom focused on the achievement of defined results or on the production of change. More often, it is related to an approach based on the centrality of activities: second level CSOs tend to focus their attention on the activities that they carry out and on the “beneficiaries” they target. This is not altogether surprising given the fact that in the framework of CSR and NEF, the implementation of activities and the distribution of “benefits” to target groups are funded.
Moreover, while many CSOs provide services to beneficiaries in a permanent and consistent manner, they can only access funds for “projects”. Therefore, they often suffer from irregular funding and a high turnover of staff. Many other organisations provide services as “projects” without giving consideration to the consistency of their actions. In both cases, mechanisms for assuring sustainability from both technical and financial perspectives are seldom defined and seldom implemented.
Finally, there were only a few cases of CSOs introducing innovations in service delivery. And only in a minor number of cases CSOs aimed at transferring their services (or other actions) to public authorities to carry out. On very few occasions CSOs participated in the development or functioning of “local governance systems”, monitoring services, or policy implementation. In service delivery, most organisations find a comfortable position: they access funds, gain social acknowledgement, and keep themselves away from “sensitive” or conflict
36
situations and actions (e.g. the defence of the interests or rights of a group of actors, or against the interests of other actors).
The near exclusive focus of CSOs on service delivery appears to be linked to a limited understanding of the role of civil society as a policy actor. This view is shared both by public authorities and political parties (that actually often consider the only possible policy engagement to be that of supporting political actors; and who therefore consider “policy engaged” CSOs as potentially supporting opposition parties), and by the CSOs themselves (that in most cases identify their role as that of “charities”, mitigating the difficult conditions of “less lucky” people16).
As seen in previous chapters, also the participation of CSOs in existing “policy forums” and councils is currently not effective as a way to informing policies, as CSOs are just participating as service providers (and are selected by the organisations organising the meetings and managing the councils just because of their “collaboration” in delivering services).
Proliferation of NGOs working on poverty alleviation
Particularly after the institution of CSR, there has been a prolific rise in NGO creation. A large number of new organisations have registered themselves with the “Registrar of Associations” and the NEF as service providers. Moreover, organisations have been “jumping on the bandwagon” – re-focusing (but also in many cases just re-framing) their activities in the wide and ill-defined framework of poverty alleviation. In many cases, new organisations have been actually “moulded to CSR guidelines”. However, despite the growth of poverty alleviation CSOs, there has been little impact upon levels or conditions of poverty. This is in part due to the fact that most of these CSOs focus upon activities and services to be provided rather than the production of change in local realities.
Competition
A consequence of exclusively focusing on service delivery and of the proliferation of NGOs is the prevalence of competitive relations between NGOs. While occasional cooperation can emerge based on opportunities (including the pressure of external actors such as donors and private foundations) or specific needs, and some preferential relationships can emerge between organisations, structured cooperation and especially the sharing of knowledge, experiences and practices are very weak.
The focus on service delivery and the little attention given to innovation and change outcomes related to services actually make cooperation less relevant than the attempt to achieve and maintain a competitive advantageous position for most organisations. Moreover, competitive advantage is rarely linked to the capacity of services to generate change (as monitoring and especially evaluation are not a common practice), but much more to (personal) linkages and to “access to beneficiaries”. While issues such as transparency and accountability may be spoken about, they are mainly considered from an administrative point of view and do not appear to be important elements for accessing resources.
Also, the technical quality of project design does not seem to play an important role in competition. Particularly within the framework of CSR funds, the capacity to establish relationships with companies and NEF officials is a key element.
The fear of policy engagement
A further phenomenon related to competition and funding dynamics is a general tendency to avoid assuming public positions that can be considered to be linked to “politics”; and thus, there is a prevailing fear of engaging in clear terms with public policy on many issues. With relation to the struggle against poverty, while many actions are carried out to mitigate poverty, most CSOs do not have clear policies aimed at eliminating root causes of poverty and the “structures” – i.e. the permanent or chronic factors - that generate poverty. With regards to the use of resources, a strong public debate has recently emerged on the production of energy: while
16 A common model amongst CSOs is that of groups of people belonging to middle and upper classes, mobilising for the improvement of conditions of the poor. The poor are often only identified by these people because they live in the same neighbourhood or because of occasional contacts. Another common stereotype is that of the creation of NGOs and Foundations as a “way for nice ladies to keep themselves occupied”.
37
some environmental NGOs engaged in the production of information and technical knowledge and offered such knowledge to decision makers, no key environmental organisation assumed a position on the debate17.
Policy engagement seems to be easier on issues that are not too sensitive from a political point of view or on which consensus exists – at least formally – amongst political parties and communal groups (i.e. on gender or corruption). However, only a very small group of organisations play a clear policy role in these policy areas.
Some words and issues are to a certain extent unpronounceable or ‘hidden’. One, paradoxically, is the word “rights”: there is no organisation that clearly works on human rights, and the word “rights” is mainly used in relation to specific “underprivileged groups” (e.g. people with handicaps). A group of organisations that may be an exception to this are those working on HIV/Aids, gender, and GLBT issues. There are a few organisations which focus their actions on the protection of citizens’ rights; although these appear to be based more on the presence of a single leader than on the existence of a collective body. Furthermore, organisations that mobilise to fight for citizens’ rights are often found in the already mentioned group of “invisible organisations” and “informal NGOs”.
Not feeling valorised and the emergence of a professional issue
While second level CSOs play mainly a subsidiary role to that of public authorities, i.e. delivering services in instances where public authorities are not (e.g. services to special groups of people and assistance to the poor), and despite a large amount of resources channelled through second level CSOs, these organisations tend not to feel valorised.
On the other hand, public authorities commonly complain about the quality and professionalism of the work of CSOs. While public authorities expect CSOs to play a more “professional” role in service delivery, they continue to fund CSOs in such a way that they are forced to continue to rely on volunteers, and only engage professional staff on a project or part-time basis.
Therefore, there is a need to identify sustainable ways to increase professional work and professionalism in second level organisations. Also, there is a need to take CSOs’ capacity-building needs seriously: while a few organisations have adequate capacity in project identification, formulation and implementation most do not. Experiences with providing support for project formulation and implementation - such as in DCP and GEF-SGP - need to be scaled up.
Dependency upon leaders
A general feature of CSOs, including some of the well established ones, is a strong dependency upon leaders and founders. While most organisations seem to have a formal institutional structure - that is, working according to statutes (e.g. concerning elections of directors and presidents) - in reality, most of them seem to rely on a small group of persons, or even one person, for their strategic decision-making and daily operation.
