Global Partnership for Social Accountability FEEDBACK SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Consultation Meeting Venue: Vietnam, Hanoi, Hilton Hotel Date: March 9, 2012 Total Number of Participants: 44 Summary The World Bank Group Global Partnership for Social Accountability FEEDBACK SUMMARY 1. What are the key challenges or issues faced by civil society, which the Partnership should try to address? There is a challenge in having a clear understanding of social accountability in Vietnam. The term literally translates as social responsibility in Vietnamese. The concept of social accountability is not yet broadly established in Vietnam and therefore it is a challenge to find suitable terminology that best captures both the concept and the intent of the proposed Global Partnership. There should also be a better clarifiation on issues of individual accountability and organizational accountability. The proposed Global Partnership needs to delineate between historical support provided by the World Bank to CSOs versus the type of support that may forthcoming under the new Global Partnership. There is a general lack of transparency and accountability within government systems and agencies. A balancing of the supply and demand sides of social accountability has yet to emerge in Vietnam. CSO attempts to engage are general in nature, sometimes rebuffed, and in

2 general need of more analytical and constructive approaches to build trust, and to work towards ensuring each and every partner s accountability. The challenge is the nature of unique political context of Vietnam, a communist country where civil society is not well established despite clear movements towards this end. CSOs are negotiating their acceptance as full development partners and the landscape for CSO programming in service delivery is still evolving. Vietnamese NGOs are not well connected and organized as in many other countries. Space for NGO programming remains constrained and contributes to what is still low level activity despite over 700 NGOs operating in the country. Financial constraints are more pressing in Vietnam than are knowledge gaps among the CSO community. However, CSOs would still benefit from enhanced management capacity. The potential for improved networking is high. Networks exist but lack an overall framework within which to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Joint monitoring of CSO activity to date has yet to be documented. The challenge is how to create an effective framework for CSO engagement with government. At the moment, the regulatory framework is creating difficulties for CSOs to voice their concerns or to make requests directly to the government in an open environment. The lack of legal status for some CSOs to operate in Vietnam also presents a challenge. The issue of capacity development is another challenge. More concretely, how could the new Global Partnership strengthen capacity of NGOs to question government on issues of service delivery? CSOs are of the view that government has a narrow band of interest in CSO activities and that dialogue to date has been sporadic and not outcome oriented. Local NGOs face difficulties working in the fields of anti-corruption and democracy. The differences between INGOs and local NGOs. Local NGOs often find it a lot harder to deal with local authorities. It is rather difficult for local NGOs to carry out work at local level,

3 consequently INGOs tend to be more involved in service delivery. There is a lack of analysis of current practices. There should be more diagnostic work to take stock of CSO/government collaboration to date, its successes and challenges, and to identify opportonities for productive partnership. An assessment of CSO capacity would also help elaborate who is doing what, where, with what resources, to what end, and how successfully. The analysis should not only focus on what have been done but also the strength of those practices so far. The challenge may also be in possibility to get political commitment from government on improving engagement with CSOs on development programming. 2. What type of support should the proposed Partnership offer in order to help civil society address these issues? Negotiating with government on the engagement of the civil society in the general development of the country. WB is well respected by government and has a unique relationship with government which can bring influence to bear to move towards a more productive partnership between government and CSOs. Current World Bank programming already has elelments and opportunities for social accountability programming. To this end, CSOs in Vietnam strongly encourage the Bank to integrate elements of the Global Partnership into existing and planned country operations. The new Global partnership can help better integrate social accountability into the WB s portfolio/operational support. Strengthening the case for legal recognition of CSOs is needed. Building relevant skills, competencies, management capacity, and expertise among Vietnambased CSOs would be welcome (e.g., human resource management, budget literacy, outcome monitoring, data analysis, negotiation skills, reporting). Supporting stronger mechasims for information sharing, learning from international and/or

4 regional best practice, bringing evidence of impact to bear on service delivery programming, and encouraging a more productive relationship between government and CSOs are all needed in Vietnam and the new Global Partnership would make welcome contributions in these areas. Help to strengthen the network of CSOs in Vietnam under the umbrella of social accountability for improved development effectiveness. 3. What should the Bank s role be in providing this support via this partnership? To create a sound framework where CSOs can participate actively. Help encourage space for civil society to operate in Vietnam, particularly in the sphere of social accountability, monitoring of service delivery and developmental outcomes in sectors/areas such as health, education, budget monitoring, infrastructure, etc. To provide stable funding for civil society to work in social accountability such that CSOs can built their own structure, activities, characters, and not necessarily rely on ad hoc projectized financing. To help the government with better understanding the role and value-added of civil society, especially in monitoring and oversight of service delivery as well as information dissemination. The Bank can expand opportunities for dialogue with Vietnamese government on how the CSOs can contribute/engage more effectively in the development of the country. To design of particular sector that can be supported using the existing platforms with good capabilities. 4. What kind of development results should the Partnership seek to achieve? By what metrics or indicator should the success of the Partnership be measured? Indicators will relate to specific focus of the Global Partnership at country level. Overall, the

