LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND VOICE INITIATIVE (LAVI)
SUMMARY ACTIVITY REPORT FIRST QUARTER: YEAR 3 October 1- December 31, 2017
SUBMISSION DATE: JANUARY 31, 2018
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI.
Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI)
Quarter 1 Report: October 1 – December 31, 2017
Year 3
Contract Number: AID-669-C-16-00003
January 31, 2018
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID.) The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of DAI and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
CONTENTS ACRONYMS ...... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7 DETAILED ACTIVITIES & RESULTS ...... 10 Program Management...... 10 1.0 Administrative and Operations Management ...... 10 2.0 Technical Program Support...... 11 TECHNICAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 11 Objective 1: Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues ...... 12 C1 - Technical support to Natural Resource Management (NRM) Coalition CSO partners and Government partners ...... 12 C.2- Selection of CSO Coalition partners and coalition building for Education Thematic Window ...... 15 C3 - Engagement and support to Government entities ...... 16 Objective 2: Increase Organizational Capacity of Targeted CSOs to Participate in Issue-Based Reforms...... 16 D.1 NRM Coalition Capacity Development Activities...... 16 D.3 Capacity Assessments for Education CSO Partners...... 18 Objective 3: Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market ...... 18 E.1 Implement Service Provider Quality Control Measures ...... 18 E.2 Provide SP Pool Sustainability Support ...... 19 3.3 Provide Technical Assistance to Service Providers...... 19 Objective 4: Ensure that Learning and Methodologies Are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors ...... 20 ANNEXES...... 26
ACRONYMS AC Advisory Council ACA Advocacy Capacity Assessment ACAT Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool AGENDA Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives ALab Accountability Lab AMEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan APICCM I Advocacy Policy and Inclusive Citizens Compliance Monitoring Workshop Phase I APICCM II Advocacy Policy and Inclusive Citizens Compliance Monitoring Workshop Phase II APS Annual Program Statement CBDSPL Consortium of Business Development Service Provider of Liberia CBO Community Based Organization CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDI Center for Development Innovation CDP Capacity Development Plan CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting CMG Community Monitoring Group CODRA Community Development and Research Agency COMPRAC Community of Practice COP Chief of Party COTAE Coalition for Transparency and Accountability in Education CSDF County Social Development Funds CSO Civil Society Organization CUPPADL Citizens United to Promote Peace & Democracy in Liberia CWG Concessions Working Group DAI DAI Global, LLC. DDC District Development Council DEN-L Development Education Network-Liberia DQA Data Quality Assessment EOI Expression of Interest EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment FAM Field Activity Monitor FDA Forestry Development Authority FDG Focus Group Discussions FY Fiscal Year GEC Grant Evaluation Committee
LAVI Quarterly Report FY2018 Quarter 1: October 1 to December 31, 2017 Page:
GOL Government of Liberia HOPE Helping Our People Excel, Inc. ICA Institutional Capacity Assessment ICAT Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool ICCM Inclusive Citizens Compliance Monitoring ICT4D Information and Communications Technology for Development IDI Inclusive Development Initiative IGR Information Gathering Report IHRC International Human Rights Commission IREDD Institute for Research and Democratic Development KII Key Informant Interviews KM&L Knowledge Management and Learning LACC Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission LAVI USAID/Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative LEGIT Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (Liberia) LEITI Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative LMC Liberian Media Center LSA Liberia Strategic Analysis Project LSP Local Service Providers ME&L Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs NAPTANOL National PTA Network of Liberia NAYMOTE National Youth Movement for Transparent Elections NBC National Bureau of Concessions NCSCL National Civil Society Council of Liberia NDI National Democratic Institute NRM Natural Resource Management NSI Nerissa Solutions, Inc NTAL National Teachers Association of Liberia P4DP Platform for Dialogue and Peace PIDS Performance Indicators Database System PMC Project Management Committee QPR Quarterly Performance Review RF Results Framework RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Quotes RG3 Revenue Generation for Governance and Growth
LAVI Quarterly Report FY2018 Quarter 1: October 1 to December 31, 2017 Page:
RHRAP Rural Human Rights Activists Programme SOW Statement of Work SDI Sustainable Development Institute SP Service Provider STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance TAMIS Technical Administrative Management Information System USAID United States Agency for International Development YMCA Youth Movement for Collective Action YOCEL Youth Coalition for Education in Liberia
LAVI Quarterly Report FY2018 Quarter 1: October 1 to December 31, 2017 Page:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DAI Global, LLC (DAI) was awarded the five-year, $17 million Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on November 25, 2015. LAVI strengthens multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. It contributes to the overall goal of USAID/Liberia’s civil society and media interventions to increase the influence of citizens and media in the governance of public goods and services. The program also supports Development Objective 1 in USAID/Liberia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for more effective, accountable, and inclusive governance. The overall purpose of LAVI is to contribute to USAID’s development objective of “a more effective, accountable and inclusive Government.”
The LAVI project has four (4) objectives/intermediate results that actively and collectively work towards achieving the above. Q1 progress on these objectives is detailed below:
Objective 1 (LAVI IR 1): Objective 1: Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues During Q1, the USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) project continued to make meaningful impact regarding citizens’ engagement in the management of CSDF. Citizens made use of knowledge gained in advocacy workshops and Inclusive Citizens and Compliance Monitoring (ICCM) trainings provided to demonstrate the use of community score cards, stakeholders’ signatures tracking on pledge cards, and fact sheets utilization during advocacy. Citizens were able to use methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues. During the quarter under review, citizens continued holding their leaders (law makers and local authorities) accountable by securing their signatures on pledge cards and monitoring their performance through score cards.
Five of the USAID LAVI-supported Natural Resources Management (NRM) Coalition Partners1 (CUPPADL, SDI, IREDD, NAYMOTE and RHRAP) conducted a total of 155 activities (see Annex 01 for Partner Activity Calendar) across their assigned areas in Liberia. They held 30 different trainings focused on how to use score cards, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues. The partners conducted 30 district-level multi-stakeholders’ dialogues on the CSDF during which more than 400 people including candidates for the House of Representatives aspirants, attended the event. A total of 31 stakeholders (aspirants and other influential community leaders) signed pledge cards to commit to policy reforms associated with the CSDF (Please see Annex 02 for NRM Coalition Pledge Cards breakdown by county and partner). For example, among the successful lawmakers who signed pledge cards are Hon. Jeremiah Kung of District 1 in Nimba County and Hon. Hans Bachue of District 1 in Grand Bassa County. To date, six (6) of the 146 aspirants who signed pledge cards between April to October 2017, won their respective seats in the House of Representatives during the October 2017 Elections.
The five (5) NRM partners conducted 45 community awareness raising meetings on Section 9 of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws in all 15 counties with citizens and influential community leaders. In addition to this, these same NRM partners held 15 district-level meetings with PMCs, local authorities, and legislators. They also facilitated 20 community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders (CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority, concessionaires) on the CSDF to derive citizens’ report or score cards. A total of 38 score cards (see Annex 03) were developed and disseminated during the meetings. As part of efforts to deliver CSDF materials to the community, one of LAVI’s CSO partners, the Liberia Media Center (LMC) printed and distributed 3,320 IEC materials on the CSDF to county-level partners for use in the 15 counties. They hosted five (5) soccer matches in affected communities to distribute the IEC materials. From
1 The NRM Coalition consists of three (3) National Partners - Development Education Network- Liberia (DEN-L), Liberia Media Center (LMC), and Platform for Peace and Development (P4DP), and five (5) County Partners (each Country Partner covering three (3) Counties - Citizen United to Promote Peace and Democracy in Liberia (CUPPADL), Institute for Research and Democratic Development (IREDD), National Youth Movement for Transparent Elections (NAYM OTE), Rural Human Rights Activists Programme (RHRAP), and Sustainable Development Institute (SDI).
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 7
October 26-27, 2017, the LMC hosted two (2) CSDF forums on the campuses of the United Methodist University (UMU) and African Methodist Episcopal Zion University (AMEZU) to gauge the views of young people on CSDF management. Sixty (60) young male and female students were in attendance. During Q1, USAID LAVI held a pre-submission meeting on October 4, 2017 to provide a detailed explanation about the eligibility criteria and selection requirements for CSOs opting to work in the Education Thematic Window. In response to an Annual Program Statement (APS), a total of 51 applications were submitted on October 27, 2017. After a two-day technical review, a Grants Evaluation Committee (GEC) evaluated all applications and short listed seven pre-selected grantees: Coalition for Transparency and Accountability in Education (COTAE); National Teachers Association of Liberia (NTAL); National PTA Network of Liberia (NAPTANOL); Youth Movement for Collective Action (YMCA); Inclusive Development Initiative (IDI); Youth Coalition for Education in Liberia (YOCEL); and Helping Our People Excel, Inc. (HOPE). The seven (7) pre-selected grantees were subsequently provided coalition and relationship building training that helped them derive a shared vision and defined roles and responsibilities within the education sector coalition. They also benefited from a proposal development workshop to build their capacity in developing quality and winning proposals. Knowledge and skills acquired from the training are being used to develop their first proposals for LAVI's Education Thematic Window. Currently, the seven pre-selected CSOs are proceeding with the development of their full proposals.
During Q1, USAID LAVI’s work with supported government partners2 within the NRM sector was dormant due to the October 2017 electoral process. LEITI and NBC grants were temporarily suspended due the absence of technical staff who were either out campaigning or not able to actively work because of the slowdown in government functions. However, the EPA’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report and the FDA’s activities report were completed and ready for printing. USAID LAVI-supported Government Partners and other government entities and stakeholders within the NRM sector will benefit from copies of the report to be used as working tool in effecting policy change.
During Q1 and with LAVI support, NRM Partners mobilized 85 distinct organizations (Ind. 1.3) to attend 85 multiparty meetings (Ind. 1.2). In respect to Ind. F 2.3.1-7, 44 meetings were conducted during Q1. Further Q1 Objective 1 and achievements are detailed in the body of the report.
Objective 2 (LAVI IR 2): Organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms increased LAVI’s Capacity Development (CD) Team continued to work with the eight (8) targeted CSOs in the NRM Coalition this quarter by increasing the number of on-site visitations and individualized technical capacity assistance through conducting an Advocacy Capacity Assessment (ACAT), midline feedback sessions with CSOs, and updating their capacity development plans with recommendations from the midline assessment. LAVI also awarded a grant to IREDD as a Core Funding Partner to the project. IREDD will provide capacity development support in proposal development, conducting social research and advocacy to Education sector partners. LAVI’s Service Providers (SPs) recruited in Year 2 commenced their first stage of capacity building support to CSOs which included developing action plans with CSOs for their upcoming capacity development activities, reviewing CSOs’ current institutional documents and manuals and building consensus with CSOs on the approaches and deliverables that will be implemented starting in Quarter 2. Following the first stage of capacity building support provided by SPs, the capacity development team initiated monthly capacity development monitoring visits to NRM partners to solicit feedback from CSOs on issues of concern or way forward related to the first stage of support provided by SPs and to follow-up with CSOs on their internal resource support in addressing their internal capacity gaps. Quarter1 also set the stage for support to the National Level Education Advocacy Campaign by facilitating a 2-day Shared Vision Workshop for the 7 LAVI pre-selected education coalition CSO partners from December 4-5, 2017,
2 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Forestry Development Authority (FDA), Liberia Extractive Industries & Transparency Ini tiative (LEITI), and National Bureau of Concessions (NBC).
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 8
which addressed classroom learning and teaching quality in Liberia as well as defining their roles and responsibilities for the advocacy campaign. From December 14-15, 2017, the capacity development team also facilitated a 2-day proposal development workshop for all 7 education CSOs to introduce LAVI’s grants proposal process and tools, as well as support the initial development of each partner’s project objectives and main activities in support to the overall advocacy campaign goal. During Q1, eight (8) of LAVI’s CSO Partners (DEN-L, P4DP, SDI, CUPPADL, NAYMOTE, RHRAP, LMC and ALab) were implementing a Capacity Development Plan (CDP) (Ind. 2.2), and with LAVI support, 17 organizational capacity building activities were conducted (Ind. 2.3) with 256 persons (Females: 60 Males: 196) in attendance (Ind. 2.4). Further Q1 Objective 2 and achievements are detailed in the body of the report. Objective 3 (LAVI IR 3): Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market Q1 demonstrated continued success for SPs as several of them received additional contracts directly related to the Grand Fair network event and related marketing initiatives from Q4 of year 2. Specifically, LAVI IT service provider Nerissa Solutions received contracts from the FDA, Royal Grand Hotel, and the Liberian College of Physicians and Surgeons, and are currently finalizing negotiations with UNICEF. Gusceman, Inc. is in continuing contract negotiations with Light International School and ALCAH Academy to provide school management software, and have registered with the Liberia Business Association and Liberia Chamber of Commerce.
With the need to provide continued capacity development for service providers, the CD team crafted a feedback process and set of tools for service providers as a key strategy for quality assurance. The feedback mechanism was developed to ensure USAID LAVI can gather and provide feedback on SP service quality and develop a quality improvement plan with each SP which will take place in Q2. In addition, a Governance, Sustainability, & Mentoring training was organized and facilitated by the CD team on Nov. 23 and 24, 2017. This training provided a tangible step-by-step approach towards organizational mentoring that Service Providers noted was very helpful and will be utilized in their future consulting work. The workshop also brought together 14 SPs (Ind. 3.3) to develop and agree upon a Constitution for the Consortium of Business Development Service Provider of Liberia (CBDSPL) in support of the sustainability of a governance mechanism that provided an understanding of the potential of working together for greater success and strengthened ownership of the Consortium.
Also during this reporting period, the CD team worked with the SP Pool and ensured the completion of the Kwagei page, which is now merged with the CBDSPL website, improving visibility of service providers, and serves as a supported step for service providers to network, increasing the potential for new business (See Annex 04 for screenshots of the Kwagei page and CDBSPL website). Further Q1 Objective 3 and achievements are detailed in the body of the report.
Objective 4: Ensure that Learning and Methodologies Are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors During Q1, ALab and iLab facilitated a series of learning events to answer LAVI’s Learning Questions and build the capacity of Liberian advocacy actors to capture and share lessons-learned as well as engage in programmatic learning and adaptation. On November 28, 2017, the Final Rap to be Repped event was held, with a live concert and competition amongst networks of rappers and producers across Liberia at the Sports Commission on Broad Street. The competition provided the opportunity for these Liberian artists to present their songs focusing specifically on NRM-related issues. On December 7, 2017, ALab held a Film Festival on NRM at iCampus with 50 people in attendance. Five (5) short NRM Films produced by Citizen Journalists (Visual Storytellers) were screened and preceded by presentations from the Citizen Journalists. The screening of the NRM Films was geared towards highlighting concession stories for policy makers to learn from the mistakes of the past and create positive social change in Liberia.
The Community Development and Research Agency (CODRA) completed the CBOs’ and CSOs’ Learning and Knowledge Assessment final report with the help of LAVI. ALab and iLab and shared the report with USAID and
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 9
placed it on the iCampus website at: http://icampus.io/recent-posts/ (see Annex 05 for a screenshot of the website). CODRA held an Experience Sharing and Learning Conference around NRM advocacy in Suakoko, Bong County (December 2-3, 2017). The Conference was held with more than 100 participants in attendance from across Nimba, Bong, Margibi, Grand Bassa and Montserrado Counties.
In respect to Ind. 4.2, 22 distinct individuals made use of the LAVI Learning Lab. At the end of Q1 ALab and iLab had conducted five (5) LAVI specific trainings and learning events. For full details of LAVI Project Q1 indicator data and results please refer to Annex 06.
DETAILED ACTIVITIES & RESULTS Program Management The Project has two (2) main components under the umbrella of project management, as follows: 1. Administrative and Operations Management 2. Technical Program Support
1.0 Administrative and Operations Management 1.1 Financial and Administrative Quality Control During Quarter 1 (Q1), the LAVI team continued using DAI’s Field Accounting System and Oracle to manage project finances. Q1 Financial Report and Projections is found in Annex 07.