“One-man shows” are a common feature amongst organisations – and particularly amongst those created many years ago. While some of these organisations attempt to address the issue of leadership change (for instance, DCP funded a CEDREFI project which focused exactly on this issue), the problem remains.
Dependency upon leaders influences the sustainability of organisations in the long term, their capacity to evolve in an external world, and their capacity to assume a more professional role. Related to this point is the finding that many organisations’ leaders are people who are aged, retired from work in the public or private sector, housewives, charismatic people looking for visibility and potentially an entry point into politics, foreigners living in Mauritius, and/or educated people with personal ties to the particular issue on which the organisation focuses. Certain aspects of the profile of leaders of organisations can serve as obstacles to the ability of organisations to become more ‘professional’ in their work.
Specific obstacles include: the unclear role of leaders and of governance mechanisms in organisations (that also affects their transparency and accountability, particularly in front of their constituencies); the difficult
17 However, public positions have been assumed by some organisations, mainly linked to communal and political linkages.
38
recognition of new emerging leaders by old ones (which often results in the creation of new NGOs); the difficult access to professionals who could potentially assume operational leadership roles, and establish a strategic vision for organisations (due to a lack of adequately trained persons as well as to a lack of funds to pay them); and the increasing difficulty of involving young people as volunteers (especially if these are educated people who can find other opportunities in the paid labour market).
Dependency in agenda setting
Most second level organisations do not have organisational plans which extend beyond a 12 month period. Plans that do exist largely consist of the translation of projects into a yearly programme of activities. Moreover, organisational goals and final outcomes are often defined in terms of “activities” rather than as related to the achievement of a result.
In addition to these two issues, there are further factors which lead to a dependence of CSOs upon other actors for setting their agendas: as discussed previously, second level CSOs commonly focus on service provision, and actors such as government bodies and private foundations also largely view CSOs as service providers; and there is an unclear view of the role of civil society despite the increased availability of financial resources (particularly through CSR).
Agendas of most second level CSOs (with the exception of a handful of organisations) is based on emerging opportunities and on the agendas defined by national, private and international donors. This is clearly the case for most NGOs that work on “non-poverty issues”: they often transform themselves into poverty alleviation groups, or they write poverty alleviation project proposals in order to tap funds and to increase their compatibility with NEF/CSR, DCP, and other donors’ agendas.
Financial dependency
The focus on service delivery, dependency in agenda setting, and lack of professional capacities often leads organisation into a condition of financial dependency. While almost all organisations can access more than one funding opportunity (such as donations, funds from public authorities, CSR, international agencies), many of these funding opportunities have recently been gathered under a single umbrella - the NEF and the “NGO policy”. As such, organisations essentially become dependent upon one single funding source (even if it is composed of funds from different sources).
Putting the different funding opportunities under one umbrella produces a risk of limiting access to funds as well as increasing the tendency of CSOs to remain in a dependent situation(since they must engage with only one framework agenda to access funds).
Attempts made by organisations to carry out income production activities for reducing their financial dependency (in coherence with the provisions of the National NGO policy) do not seem to have produced relevant amounts of resources for sustaining CSO development. In some cases, organisations that had set up “supporting clubs” (e.g. clubs not directly participating to organisation life and decision making, but supporting it through the subscription to newsletter, the payment of small fees, the maintaining of a permanent relation with the organisation itself18) were forced to close these clubs, since their management was more expensive that the resources they were generating. In many cases, CSOs are forced to sell promotional goods at cost price in order to sell them at all. In addition, the fees collected from users of services seldom pay for the cost of the service itself (otherwise people would use private services), and they never pay for the cost of the design, management and development of services or the operational costs of CSOs.
Knowledge and innovation
In many cases, second level CSOs produce innovation at a local level, by introducing new services and by using new approaches. However, only in few cases has innovation been introduced in an organisation and shared with
18 This is a modality for increasing public support to organisations that is very frequently used by organisations all over the world. In some cases the creation of supporting clubs represents both a tool for awareness raising and campaigning and a tool for fund raising. In Mauritius, the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation has been testing this approach.
39
other CSOs (only in the cases of the key organisations mentioned previously); and innovation by CSOs is transferred to government and public bodies even less frequently. There are several different reasons for this situation. The first is the fact that in most cases, innovation and knowledge production has been based on occasional emerging opportunities, and only in a very limited number of cases (and in only a few sectors) is it the result of a deliberate action or effort by a CSO. The second is competition: even if the quality of projects is seldom the main reason for obtaining funds, second level organisations are often unwilling to share knowledge with others who may use it to compete with them for funds. The third is the lack of spaces in which information and knowledge sharing can take place: focusing on services means that few resources are spent by organisations to access/diffuse information that is not directly linked to services. However, some spaces aimed at facilitating the sharing and development of knowledge were set up by (and following the agenda of) some private foundations.
A space for knowledge and innovation, as well as for coordination and policy making, can be represented by third level organisations, as will be described in following paragraphs; however, such spaces are still very weak. Also, when they are not set up by external actors (donors, foundations, government), they are often perceived as limiting the autonomy of second level CSOs.
An additional element that influences innovation and knowledge generation and sharing in CSOs is that of international linkages and networking. The few CSOs with permanent international linkages (e.g. some of those working on environment, gender, HIV/AIDs, GLTB issues, as well as some working on “sustainable development”) are also the ones more engaged in innovation processes.
Universities and CSOs
Universities often represent an important resource for innovation in CSO practices and approach. Except for a few cases of collaboration, mainly in the environmental sector, the development of approaches for inclusion and rehabilitation of people with disabilities and the training of “social workers”, a permanent cooperation and exchange of resources between CSOs and universities seems to be lacking in the context of Mauritius.
The tendency amongst academics to avoid engagement on sensitive issues and causes (potentially implying the emergence of conflicts) is a potential reason for the lack of a structured relation and dialogue between universities and CSOs. Recognising the legitimacy of a space for civil society as a policy actor can potentially lead to the development of stronger relationships between CSOs and universities.
Sector
As previously discussed, the aspect of sector was assumed to be irrelevant to the policy role of civil society. However, this cannot be assumed in the context of second level CSOs in Mauritius. The engagement of CSOs in certain sectors seems to be an important factor in the assumption of roles other than that of service providers.