5 indicators should be linked to existing accountability mechanisms in government policy respecting service delivery. The new Global Partnership should examine existing performance frameworks of large country-level programs already operating and adjust, as appropriate, the social accountability indicators to align with the new Global Partnership should it operate at country level in Vietnam. The indicators should also include built-in mechanisms for engagement with representative groups and CSOs. Better dialogue between government and CSOs in the field of social accountability. Common understand of the role of civil society in the development process of the country. Indicators should include focus on better harmonization of social accountability work supported by other donors. Indicators that show changes in how government operates its service delivery programs. Government should have perfomance indicators and very concrete indicators and they should be made with clear vision and mission statements with clear outcomes. 5. The Briefing on Key Concepts outlines emerging ideas on the governance structure of the possible Partnership. What else should be taken into consideration in establishing an effective and efficient governance structure? SC membership should include different types of members, diversity of representatives, which an openness to share their experience and expertise. The role of the country team is vital to the cumulative success of the Global Partnership. It is important to clarify the role of Steering committee; it should fit with government structures to ensure smooth flow of information on service delivery; serves as focial point for networking with other countries, and should include sub-national represenetatives most familiar with service delivery at provincial and lower levels.

6 Adequately resourcing country teams to effectively serve as the nexus of support for social accountability programming will be needed, particularly where national and sub-national governments are new to the topic and unwilling to make initial investments. Knowledge platform and its functioning needs to be better clarified. 6. What criteria should be used in the selection of civil society and independent experts to participate in the governance structure? Expert with good knowledge of CSOs in the country and operating environment. CSOs representatives with vision and capacity, committment and knowledge. Opportunities should be kept open to all CSOs. CSOs representatives should demonstrate aptitude to serve as ambassador of the communities in which they operate. Experts with good cross-country experiences who have both been inside and outside the government system with good understanding of best practices and challenges in both environments. The concept of independent experts should be make clear, more specifically the independent voice. 7. What risks are to be expected and how the Partnership should address these risks? The misunderstanding of different terms and key concepts involved in social accountability. Misperception from the government about the role of local NGOs and the need to ensure productive engagement focused on service delivery and development outcomes. There should be a risk management strategy concerning government perception of the initiative. Risk in operation and implementation process, with the initiative being captured by government, by CSOs, and/or by World Bank. Collaborative nature of initiative is imperative

7 for success. Risk in selecting the right people for the steering committee and it is crucial that the right people should be already working with community and are committed to CSO engagement, as opposed to serving as a technical expert or research professional in one particular field that is closely attached to government. Risk in losing sight of the original objectives of the Global Partnership (i.e., development outcomes) and instead focusing more on how CSO capacity needs are strengthened to deliver their responsibilities under the initiative. Clarify the balance between building CSO capacity and affecting development outcomes through improved service delivery. Financing risks in three broad areas. o WB policy change and how the GPESA is situated in a new policy environment. o The size of the partnership, if GPESA grows in scope the sustainability of financing needs to be examined. o Competition between countries for access to GPESA resources. 8. Any other ideas, suggestions to make the partnership implementable and effective? Think about what the role of the Bank should NOT be in the GPESA. For example, the WB may not have the comparative advantage in selecting CSOs to be part of the partnership and in directly building their capacity. It is recommended that WB should look at country level for organisations with credibility and capabilities in terms of civil society capacity building. WB can provide the design for particular sectors that will be supported by the partnership. The funding should be through a national body without the Bank s direct engagement in operations except for technical back-stopping and facilitation with government.

8 An overview report should be prepared since there is a need to take stock of what s actually happening in the country and get stakeholders to understand the impacts of civil society programming to date, what the challenges are, and what remedial measures that may be supported by the partnership. There should be a steering committee at country level that consists of the WB, development partners, INGOs and local NGOs. This will create dialogue with government on various issues related to civil society and how civil society can contribute more effectively in the development of the country. It is recommended that there should be high-level of government engagement in this partnership when it is being structured. CSOs strongly recommend that Vietnam be selected as one of the first countries for the pilot phase of this partnership.