The LAVI Finance and Operations team worked in collaboration with Revenue Generation for Governance and Growth (RG3) and Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT) Operations teams to streamline operations and procurement for the shared operations platform the three projects are transitioning to in the next quarter.
In November, LAVI hired a Senior Network Building and Partnership Advisor, Education Specialist, and Natural Resource Management Specialist. In December, the Finance and Administration team additionally hired Grants and Finance and Administration Interns.
1.2 Grants Quality Control During Q1, the Grants Team provided technical support to the grantees in documenting cost share contributions and timely reporting of milestone deliverables through periodic monitoring and compliance visits. Also during the quarter, the Grants team generated 9 grant modifications to CSO grants. The purpose of the modifications includes but is not limited to the extension of the grants performance period and shifting of milestone reporting time-line due to delays experienced during implementation of program activities as well as modifying tables to include new program activities and deliverables. Furthermore, LAVI awarded new grants to IREDD for core funding support to CSOs as a Strategic Research and Public Policy Partner, and formally closed seven (7) completed grants to FDA, EPA, SDI, DEN-L, Gusceman, Nerissa, and Technopreneur. (Please see Annex 08 for more details)
Grantees for all agreements were vetted by LAVI’s GEC to ensure compliance and accountability. Payment requests were reviewed and approved by the LAVI Team prior to submission for milestone payments. Grant activities and reports were properly documented in the Technical Administrative Management Information System (TAMIS).
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 10
2.0 Technical Program Support 2.1 Technical Meetings and Reporting On October 17, 2017, LAVI held its 5th Advisory Council (AC) meeting at LAVI’s office. The objective of the meeting was to provide an update on LAVI activities for the period of April through September 2017. Key activities carried out by the Coalition within the review period were presented during the meeting with specific focus on the way forward for LAVI in 2018 under the Education and NRM Thematic funding windows. Some of the suggestions from the Advisory Council Members on the way forward for LAVI in 2018 are:
o The education sector is broad so LAVI should develop a narrow focus. o Engage the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and local county authorities about limitations in the governance sector and on how to improve the situation in the sector. o LAVI should continue to invest in current and new partners and apply learning and best practices from its NRM work to its education work. o Engage the private sector more to improve the education engagement and use lessons learned from Bridge International as a model. o Root causes around the education sector should be broken down further to provide more clarity as to what LAVI wants to address. o LAVI should revisit the education law considering recent changes and developments. o The NRM Coalition should develop and use the CSDF Promise Tracker to start engagement with the newly elected legislatures. This could include sending congratulation messages and creating a space to engage them early.
During the period under review, LAVI collaborated with Internews on its media development project to prepare journalists in reporting and promoting citizens’ participation in the CSDF governance. Between December 11 and 15, 2017, LAVI and two of its NRM Coalition partners actively participated in a five-day training of trainers workshop organized by Internews. At the workshop, LAVI facilitated an information-sharing session aimed at exposing the prospective trainers to tools required for journalists to cover and report stories regarding the governance of the CSDF. LAVI also shared materials to help participants know the ‘who’s who’ and what’s what’ regarding CSDF in the 15 counties in Liberia. LAVI continued to coordinate their activities with GIZ, European Delegation at Liberia, National Democratic Institute (NDI) and attended donor coordination meeting on NRM. Additionally, LAVI collaborated very closely with USAID Liberia Education team and USAID LEGIT. The LAVI Project held its internal Quarterly Performance Review (QPR) session on October 16, 2017. The QPR reviewed Q4 performance and identified key lessons learned, best practices to support overall improved project performance, and activity prioritization for Q1/FY2018. The LAVI team continued to monitor the political and security environment in Liberia through two main sources - Liberia media and FAM political and security field reports. In addition to the LAVI Weekly Report to USAID, the LAVI team also provides daily news briefs to LAVI project stakeholders. Please see Annex 09 for NRM Partner Event Highlights.
TECHNICAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION During Q1, with the support of LAVI, a total of 102 events were implemented by NRM Coalition Partners and the Strategic Learning partner. Event topics, collectively linked to LAVI’s overarching objective - strengthen multi- stakeholder partnerships and advocate for and monitor accountability reforms. Please refer to Annex 1 for a
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 11
detailed calendar of activities/events implemented by LAVI Partners during Q1. Technical project implementation follows LAVI’s four objectives as reported on in the following sections.
Objective 1: Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues C1 - Technical support to Natural Resource Management (NRM) Coalition CSO partners and Government partners NRM Coalition Advocacy Framework Goal: Enhance accountability and transparency in CSDF management through citizen centered sustainable management by establishing adequate and long-term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 1: Encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections to commit to establishing long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 2: Influence the 54th National legislature to introduce necessary reform agenda/draft legislation focused on establishing long term effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 3: Increase communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives. Objective 4: Enhance communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting.
To work towards the above goal and objectives, NRM partners developed and submitted detailed activity calendars set against the partners’ milestones. This task was part of each partner’s grant development process. The following information relates to partner milestone deliverables:
As noted in the Executive Summary, in Q1, the NRM Coalition partners continued the implementation of various activities in their assigned areas of work across the country. The NRM Coalition partners’ activities predominantly focused on the NRM Coalition Framework Objectives 1, 3, and 4 directly supporting engaging Government entities in committing to reform of the CSDF, and directly engaging citizens and communities in raising awareness and increased education on the CSDF and promoting policy reform through advocacy. These three (3) objectives’ outcomes link directly to and work towards LAVI 1: quality of engagement between civil society and government, LAVI’s project Indicators 1.1 - 1.4, F2.3.1-7, and F 2.4.1-9 targets, and LAVI 3: increased capacity of CSOs to foster citizen engagement. Please refer to Annex 7 for LAVI Project Q 1 indicator data and results.
During this quarter, LAVI strengthened horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in NRM issues through forums, support of CSO advocacy interventions, and multi-party meetings. Notable partner achievements in Q1 (supporting LAVI’s overarching objectives) are highlighted below. Partner event highlights can be found in Annex 2.
NRM Coalition Activities During Quarter 1, LAVI remained engaged with the NRM Coalition partners to ensure the careful implementation of various project activities aimed at promoting citizens’ engagement through sustained advocacy for the NRM sector. These partner-CSOs rolled out their respective projects in accordance with LAVI’s Y3 work plan to help ensure the implementation of the project’s work to improve citizens’ engagement in the management of CSDF. Citizens who attended workshops on advocacy and trainings on Inclusive Citizens and Compliance Monitoring (ICCM) were able to demonstrate their ability to use community score cards, stakeholders’ signatures tracking on pledge cards, and fact sheets utilization during advocacy. Citizens were able to use methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues. During the quarter under review, citizens continued holding their leaders (law makers and local authorities) accountable by securing their signatures on
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 12
pledge cards and monitoring their performance through score cards. For example, among the successful lawmakers who signed pledge cards are Hon. Jeremiah Kung of District 1 in Nimba County and Hon. Hans Bachue of District 1 in Grand Bassa County. They signed to propose amendments that would improve management of the CSDF for the good of communities. Several other prominent personalities and organizations also signed unto pledge cards in various counties across the country. These individuals and organizations pledged to advocate for the participation of citizens in the management of the CSDF.
In Q1, CUPPADL, IREDD, SDI, RHRAP, and NAYMOTE conducted 155 major activities across the country in their assigned areas (please refer to Annex 01 for partner event details). These events included 30 different trainings (two per county) for various stakeholders focused on how to organize citizens or a community score cards event, how to secure stakeholder signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues. The partners conducted 30 district-level multi-stakeholders’ dialogues (two per county) on the CSDF during which more than 400 people including aspirants, attended the event. A total of 31 stakeholders (aspirants and other influential community leaders) signed pledge cards to commit to policy reforms associated with the CSDF.
County level multi stakeholder dialogues held across the country with local leaders, CSO actors, and members of community based organizations among others provided the platform for participants to record recommendations about the effective management of their CSDF paid by concession companies for development. The dialogues were effective of reactivating citizens’ engagement groups to work together for a common goal. District Development Councils (DDCs) and Community Monitoring Groups (CMGs) set-up or reactivated in project locations are gaining more relevance in counties, they are hosting and coordinating monthly meetings and inviting concessionaires, local leaders, and citizens to dialogue about the management of their CSDFs. They are also assessing issues affecting management of the CSDF, demanding accountability from their leaders and recommending practical solutions to foster transparency.
From the county level multi stakeholder dialogue and engagements, several citizens within the NRM Coalition project locations gained knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of concession companies in their localities as well as their roles as citizens to demand for more transparency and accountability of their CSDF. The county level multi stakeholder dialogue provided the platform for participants to record recommendations about the effective management of CSDF. The participants further decided that to improve the implementation of the CSDF in project counties and districts, the following recommendations and suggestions should be considered:
• All the lawmakers should be present during any county sitting to enable citizens have complete representation and finalize the resolution directly within the county for delegate to signed and be given copy of the resolution for future reference. • There should be equal representation of delegates from each administrative district. • There should be a district sitting before the county sitting, for each of the districts to identify their own project and delegates. The district development council should be responsible to give out contracts and every contract should be visible to citizens, through the erection of build boards along with project cost. • No amount should be credited from the County Social Development Fund account without citizen consultation and approval. The citizens should be aware of a CSDF project before implementation in the district. As of this writing, a total of 407 stakeholders signed the pledge cards dating back from April 2017. Of this number, 146 were signed by representative aspirants. Six (6) of the146 aspirants who signed pledge cards won their respective seats in the House of Representatives during the October 2017 Elections. They are: Hon. Mary Karwor, Vincent Willie II, and Thomas Goshua II (Grand Bassa County from Districts 2, 4 and 5 respectively); Hon. Tibelrosa Tarponweh and Ivar Kokulo Jones (Margibi County from Districts 1 and 2 respectively); and Hon. P. Mike Jurry (District 1 in Montserrado County). Please refer to Annex 02 for signed pledge cards and Annexes 10 and 11 for two LAVI Project Success Stories from this reporting period.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 13
The five (5) NRM partners conducted 45 community awareness raising meetings (three per county) in all 15 counties with citizens and influential community leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws. The outcome of these 45 meetings will be used by P4DP to support its policy reform initiative for the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Law.
In Q1, five (5) NRM partners advocated and lobbied for the re-activation of Project Management Committees (PMC) in the 15 counties. They held 15 district-level meetings (one per county) with PMCs, local authorities and legislators per county. They also facilitated 20 community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders (CSOs, CBOs, community leaders, youth, women, local authority, and concessionaires) on the CSDF to derive citizens’ report or score cards. A total of 38 score cards were developed and disseminated during the meetings. Please see Annex 4 for a list of score cards distributed per county. NRM partners also held 15 county level community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authorities relationship-building joint meetings (one per county).
During the quarter under review RHRAP brought together citizens and representatives from the Sime Darby concession company Gba, Grand Cape Mount County to dialogue on the operation of the Sime Darby and how the company’s activities are affecting the lives of citizens. Participants included five females, and 21 males representing all sectors of Grand Cape Mount County. Participants described the meeting as eye open ing and promised to remain engaged with the company for redress on important issues such the downsizing of over 1,500 employees from the company.
The dialogue gathering contained the following recommendations by the community people:
1. That the only clinic that has been restricted to the community dwellers be allowed open for community use;
2. That the company exerts fair treatment to all workers regardless of status;
3. That the company provides scholarship opportunities to all deserving students in and out of the affected communities;
4. That the company adequately compensate them for the land taken away from them; and
5. That there be a regular monthly meeting involving the company, particularly the PRO and the community leadership.
On December 6, 2017, LAVI convened a half-day strategy session with the NRM Coalition partners to strategize on NRM activities as outlined in the Year 3 Work Plan. After an intense brainstorming session, the partners advanced several programmatic approaches on how the current year’s activities would be channeled to achieve measurable results. The partners also held an engagement session with incoming members of the House of Representatives. The objective of the proposed legislative engagement is to network with a group of lawmakers championing the NRM coalition’s CSDF Policy Reform goal which includes networking to promote transparency and accountability within the NRM sector, particularly the CSDF.
In Q1, LMC continued to draw media attention towards the management of CSDF. The LMC printed and distributed 3,320 IEC materials (20 banners, 300 t-shirts, 1,500 flyers, 1,500 posters) on the CSDF to county-level partners for use in the 15 counties. In addition to the IEC materials, LMC interviewed candidates from four (4) political parties (the Unity Party, Coalition for Democratic Change, Movement for Reconciliation and Democracy, and the All Liberia Party) and two independent candidates contesting House of Representatives seats in the October 2017 Elections, and gathered their views and recommendations on the CSDF policy brief and on how to improve the CSDF governance and its impact within their districts and counties. Citizens and representative aspirants expressed commitment to effect CSDF policy reforms. Recordings and pledge cards were collected and filed for further engagement. These interviews were covered in four (4) newspaper articles. Please see Annex 12 for LAVI NRM Partner CSDF newspaper articles.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 14
From October 26-27, 2017, the LMC hosted two (2) CSDF forums on university campuses to gauge the views of young people on CSDF management. The forums were held on the campuses of the United Methodist University (UMU) with 34 students in attendance and African Methodist Episcopal Zion University (AMEZU) with 60 students attending. The two forums saw 46 females and 48 males participating in the CSDF discussion. Participants proposed several strategies to track political party promises during the 54th Legislature and local authorities in the new government. Among the many strategies advanced, participants wanted written commitments by contestants in the form of pledge cards and voice recordings that journalists would use to hold those making the commitments to live up to their promises.