Organisations that focus on issues related to social and cultural change (such as the recognition of new emerging actors and the elimination of long standing discriminatory cultural patterns) are the ones in which the engagement in service provision is more frequently accompanied by an engagement in policy dialogue and policy change (including through public advocacy actions).
Key organisations: the PILS Model – what makes them different?
Certain factors seem to influence the ability of CSOs to play a key role. An organisation that is widely recognised as playing a key role, despite its relatively recent foundation, is PILS. In the case of PILS the following factors are apparent:
- they have access to international organisations and funding, which gives them greater exposure to ideas; makes them less dependent on the state, and thus, enables them to do more advocacy; and provides them the force of international support and backing when facing government;
- they have the ability to pay professional F/T staff;
- they have adequate resources and capacity to take smaller NGOs under their wing;
- they combine service delivery and advocacy in their actions and activities;
40
- they are able to build the capacities of other NGOs
- they are funding other NGOs through special funds (i.e. Global Fund).
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for second level organisations in the area of capacity-building can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information - The roles of CSOs (civil society and political society)- Development, social change and charitable activities- Projects for development: objectives and results/theory of change- Specific sector knowledge - Local governance
Institutional and Organisational capacities
- Leadership change and governance- Professionalism and full time staff- Planning and Agenda setting- Connecting policy, service provision and development - Knowledge and innovation - Supporting other actors
Needs related to context - Recognition as actors: right based action vs. party politics- Recognition of first level CSOs- Cooperation vs. competition- Understanding third level functions
6.3. Third level organisations
Third level CSOs include sector and geographic umbrella organisations and coordination bodies. This group of organisations is extremely weak in Mauritius. While occasional cooperation and coordination occurs amongst second level CSOs, there are only limited instance of networking (both at first and second levels), such as the “Regional Youth Network” and the “Collectif Urgence Toxida”.
Examining the third level organisations, it is possible to identify:
- A group of relatively “traditional” or older actors, that are not properly CSOs but which have been functioning as a mechanism for government bodies to engage CSOs. These include the sector councils created by different ministries (e.g. National Youth Council, National Elders Council, National Women Council etc.) as well as some coordination bodies or federations among service providers (e.g. Mental Health Federation, NCRD). However, because of the dominance of government and public authorities, these actors cannot play a role in fostering CSOs to produce autonomous agendas or positions; they provide only a limited space for knowledge sharing. Moreover, because of the way that most of them are structured (i.e. with a dominant presence of government and the fact that only selected CSOs are represented within them, and mainly through individual representatives who are chosen as resource persons by government or who are elected as “representatives” but who are not really accountable to CSOs), these spaces can seldom function as “policy dialogue spaces”.
- A new group of emerging actors, including private foundations supported platforms (e.g. health platforms and the web-based “actogether.mu”). These platforms – largely comprising service delivery CSOs – were created in order to coordinate service delivery and to promote information and knowledge sharing and capacity building. The leadership role in these networks however is still mainly played by private foundations. The possibility for these networks to play a more advanced role as civil society platforms – as spaces for policy dialogue and places in which to define civil society positions on policy relevant issues – mainly depends upon the capacity of CSOs themselves to assume a proactive role, as well as on the possibility of decreasing the dependency of the platforms themselves upon funds and leadership offered by private foundations.
- A group of new emerging actors, comprising informal coordination and movements, mainly created on the basis of emerging needs and opportunities such as the mobilisation of people against government (and private sector) actions (e.g. CT Power debate, Ferney Valley, Wind farm, fishermen in La Balise); as well as in
41
a few cases, based on individual initiatives of CSO leaders (e.g. environmental platforms). The main issues concerning these platforms are their discontinuous functioning, and the fact that they often engage in “boundary spaces” in which political parties also often play a role (thus spaces in which avoiding instrumental use of civil society is a major issue).
- A group of emerging platforms for policy and for strengthening capacities, mainly with a sector focus on environment, gender, AIDS and GLBT, as well as on poverty (e.g. Movement pour l’eradication de la pauvreté) and child rights. The organisations that are mostly engaged in these platforms are those that are involved in processes and development areas related to social and cultural change, that tend to be permanent, and that play an important role both in the sharing of knowledge and in promoting policy action. However they are often weak from both the point of view of organisational capacities and in terms of resources (these networks are mostly based on the efforts and resources of participating organisations which are unsustainable in the long-term).
Rodrigues: networking for policy and reflection
In Rodrigues, a main platform of CSOs exists in addition to the RCSS platform. This is Carrefour. Originally created as a place for coordination and reflection among Catholic organisations, it has transitioned into a broader public space for reflection on policy and development issues. While Carrefour is not very active through sector groups, it is still recognised as a key place for networking and for policy dialogue.
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for third level organisations in the area of capacity-building can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information - Networking- Policy and advocacy roles of civil society- Understanding third level functions
Institutional and Organisational capacities
- Resource management and fundraising - Knowledge management- Planning for medium and long term- Policy as a way to improve service provision - Supporting vs. Leadership- Managing “politics”
Needs related to context - Recognition by 2nd level actors - Recognition as a “policy actor”: rights-based action vs. party politics- International networking - Looking for invisible actors
6.4. Fourth level organisations
Fourth level CSOs consist of “general” platforms or umbrella organisations. Normally these organisations aim to making the voice of CSOs louder at a national level, and they focus on general issues (e.g. constitutional processes, the legal framework for CSOs, relationships with donors, etc.). In Mauritius it is possible to identify one only permanent organisation at this level: MACOSS (the Mauritius Council of Social Services).
Other general coalitions have been created in the past, but mainly for discussing specific issues. An example is the so called “Collective des ONGs” which included at one time about 40 NGOs (including some key ones such as Caritas). The Collective was set up to discuss CSR regulations, which many CSOs felt were defined without effective consultation of the CSO sector. However, the collective has not assumed a permanent structure.
MACOSS was created in 1965 and then enacted by a legislative act in 1970. The government supports MACOSS with funds and technical assistance. Currently about 350 organisations are registered as members of MACOSS (in 2012 there was a growth of about 20 organisations), including both well established CSOs and smaller and more fragile associations (including those at grassroots levels).
42
MACOSS consists of the following main bodies:
- The Executive Committee, composed of 26 individual representatives elected by member organisations and organised into 6 thematic commissions. The individuals that sit in MACOSS are not considered direct representatives of their original CSOs because they are elected by all organisations, and thus, they are viewed as representing all member organisations. This model closely follows a mechanism that is more typical of representative democracies than of “traditional” CSO platforms. In most CSO platforms, a president or a coordinator may exist, but individual organisations are directly represented or directly participate in the platform.
- The Permanent Secretariat, including the Secretary of the Council (who has been in this position for many years) and other secretariat personnel (who are paid by the Ministry of Social Security). The Secretary of the council has an important function: he represents the main operational arm of the Council itself.
- The President of the Council, who is elected for a fixed term, and who cannot be elected for more than one consecutive term. However, it has been a common occurrence for Presidents to be re-elected several times, though not consecutively. The length of the term has also undergone some change over the years.
According to its constitutive act, MACOSS’ main function is “to promote social and community development and voluntary action through national non-governmental organisations (NGOs)”; and its objectives are to:
(i) stimulate and promote economic, social and cultural activities for the advancement of the community;
(ii) assist in the planning and to co-ordinate the activities of member organisations;
(iii) organise or join in organising workshops, seminars, conferences and training courses for voluntary social workers, personnel of voluntary, non-governmental organisations and professionals to development in particular;
(iv) co-ordinate the activities of NGOs in emergency and natural disaster activities and programmes;
(v) collect, diffuse and share information pertaining to adult education; and
(vi) strengthen their organisational and managerial capabilities.
Clearly, this is a list of activities rather than objectives to be achieved. As such, MACOSS focuses largely on the implementation of activities, which potentially places them in competition with member organisations.Because they are provided funds by the government, many organisations refer to MACOSS as a “governmental platform”. Organisations also commonly refer to MACOSS’ Executive Committee as a ‘club’ in which the same group of people continues to maintain power.
Given the fact that MACOSS’ members only represent a fraction of the total number of CSOs accredited to the NEF/CSR, the legitimacy of MACOSS as a representative body for all Mauritian CSOs is called into question by some large, well-established organisations. For smaller organisations, MACOSS is considered to be a mere service provider: it largely carries out training and capacity building activities, provides information and legitimacy; and enables members to carry out public funding campaigns without asking for special permission from the government. Many organisations consider MACOSS to be irrelevant, because its activities (e.g. training, seminars, etc.) are not pertinent to their needs and operation.
Another issue is MACOSS’ lack of a well defined agenda: besides its general goal to strengthen the NGO sector, MACOSS is engaged on a variety of issues; however it is unable to express a point of view that is autonomous from that of the government. Moreover, the themes and issues considered in the activities of MACOSS are not clearly linked to its general goal. For instance, they recently carried out a study on “violence in the schools” following a similar study carried out by the National Social and Economic Council: this activity does not contribute to their goal of “promoting” CSOs or the NGO sector.
MACOSS is largely functioning as a vehicle for transmitting “messages” from the government to CSOs (and particularly NGOs), rather than the contrary: MACOSS has not enabled the creation of a space for “bottom up” communication; and this has been one critical factor which led a group of CSOs (including some large key organisations), to create and engage themselves in the “Collective des ONGs” already discussed.
43
By opening the Executive Committee to member organisations, allowing organisations to participate in discussions on policy issues and on the agenda of the Council, and fostering the direct participation of member organisations rather that requiring them to be represented by “elected members” of the Executive Committee are actions that could contribute to MACOSS’ ability to regain a certain degree of legitimacy.
Another way for MACOSS to start to rebuild the trust of organisations is by no longer engaging in the implementation of projects and activities.
Finally, MACOSS needs to focus and clarify its agenda, establishing a set of a few core issues to be considered and leaving all other issues to member organisations and existing/emerging networks.
After analysing the data collected, the following capacity-building needs of fourth-level organisations can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information - Networking - Policy and advocacy roles of civil society- Understanding fourth level functions - Managing “politics” and the relations with government
Institutional and Organisational capacities
- Agenda setting- Recognition of member organisations as actors, and allowing direct
representation- Exploring ways to allow representation of CSOs without using the
models of “representative democracy”- Increasing transparency and accountability towards CSOs- Knowledge management- Assuming supporting functions vs. Leadership
Needs related to context - Autonomy from donors and the government- Recognition by 2nd level actors and by networks- Opening to new actors (e.g. CSOs that are not NGOs)
44
7. Strategic and operational recommendationsThis study also provides some key operational recommendations. These recommendations are primarily relevant for those actors playing a role in supporting civil society development. However, the recommendations are also relevant for CSOs themselves, in order to launch a debate over the role and functions that they can play.
The Decentralised Cooperation Programme (DCP) may assume a leadership role in transforming the following recommendations into concrete actions.
These recommendations are meant to be a starting point to foster debate amongst stakeholders; and it is hoped that this debate will result in a “roadmap” for the development of CSOs in Mauritius. Thus, it is the stakeholders themselves who can directly play a role in taking many of these ideas forward.
7.1. Supporting CSOs in Mauritius
Support given to CSOs in Mauritius should aim at reinforcing CSOs’ capacities so as to be able to actively and effectively contribute to development policies – not relegating their role to that of “grassroots” or even low-level or cheap service providers. While accountability and quality of actions of CSOs are important issues here, it is impossible to improve and reinforce their capacities unless they are first recognised as “autonomous actors”. As such, it is important to strengthen their autonomy, both in participating to policy setting and in the delivery, monitoring and quality improvement of public services.
a) Recognising the governance role of Civil Society, and avoiding an “opportunistic” approach to CSOs- Recognising the governance role of CSOs: CSOs can enter in instances when state and “political society”
or “mechanic solidarities”19 may potentially generate conflicts or client patron relationships.
- Recognising the governance potential in service delivery: CSOs can be involved with service delivery that aims to produce social and economic change.
- Recognising the legitimacy of “politics” out of the realm of political institutions: CSOs can create effective spaces for exercising governance functions and policy dialogue, out of the realm of the public administration (and without interference by public actors); and in doing so, they are not required to transform themselves into political parties. “Policy forums” and the establishment of mechanisms for monitoring specific public policies in which CSOs have free access and are not “selected” by the government can be a step towards the recognition of CSOs political role.
- CSOs can work to establish CS policy agendas, and work to avoid the fragmentation in the CS sector. An important area towards establishing CS policy agendas is the engagement of CSOs and CSO networks in a reflection on CS role, avoiding the adoption of cooptation approach and allowing CSOs to free access to councils, without a preventive selection.
- Recognising CS as a realm for voluntary collective actions, both formal and informal: there is no need to transfer to civil society the mechanisms of a “political society” and representative democracy; specifically, rather than co-option or election, CS spaces should be open to any bodies or persons willing to actively participate.