The LMC hosted five (5) soccer matches (in affected communities with concessionaires and communities) in Buchanan, Sinjie, Ganta, Bong (Kokoya), and Monrovia to distribute IEC material and bring together stakeholders who do not usually meet and hold negative perceptions about each other. Local CSOs also considered the events as a networking opportunity to engage concessionaires, local authorities and business people in those communities. The events were covered by newspaper articles with students’ recommendations; and a radio news story on the two events. Please refer to Annex 12 for LAVI NRM Partner CSDF newspaper articles. C.2- Selection of CSO Coalition partners and coalition building for Education Thematic Window Organize Pre-Submission Meeting and Identified Pre-selected partners On October 4, 2017, LAVI hosted a pre-submission meeting to provide detailed explanations about the eligibility criteria and selection requirements for CSOs who expressed interest in working with LAVI on its Education Thematic Window intervention. Out of the 60 organizations that attended the pre-submission meeting, a total of 51 applications were submitted on or before October 27, 2017. After a two-day technical review from November 9 – 10, 2017, LAVI’s GEC evaluated all applications and short listed seven pre-selected grantees. The pre-selected grantees are Coalition for Transparency and Accountability in Education (COTAE); National Teachers Association of Liberia (NTAL); National PTA Network of Liberia (NAPTANOL); Youth Movement for Collective Action (YMCA); Inclusive Development Initiative (IDI); Youth Coalition for Education in Liberia (YOCEL); and Helping Our People Excel, Inc. (HOPE). Relationship Building and Technical Support
As a way of preparing the seven (7) pre-selected grantees for the Education Thematic Window, LAVI’s technical staff facilitated the 2-day Shared Vision workshop on Dec 4 – 5, 2017 at the iCampus in Monrovia. The event brought together 15 participants from the seven pre-selected grantees for the Education Thematic Window. The training workshop drilled participants through introductions to LAVI and the Education Thematic Window for which the shortlisted CSOs are coming together. The workshop introduced to participants to basic skills in policy advocacy as a tool for addressing issues relating to teaching qualities and classroom learning relevance. Participants were introduced to the current trending issues in Liberia’s education sector. The interactive workshop included a brainstorming working session and exercises that led participants to identifying shared values that formed the basis for interactions amongst LAVI’s Education Thematic Window partners. Through the series of presentations, participants worked to derive a shared vision which reflected individual organizations’ unique approach to achieving LAVI’s overall goal for the Education Thematic Window. After a long consultation participants concluded on Affordable Quality Education in an Improved Teaching and Inclusive Learning Environment in Liberia as the shared vision for the Education Thematic Window partners. The Shared
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 15
Vision Workshop concluded with appreciations from participants and commitments to form part of the LAVI education advocacy forum when selected. Follow on activities for technical preparations of the seven pre-selected partner included a two-day Proposal Writing Workshop held at iCampus in Monrovia. The technical workshop was also facilitated by LAVI technical staff on December 14 and 15, 2017. LAVI staff facilitators led the workshop participants through several technical presentations and a series of exercises tailored to help participants in developing individual objectives that would support the overarching goal of the Education Platform. The Alex Adel (front left), member of LAVI Staff interactive workshop gave participants the opportunity to ask questions facilitates a proposal writing workshop at iCampus regarding LAVI’s grants program. The workshop’s key objectives included:
• Understand LAVI’s expectations and common issues in proposal
• Understand best practices for writing the technical narrative of a proposal
• Draft main components of the proposal’s technical narrative
In preparation for the proposal writing training workshop, LAVI’s Education Specialists met individually with the organizations represented at the proposal writing workshop to guide them in envisioning individual organizational objectives to support the stated goal of the education advocacy platform and propose activities and target counties including groups they will be working with. These coaching sessions were helpful in concentrating on technical details of proposal writing over the two days of the intensive workshop. C3 - Engagement and support to Government entities LEITI and NBC grants were suspended due the absence of technical staff who were either out campaigning during the General Presidential and Representative Elections or not able to actively work because of the slowdown in government functions. However, the EPA’s ESIA report and the FDA’s activities report were completed and ready for printing. USAID LAVI-supported Government Partners and other government entities and stakeholders within the NRM sector will benefit from copies of the report to be used as working tool in effecting policy cha nge. Objective 2: Increase Organizational Capacity of Targeted CSOs to Participate in Issue-Based Reforms
D.1 NRM Coalition Capacity Development Activities In Q1, LAVI NRM partners started their initial engagement with selected Local Service Providers (LSP) to receive targeted capacity development support based on the NRM partners’ capacity development plans (CDPs) that were developed in Year 2. During NRM partners’ initial meetings with service providers in fulfilment of their capacity development activities, clear action plans were developed, current documents were reviewed, existing organizational cultures were examined, feedback mechanisms were established to create a corridor for receiving inputs from NRM partners towards manual development, and QuickBooks was installed and integrated. Quarter 2 will focus more on active engagement and delivery of capacity building training and mentoring support to NRM partners by SPs. Technical training intended for selected NRM partners in Quarter 2 will include Financial Management, Financial Sustainability, QuickBooks, and Gender Mainstreaming.
There was also a focus on increasing feedback between the CD team and NRM partners through the ACAT midline feedback sessions and monthly meetings to monitor the progress of service provider activities, update and monitor CSO capacity development plans, and identify changing organizational needs as described below. The increase in feedback allowed the CD team to provide more adaptable programming to meet the needs of the NRM partners.
Midline Advocacy Capacity Assessment (ACA) feedback session with CSO`s
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 16
Following the midline ACA with NRM partners in Q4 of Year 2, the CD Team conducted a feedback session with each CSO on their results in Q1 of Year 3. During these feedback sessions, both copies of the midline ACA report and scores were discussed and presented individually to CSOs for comments and feedback. Across the board, all the CSOs concurred with their individual ACA report and scores. Per the CSOs, the ACA midline sessions were helpful because they provided a vivid picture of the entire advocacy approach and provided an opportunity for more staff to get deeply involved in serving as responsible persons to ensure specific and targeted recommendations from the assessment are achieved. Due to the CSOs feedback and low scores in advocacy planning, an agreement was reached between the CSOs and the CD team to provide advocacy planning training to NRM partners in Q3.
Updated NRM CSO Capacity Development Plan During Year 2, when NRM partners initially developed their CDPs, nearly 100% of the resources needed to address their priority needs were based on external support coming from LAVI through support from service providers. To change this paradigm, the CD Team met with each NRM partner individually, providing on-site technical assistance in updating their CDPs to identify and include internal organizational development activities that they can build on their own without external assistance to advance their own endogenous growth and organizational sustainability. Most of the CSOs’ internal capacity areas are recommendations and next steps that came out of the midline ACA conducted with CSOs. During the midline ACA, each CSO agreed to address on their own those specific capacity areas of advocacy they received low scores as next steps. Each CSO was also able to categorize their capacity development priority needs as outlined in CDPs as short-, medium- or long-term. LAVI SPs supported capacity development identified as short term while the internal capacities CSOs planned to address on their own without external support were identified as long-term priorities.
Monthly Capacity Development Monitoring Visits
In Q1, the CD team commenced monthly capacity development monitoring visits to NRM partners at the end of November and early December 2017 to monitor LSPs’ capacity building support and gather updates from internal capacity development activities that each CSO had added to their CDPs as discussed below. • Local service provider’s technical assistance to NRM Partners During the monthly monitoring visits to NRM partners, the CD team held dialogues with staff from all 8 NRM CSOs on the initial capacity development support provided by SPs and to solicit feedback from the CSOs on any issues of concern or next steps related to the capacity services provided by the SPs. From feedback generated, each CSO clearly specified that they had initial contact from LAVI contracted SPs that was supportive to their identified capacity needs. During these initial meetings, the SPs and CSOs developed action plans, reviewed recent documents, and established feedback mechanisms to create a corridor for receiving inputs from CSOs on service provider activities such as manual development and QuickBooks installations for those institutions earmarked to receive training in QuickBooks.
• CSO internal capacity support As part of the monthly monitoring, a section of the dialogue held with staff of NRM partners was also devoted to check-in and solicit feedback on their internal resource support in addressing those capacity areas of advocacy in their CDP. Currently, ALab and SDI have begun addressing their internal capacity areas. For instance, ALab has developed an advocacy strategic plan for mining sectors with specific focus on BEA Mountain Mining Corporation site in Cape Mount, Mehmet Nazif Gunal (MNG) in Kokoyah, Bong County and China Union in Bong Mines. ALab has also been able to review the mineral development agreement for each of the mining sites. Meanwhile, SDI was able to restructure their board along with the development of a constitution for the new board members.
D.2 Core-funded Partners Technical Assistance During Q1, LAVI signed an agreement with the selected core-funding partner, IREDD, to provide strategic technical assistance to Educational sector CSOs and coalition-building on the national level. In Q1, their scope of work was
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 17
adapted to changes in Education sector activity implementation. This led LAVI to host and conduct the Shared Vision Workshop and Proposal Writing Workshop as discussed under Object One (1) above. During Q1, LAVI continued budget negotiations and scope of work modifications with DEN-L, another selected core-funding partner, to provide strategic technical assistance to educational sector CSOs and coalition-building on the county level. In Q2, LAVI will complete the contract agreement with DEN-L and provide initial support to DEN-L county level activities which include stakeholder mapping and advocacy training. D.3 Capacity Assessments for Education CSO Partners In Q1, Education CSO partners were being selected, thus no sub-activities were initiated. In Q2, LAVI will conduct the baseline ICA and ACA and complete the associated CDPs for the pre-selected Education Sector partners as they complete the grant process. Objective 3: Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market E.1 Implement Service Provider Quality Control Measures During Q1, the CD team crafted a SP feedback process and set of tools for service providers as a key strategy for quality assurance. The feedback mechanism was developed to ensure USAID LAVI can gather and provide feedback on SP service quality and develop a quality improvement plan with each SP. The process consists of gathering feedback through a set of survey tools that include the client satisfaction survey, Subject Matter Expert (SME) Feedback Form, and Client Training Evaluation Form to develop a score card report of SP service quality. The score card will be used to address the SPs’ service quality capacity strengths and weaknesses biannually during quarterly meetings to develop a clear quality improvement plan that can be further monitored on a quarterly basis. In Q2, the first session of quarterly meetings will be instituted with SPs to develop their quality improvement plan based on their current scopes of work.
Organizational Mentoring Training for SPs
As part of LAVI’s efforts to enhance SPs’ technical support to LAVI-supported CSOs, the CD team provided organizational mentorship training as part of the SP Governance and Sustainability Workshop on November 23 & 24, 2017. The training was designed to provide SPs in-depth understanding of organizational mentorship and mentoring tools to support them as they prepare to roll out training and mentorship activities to LAVI local CSO partners. As mentorship is a nascent field in Liberia, the workshop provided practical knowledge for SPs to put into practice. The training consisted of an introduction to organizational mentorship, types of organizational mentoring, approaches, tools, and the mentoring process.
The workshop was a success and all the participating SPs conveyed their appreciation. For example, during one of the interactive sessions, one participant mentioned that:
“I have been doing capacity development for over 15 years but I have never experienced anything like this mentorship training. It is in-depth, simple to understand, and very useful for our current CSOs.” - Mr. Steve Kolubah, CEO, Lwazi Consulting.
Another participant, Mr. Sensee L. Sirleaf, CEO, HDF, mentioned: “I think mentorship is the ideal way of helping CSOs. Just the training is not enough for CSOs, especially since they are often requiring different technical supports to implement their project works. I think mentorship is more hands- on and very engaging; I really love this approach and look forward to using it, moving forward.”
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 18
E.2 Provide SP Pool Sustainability Support In Year 2, LAVI organized the SP pool (Kwagei SP Pool), and hosted a series of meetings to ensure that the governance and sustainability of the Pool is established and maintained. Because of this, the SPs voted to integrate the Pool into the already existing CBDSPL. This became a primary focus under Objective 3 for Q1.
On November 23 & 24th 2017, the CD team organized and facilitated a two-day SP Governance, Sustainability and Mentorship workshop at iCampus.
The workshop focused on developing an institutional constitution for the CBDSPL, which is considered the first step towards establishing a fully functional governance body in support of its sustainability. Twenty-six (26) participants from 14 SPs attended the workshop. During the workshop, a total of 14 sessions were covered over the period of two days, including the organizational mentorship training on Day I. On Day II, the SPs reviewed and improved on a skeletal draft constitution developed by the LAVI CD team. The participants developed a consensus on key bylaws to be incorporated in CBDSPL’s Constitution. In total, 47 edits were made to all the eight (8) Articles of the draft constitution (Please Annex 13 for the CBDSPL draft constitution).
At the end of the CBDSPL constitution drafting session, the participants developed crucial next steps to ensure that issues agreed upon during the workshop, particularly relating to the draft constitution, were put into action. Based on the revised the draft constitution, it is expected to be adopted at the first General Assembly of CBDSPL in April.
3.3 Provide Technical Assistance to Service Providers In Q1, the CD team worked closely with the three SPs selected for the SP Marketing Grant initiatives in year 2 (Gusceman, Nerissa Solutions, Inc., and Technopreneur) and oversaw the closure of the marketing grants. The CD team worked with Gusceman to complete their final report, which incorporated their activities on the SP networking events and Grand Fair from Q3 in year 2.
Also under the SP Marketing Grant in Q1, Nerissa Solutions, Inc. (NSI), between October 20th, 2017 to November 17, 2017, attended five radio talk shows on two radio stations (Tr\uth FM 96.1 and Fabric Radio 101.1), marketing the SP pool before and after the Grand Fair. Further, on November 2, 2017, NSI did a TV news spot to market the SP Pool on ELBC 99.9. In addition to these activities, NSI published adverts in three national newspapers (the Hot Pepper, the New Republic, and the New Democrat News Papers) further marketing the SP pool. Since the radio talk shows and TV news spots, SPs have been receiving phone calls from potential clients. Nerissa Solutions, Inc., for example, was approached by Grand Royal Hotel and ECOBANK, requesting quotation for printing services. Lastly, to complete their marketing grant, NSI designed, printed, and distributed 150 pieces of newsletters, highlighting the successes from the grand fair event. Similarly, Technopreneur, a service provider selected to provide online marketing for the SP pool successfully completed the development and publication of the Kwagei website and updated the Kwagei LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram sites with content from the various SPs (see Annex 04 for screenshots). They also supported the development of the Kwagei page, which is now merged with the CBDSPL website (see Annex 04 for screenshots). The CBDSPL website (see Annex 04 for screenshot) is a one-stop-shop platform that provides useful business information to the public about the SPs, highlighting their capacity areas, contact information and past clients. It is a unique platform for online marketing of the SPs and is updated often to provide relevant and useful information. Because of the Grand Fair and related-marketing activities from Q4 in year 2, LAVI IT SP, Nerissa Solutions, received contracts from the FDA, Royal Grand Hotel, the Liberian College of Physicians and Surgeons, and are currently finalizing negotiations with UNICEF. Gusceman, Inc. is in continuing contract negotiations with Light International School and ALCAH Academy to provide school management software, while they also registered with the Liberia Business Association and Liberia Chamber of Commerce.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 19
In Q2, LAVI will continue to provide support to the CBDSPL in updating and maintaining the website, as well as adding tender notifications to the site to increase contracting opportunities, as a key step of SPs marketing while ensuring that at project closure, the CBDSPL can maintain the website. Objective 4: Ensure that Learning and Methodologies Are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors F.1 - Continue collaboration with Strategic Learning Partners (ALab/iLab) & CODRA
In year two, Accountability Lab and iLab established the Learning Lab, a shared innovation and community space for organizations working at the intersection of technology, accountability and social change in Liberia. In line with the LAVI Learning Lab strategy established in year two, in Q1 ALab and iLab facilitated a series of learning events to answer LAVI’s Learning Questions and build the capacity of Liberian advocacy actors to capture and share lessons-learned as well as engage in programmatic learning and adaptation.
On November 4, 2017, at the Sports Center in New Kru Town, Liberia, ALab held a community outreach as part of preparations for the final Rap to be Repped Campaign. The purpose of the engagement was to help selected Liberian artists build public confidence and provide the necessary skills that will enable them to engage larger audiences on significant messages about NRM through songs. There were about 400 young people including Liberian artists present at the event. Also, as part of the mobilization for the campaign, on November 22, 2017, LAVI’s Communications and M&E Specialist, Zazay Kolubah; the iCampus Manager; Luther Jeke, the Coordinator of the “Rap to be Repped” Campaign; and one of the finalists (a local musical artist) appeared on the famous UNMIL Radio’s Palava Hut Program for a one-hour interactive and phone-in show. The medium was used to inform the public about the essence of the jamboree, mobilize attendance for the show, provide an update on citizens’ participation with NRM issues, and discuss how USAID/LAVI has been supporting the work of the Strategic Learning Partner. On November 28, 2017, the Final Rap to be Repped event was held through a live concert and competition amongst networks of rappers and producers across Liberia at the Sports Commission on Broad Street. The competition provided the opportunity for these Liberian artists to present their songs focused specifically on NRM-related issues. A panel of five judges with experience in Liberia’s entertainment industry was assisted by the audience who voted through free of charge SMS. They unanimously selected Ebrom Cassell, a male contestant, as the winner of the 2017 Rap to be Repped competition. Cassell had performed his song titled "Talk for Us." The event was later featured in USAID DOC regular magazine in December 2017, titled “Youth Performers Gather to Rap about Natural Resource Management.”
To further strengthen LAVI’s advocacy engagements, on December 7, 2017, ALab held an NRM-themed Film Festival at iCampus with 50 people in attendance. Five (5) short Films produced by Citizens Journalists (Visual Storytellers) were screened and preceded by presentations from the Citizen Journalists. The screening of the Films was geared towards highlighting concession stories for policy makers to learn from the mistakes of the past and create positive social change in Liberia. Two of the Rap to be Repped campaign finalists performed during the Festival. At the end of the event, participants expressed gratitude to the iCampus and USAID-LAVI teams for throwing a spotlight on NRM sector. The participants were specifically concerned about the marginalization of concession areas workers on Sime Darby plantation without government intervention and the lack of support from concession companies for the local communities. They highlighted that citizens should act by raising issues with the government. Some solutions proposed by the participants included CSOs continued creation of awareness through the making of these short films, music, etc. in all communities and that citizens should be involved in the crafting of the concession agreements going forward.