- Providing support to CSOs to actively participate in policy dialogue spaces (this can include in many cases the provision of support to travel in and out of the country to participate to international policy dialogue activities and to international CSO networks and coalitions).
b) Recognising Civil Society at grassroots level, and avoiding the transformation of CBOs into something else- Increasing the visibility of first level CSOs, and recognising their legitimacy.
- Supporting CBOs’ actions.
19 The term “mechanic solidarities” indicates solidarity relationships that are mainly linked to the fact that the involved actors are tied by family, ethnic or other kinds of linkages that are not related to the will of an individual but to his/her origins.
45
- Supporting volunteerism at a grassroots level (i.e. providing means and facilities for people to volunteer out of their own interest, as for instance for setting up mechanisms for monitoring the work of public services, for carrying out activities aimed at defining local development agendas, for implementing actions aimed at strengthening “local identity” or collaboration among local actors, for improving the functioning of existing services by introducing “innovations” or by supporting service providers); this also imply to not support “volunteerism” as a way for providing services, substituting those that should be provided by professionals (as a fact using volunteers for service delivery is often a shortcut for providing cheaper services and has as an important implication the fact that capacities are not built in a durable way at local level).
- Avoiding an “opportunistic” and utilitarian approach to CBOs (such as the distribution of benefits to people) – or in other words, avoiding the engagement of CSOs not because of the role they can play as actors and partners, but because it is easier and less demanding to contract them for carrying out activities or because transferring resources to CSOs can produce “local consensus”.
- Not asking CBOs to become NGOs in order to play an active role in local development or in “self-help” activities (including supporting access to funds for un-registered organisations).
- Supporting initiatives based on “structured local demand” (that is demand that has been already “consolidated” and “formalised” in the framework of decision making processes carried out at community level, rather than simply expressed by isolated individuals or households) and avoiding both the “informal consultation” carried out by CSO whit their closer local partners” and the “informal consultation” of NGOs or “assistance CBOs” as a way to build up projects and programmes.
- Supporting NGO actions that support CBO initiatives (e.g. through sub-grants).
c) Reinforcing Civil Society as a vehicle of innovation, and avoiding an approach based on the use of CSOs as a tool and as an implementing agency for plans set by other actors - Recognising the “innovation role of CSOs” and avoiding to reduce their service delivery role (CSOs can
do what the state is unable to do, but after a period of time, they should transfer this role and these capacities to other actors).
- Promoting “innovation” through CSOs by: funding innovative actions; supporting international linkages; and supporting the adoption of new approaches, new kinds of activities, new territories (e.g. pilot projects rather than services).
- Avoiding the use of CSOs to provide services that can be provided by the state (or even by private providers under state control and guidance).
- Supporting the engagement of key organisations in training and capacity building for other NGOs and CSOs, particularly when “innovation” focused.
- Supporting “knowledge management” activities within individual organisations, through “platforms” and through “key organisations”.
d) Qualifying and improving CSOs’ actions- Avoiding the use of an “assistance” approach and fostering a shift towards a “change approach”
(including social change, cultural change, economic change and political change). This will require also giving support to “socio-cultural activities” when they can generate change.
- Shifting from a generic approach to poverty to actions aimed at reducing the “structures” of poverty. One way to do this is by targeting resources or not funding activities that can be funded in other ways (e.g. poverty alleviation activities are already targeted by CSR funds).
- Improving project design and supporting the adoption of results-based rather than action based approaches (including the introduction of “theory of change” approaches and the fostering of analytic capacities in NGOs).
- Innovation and qualification of “capacity building” actions (and scaling up of “good practices”), as well as avoiding a “training based” approach to capacity building.
- Avoiding “project funding” for service delivery and developing long-term funding mechanisms to support service delivery.
46
- Supporting professionalisation by budgeting resources for the hiring of qualified people, and reducing the use of “volunteers” in NGOs (although volunteers can still play a role in “boards” and in non-technical capacities in organisations).
e) Vertical and horizontal integration/structuration- Supporting existing networks and platforms, avoiding the building of new “structures” from scratch, and
making the most of available opportunities (including the “key CSOs” that already play coordination or support roles).
- Supporting platforms functions (i.e. agenda setting, coordination, communication, support to the advocacy action of single organisations, promoting collective engagement on advocacy).
- Avoiding the use of platforms and umbrella organisations for service delivery (including training and capacity building).
- Supporting the adoption of mechanisms for organisation-based participation in platforms and networks (i.e. avoiding the election of individuals, even in “top functions”). There is no need for a president in a platform; rather what is required is a secretary that is loyal to the ones paying him/her, i.e. platform members.
- Supporting the reduction of “central” functions and staff of platforms/umbrella organisations and simplifying governance structures: a transfer of competences from “central” platforms (such as MACOSS) to sector or geographic based platforms, and then opening the platforms to new actors, is needed.
- Supporting actions aimed at focusing the agendas of platforms and umbrella organisations while avoiding a dispersion of themes.
- Supporting “central” platforms (such as MACOSS) to focus on a few core issues for civil society, leaving the rest to sector platforms or single organisations.
- Supporting the reduction (and eventually the elimination) of the presence of government and donor/private sector representatives within the structures aimed at “representing” civil society.
7.2. Supporting CSOs in Rodrigues
There is a need to reinforce the capacity of CSOs in Rodrigues to play an active role in the definition and implementation of new policies for the development of the Island. This requires not only the recognition of civil society actors as actors who can inform public authorities of the needs and demands of people, but also as actors who – at different levels and in different ways – can assume a leading role in local development. To this aim, it is critical that CSOs in Rodrigues can access resources.
a) Reinforcement of cooperation structures and platforms- Avoiding the creation of new “structures” from scratch, and making the most of available opportunities.
- Supporting the key functions of platforms.
- Avoiding the use of platforms for service delivery (including training).
- Supporting the recognition of differences in roles and functions of CSOs: VCs,CBOs, NGOs, and support organisations.
- Funding projects based on partnerships and supporting cooperation.
- Supporting agenda setting and long term planning at an organisation level as a way to reduce competition over resources.
b) Overcoming the political divides- Supporting CSOs to promote concrete local development actions involving the national assembly and
local ”political” majority and minority groups, as well as Mauritian government ministries and the Rodrigues Commission.
47
- Supporting CSOs to formulate local development plans engaging all stakeholders (including political parties and private sector).