In continuation of filling the capacity gap of NRM Coalition members, on October 19, 2017, ALab and its partner iLab conducted a Qualitative Data Analysis Training for NRM Coalition members at iCampus. The main purpose of the training was to share best practices, approaches and tools for data collection, analysis, storage and sharing
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 20
which aimed to improve the NRM Coalition Members’ qualitative data management. There were 13 participants (11 males and 2 females) in attendance from the LAVI NRM Coalition. At the end of the training, the NRM Coalition members gained an understanding of how to apply the methods learned to properly plan and execute a data collection campaign and use various online and offline tools to collect, process, analyze, visualize and store data for better report making and sharing. The NRM Coalition members expressed great interest in the importance of the training and all agreed to attend the subsequent mentoring session to work on their M&E datasets with guidance from iCampus. See Annex 18 for ALab and iLab trainings conducted during the Q1.
During Q1, ALab and iLab continued to work with the Sustainability Council established in year one to ensure the sustainability of the Learning Lab by supporting I-Campus business plan. The I-Campus Sustainability Council will meet on November 22, to provide guidance and support to ALab/iLab in maintaining the iCampus.
In year two, LAVI selected CODRA to design and implement learning activities around the NRM sector and advocacy in Liberia. During Q4 of Year 2, they began the implementation of the assessment of CSOs and CBOs engaged in NRM advocacy with focus group discussions and interviews with CBOs and CSOs held in five counties (Bong, Grand Bassa, Margibi, Montserrado and Nimba). These counties were strategically chosen because of the presence of concession company operations, including the two biggest mining concession companies: Arcelor Mittal (in Nimba, Bong and Grand Bassa Counties) and China Union (in Bong and Margibi Counties). As part of finalizing the report, CODRA with support from LAVI facilitated a Review Meeting at the Development Education Network-Liberia (DEN-L) Compound, Gbarnga, Bong County on October 21, 2017. The objectives of the event included:
1. To highlight the methodology, findings and recommendations of the CBOs and CSOs Learning and Knowledge assessment conducted in the five counties
2. To hold discussions around the findings and recommendations from CSOs and CBOs and obtain suggestions and/or inputs from the participating organizations 3. To finalize recommendations for the Assessment Report
A total of 26 participants (8 females and 18 males) from CBOs and CSOs that participated in the CBOs and CSOs Learning and Knowledge Assessment attended the meeting. By the end of the meeting, the following outcomes were achieved:
1. Participating CSOs and CBOs provided additional insights on the assessment draft report 2. The content of the assessment’s findings was authenticated 3. Recommendations for the assessment report were refined and adopted by the participants
Upon completion of the data collection process for the assessment, on November 21, 2017, CODRA held its final Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with five (5) Monrovia-based CSOs as part of data collection for their CBOs and CSOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment in five counties (Bong, Grand Bassa, Margibi, Montserrado and Nimba).
On November 27, 2017, CODRA, with support from ALab/iLab and LAVI, finalized its CSOs and CBOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment Report (Please see Annex 14 for final report). The final report was shared with USAID and placed on the iCampus website at: http://icampus.io/recent-posts/. The report investigates and documents the practices, challenges, and hurdles encountered by Liberian CSOs and CBOs while advocating as networks and coalitions. The data collection in the study involved a desk and literature review, 16 focus group discussions, and 32 key informant interviews to collect qualitative data from representatives of CBOs and CSOs. It focused on the natural resource management and concessions sector. Below is a summary of some findings:
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): The assessment found out that CSOs in Monrovia have appreciable understanding
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 21
of the roles and functions of CSOs. Respondents expressed, unanimously, that CSOs are part of the governance process of a country. CSOs believe that they have an advantage over CBOs due to the experience citizens have with CSOs. The structural composition of the different coalitions and platforms in Monrovia speak to the fact that CSOs see themselves as having the edge over CBOs in this regard. It is this relationship that has distanced CSOs, especially those based in Monrovia, from CBOs and thus, disenfranchising CBOs from joint advocacy.
Focus Group Discussions: CBOs reported that it is very challenging to seek redress from local government authorities because those authorities themselves are challenged by a lack of the knowledge and information on the sector and are usually very reluctant to entertain discussions around natural resource management and concession issues. Participants at the Monrovia FGD were unanimous in expressing that at an appreciable level, CSOs have worked successfully in coalitions and networks around NRM issues. Key findings and recommendations from the assessment were presented with panel discussions at the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference around NRM advocacy in Suakoko, Bong County, on December 2 and 3.
On December 1-2, 2017, CODRA held an Experience Sharing and Learning Conference around NRM advocacy in Suakoko, Bong County. Key findings and recommendations from the CSOs and CBOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment were presented with panel discussions around NRM advocacy. Over 100 participants, representing traditional and county leaders, university students studying Natural Resource Management, women, disabled and youth groups, the trade union, and local Non-Government Organizations (NGO) from Nimba, Bong, Margibi, Grand Bassa, and Montserrado counties participated in the conference. The stakeholders identified weak coordination amongst themselves, lack of capacity, lack of facts, and inadequate logistics to support NRM advocacy as major challenges to their development. The Coordinator for Non-State Actors at the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning served as Keynote Speaker. Please see Annex 15 for the full Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference.
F.2 - Provide continuous technical support with establishing and improving M&E systems for NRM and Education Coalitions Support NRM Coalition with developing final evaluation plan (methodology) In year two, the ME&L team supported the NRM Coalition CSO members with developing an M&E plan and data collection tools for measuring of coalitions’ activities. During the quarter, LAVI’s ME&L Manager worked along with P4DPs M&E Manager to develop a template for the NRM Coalition Final Monitoring and Evaluation Report (see Annex 16 for the template). The reporting template includes: Development Hypothesis and Theory of Change, Results Framework, Indicator Overview, Monitoring and Evaluation, Data Quality Assurance, and Limitations. After the development of the template, it was then disseminated to the NRM Coalition members to begin writing their final M&E reports. The ME&L team provided technical assistance to DEN-L’s Final M&E Report.
Conduct Data Quality Assessment of NRM Coalition M&E system and provide recommendations for improvement During Q1, the ME&L team continued to work closely with the NRM Coalition members and ALab and its partner iLab to establish a fully functioning and efficient M&E system for each organization. To ensure that their partners’ systems function fully to enable the collection of better, more dependable, and reliable information in a systematic manner, and to provide an ongoing indication of progress towards their results and objectives, the LAVI MEL team completed DQAs for its eight (8) NRM coalition partners and ALab and its partner iLab. From September 21 to December 1, 2017, LAVI’s ME&L Team worked with partners’ M&E officers and Program Managers to assess their projects M&E systems and quality of indicator data they are reporting to LAVI. The DQA was intended to review the partners M&E systems, data verification and reporting processes and draw up possible recommendations on how to improve monitoring and evaluation
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 22
best practices at these organizations. A draft report was prepared with findings from the assessment, lessons learned and possible recommendations to help strengthen partners’ data management processes. F.3 - Facilitate LAVI learning, knowledge management and research Contribute to Quarterly Performance Review meetings On October 16, LAVI hosted its fourth and final Quarterly Performance Review (QPR) session for FY2017, covering the quarter from July-September 2017. The event, which is part of LAVI's internal organizational learning process, was meant to review technical, operational and financial performance of the LAVI project and carefully map and flag outstanding activities for prioritization in Quarter One (October-December, 2018). At the meeting, the project’s activities and their status during Quarter Four (July-September, 2017) were highlighted and major achievements/unimplemented activities per FY2017 Work plan (October 2016 to September 2017) were discussed. Lessons learned and best practices were documented for FY2017 Quarter Four. G- Project Monitoring and Evaluation G.5 - Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Assessment (KAPA) The ME&L team has been collecting quantitative data on indicators that provide information about the number of events and individual’s participation and engagement in the NRM Coalition activities supported through LAVI. However, this information doesn’t provide an in-depth analysis and a comprehensive picture of citizens’ knowledge on their rights in relations to CSDF governance, or provide a deep understanding of their attitudes and actions taken as a result of the advocacy events they have attended.
In order for LAVI to measure the effectiveness of partner’s activities and define what differences these changes have made in people’s lives, the LAVI ME&L team carried out the KAPA from September 15th to October 10th, 2017, targeting LAVI’s key stakeholders including the NRM Coalition (8 CSOs), and 150 citizens from fifteen (15) counties who participated in the project’s supported partner events to generate knowledge and deepen the understanding of changes that occurred as result of LAVI’s partner supported activities.
A comprehensive report (see Annex 17) has been developed with results that provide a basis for discussions on how to improve programming and where best to allocate future resources. The final report will be shared with the partners as part of knowledge management and learning and will assist the NRM Coalition to collectively create a framework for sustainability following the conclusion of LAVI funding. The KAPA revealed that citizens who attended the NRM events in the counties now know how to participate in the CSDF process. Grand Kru citizens, on the other hand, expressed little knowledge of/or involvement with CSDF, citing the infancy stage of local awareness raising programs. G.6 - Continue collecting, consolidating, analyzing and verifying data on LAVI indicators In Q1, the ME&L team completed revision and verification of LAVI’s FY 2 indicator data. The ME&L team and its grantee partners collected, consolidated, verified, collated, and analyzed all data on LAVI’s indicators. To further bolster the data verification processes LAVI hired 14 county-based Field Activity Monitors (FAMs) under service agreements in Year 2. The FAM’s key role is to act as the primary source of data verification on LAVI partner events, that is, to correlate that the event did in fact take place as per the partner stated deliverables, and that the event is implemented correctly using LAVI tools (see Annex 18 for LAVI FAM event report). The ME&L team carried out secondary data verification by selecting random participants from the event sign-in sheets and telephoning the individual for confirmation of event attendance and as such confirming that Partner data is legitimate, thereby allowing LAVI to report true and correct data to USAID.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 23
In respect to LAVI Partners, the ME&L team continued to provide technical support focused predominantly on how to improve Partner knowledge in respect to M&E tools and methodology, improve processes for effective and efficient collection, data analysis, and reporting of evidence data.
On November 15, 2017, the LAVI ME&L team conducted a refresher training for two new LAVI staff. The training was intended to orientate the new staff on LAVI’s Results Framework; data management process; reporting, and information sharing; indicator results FY 2017; public communications; and branding and marking.
On November 16, 2017, the LAVI ME&L team conducted a refresher M&E training for technical staff at iCampus. The training was geared towards orientating new staff on LAVI’s M&E processes and protocols. At the end of the training, staff obtained an understanding of what M&E, data quality standards, and data management processes are. They were taught how to use LAVI data collection tools and how to properly file their data collection tools. The LAVI Communications and M&E Specialist joined a group of 12 Liberian journalists for three-day media training on Illicit Finance. The training was organized by the Thomas Reuters Foundation, who selected the journalists after what it termed as a competitive selection process. The training took place at the Royal Grand Hotel in Monrovia from November 23-25, 2017 and was a pilot exercise. The second phase is expected to be conducted in early 2018, and will take the journalists to the field, with the training’s knowledge gained to be put into practice. This training is taking place in more than 10 African countries, and is aimed at promoting transparency in Africa’s business sector, especially in the extractive industry.
G.7 - Update Performance Indicators Database System (PIDs) The ME&L team finalized its annual data verification and entry into PIDS on October 31, 2017. All data (FY2018 targets and FY2017 Q4 actuals) for LAVI’s 22 indicators were successfully uploaded into PIDs for USAID review and certification. All the data were verified by the COP and certified by LAVI COR. LAVI also changed the reporting frequencies for LAVI 1, 2, 3, 2.1, 3.2 and 4.1 to adequately reflect the performance of the respective indicators.
G.9 - Conduct LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment On November 27, 2017 a Data Quality Assessment (DQA) STTA started working with the ME&L team to assess LAVI’s project M&E system and indicator quality. The DQA was centered on the five data quality standards (validity, reliability, precision, integrity, and timeliness). During the period of the assessment the STTA worked with other technical teams to ascertain how data are collected, the trend of data flow. and who’s responsible for what. At the close of the assessment, the STTA presented the findings to the ME&L team highlighting gaps, best practices, and possible recommendations. The final report will contain findings that focus mainly on the five functional M&E system’s areas including reporting performance; M&E structures, functions, and capabilities; indicator definitions and reporting guidelines; data collection, collation, and reporting forms/tools; and data management processes. The report will also present indicator-specific data quality findings, and recommended actions for addressing the data quality issues. H-Reporting H.1 - Submit weekly progress reports In Q1, the ME&L team submitted thirteen (13) weekly updates to USAID covering the months of October – December 2017. The weekly update highlighted major and upcoming activities that were carried out by LAVI and LAVI’s partners during the reporting week which runs from Wednesday to Tuesday of the following week.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 24
H.3 - Submit Annual progress reports During Q1, the ME&L team initiated the process of drafting the project’s annual progress report. The technical, grants, and finance teams drafted their sections of the report and submitted to the ME&L team. The ME&L team consolidated and reviewed the report for completeness and correctness. On October 31, 2017, the final annual progress report for FY 17 was submitted to USAID.
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 25
ANNEXES Annex 01-Q1-FY3 LAVI Partner Activity Calendar Annex 02-Q1-FY3 NRM Coalition Pledge Card Breakdown by County and Partner Annex 03-Q1-FY3 NRM Coalition Score Card Distribution List in Q1 Annex 04-Q1-FY3 Screenshots of Objective 2 social media and website blogs Annex 05-Q1-FY3 Screenshots of CODRA’s CBOs and CSOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment Annex 06-Q1-FY3 LAVI Indicator Tracking Table – Q1 Annex 07-Q1-FY3 LAVI FY2018 Q1 Financial Report Annex 08-Q1-FY3 Q1 Grant Activity Annex 09-Q1-FY3 NRM Partner Event Highlights Annex 10-Q1-FY3 LAVI Project Success Story 1 Annex 11-Q1-FY3 LAVI Project Success Story 1I Annex 12-Q1-FY3 NRM Media Articles Annex 13-Q1-FY3 CBDSPL Draft Constitution Annex 14-Q1-FY3 CSOs and CBOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment Report Annex 15-Q1-FY3 CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Annex 16-Q1-FY3 NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template Annex 17-Q1-FY3 Knowledge Attitude and Practice Assessment (KAPA) Report Annex 18-Q1-FY3 ALab and iLab Q1 Trainings Annex 19-Q1-FY3 LAVI Field Activity Monitor Event Report
LAVI Quarterly 1 Report: October 1 to December 31, 2017 (Year 3) Page: 26
Annex 1 – LAVI Partner Activity Calendar
Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
LAVI Pre-submission meeting for the Education APS 4-Oct-17 4-Oct-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 4-Oct-17 4-Oct-17 Margibi District 1 Matthew Zeon (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 5-Oct-17 5-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 1 Agnes A. Korporal (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 5-Oct-17 5-Oct-17 Montserrado District 8 LAVI (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 6-Oct-17 6-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 5 Agnes A. Korporal (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 6-Oct-17 6-Oct-17 Margibi District 3 Matthew Zeon (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 7-Oct-17 7-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 3 Agnes A. Korporal (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 7-Oct-17 7-Oct-17 Montserrado District 12 LAVI (stakeholders sign pledge cards) CUPPADL Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 7-Oct-17 7-Oct-17 Margibi District 4 Matthew Zeon (stakeholders sign pledge cards) LAVI Quarterly Performance Review 16-Oct-17 16-Oct-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 16-Oct-17 16-Oct-17 Margibi District 2 Matthew Zeon community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 17-Oct-17 17-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 1 Agnes A. Korporal community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 17-Oct-17 17-Oct-17 Montserrado District 8 LAVI community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
LAVI LAVI Advisory Council Meeting 17-Oct-17 17-Oct-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 17-Oct-17 17-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 1 Agnes A. Korporal community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
LAVI LAVI Advisory Council Meeting 17-Oct-17 17-Oct-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17 Margibi District 5 Matthew Zeon community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 19-Oct-17 19-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 3 Agnes A. Korporal community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
CUPPADL Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 19-Oct-17 19-Oct-17 Montserrado District 10 LAVI community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
A-lab Qualitative Data Analysis Training with LAVI NRM Coalition 19-Oct-17 19-Oct-17 Montserrado 150 Carey Street, Joshua S. Kpelewah Snapper Hill CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 20-Oct-17 20-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 2 Agnes A. Korporal influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums. Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 20-Oct-17 20-Oct-17 Margibi District 3 Matthew Zeon influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 20-Oct-17 20-Oct-17 Montserrado District 16 LAVI influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 20-Oct-17 20-Oct-17 Montserrado District 16 LAVI influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 3 Agnes Amos Korporal influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 Margibi District 5 Matthew Zeon influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 Montserrado District 12 LAVI influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Conduct training of stakeholders per county on how to organize 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 Lofa Salayea District Prince Kennedy citizens or community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
CUPPADL Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 3 Agnes Amos Korporal influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 22-Oct-17 22-Oct-17 Lofa Salayea District Prince Kennedy (stakeholders sign pledge cards)
SDI Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 23-Oct-17 23-Oct-17 Lofa Salayea District Prince Kennedy influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 23-Oct-17 23-Oct-17 Grand Kru Wedabo District Eric Gbasue (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
SDI Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 23-Oct-17 23-Oct-17 Rivercess Timbo District Estella Logan (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report on score cards
SDI Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 Lofa Salayea District Prince Kennedy influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Hold county level community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 Grand Kru Barclayville District Eric Gbasue authorities relationship building joint meetings SDI Hold county level community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 Rivercess Timbo District Estella Logan authorities relationship building joint meetings Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
SDI Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy Councils (DDCs) SDI Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy SDI Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Grand Kru Barclayville District Eric Gbasue influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Conduct training of stakeholders per county on how to organize 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy citizens or community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
SDI Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy Councils (DDCs) SDI Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 25-Oct-17 25-Oct-17 Grand Kru Barclayville District Eric Gbasue influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
A-lab iCampus Sustainability Council Meeting 26-Oct-17 26-Oct-17 Montserrado 150 Carey Street, Joshua S. Kpelewah Snapper Hill A-lab Learning Call on the topic: Citizen Monitoring and Engagement. 26-Oct-17 26-Oct-17 Montserrado 150 Carey Street, Joshua S. Kpelewah Snapper Hill SDI Conduct training of stakeholders per county on how to organize 26-Oct-17 26-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy citizens or community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
LMC Youth forums to solicit views from Liberian youths regarding CSDF 26-Oct-17 26-Oct-17 Montserrado AMEZU, Poor River LAVI reforms strategies disclosed by political parties during the August elections campaign period
CUPPADL Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 27-Oct-17 27-Oct-17 Grand Bassa District 2 Administrative Building Councils (DDCs) in the counties. CUPPADL Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 27-Oct-17 27-Oct-17 Margibi Kakata County Administrative Councils (DDCs) in the counties. Headquaters CUPPADL Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 27-Oct-17 27-Oct-17 Montserrado District 16 LAVI Councils (DDCs) in the counties. SDI Conduct district-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on the CSDF 27-Oct-17 27-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy (stakeholders sign pledge cards) LMC Youth forums to solicit views from Liberian youths regarding CSDF 27-Oct-17 27-Oct-17 Montserrado UMU, Monrovia LAVI reforms strategies disclosed by political parties during the August elections campaign period
SDI Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 28-Oct-17 28-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
SDI Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 29-Oct-17 29-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
SDI Hold county level community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local 30-Oct-17 30-Oct-17 Lofa Voinjama District Prince Kennedy authorities relationship building joint meeting RHRAP County level dialogue with concessionaires 4-Nov-17 4-Nov-17 Grand Capemount Kinjor Prince Wesseh RHRAP National Multi Stakeholders Dialogue 5-Nov-17 5-Nov-17 Grand Capemount Robertsport Prince Wesseh
RHRAP Advocate & lobby the Reactivation of DDCs 6-Nov-17 6-Nov-17 Grand Capemount Madina Prince Wesseh
LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment with Partners (IREDD) 8-Nov-17 8-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah
LAVI Education Grant Evaluation Committee (GEC) Meeting 9-Nov-17 10-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI LAVI M&E Training for Objective 1 10-Nov-17 10-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment with Partners (NAYMOTE) 10-Nov-17 10-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment with Partners (ALAB/iLab) 10-Nov-17 10-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment with Partners (RHRAP) 14-Nov-17 14-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
LAVI Internal Data Quality Assessment with Partners (CUPPADL) 15-Nov-17 15-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah IREDD Hold county level community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local 15-Nov-17 15-Nov-17 Nimba Sanniquellie Nelson Kartee authorities relationship building joint meetings
IREDD Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 17-Nov-17 17-Nov-17 Nimba Sanniquellie Nelson Kartee (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
LAVI Data Quality Assessment (LMC) 22-Nov-17 22-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah LAVI/SPs Service Provider Governance Workshop and Mentorship training 23-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI LAVI Data Quality Assessment (RHRAP) 23-Nov-17 23-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia Joshua Kpelewah CUPPADL Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 27-Nov-17 27-Nov-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
CUPPADL Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 27-Nov-17 27-Nov-17 Grand Bassa Compound One Agnes A Korporal (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Administrative Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards Building
Alab Rap to be Repped final campaign 28-Nov-17 28-Nov-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authority’s 28-Nov-17 28-Nov-17 Grand Bassa Buchanan Youth Agnes A Korporal relationship building joint meetings Center
CUPPADL Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 28-Nov-17 28-Nov-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authority’s 30-Nov-17 30-Nov-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI relationship building joint meetings
CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authority’s 30-Nov-17 30-Nov-17 Margibi Kakata Matthew Zeon relationship building joint meetings
CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authority’s 30-Nov-17 30-Nov-17 Grand Bassa District 3 Agnes A Korporal relationship building joint meetings CODRA Learning Conference 1-Dec-17 2-Dec-17 Bong Suakoko Abednego Mehn CUPPADL Facilitate community monitoring and reporting events with stakeholders 1-Dec-17 1-Dec-17 Grand Bassa District 1 Agnes A Korporal (CSOs, CBOs, communities leaders, youth, women, local authority, Concessionaires) on CSDF to derive citizens report or score cards
CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authorities 2-Dec-17 2-Dec-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI relationship building joint meetings CUPPADL Hold community, CSOs, CBOs, concession and local authorities 2-Dec-17 2-Dec-17 Margibi CH Rennie Matthew Zeon relationship building joint meetings LAVI Shared Vision workshop with shortlisted partners for the Education 4-Dec-17 5-Dec-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI Thematic Window LAVI and NRM Session to strategize on legislative engagement 6-Dec-17 6-Dec-17 Montserrado LAVI Office LAVI Coalition RHRAP Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 6-Dec-17 6-Dec-17 Cape Mount Robertsport Prince Wesseh community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
NAYMOTE Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 7-Dec-17 7-Dec-17 Bong Gbarnga Abednego Mehn Councils (DDCs) NAYMOTE Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 7-Dec-17 7-Dec-17 Rivergee Fishtown Henry Toe Councils (DDCs) NAYMOTE Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 7-Dec-17 7-Dec-17 Maryland Harper Daniel Dolo Councils (DDCs) ALAB Integrity Idol 8-Dec-17 8-Dec-17 Montserrado iCampus LAVI NAYMOTE Conduct community awareness raising meeting with citizens and 8-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Bong Gbarnga Abednego Mehn influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums. Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
NAYMOTE Conduct community awareness raising meeting with citizens and 8-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Rivergee Fishtown Henry Toe influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
NAYMOTE Conduct community awareness raising meeting with citizens and 8-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Maryland Pleebo Daniel Dolo influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
NAYMOTE Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 8-Dec-17 8-Dec-17 Bong Gbarnga NAYMOTE Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 8-Dec-17 8-Dec-17 Maryland Pleebo Daniel Dolo NAYMOTE Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 8-Dec-17 8-Dec-17 Rivergee Webbo Henry Toe RHRAP Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 8-Dec-17 8-Dec-17 Cape Mount Daniel's Town Prince Wesseh community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
NAYMOTE Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 9-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Rivergee Fishtown Henry Toe NAYMOTE Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 9-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Maryland Harper Daniel Dolo RHRAP Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 9-Dec-17 9-Dec-17 Bomi Tubmanburg Kelvin Richardson community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
Internews and ToT for LMC media trainers on CSDF 11-Dec-17 15-Dec-17 Montserrado Monrovia LAVI LAVI RHRAP Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 11-Dec-17 11-Dec-17 Bomi Gbah Town Kelvin Richardson community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
RHRAP Conduct training of stakeholders on how to organize citizens or 12-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 Gbapolu Bopolu City Ishmeal Flomo community score cards event, how to secure stakeholders signatures on pledge cards, how to use fact sheets in advocacy, and methods of influencing and reporting to their legislators and local government on CSDF issues.
LAVI and Proposal Development Workshop for the shortlisted partners for the 14-Dec-17 15-Dec-17 Montserradio iCampus LAVI Shortlisted Education Thematic Window Education Partners
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 Cape Mount Jenneh Brown Town Prince Wesseh influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 Bomi Gaynimah Town Kelvin Richardson influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 Bomi Sass Town Kelvin Richardson influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 15-Dec-17 15-Dec-17 Bomi Gbah Town influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums. Partners Activity Start Date End Date County Location Field Activity Monitor
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 15-Dec-17 15-Dec-17 Gbarpolu Totoquelleh Town Ishmeal Flomo influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 18-Dec-17 18-Dec-17 Gbarpolu Gohnzoduah Ishmeal Flomo influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 18-Dec-17 18-Dec-17 Bomi Vaye Town Kelvin Richardson influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 18-Dec-17 18-Dec-17 Cape Mount Vonzua Town Prince Wesseh influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Conduct community awareness raising meetings with citizens and 18-Dec-17 18-Dec-17 Cape Mount Gohanzuduah Town Prince Wesseh influential communities leaders on section "9" of the CSDF Guidelines and Budget Laws and P4DP developed policy paper. Communities awareness raising meetings may be town hall meetings or electoral forums.
RHRAP Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 20-Dec-17 20-Dec-17 Cape Mount Kingjoh Prince Wesseh Councils (DDCs) RHRAP Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 20-Dec-17 20-Dec-17 Bomi Klay Town Kelvin Richardson Councils (DDCs) RHRAP Advocate and lobby for the re-activation of District Development 20-Dec-17 20-Dec-17 Gbarpolu City Henry Town Ishmeal Flomo Councils (DDCs) RHRAP Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 22-Dec-17 22-Dec-17 Cape Mount Ballaja Town Prince Wesseh RHRAP Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 22-Dec-17 22-Dec-17 Bomi Klay Town Kelvin Richardson RHRAP Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators. 22-Dec-17 22-Dec-17 Bomi Henry Town Kelvin Richardson Annex 2 – NRM Coalition Pledge Card Breakdown by County and Partner
Signed Pledge County Name District Status Remarks Card (Yes/No) Grand Bassa KARWOR, Mary M. #2 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Grand Bassa WILLIE II, Vicent S. T. #4 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Grand Bassa GOSHUA, II, Thomas A #5 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Margibi TARPONWEH, Tibelrosa S. #1 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Margibi JONES, Ivar Kokulo #2 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Maryland JURRY, P. Mike #1 Won Yes Signed LAVI NRM Coalition Pledge and won Annex 3 – NRM Coalition Score Card Distribution List in Q1
NRM COALITION SCORE CARDS DISTRIBUTION DURING QUARTER1/FY2018 NRM Grantee County # Grand Kru 2 SDI Rivercess 2 Lofa 3 Bassa 10 CUPPADL Montserrado 14 Nimba 2 IREDD Sinoe 5 Total 38 Annex 4 – Screenshots of Objective 2 Social Media and Website Blogs
The Facebook page Facebook link: https://web.facebook.com/Kwagei-Liberia-122804901691305/
LinkedIn page: The LinkedIn page link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kwagei-liberia-82812b149/ .
Annex 4 – Screenshots of Objective 2 Social Media and Website Blogs
2. YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_242FJHKlhnXOhQ8dN65Dw
4. Instagram link: https://www.instagram.com/kwageiliberia/
Annex 4 – Screenshots of Objective 2 Social Media and Website Blogs
5. Kwagei Webpage: http://businessdevelopmentlib.org/kwaigei/
6. CBDSPL website Link: http://businessdevelopmentlib.org/meet-our-members/
Annex 4 – Screenshots of Objective 2 Social Media and Website Blogs
Annex 5 – Screenshot of CODRA’s CBOs and CSOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment
Annex 6 – LAVI Indicator Tracking Table Q1
FY18 1 Oct 17- 30 Sep 18 FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved Oct - Jan - Apr - 1 Oct 17 - # Indicator Frequency Disaggregation FY18 Target Dec March Jun Jul - Sept 30 Sep 18 Comments LAVI 1 Quality of engagement between civil Annual Total TW 1 (NRM): 75% Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is society and the government reported annually.
TW 2 (Education): TBD
LAVI 2 Civil society’s satisfaction with their Annual Total TW 1 (NRM): 46% Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is voices being heard in decision making and reported annually. monitoring processes TW 2 (Education): TBD
LAVI 3 Increased capacity of CSOs to foster Annual Total TW 1 (NRM): 85% Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is citizen engagement reported annually.
TW 2 (Education): TBD FY18 1 Oct 17- 30 Sep 18 FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved Oct - Jan - Apr - 1 Oct 17 - # Indicator Frequency Disaggregation FY18 Target Dec March Jun Jul - Sept 30 Sep 18 Comments
LAVI IR 1: Horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues strengthened
LAVI 1.1 Number of recommendations presented Quarterly Total 6 0 - by civil society actors, networks, coalitions or government partners requesting decision makers to introduce, adopt, repeal or change public policies or practices No recommendation was made during this quarter. F 2.3.1-7 Number of consensus building forums Quarterly Total Total: 65 46 46 PIDs DR 3.1-3 (multi-party, civil/security sector, and/or Q1: 17 civil/political) held with USG assistance. Q2: 16 Q3: 16 Q4: 16 The 46 comprises of all of LAVI and partners consensus buiding events for Q1FY2018. F 2.4.1-9 Number of CSOs receiving USG Annual Total 19 Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is PIDs DR 4.2-2 assistance engaged in advocacy reported annually. interventions F 2.4.1-11 Number of USG-funded organizations Quarterly Total 19 10 10 PIDs 2.4.1-11 representing marginalized constituencies trying to affect government policy or conducting government oversight The nine organizations includes the 8 NRM Coalition members, Alab and CODRA. LAVI 1.2 Number of multi-party meetings held to Quarterly Total 200 92 92 strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst partners The 92 comprises of all of LAVI and partners multi-party meetings for Q1FY2018. LAVI 1.3 Number of organizations that participate Quarterly Total 300 106 106 in multi-party meetings to strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst partners There were 106 organizations that participated in LAVI events during Q1FY2018. LAVI 1.4 Number of grants provided to GOL to Quarterly Total 4 0 - No new grants were made to GOL strengthen citizens and government engagement FY18 1 Oct 17- 30 Sep 18 FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved Oct - Jan - Apr - 1 Oct 17 - # Indicator Frequency Disaggregation FY18 Target Dec March Jun Jul - Sept 30 Sep 18 Comments
LAVI IR 2: Organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue based reforms increased
LAVI 2.1 Organizational and Advocacy Capacity Annual Average ACAT TW 1 (NRM) ACA: Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is scores of targeted CSOs in the reporting 85% reported annually. period highlighting improvements in CSO capacity Average ICAT TW 1 (NRM) ICA: 45%
Average ACAT TW 2 (Education) ACA: TBD
Average ICAT TW 2 (Education) ICA: TBD
LAVI 2.2 Number of LAVI supported CSOs with a Quarterly Total 18 8 8 Capacity Development Plan being The following CSOs with CD plans are being implemented: DEN-L, P4DP, SDI, implemented CUPPADL, NAYMOTE, RHRAP, LMC and ALab. IREDD was the only organization to not draft a CDP as their focus was more on the core funding partner grant which they received from LAVI to support the Education partners. LAVI 2.3 Number of CSO organizational capacity Quarterly Total 116 23 23 building activities conducted by LAVI, LAVI's partners or LSP The 23 comprises of all of LAVI and partners Capacity Building events for Q1FY2018. LAVI 2.4 Number of individuals who participate in Quarterly Total 600 368 0 0 0 368 LAVI supported organizational capacity The 368 comprises of all the participants of LAVI and partners Capacity Building events building activities for Q1FY2018. Male 289 289
Female 79 79
LAVI 2.5 Number of LAVI supported CSOs with a Quarterly Consultation 10 0 - No organization drafted a CDP during Q1. All of the 8 CSOs are now implementing Capacity Development Plan in the their CD plans. development stages of consultation, Drafting 10 0 - drafting, review and approval Review 10 0 - Approval 10 0 - FY18 1 Oct 17- 30 Sep 18 FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved Oct - Jan - Apr - 1 Oct 17 - # Indicator Frequency Disaggregation FY18 Target Dec March Jun Jul - Sept 30 Sep 18 Comments
LAVI IR 3: Development of ongoing capacity development services in the local market promoted
LAVI 3.1 Client Satisfaction Score for local capacity Quarterly Average TBD:Targets will be Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is development service providers showing determined following reported annually. improvement in responsiveness and the first LSP trainings effectiveness of service provided and the first Client Satisfaction Scores/baseline
LAVI 3.2 Number of Local Service Providers who Quarterly Total 7 1 1 Nerissa is the only SP that has implemented an Action Plan. Nerissa has done quick have an action plan being implemented book installations with the 5 CSOs (NAYMOTE, CUPPDAL, P4DP, LMC & RHRAP). with CSOs The rest of the four (4) SPs will commence implementation in Q2.