- Supporting the introduction of strategic planning approaches to local development.
c) Innovation- Supporting innovative actions by CSOs for local development.
- Supporting the adoption of a “results based approach” rather than an “activity based” one by CSOs.
- Supporting CSOs in the exploration of new mechanisms for managing “social services”.
- Avoiding the use of CSOs for mere “service delivery”.
- Supporting innovation within organisations: engagement in new actions, testing of new approaches, institutional change, long term planning, etc.
d) Internationalisation and access to knowledge- Supporting existing international linkages of Rodrigues CSOs.
- Supporting projects involving partnerships with international NGOs.
- Supporting projects involving partnerships with Mauritian NGOs (but not the “intervention” of Mauritian NGOs in Rodrigues which would generally add little value and have little relevance).
7.3. Operationalising recommendations
In order to facilitate the planning of activities related to the operationalisation of recommendations, a chart which details recommendations made according to a time frame, targets, and options for action, is provided below.
Mauritiusa) Short term (12/24 months)
Recommendations Targets Possible actionsRecognising the governance role of CSOs: CSOs can enter in instances when state and “political society” or “mechanic solidarities”20 may potentially generate conflicts or client patron relationships
CSOs are recognised as legitimate actors in governance and concretely play a governance role
Supporting projects that focus on local governance and that are based on partnerships between CSOs and LAs to manage local and public resources
Recognising the governance potential in service delivery
Social and economic changes at local level
Focalising support on projects based on the identification of changes that can be obtained through service/activitiesIntroducing “theory of change” in the requirement for accessing fundingSupporting capacity building on theory of change approach
Recognising the legitimacy of “politics” out of the realm of political institutions
Policies defined with active participation of CSOs at different levels
Supporting the setting up of local councils and local forums that are independent from government and that focus on setting up and monitoring policiesSupporting CSOs in projects focusing on monitoring public services and policies and mobilising actions that promote the accountability of public officers and government at local levels
Promoting CSO involvement in establishing CS agenda
An autonomous CS agenda that shadows the government CS policy
Supporting actions aimed at defining CS agendas, at national and local levels (including CS conferences and the work of local/sector networks)
20 See Note 19.
48
Recommendations Targets Possible actionsProviding support to CSOs to actively participate in policy dialogue spaces
CS participation in local, national and international policy dialogue is increased
Supporting actions aimed at creating/strengthening policy dialogue initiatives at local and national levels
Supporting the participation of Mauritian CSOs in international and regional policy dialogue initiatives
Increasing the visibility of first level CSOs
CBOs play an active role in project formulation
Including in open calls, requirements related to the structured engagement of CBOs in the formulation of proposals
Supporting volunteerism at a grassroots level
Volunteerism is increased at grassroots level
Supporting projects focusing on the strengthening of local grassroots organisations and on their engagement in areas other than “service delivery”
Avoiding an “opportunistic” and utilitarian approach to CBOs
CBOs are involved only when their involvement is relevant for local governance
Avoid giving support to projects that do not involve CBOs in decision making and that only provide CBOs with a role in distributing benefits (including the selection of beneficiaries) and in supporting/managing service delivery
Not asking CBOs to become NGOs
CBOs’ access to funds and to capacity building activities
Including, in CfP, the possibility of proposing projects involving sub-granting to CBOs for local governance activities
Supporting initiatives based on “structured local demand”
Projects targeting communities, following local demands and decision making
Including, in CfP, the requirement of presenting the modalities and results of structured dialogue actions carried out at local level for the identification and formulation of the projects
Recognising the “innovation role of CSOs”
Innovation is introduced by CSOs in service delivery
Only funding services when projects are focusing on the introduction of innovationRequiring projects to generate information and knowledge and to formalise this information through the use of traditional or innovative media (i.e. reports, video, websites, etc.Funding activities aimed at formalising and making visible the innovations introduced by CSOs in public servicesFunding activities for sharing the knowledge among CSOs, and between CSOs and other actors (e.g. through sector networks)
Supporting the engagement of key organisations in training and capacity building for other NGOs and CSOs
CSOs collaborate in organisational development
Including among admissible actions in CfP, capacity building and institutional building projects carried out through partnerships among CSOs
Avoiding “self-development” actions that do not include a transfer of knowledge, capacities, resources among different CSOsNot allowing “training activities” and “workshops” to be funded if there is no operational follow up nor well defined concrete resultsRequiring the definition of “theory of changes” in projects involving institutional capacity building
Avoiding the use of an “assistance” approach
Poverty is reduced and not only mitigated by CSO projects
Requiring the definition of “theory of changes” and of well defined targets for funding projects concerning poverty
Improving project design and supporting the adoption of results-based rather than action based approaches
NGOs are able to use “result based approach”
Targeting key NGOs through training and capacity building (including follow up and TA activities) on “theory of Change” and other result–based approaches
Supporting professionalization NGOs’ access to qualified Requiring NGOs to present CVs of key experts in
49
Recommendations Targets Possible actionsprofessionals their projects and to include resources for paying
professionals in project budgets Supporting existing networks and platforms
Networks and platforms access to resources
Including in CfP the funding to existing platforms and networks, even if they are informal, through the establishment of temporary agreements between well established key NGOs and other network partnersIncluding in CfP the funding of networking and “platform functions” (i.e. agenda setting, coordination, communication, support to the advocacy action of single organisations, promoting collective engagement on advocacy) also through projects led by a single organisationNot funding training and capacity building activities directly implemented by “legally established” platforms and networks
Mid-term (24 / 40 months)Recommendations Targets Possible actions
Recognising CS as a realm for voluntary collective actions, both formal and informal
Modalities of functioning of councils (particularly MACOSS) are reformed
Supporting a reform of MACOSS and other councils, which promotes a shift from “election of representatives” to free and voluntary participation
Increasing the visibility of first level CSOs, and recognising their legitimacy
CBOs and other first level organisation roles are recognised by NGOs and government
Supporting research and mapping focusing on actions of CBOs and first level organisations
Recognising the “innovation role of CSOs”
CSOs are recognised by public actors and private sector as bearers of innovation
Supporting research and mapping on innovations by CSOs at a sector levelSupporting the development of projects funded by public agencies based on the partnership between NGOs and public services providers, focusing on innovation
Supporting professionalization NGOs projects are carried out according to international standards
Supporting actions for reforming budget setting and project selection criteria of government bodies, so to allow NGOs to propose higher quality projects and to use professional workers
Improving project design and supporting the adoption of results-based rather than action based approaches
NGOs are extensively using result-based approaches
Supporting actions for improving project and policy formulation capacities in government bodies, so that they will appreciate the adoption of result-based approach by their partners
Avoiding “project funding” for service delivery and developing long-term funding mechanisms to support service delivery
Funding opportunities for supporting service delivery by CSOs exist, through the combination of public and private funding
Supporting the formulation of local development plans, through the engagement of LA, decentralised government bodies, CSOs and the private sector, for identifying and coordinating the provision of services at local levels, and for integrating different funding sourcesSupporting actions for reforming governmental funding mechanisms so that different “funding lines” and mechanisms are developed for supporting services delivered by CSOs and for supporting governance and innovation.Supporting “service oriented” NGOs in the establishment of long term partnerships and agreements with private enterprises, so as to secure permanent “private funding” for services funded through CSR
50
Carrying out (research, training, strategic planning) activities targeting the private sector and main CSR actors, for promoting the structuration of main private funding sources according to different “lines”: for supporting governance, innovation, and services
Supporting the strengthening of existing central platforms
Central platforms are recognised as a legitimate platform by CSO community
Providing indirect support to reforms in MACOSS and the strengthening of other general platforms, by supporting initiatives and activities of reflection on the role of CSOs
In Rodrigues
The specific recommendations made for Rodrigues can be expected to have a short term implementation: they can be integrated within the next calls for proposals and the next set of activities carried out by the DCP.