LAVI 3.3 Number of local service providers Quarterly Total 13 14 14 Agency for Economic Development & Empowerment, The Center for Democratic receiving support from LAVI Governance, Development Education Network Liberia, GilgalSat Inc, GUSCEMAN, Human Development Foundation, Nerisa Solutions, Inc., Optimal Impact, Pace Consulting, ReinventLiberia, Technopreneur, The Khana Group, Top Consulting Inc., CDG LAVI 3.4 Number of Local Service Providers who Quarterly Consultation 7 5 5 Nerissa, Optimal Impact, GUSCEMAN, PACE Consultants, The Khana Group have an action plan in the development Drafting 7 5 5 Nerissa, Optimal Impact, GUSCEMAN, PACE Consultants, The Khana Group stages of consultation, drafting, review Review 7 5 5 Nerissa, Optimal Impact, GUSCEMAN, PACE Consultants, The Khana Group and approval with CSOs Approval 7 5 5 Nerissa, Optimal Impact, GUSCEMAN, PACE Consultants, The Khana Group FY18 1 Oct 17- 30 Sep 18 FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved Oct - Jan - Apr - 1 Oct 17 - # Indicator Frequency Disaggregation FY18 Target Dec March Jun Jul - Sept 30 Sep 18 Comments
LAVI IR 4: Learning and project methodologies shared and applied by other development actors
LAVI 4.1 Public policy processes Participation Annual Total TW1 (NRM): 65% Not applicable for this indicator. Indicator is Score for target CSOs showing improved reported annually. oversight of decision making TW2 (Education): TBD
LAVI 4.2 Number of individuals who make use of Quarterly Total 200 22 22 The indicator specifically counts each visitor once for each occasion on which they the LAVI Learning Lab visit the lab. The activites for this quarter were more focused on LAVI partners than general public.
LAVI 4.3 Number of outputs by grant partners and Quarterly Total 5 3 3 Knowledge Attitude and Practice Assessment (KAPA) Report; CSOs Contractor that generate information on and CBOs Knowledge and Learning Assessment Report; and issues and practices Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report; Annex 8 – Q 1 Grants Activities
The following 9 modifications were issued to the various grant agreements as follows:
Grant No. Grantee Details Effective Date G-Mon-016 Liberia Media Center Modification 1 was issued to (CD Grant) amend the grant performance period from the November 30, original grant end date of 31 2017 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-017 Rural Human Rights Modification 1 was issued to Activists Program amend the grant November 30, (CD Grant) performance period from the 2017 original grant end date of 31 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-018 NAYMOTE – Partners Modification 1 was issued to for Democratic amend the grant November 30, Development (CD performance period from the 2017 Grant) original grant end date of 31 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-019 Citizens United to Modification 1 was issued to Promote Peace & amend the grant Democracy in Liberia performance period from the (CD Grant) original grant end date of 31 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include Annex 8 – Q 1 Grants Activities
additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-020 Platform for Dialogue Modification 1 was issued to and Peace (CD Grant) amend the grant performance period from the November 30, original grant end date of 31 2017 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-021 Sustainable Modification 1 was issued to Development Institute amend the grant (SDI) performance period from the November 30, original grant end date of 31 2017 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-022 Accountability Lab (CD Modification 1 was issued to Grant) amend the grant November 30, performance period from the 2017 original grant end date of 31 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) G-Mon-023 Accountability Lab Modification 1 was issued to amend milestone reporting November 30, time-line due to delays 2017 experienced over the period as well as to shift the holding of a Learning Conference from milestone 5 to milestone 9 as a minor Annex 8 – Q 1 Grants Activities
change to the grant agreement G-Mon-024 Development Education Modification 1 was issued to Network-Liberia (CD amend the grant November 30, Grant) performance period from the 2017 original grant end date of 31 December 2017 to 30 September 2018 under a No Cost Extension, shift program activity dates and include additional program activities ( Advocacy planning workshop & Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
One new grant was issued to Institute for Research and Democratic Development (IREDD) during the quarter under review:
Grant No. Grantee Details Effective Date G-Mon-029 IREDD LAVI awarded 1 year grant to the grantee for core funding support to Civil Society actors: December 1, 2017 Strategic Advocacy and Research Partner. The performance period is December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 with a total budget of $108,429.30 The following 7 grants were completed and closed during this reporting quarter:
Grant No. Grantee Details Effective Date G-Mon-006 Sustainable SDI grant ended on 29 Development Institute December 2017. December 29, 2017 G-Mon-007 Development Education DEN-L grant ended on Network-Liberia 30 October 2017 October 30, 2017 G-Mon-010 Forestry Development This grant was closed October 1, 2017 Authority (FDA) G-Mon-013 Environmental This grant was closed October 1, 2017 Protection Agency (EPA) G-Mon-025 GUSCEMAN This grant ended on 31 December 31, 2017 Annex 8 – Q 1 Grants Activities
December 2017 G-Mon-027 NERISA This grant ended on 31 December 31, 2017 December 2017 G-Mon-028 TECHNOPRENUEUR This grant ended on 31 December 31, 2017 December 2017
The program activities for the following 2 In-Kind grants to government institutions were temporarily suspended during this reporting quarter:
Grant No. Grantee Details Effective Date G-Mon-011 Liberia Extractive The grant was temporarily Industries Transparency suspended from October October 1, 2017 Initiative (LEITI) 2017 to January 2018 due to the Liberia General and Presidential elections G-Mon-014 National Bureau of The grant was temporarily Concessions (NBC) suspended from October October 1, 2017 2017 to January 2018 due to the Liberia General and Presidential elections
Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
Q1 NRM Coalition Partner Event Highlights
Event 1: NAYMOTE DDCs, Local Authorities and Legislators and Advocate and Lobby for the Re activation of DDCs meetings On September 23, NAYMOTE held FGD regarding CSDF issues in Gbarnga and on September 25, the group held two separate County Level Multi- stakeholders’ dialogues with concessionaires on NRM issue in in Pleebo Maryland and Fish Town, River Gee Counties. A total of 59 (18 females and 41males) persons attended. Key quotes and outcomes from these discussions are as follows. “We will sustain the awareness through continuous discussion of the issues on the community radio station especially as it relates to CSDF matters” “I will ensure that billboards are erected at strategic locations and have a summary of CSDF issues. This will include project location, cost, start and end dates and executer. I will like to see that projects are approved and implemented with the inputs of citizens. I appreciate LAVI for supporting an initiative that now allows us have a say in our own development issues” said the DDC Chairperson for Pleebo District. Participants said that they have gained added knowledge, some of which include: · Understanding of the budget law and how to create project billboards · Understanding of the application of two-third of the budget law · Understanding of CSDF issues · Understanding of the role and responsibilities of PMC and PMT in the counties · Understanding of the power and limitation of lawmakers over the SDF
Event 2: NAYMOTE DDCs, Local Authorities and Legislators and Advocate and Lobby for the Reactivation of DDCs meetings On September 25, and 26, two FGDs were held to follow-up on SDI and IREDD programs in Voinjama, Lofa and Greenville, Sinoe Counties respectively. A total of 20 persons (17 males and 3 females) attended the events, focused on CSDF and NRM issues. Many participants said they were excited to know that they have a voice in the local governance process. For example, the Gender Monitor-NIPO in Greenville said, “It was during one of IREDD organized meetings on CSDF I learned that the PMC Chairman can be elected by the citizens, and later be sacked by the citizens. Another participant said he was able to organize a student group to explain about the CSDF process. As a result, that student later invited the County Superintendent so that he would explain from the level of the Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
county authority the status of the CSDF. Days after, the discussion gravitated to the local radio station where the general public got involved.
Event 3: NAYMOTE DDCs, Local Authorities and Legislators and Advocate and Lobby for the Re activation of DDCs meetings In Districts #s 1, 3 and 5 Grand Bassa and Duazon Margibi Counties on October 6 and 7 respectively separate multi stakeholder dialogues were facilitated by CUPPADL and NAYMOTE with a total of 100 (40 females and 50 females) persons were present. Key quotes from these discussions are as follow: Obadiah Gbuoh, District 3, Grand Bassa: “I am recommending that government revises the budget law to give citizens more power to have direct jurisdiction over the CSDF. This district has been marginalized regarding development. We only hear of SCDF issues and don’t feel the impact. We want county sittings be held in the districts and delegates comprised of chiefs, youth women, local leaders etc”. Marie Karmeja, District # 5 Grand Bassa: “I learned more about CSDF during a district level multi stakeholder meeting in compound # 5. I was selected to attend this year’s county sitting based on my level of engagement with our lawmaker. In that County Sitting, again, I managed to lobby with other community representatives and we advocated for an increase in the allotment to our county budget at the end of the day. We now have $275,000 rather than 500,000 that was initially allocated for our district”. Matthew Tow (FAM), Margibi: “A lady said she actually felt like engaging her lawmaker right away after realizing that they as citizens have a major say in the CSDF management”.
Event 4: CUPPADL Community Awareness Meeting
On October 23, 2017, in District 1, Duazon Margibi County, CUPPADL facilitated a community awareness meeting aimed at discussing the county social development fund and presenting the findings gathered from the NRM policy paper. Twenty six (26) participants (1 female and 25 females) attended the event. LAVI’s Field Monitor talked to participants at the meeting and below are key quotes and issues raised from those discussions: Participants at the event asked how they can get to know about the CSDF and who do they go to in case they are not satisfied with their county officials. The facilitator recommended them to have town hall meeting and invite their county officials to engage them positively on issues and concerns they’re faced with. At the close of the event participants appreciated CUPPADL for the initiative and creating an open forum where citizens can discuss issues around the CSDF and also find positive ways to engage their leaders. Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
Philip D. Tarr, a participant at the event said, “I learned a lot about our County Social Development funds and the approach to carry on advocacy”. Mohammed S. Sackor, a participant at the event said, “I am disappointed that Margibi receives this sum of money from concessions and nothing is done to develop our county. I am going to spread the information to my community and we will form a group that will be responsible to engage our law makers constructively”.
Event 5: SDI Community Awareness, DDC Meeting and Stakeholders Training
On October 23, 24 and 26 2017, in Salayea and Voinjaman, Lofa County, SDI facilitated 2 separate community awareness meeting with citizens and influential communities leaders on section ‘9’ of the CSDF guidelines and Budget law, a DDC meeting and a training with stakeholders on how to organize community town hall meetings. Seventy three (73) participants (55 male and 18 females) attended the event. LAVI’s Field Monitor talked to participants at the meeting and below are key quotes and issues raised from those discussions: Participants said, “…we are now knowledgeable of those signatories to the CSDF and those people are The County Assistant Superintendent for Financial or Fiscal Management, in his/her absence the County superintendent and the Project Management Committee (PMC) chairperson who is elected by the county council or in his absence the PMC Treasurer who is also elected by the county council. …we also learned about how the allotment of CSDF done by the Minister of Finance and Development Planning based on resolution of each county council, also the Minister of Finance and Development Planning can only make payment to a county’s account when previous disbursement have been fully accounted for. ….we learned about laws put in place to manage the County Social Development Fund and some of those laws are: a) Public Financial Management Act, b) every county should have a bank account open for the fund; the funds should not be kept in individuals account. …we learned that the County Council is one of the many structures setup to manage the CSDF and this Council is the highest decision making body of the county on matters of development and fund-management.
Event 6: RHRAP Community & Concessionaire meeting and Multi- Stakeholder Dialogues and NAYMOTE’s Concession Meeting
On October 30, RAHAP held Human Rights dialogue in Gbar Community, in Bomi and on November 6, 2017, the group held separate discussions pinned on Community & Concessionaire and Multi- Stakeholder Dialogues in Robertsports and Kinjor Grand Cape Mount County. November 7, 2017, marked the District Development Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
Council Reactivation meeting in Madina Community in Grand Cape Mount and a separate concession meeting took place on the same date in the Southeast in Mary Land County organized by NAYMOTE. A total of 76 persons (16 females and 60 males) attended these events representing CBOs, CSOs, the local citizenry, concession representatives and county officials. Key highlights from these events are as follow: LAVI FAM, Prince K. Wesseh, spoke with participants at the event in Robertsport, and reported that the Federation of Liberian Youth-FLY representative at the deliberation expressed delight in the huge turnout of young people at the Multi- Stakeholder Dialogue. He also quoted a permanent citizen as saying,” Law makers are in constant habit of selecting their relatives for the county sitting. It is better for the people to choose their own delegates for the county sitting so that their views and petitions can be void of political influence.” It was reported by the DDC Chairperson in Madina Community, “there was low enthusiasm and youth participation, because there are feelings expressed amongst the citizens that the event aims to specifically benefit DDC members whom many believed that their independence has been compromised by politicians. On discussion on the service rental fee of Cavala Rubber Corporation (CRC) in Mary Land, participants resolved that the fee be separated from the national budget and placed in a special account in the name of the county.” from that meeting, I realized that we are to also work closely with the Company’s Community Liaison Officer to ensure there is compliance with CSDF issues,” a female participant reported.
Event 7: IREDD Multi- Stakeholder Dialogues
On November 11, IREDD held a Multi-Stakeholders dialogue with Public Officials and County Authorities in Greenville District, Sinoe County. A total of 18 persons (4 females and 14 males) attended the event representing key stakeholders in the NRM sector which includes: CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders; Key highlights from the event are as follow: LAVI FAM, Perry Boyee, spoke with participants at the event in Sinoe, below are some quotes from participants. According to Mr. Cyrus Saydee, member of the Seebeh Youth said, the meeting has given me some level of experience on how to engage our leaders during election campaign, and how to sign onto pledge cards in the communities on CSDF issues that will benefit the people of Sinoe County when they are elected, and also follow up on what they signed during the campaign.
Others participants who attended the meeting also said that based on the statements made by candidates at debates and radio talk shows regarding CSDF, they will be following up with them to ensure that their pledges are implemented as promised.