51
Annexes
Annex 1 – Documentary references
ACIM - Consumer Association of Mauritius - Association des Consommateurs de I'lle Maurice, (http://www.consumersinternational.org/)
Act together (http://www.actogether.mu/)
Azir Moris (http://www.azirmoris.com/)
Bapoo-Dundoo, P., The GEF Small Grant Program – Mauritius & Rodrigues, UNDP
Boswell, R. 2006. Le Malaise Creole-Ethnic Identity in Mauritius. Berghahn Books. ( 101-162)
Boswell, R., 1996, In the Politics of the Rainbow: Creoles and Civil Society in Mauritius, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
CEDREFI, Aims Civil Society Platform, From Sustainable Island Living to Sustainable Development: Time for Action
CEDREFI, Les defis de la participation, Programme Conjoint du CEDREFI – Fondation Friedrich Ebert (www.fes.de/cotonou/downloads/fesdownloads/userguides/RAPPORTPARTICIP%20ATIONMAURITIUS.EN.PDF)
Century Welfare Association, Brochure
Chiroro, B 2005, Engendering Democracy Through the Ballot Box in the Mauritius 2005 Elections, EISA Occasional Paper 37
Decentralised Cooperation Programme (http://www.gov.mu/portal/sites/ncb/dcp/index.html)
Deloitte, 2008, Review of Corporate Social Responsibility policies and actions in Mauritius and Rodrigues,
Domingue, P.R., 2008, Final Report on Legislative Proposals for a New Legal and Regulatory Framework for NGOs in Mauritius, SNSM Project, May.
Ecosud (http://www.ecosud.mu)
EU Delegation Mauritius (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/mauritius/index_en.htm)
FANRPAN, 2012, Current and Emerging Youth Policies and Initiatives with a Special focus on Links to Agriculture. Mauritius Case Study Draft Report, April
Financing agreement between the EC and the Republic of Mauritius, Capacity Building Programme to Enhance NSA Fight against Poverty, MAS/002/04, EDF IX, Agreement N° 9342/MAS
GEF SGP Mauritius grantee presents marine conservation efforts at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Australia (http://www.thegef.org/gef/news/gef-sgp-mauritius-grantee-presents-marine-conservation-efforts-international-coral-reef-symposi)
Gill, G., 2012, Poverty and Exclusion in an Ethnically-Plural Society: A Mauritius Case Study, Lambert Academic Publishing.
Government of the Republic of Mauritius - Ministry of Social Security, Non Governmental Organisations (http: //www.gov.mu/portal/site/ssnssite/menuitem.2972221e862db90e8f77861084d521ca/ )
http://www.ecosud.mu
http://www.nef.mu/csr
http://www.nef.mu/organisation.php
IFAD, Mauritius: eradicating rural poverty in paradise (http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/voice/tags/mauritius/socialexclusion)
Kasenally, R., 2010, “Mauritian civil society is not sufficiently bounded” in LE XP RE SS.M U, 17/12/
Kasenally, R., 2009, "Chapter 8: Mauritius" In Denis Kadima and Susan Booysen (eds) Compendium of Elections in Southern Africa 1989-2009: 20 Years of Multiparty Democracy, EISA, Johannesburg, 285.