Event 7: IREDD Relationship Building Meetings Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
On November 14, IREDD held separate Relationship Building meetings in Zwedru, Grand Gedeh and Greenville Sinoe Counties. A total of 34 persons (6 females and 28 males) attended the event representing key stakeholders in the NRM sector which includes: CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders and Government; Key highlights from the event are as follow: LAVI FAMs spoke with participants at the event in Grand Gedeh and Sinoe Counties, below are some quotes from participants. According to Mamie B. Yonly of YUDD/CMG, the past training made us to educate our colleagues more about CSDF projects and also sharing information how it should be used.
According to Alphonso G.Geah of Smile FM, “his experience and difficulties are that the county authority does not always include the media when there is a county sitting thus not having them informed about projects that has been undertaken”.
According to Mrs. Helena Mombo, Chairlady New Kru Town Community, said, “Women have been left out of the employment activities by concessions in the county thus making it difficult for women in the county. She’s calling on concessions and the county leaders to talk with concessions to consider employing more women in their areas of operation”.
According to Mr. Augustine G. Swen Acting Superintended Sinoe county, said “the meeting was accommodating for them to encourage organizations in the county to consider working with county leaders to have a clear understanding of what is happing in the County on development. He further said. “My office is open to everyone to have information that will make their work in the county very smooth”.
Event 8: CUPPADL Relationship Building Joint meetings and Community Monitoring and Reporting Event
CUPPADL held two separate Relationship Building Joint meetings on November 30 and December1 in Margibi and Grand Bassa Counties as well as a Community Monitoring and Reporting Event on December 2nd in Grand Bassa County. A total of 123 persons ( 41 females and 82 males) attended the events representing key stakeholders in the NRM sector which includes CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders and Government; Key highlights from the event are as follow: Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
The following participants in Margibi and Bong Counties spoke with LAVI FAMs and some quotes are mentioned below: According to G. Dixon Warah, a participant at the event; “the issue of score card is good and meaningful for the purpose of evaluating our law makers, local authorities etc. It should therefore be modified so that it becomes easy to read and understand.”
According to Mr. Jerry C. Kpah, Zone leader of Kpanay Town; “I think in order to strengthen our relationship with our leaders we have to continue persistent engagement and team work.”
According to Mr. Eddie Clay, Zone Leader for Corn Farm; “In order to strengthen our relationship with local leaders, committees (DDC), feedback should be given after meetings with local leaders. This form of relationship building will help to bring change toward proper management of CSDF”.
According to Mr. John T. Boway Superintendent; “this whole country social development fund business is bigger than you and me. We therefore need to engage our law makers to go back and revisit this law called the budget law section nine. If not we can stay here for the next hundred years and nothing will change.”
Event 9: SDI Meeting with DDCs, local authorities and Legislators On December 2, 2017, SDI had a meeting with DDCs, local authorities and Legislators concerning the County Social Development fund in Salayea District, Lofa County.
According to a participant; “the meeting was very much beneficial to us because this meeting served as a reminder for us, it has refresh our minds about what we have learned from the SDI-LAVI project from April up till now about the CSDF and its importance to the peace loving people of Salayea District and Lofa at large. To conclude we look forward to seeing the face-two of the SDI-LAVI project soon.”
Event 10: NAYMOTE Training for stakeholders on how to organize citizens and communities on score cards and meeting with local leaders, DDC and Legislature.
NAYMOTE held two separate trainings for stakeholders on how to organize citizens and communities score cards on December 5 & 6, 2017 in Webbo and Fish Town, River Gee County and on December 9 a meeting with local leaders, DDC and Legislature in Harper, Maryland county. A total of 50 persons ( 20 females and 30 males) attended the events representing key stakeholders in the NRM sector which includes CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders and Government;
Key highlights from the event are as follow: Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
The following participants in Maryland and River Gee Counties spoke with LAVI FAMs and some quotes are mentioned below: According to Isaac Weah, Spokesperson from the Harper City Cooperation; “in other to have effective DDC there should be a restructuring of DDC to incorporate people who can discuss issues with respect to project implementation and monitoring”.
According to Dweh Hodge, Big town Paramount Chief; “the DDC should be more proactive in their work and they should learn to meet regularly with stakeholders for improving and reporting on the county developmental agenda and the district at large”.
According to J. Jallah Sneh, DDC member; “CSOs should always update citizens on County Social Development Funds and guide citizens or community in advocacy of CSDF and the county sitting delegate for women should be selected by women representative of the county”.
According to Lewis B. Toe, DDCs Chairman; “NRM Partners should have a Civil Society Group in each District headquarter for good implementation of CSDF Projects. Also, commissioners and local leaders in the community should form part of County Sitting as to advocate for community through authority”.
Event 11: RHRAP Training for stakeholders on how to organize citizens and communities on score cards.
On December 6 & 8, 2017, RHRAP had a meeting with DDCs, local authorities and Legislators concerning the County Social Development fund in Daniel Town and Robertsport, Grand Cape Mount County. A total of 34 persons (7 females and 27 males) attended the events representing key stakeholders in the NRM sector which includes CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders and Government
According to Orando Flomo, Pastor of Concern United Methodist Church; “The CSDF is a good tool for rural development, but the management aspect is a problem all over Liberia. People who are managing the CSDF do not want to be fair to the citizens. This is a bad situation that everyone needs to talk about.”
According to Mr. Folley Fahnbulleh, Dean Elder, “I am very much happy with this workshop. This is good news for our people. Some of us do not really know whether there is money available for development of our towns and villages. As for me this is my second time hearing this information. All that I can say to my people in this meeting is for us to be involved in advocating for the fair management of the money.”
Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
According to Mr. Momo A. Watson; “We first have to carry on community awareness. We need to also tell the people about the difference between social development fund and county development fund and the benefits of these two funds to the people and their communities.”
Event 12: RHRAP CSDF Awareness Meeting On December 12, 16 & 18, 2017, RHRAP held County Social Development Fund (CSDF) Awareness Meetings in Gohnzoduah and Vonzuah Towns, in Grand Cape Mount County and Gbah Town, in Bomi County respectively. A total of 78 persons (21 females and 57 males) attended the events representing key stake holders in the NRM sector which includes CSOs, CBOs, communities’ leaders, youth, women, local authority and community monitoring groups (CMGs) leaders and Government
According to Madam Patricia Sambola (Chair lady, Women in Tears), “it is important for more women to be part of the DDC and CSDF awareness. Whether women are educated or not they should be represented in decision making. We want to appeal to the DDC chairman for women participation to increase and at the same time called on women to be serious and attend development meetings”.
According to Mr. Edwin Karmo, a community school teacher, in separate remark said, “the lack of accountability, poor transparency, systematic corruption is the major problems they are faced with. An example, the Same Darby Concession Company is implementing on our land we are not benefiting from the County Social Fund. It is the stakeholders (lawmakers) that are directly benefiting from the fund”.
According to Mr. John Gray (Farm Inspector, MIA), “I want to appreciate the Liberian Government for the idea of county and social development funds. It is a good tool for national development. I hereby call on my fellow Cape Mountaineers to wake up from their slumber and join the advocacy regarding the CSDF”.
Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
LAVI Event Photos
Image 1: Participants at the Meeting with DDCs, Local Image 2: Participants at the Meeting with DDCs, Local Authorities and Legislators in Bong County Authorities and Legislators in Webbo, River Gee County
Image 3: Participants at the County Level Multi- Image 4: Facilitator as he responds to questions from the stakeholders’ dialogues, Maryland County participants during the Community Awareness meeting in Salayea
Image 5: Participants at IREDD’s Relationship Building meeting in Image 6: Participants gathered for group picture at the Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County Experience Sharing and Learning Conference in Suakoko, Annex 9 – NRM Partner Event Highlights
Bong County
Radio awareness on County Social Development Fund safes many residents for huddle
Attending a County Social Development Fund (CSDF) awareness session in Lofa is difficult for many citizens. Oftentimes one must halt routine farming activities, walking over difficult terrain for up to six hours both ways just to attend the meeting. Murphy Nye, a famous radio producer in Lofa, wants to make CSDF more accessible. In October 2017, he found a way to bring information about the CSDF into their homes. Nye incorporated a CSDF awareness segment on his “Early Morning Talk”, a show he runs 5 days a week, on Voice of Lofa Radio. The radio host began this daily rundown after he represented the institution at a CSDF awareness and advocacy session, held in September 2017, by the local civil society organization (CSO), Sustainable Development Initiative (SDI).
Murphy Nyei, Voice of Lofa Radio “Early Armed with handouts, and notes from his training, the journalist Morning Talk Show”, sensitizes Lofa County explains the CSDF, narrates its intent, how it ought to be utilized, residents about CSDF. and the specific management roles for citizens and politicians. Fanta Koroma, a regular female listener to the show has learned a lot about the establishment, the intent, and utilization of the CSDF from the daily segment, saying “I learned that the over-centralization of political, economic and fiscal governance in Monrovia resulted, over the years, in gross underdevelopment in leeward counties. As a result, the Government of Liberia, in 2006, established the CSDF in the tune of US$200,000, allocated annually to each of the 15 counties. Utilization of this fund is based on priorities by citizens.” “I learned that the over-centralization of political, economic and fiscal governance in Nye’s efforts have seen tangible results in the communities. For Elder Monrovia resulted, over the years, in gross Kaweh Flomo of Zorzor, “the CSDF advocacy skills, through the underdevelopment in leeward counties.” radio program, empowered [his] community to successfully advert the construction of a town hall project from a private land to a public land space.”
Fanta Koroma “Early Morning Talk” has featured members of the District Permanent resident, Lofa County Development Council, the Project Management Committee, the Assistant Superintendent for Development, the County Superintendent, District Commissioners, and representatives of SDI. The show has shifted how citizens stay informed, “no longer relying on rumors, but rather getting direct information about the CSDF from appropriate sources,” said listener James Fayah. An estimated 20,000 people listen to Voice of Lofa, and have access to the CSDF awareness through “Early Morning Talk”. This would not have been possible without the support of USAID LAVI, which supported SDI to carry out the awareness in Lofa. SDI is member Natural Resource Management (NRM) Coalition consistent of 8 civil society organizations supported by USAID LAVI which empower citizens to take ownership of the local governance process.
New advocacy strategy yields payment of benefits to residents for damaged crops in oil palm plantation In 2009, Sime Darby signed a 63-year contractual agreement with the Government of Liberia. The agreement gave the international conglomerate the ability to cultivate over 200,000 hectares of land as well as the obligation to provide benefits to affected citizens whose land was covered. Years of non-fulfillment of these benefits by the plantation’s management, which cover compensation for medical, education, and damaged crops, has caused a series of violent protests by citizens.
Extended cultivation of oil palm in Grand Cape Mount County A local civil society organization, Rural Human Rights Activist Program by Sime Darby (RHRAP), which works to empower citizens to have voice in their local governance process, took on the cause, determining that the citizens needed better advocacy skills to claim what they were owed. In September 2017 RHRAP, with support from USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI), organized an advocacy training session to arm these citizens with better tools to voice their concerns. These skills were soon tested at a multi-stakeholders meeting called “We held on to the tolerance and consensus building by the citizens. strategies taught us by RHRAP. Our posture for peace remained firm.” Unlike at previous engagements though, the Chairlady of the Buffer Zoe Community, Mary Koroma said they “held on to the tolerance and consensus building strategies taught by RHRAP, stated facts in Mary Koroma testimonies, reports, and statistics to show the effects of the Chairperson- Buffer Zoe company’s action… [and the] posture for peace remained firm.” Community, Sime Darby Justice Minister Frederick Cherue who represented the Government of Liberia praised this move by the citizens, acknowledged their concerns, and promised to work with the plantation management to swiftly settle the impasse. In October 2017, residents began receiving their compensation and most are now rebuilding their lives. Nelson Morris who runs four businesses in the Sime Darby concession area, added a loan scheme as a multiplier to his income. The 43-year-old’s rubber farm had been negatively affected from the Sime Darby Oil Palm Plantation, and he decided to invest his share of the money. 60-year-old Jimmy Blamo owes his healing to Nelson’s loan scheme, which underwrote his bill for an essential and successful eye surgery. In addition, Ma Wata Kemmeh, a 58-year-old widow and mother of four, was able to complete repairs on her house which had been damaged by a flood. This would not have been possible without a vigorous training campaign. Thanks to USAID LAVI sponsored RHRAP special advocacy skills that empowered the residents. USAID LAVI project is designed to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms in Liberia, goods and services.
USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) NRM Partners CSDF News Articles and Reports Quarter-1, Year-3
1. On Nov. 22 and 23, 2017, the New Republic, Hot Pepper and Heritage Newspapers published articles on CSDF with the caption "LMC Holds Students' Forum on Management of CSDF." The articles discussed two youth fora held at the United Methodist University (UMU) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion University (AMEZU) on October 26 and 27, 2017. The fora were hosted by the Liberia Media Center (LMC) with support from USAID through DAI-LAVI. According to the news reports, the engagements were meant to include the youth and student community into advocacy for the reform of the laws governing the County Social Development Fund (CSDF). Students expressed excitement and gratitude for their inclusion in the discussion that deals with the development and inclusivity of project decision and implementation in their counties. Although it was conspicuously clear that most young people are not knowledgeable about the CSDF and it operationalization, the articles noted that youth expressed their discontentment about the way citizens are being left out in the management of the funds and called on the legislators and local authorities to allow more inclusivity into the management of the funds.
2. On Nov. 28 and Dec. 1, 2017, the Hot Pepper, FOCUS and The New Republic Newspapers published responses from six representative candidates after separate interviews by the NRM Journalist Network at one of a CSDF activity in Montserrado. The Hot Pepper News Paper headline carried the banner headline “Representative Aspirants Want Law Governing CSDF Reformed” while the New Republic used “Reforming CSDF Law Necessary” as its caption. For the FOCUS News Paper, “Defeated Rep. Candidate Blows Whistle” was best suited to catch the attention their readers. According to the publications, the six aspirants were from the Coalition for Democratic Change, Movement for Democratic Reconstruction, Unity Party, All Liberia Party and an independent candidate. Speaking in the interview, Montserrado County’s defeated district #12 candidates, D. Teah Nimely, spoke of participatory leadership to foster transparency and accountability in the management of the funds. Nimely further stated that citizens’ exclusion from projects’ decisions have led to many district lawmakers owning the projects and personalizing them, which he considered malicious and dubious. Edward B. Padmore, an independent candidate in the election for district #8, Montserrado County, frowned on the selection of delegates at the county’s sitting by lawmakers and local county authorities; instead he supports the view of citizens selecting their own delegates to the county’s sitting. Speaking to the journalist, Henry Costa, ALP, stated that there is a need to include the people in the management of the CSDF. Costa alerted that the inclusion of the people should begin with the re-establishment of the District Development Council, which for him represents the view of the people. All aspirants expressed their desire to work with the NRM coalition to reform the laws governing the management of the funds. LMC, with support from USAID through DAI-LAVI, has been working
as a member of an eight-organization coalition, NRM Coalition, for about a year, advocating for increased citizen’s participation and inclusion in the management of the CSDF.
3. On November 21, 2017, UNMIL Radio 91.5 FM through its simple Liberian English Program; Palava Hut, held a one-hour live phone-in discussion on the NRM musical concert, Rape-to-be-Repped. iCampus Manager, the Coordinator of the “Rap-to-be-Repped” Concert, and one of the finalists (a local musical artist) used the medium to inform the public about the essence of the concert, mobilized massive attendance for the show, provided update on citizens’ participation in NRM issues, and how USAID/LAVI has been supporting the work of the Strategic Learning Partner. The public was also informed that the concert will take place amongst network of rappers and producers across Liberia at the Sports Commission on Broad Street on November 28, 2018, and one Icampus in-studio discussants at UNMIL Radio candidate would had been selected as winner.