52
LIST OF NGOs - National Empowerment Foundation (www.nef.mu/csr/documents/List_of_Approved_NGOs.doc )
MACOSS, Civil Society Index Report on Mauritius
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org/application/)
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS (webpage)
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS, Annual report 2012
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS, Directory of Social Actors, July 2009
Mauritius NGOs Forum, 2009
Mauritius Wildlife Foundation, Ile aux Aigrettes
MCB Forward Foundation (http://www.mcbgroup.com/en/group/community/forward-foundation)
Ministry of Finance and Economic Empowerment Central Statistics Office, 2009, Poverty Analysis, 2006/07 (December)
National Empowerment Foundation (http://www.nef.mu/)
National Empowerment Foundation (http://www.nef.mu/csr)
National Empowerment Foundation NGO list (http://www.nef.mu/organisation.php )
Nexus Commonwealth Network, Mauritius: National NGOs & Civil Society (http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/civil-society/africa/mauritius/national_ngos__civil_society
NGO Policy Paper, Ministry of Social Security
Non-State Actors Unit (webpage)
Shoals Rodrigues (http://www.shoalsrodrigues.net/)
Transtec – Equinocio, 2006, Formulation of An Innovation Policy Roadmap for the Republic of Mauritius. Challenges and Issues, September
UNDP Mauritius / Seychelles (http://airhost.ca/~unintnet/)
UNDP, 2012, Social Inclusion and Empowerment, project document
UNDP, Strengthening of the NGO Sector in Mauritius, project document, 2005-2007
World Bank, Mauritius: Country Brief (http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mauritius)
World Bank, Mauritius: Country Economic Memorandum: Sharpening the Competitive Edge (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20204568~menuPK:435735~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html)
53
Annex 2 – Persons and organisations met (in depth interviews)
J. Chellum ACIM – Association des Consommateurs de l’Ile MauriceSandra Athalie ANFEN – Adolescent Non Formal Education NetworkRoodrasen Neewoor Arya Sabha MauritiusRamdhony Harrydev Arya Sabha MauritiusRaji Sobrun Arya Sabha MauritiusAlain Bertrand Azir MorisPatricia Adèle-Fèlicité CARITASMarie Paule Prudence Carrefour – RodriguesRita Venkatasawmy CEDEM – Centre d’Education et de Développement pour les Enfants
MauriciensP. Chellapermal CEDREFIEdley Jaymangal Centre de Solidarité pour une Nouvelle VieAhud Fouad Uteene Century Welfare AssociationSheik Said Nisa Century Welfare AssociationIsmael Deensah Century Welfare AssociationMoomeesa Hossen Mamode Century Welfare AssociationLouis Olivier Bancoult Chagos Refugees GroupSerge Clair Chief Commissioner – RodriguesDelphine Bouic Foundation Nouveau Regard (CSR)Daniel Wong Collectif Arc en CielMarie Rose de Lima Edouard Commissioner for Youth - Rodrigues Regional AssemblyJean Noel Samoisy CRAC - Centre Alcoologie – RodriguesS. Gopal CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) UnitR. Chuttoo CTSP – Confederation des travailleurs du Secteur PrivéJane Ragoo CTSP – Confederation des travailleurs du Secteur PrivéJoel Violette DCPSandrasagarren Naidu Decentralised Cooperation ProgrammeMadev Balloo Delegation of European Union Eric Vanhalewyn Delegation of European UnionMichael Atchia Democracy WatchFranchette Gaspard Pierre Louis Deputy Chief Commissioner - Rodrigues Regional AssemblyR. Balloo Diabetes Parent Support Group – DPSGDelphine Bouic Fondation Nouveau RegardMrs. Mungra Foyer Trochetia – Center for Elderly Person with Severe DisabilitiesPamela Bapoo-Dundoo GEF Small Grants ProgrammeLoga Virahsawmy Gender Links – Media Watch J. Hookoomsing HSBC CSRJacques Jonathan Ravat ICJM – Institut Cardinal Jean MargéotLaval Soopramanien Les Amis d’AgalegaMary Joyce Ravina Les petites saveurs de RodriguesRam Nookadee MACOSSJ. Cavalot MAM – Mouvement d’Aide à la MaternitéMonique Dinan MAM – Mouvement d’Aide à la MaternitéVikash Tatayah Mauritian Wildlife FoundationJuliette François-Assonne MCB Forward Foundation Faeeza Ibrahimsah MCCI – Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and IndustrySophie Desvaux de Marigny Medine Horizon Foundation (CSR)J. Mohamadally Mownah Ministry of Finance & Economic DevelopmentDr S. Kaleeah Ministry of Gender EqualityFrancoise Botte Noyan National Children Council
54
Upesh Gunesh National Economic and Social Council (NESC)Radhakrishna Sadien National Economic and Social Council (NESC)Yogandranath Antoo (Sanjay) National Empowerment FoundationSanjiv Gopall National Empowerment FoundationKrishna Athal National Youth Council of MauritiusMr. Bappoo Pamplemousses Youth CentreB. Boyramboli Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Social Integration and Economic
EmpowermentD. Pentiah Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity and
Reform InstitutionNicolas Ritter PILSH. Hookoom Registar of AssociationsW. Edouard / Maxwell Andre Rodrigues Council of Social ServicesAudrey d’Hotman de Villiers Rogers CSRProf Vinesh Y Hookoomsing Society for the Welfare of the DeafDr N. Joonas Society for the Welfare of the DeafA. Bissoonauthsing Society for the Welfare of the DeafAmédée Dabeecharun SOS Children’s VillagesAmbal Jeanne SOS FemmesSaajida Dauhoo SOS PovertyPrakash N. Chadee St John AmbulanceRajen Bablee Transparency MauritiusLina So Transparency MauritiusMagda Verdickt UNDPPaul Mercier UNDP – NSA UnitPatrick Yvon Union Syndicale des Employees de PresseH. Toofail University of Mauritius Student UnionAnthony Enrico Voluntary Blood Donors AssociationJane Valls Women in Networking
55
Annex 3 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings - Rodrigues
Rosemary Betancourt Association des Ecoles Maternelles de RodriguesA. Roussety Association Tourisme ReuniesRozanne Milazar Azie Centre Carrefour – Regroupement des femmesJocelyne Speville Dynamic Texile Speville Hortense Vanessa Rodrigues Entreprendre au FemininSamoisy Elisabeth Lutte & EspoirDundee Alex Rodrigues Entreprendre au FemininCasimir Esmeralda Rodrigues Blood Voluntary DonorsFelicité J. Grajille Rodrigues Environmentally Friendly GroupMarie Jeanne Hypolite Rodrigues Regional Women CommitteeCasimir Christophe Rodrigues Regional Youth CouncilSte Marie Naikene Rodrigues Student Needs AssociationSylvestre Labour Village Committee of Pointe d’HerbeRaffin As Jovani Shoals RodriguesMargaret Hypolite Women Garment Making Association
56
Annex 4 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings – Mauritius
Marie Josée Baudot ANPPCANArlyne Tadebois APEIMDany Sam APRIMNassemah Toofail Association d’hebergement pour les personnes inadaptéesChantal Louise Association Surinam Centre d’EcouteI. Sundhoo Byron College UNESCO ClubDana Chengan EDYCSMilene Abdool Kader Elles C Nous Kheswar Beharry-Panray EPCO Maan Saam Falcon Citizen LeagueYany Gaiqui-Lamarque Groupe ElanVinay Narrainen Holy Welfare AssociationPauline Bonieux KinouetéMarinette Sanfoonen La Maison Coeur Ecoute de BarklyMelissa Rayeroux Le Pont du TamarinierSandrine Lo Hun Le Pont du TamarinierShasi Desai Link to LifeAngela Maton Magic Fingers AssociationSilvie Marie Mahebourg EspoirRaj Jatoo Maison Familiale Rurale du NordBluette Nubbo MAMRutnabhooshite Pucmooa Mauritius Alliance of WomenParvez Tauforally Mauritius Red Cross SocietyV. Gokool National Women CouncilGrivon Gerard Nou Nouveau BaseFerhat Ismahan SAFIREMartine Lassemillante T1 DiamsJoelle Langworthy Ti Rayons SoleilJ.Hurreram United Skills Workers Cooperative
57