4. In furtherance of media courage on the “Rape-to-be-Repped” concert, the December 2017 Edition of USAID/Liberia Monthly News Report published an article and coined “Youth Performers Gather to Rap about Natural Resource Management” as its caption on Page 6 of 10. The article pointed out that in a bid to create more awareness about the Natural Resource Management Sector (NRM) in Liberia, Liberia Accountability Lab held a grand musical jamboree in Monrovia to showcase various approaches to improved ways to manage Liberia’s natural resources. Supported through the USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI), the event has been held annually since 2014. Styled and named “Rap-to-be-Repped,” (Rap-to-Be- Represented), selected Liberian artists engaged the audience with significant messages about natural resource conservation, through the popular genre of Hipco music, which is performed in Liberian Pidgin English. Five finalists, emerging from a group of 33 contestants who signed up earlier for the competition, put up what many termed as spectacular performances at the Sports Commission on Broad Street on November 28 in Monrovia. A panel of five judges from Liberia’s entertainment industry, assisted by the audience who voted through SMS free of charge, unanimously selected Ebrom Cassell, a male contestant, as winner of the competition. The event was also a platform that young musicians, all of whom are in their 20s, to showcase their hidden talents. Over 400 youth attended the event.
5. The December 18, 2017, the online edition of the Daily Observer Newspaper [https://www.liberianobserver.com/news/internews] reported about a capacity building activity for local Liberian media practitioners on NRM, under the caption “Internews Trains Media Practitioners to Monitor CSDF”. The paper reported that the 5-day training aimed to sharpen the skills of the journalists (19) on how to better report on County Social Development Funds (CSDF). By this, citizens’ participation, understanding and accountability in CSDF related issues will be improved. According to the articles, the training was part of the Liberia Media Monitoring for Accountability project initiated by Internews Liberia Development Program. During the life span of the
project, both Internews and the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) will collaborate to meet the intended objectives. The paper noted that USAID Liberia Media Development (LMD)- Internews, Chief of Party (COP), Jan McArthur called on the journalists to write and broadcast more impactful articles, while LAVI’s Chief of Party, Milica Panic, intoned that LAVI has supported 246 multi-party meetings around the country raising awareness for those managing the CSDF.
6. On November 19, 2017 “Citizens dialogue on concession agreement” featured in the New Dawn News Newspaper’s online edition [http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/politics/] as a top news headline. The publication centre around a CSDF outreach by NAYMOTE, highlighting concession agreement and implementation issues in Pleebo Maryland County. The event was graced by youth representatives, chiefs and elders, women representatives, Civil Society Organization, District Development Council, representatives of concession companies and the media at the Plebo City Hall. In the article, NAYMOTE regional Coordinator Lawrence Myers, who is also Maryland County Coordinator for Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative(LAVI) Project welcomed the participants and said the county level dialogue was geared towards discussing implementation of concession agreements signed between the Government of Liberia and Concession Companies. At the end of the deliberation, participants said they gained New Dawn Online Newspaper knowledge. The paper quoted a Plebo District Spokesperson as saying “I will like to express delight to NAYMOTE for the mind opening event. They have armed us with knowledge to better engage the Cavalla Rubber Corporation and Maryland Oil Palm Plantation on matters of benefits from the two companies’ operations in their county.”
7. One December 15, 2017, a FrontPageAfrica [http://www.frontpageafricaonline.com/] online, article captioned “Bea Mountain Unveils Housing Units, Clinic in Cape Mount County” was published. In that publication, Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC) turned over 200 housing units along with a health facility to the citizens Grand Cape Mount County in gold rich Kinjor community. The clinic was the first in the history of the community, said to benefit over 5000 residents. The paper quotes a BMMC Manager as saying that the gesture was in fulfillment of their corporate social responsibility to the people. The ceremony was attended by Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Francis Ketteh, Grand Cape Mount County Superintendent Tenneh Kpalegba, Accountability Lab through its Executive Director, Lawrence Yealue, among others. The clinic was was the first in the history of the community, said to benefit over 5000 residents. 1 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
DRAFT CONSTITUTION Article 1: Name
The name of the organization shall be Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia
Article 2: Aims and Objectives
The following are the specific objectives:
1. Set the platform for business development service coordination across Liberia 2. Work together to set and improve the standards of business development service delivery 3. Work with local and international organizations, government entities and other stakeholders interested in developing the business landscape of Liberia through capacity development and business incubation services for local MSMEs 4. To Serve as a link to all business development service providers in Liberia 5. Setup business support centers where necessary and feasible 6. To create and advocate for the awareness about the importance of business development and incubation services in promoting business and economic growth 7. Conduct, monitor to ensure quality amongst service providers 8. Organize and host professional development activities and opportunities for service providers (i.e.: Conference, seminars, events etc.….)
Article 3. Powers of the Organization
To further these aims the committee shall have power to: Obtain, collect and receive funds and materials by way of contributions, donations, grants and any other lawful method towards the aims of the organization.
1. Establish administration and operational structures 2. Acquire and manage real property 3. Remove 2 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
4. Work with other organizations, local authorities, voluntary organizations and exchange information in a common effort to carry out the aims of the organization. 5. Do all such lawful activities as will further the aims of the organization.
Article 4: Management Committee
1. The Executive Council elected at a general assembly every two years shall manage the organization. 2. The Executive Council shall ensure the establishment of policies & procedures for the appointment and removal of management and staff.
3. The Council shall establish other working committee consisting of the members of the organization.
4. The Council shall comprise:
(a) A Chairperson;
(b) A Vice-Chairperson;
(c) A Secretary;
(d) A Treasurer
(e) A Legal Advisor
(f) An Institutional Advisor
(g) An M&E Advisor 5. There shall be three (3) standing committees: (a) Audit (b) Ethics/Grievance 3 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
(c) Advocacy 6. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson 1. The Chairperson shall represent the organization and lead management & all sustainability activities. 2. The Vice Chair Person shall work with committee heads to ensure activities are ongoing. He/she shall report findings to the Executive Council from time to time. 3. If the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson are both absent, the secretary shall preside over the Executive Council meetings. However, in the absent of the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary, all Executive Council meetings shall be rescheduled.
6. Secretary
The Secretary must:
a) Coordinate the correspondence of the organization and maintain proper records; b) Ensure that minutes of all proceedings of the General Assembly and all committee meetings are kept in the proper book/minute books; c) Maintain the register of members; d) Have custody of all books, documents, records and registers of the Consortium e) Oversee public relations and ensure website management f) Perform any other duties imposed by this organization on the secretary.
6. Treasurer The Treasurer shall provide oversight responsibilities over the following activities: a. receive all funds paid to or received by the organization and issue receipts for those funds in the name of the organization; b. pay all funds received into the account of the organization within 5 working days after receipt; 4 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
c. make any payments authorized by the organization or by a general meeting of the organization from the organization’s funds; and d. Ensure the establishment of appropriate signatories for the organization’s account. 8. The committees shall meet quarterly each year.
9. At least four (4) committee members must be present at a committee meeting to be able to make decisions.
10. Establish a procedure to appoint or remove a member of the management team.
Article 5: MEMBERSHIP
5.1 Membership Eligibility 1. Membership of the organization shall be opened to any person over 18 or any organization located in Liberia who is interested in helping
the organization and willing to pay any subscription agreed by the Management Committee. 5.2 Membership Types
1. Full Membership shall be agreed by the Executive Council a. Must be a Liberian registered business b. Must have at least one (1) staff member who has completed at least a professional program certification; c. Have a staff with relevant qualifications and or experience from other professional body; d. Have a degree from a recognized higher institution of learning; e. Must be active in the activities of the organization including serving voluntarily on a committee when needed or applicable; f. Must be a due paying member when decided by the body at a General Meeting which would provide the necessary resolution to support said amount of due
2. Associate Membership is opened to individual consultant who is not an employee of any member organization of the Consortium. Also, Foreign Service provider’s organization who forms a partnership with a member organization could be considered for associate membership when they so desire.
5 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
5.3 Application of Membership
To apply to become a member of the organization a person must:
1. submit a written application for membership to the Committee: a. in a form approved by the Committee; and b. signed by the person and both of the members referred to in paragraph (4.2.2); and 2. Be proposed by one member and seconded by another member.
5.4 Rights of Members
1. Every individual member and each organization shall have one (1) vote at General Assembly. 2. The membership of any member may be terminated by the Executive Council but the member has the right to be heard by the Grievance and Ethics Committee before a final decision is made. 3. Each member organization shall appoint a representative to attend meetings of the organization and notify the organization’s Secretary of that person’s name.
5.5 Membership Approval and Termination
1. The Executive Council shall have the power to approve or reject application of membership.
2. To terminate membership, the member should be accorded due process by the Grievance and Ethics Committee
6 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
Article 6: GENERAL MEETINGS
1. An Annual General Assembly (AGA) shall be held within 12 months of the date of the adoption of this constitution and each year thereafter. 2. Notices of the AGA shall be published three weeks beforehand, a report on the organization’s financial, and other reports for the previous year will be made available at the same time. 3. A Special General Assembly may be called at any time at the request of the committee, or not less than one quarter of the membership. A notice explaining the place, date, time and reason shall be sent to all members three weeks beforehand. 4. One-third (1/3) of membership being present shall enable a General Assembly to take place. 5. Proposals to change the constitution must be given (in writing) to the secretary at least 28 days before a general meeting and approved by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. 6. The General Assembly has the power to conduct elections to fill vacant positions
Article 7: ACCOUNTS
1. The funds of the organization including all donations, contributions and bequests, shall be paid into an account open by the Executive Council. All checks drawn on the account must be signed by at least three signatories that includes the treasurer 2. The funds belonging to the group shall be applied only to further the aims of the group. 3. Records of all income, funding and expenditure will be added and kept. and
Article 8: DISSOLUTION
(a) The Group may be dissolved by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at a Special General Assembly.
7 Annex 13-CBDSPL Draft Constitution
Consortium of Business Development Service Providers of Liberia Constitution
(b) If confirmed, the Executive Council shall distribute any assets remaining after the payment of all bills to other charitable group(s) or organization(s) having aims similar to the Group or some other charitable purpose(s) as the Group may decide.
(c) Signed by Chair...... Date……………………….
Signed by Secretary...... Date……………………….
Signed by Treasurer...... Date……………………….
P R E P A R E D B Y : T H E C O M M U N I T Y D EVELOPMENT AND R E S E A R C H A G E N C Y (CODRA)
S AND S CSO CBO LEARNING AND K NOW L EDG E A S SE SSM ENT R EPORT
P R E P A R E D B Y : T H E C O M M U N I T Y D EVELOPMENT AND R E S E A R C H A G E N C Y (CODRA) Page | 1
D ATE : N O V E M B E R 23, 2 0 1 7
Table of Contents SECTION ONE ...... 3
1. Background ...... 3
i. Introduction ...... 3
ii. Assessment Goal and Objectives ...... 3
iii. Key Assessment Questions ...... 4
iv. Significance of the Assessment ...... 4
v. Scope of the Assessment ...... 5
vi. Review of Related Literature ...... 5
SECTION TWO ...... 7
2. Methodology ...... 7
i. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ...... 7
ii. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ...... 8
iii. Assessment Limitations ...... 8
SECTION THREE ...... 9
3. Findings ...... 9
Demographic Profile ...... 9
i. KIIs Findings ...... 9
ii. FGDs Findings ...... 14
SECTION FOUR ...... 17
4. Recommendations ...... 17
Annexes: ...... 19
i. Bibliography ...... 19
ii. Abstract ...... 20
iii. Questionnaires for the Key Informant Interviews ……………………………………….……………….21
iv. Questionnaires for the Focus Group Discussions …………………………………………………..…....22
v. List of CSOs and CBOs that took part in the Assessment……………………………………………23
Page | 2
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
SECTION ONE
1. Background
i. Introduction
he Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) is a USAID funded activity designed to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor T policy and accountability reforms. LAVI focuses on supporting a portfolio of initiatives with the potential for cumulative impact around issues which have the greatest potential for change and are responsive to locally defined priorities. Part of LAVI’s work includes building the capacity of local community based organizations (CBOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs).
However, Liberian CSOs and CBOs, based on numerous assessments, are challenged by a number of issues, ranging from a lack of knowledge and capacity to carry out responsibilities to their lack of ability to effectively collaborate and network to ensure effective joint advocacy.
This CSOs and CBOs Learning and Knowledge Assessment was commissioned to investigate and document the practices, challenges and hurdles encountered by Liberian CSOs and CBOs while advocating as networks and coalitions, with a particular focus on the natural resource management and concessions sector. Through this work, we hope to share some of the challenges, progress and next steps within advocacy by these organizations, in order to inform and strengthen future initiatives.
ii. Assessment Goal and Objectives
The specific objectives of this paper are:
To understand the barriers to effective civil society organization (CSO) and community-based organization (CBOs) engagement in advocacy;
To gather information on how CSOs and CBOs have been networking and collaborating to advance advocacy initiatives in the NRM and concessions sector; and
To identify strategies to help CSOs and CBOs collaborate more effectively as advocacy actors in the NRM and concession sector.
Page | 3
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
iii. Key Assessment Questions
What is the general understanding of the barriers to CSOs and CBOs engagement in advocacy?
What capacities do CSOs and CBOs have to engage in advocacy work within the NRM and concession sector?
What are the major limitations CSOs and CBOs face in networking or collaboration with respect to advocacy in the NRM and concession sector?
How do CSOs and CBOs carry out their advocacy in the sector? What has worked well and why? What has not worked well and why?
How do CSOs and CBOs identify and target their audiences in advocacy within the NRM and concessions sector?
What sort of advocacy do CSOs and CBOs engage within the NRM and concession sectors?
What informs the kind of advocacy the CSOs and CBOs carry out within the NRM sector?
At what level do CSOs and CBOs engage the different stakeholders in their advocacy work?
iv. Significance of the Assessment
Key objective of the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) project is to facilitate a process whereby partners’ experiences and applied methodologies can be shared with different development actors, in order to achieve the overall goal of increasing the voices and influence of citizens. This report will provide the basis for lesson-sharing among and between actors in the NRM and concessions sectors and civil society, donors and government officials more broadly.
Traditionally, the relationship between civil society and government in Liberia has been conflictual, not collaborative. This is particularly the case in the NRM sector, where issues of land and resources have been highly contentious. International organizations have advised that Liberian civil society must be based on conceptual paradigms, historic origins and country context1. This is already the case in Liberia- but just perhaps not in the form or in the ways that are always recognized within Western conceptions of “civil society”. However, civil society in Liberia does need to find ways to work more collaboratively with government and come together more often in coalitions and networks if it is to make meaningful impact on policies and law reforms in the natural resource governance sector. As such, this report will attempt to reveal the current state of CSOs and CBOs’ networking and collaboration, and trigger a frank discussion as to how that can be collectively worked on, learning lessons from the state it is in.
1 http://go.worldbank.org/4CE7W046K0
Page | 4
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
v. Scope of the Assessment
This assessment was limited to the perception of civil society and community-based organizations in five counties (Nimba, Bong, Margibi, Grand Bassa and Montserrado). It was focused on the challenges of networking and collaboration among both civil society and community based organizations involved in advocacy within the NRM and concession sector. It was also restricted to executives and key staff of these organizations that, as a key part of their functions, have been involved in the planning and execution of joint actions with other organizations.
Why these counties? These counties have been strategically chosen because they are among the few concession counties in Liberia; besides, they are host to the two biggest mining concession companies- Arcelor Mittal (in Nimba, Bong Grand Bassa Counties) and China Union (in Bong, Margibi and Montserrado Counties). The combine concession investments of these two companies is well over 2 billion United States Dollars, and furthermore, the impact of the operations of these concessions is heavily affecting these counties but more especially, communities that are directly within close proximity of the operations of these concessions. In addition, there have been more advocacy related issues that have sparked up in these concession counties as oppose to other counties. In addition, Montserrado was selected for the assessment because CSOs that are based there collectively have a very strong profile when it comes to advocacy within the NRM and other sectors. Another reason is that almost all of LAVI coalition members are stationed there.
For the purpose of this assessment, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are defined as first level non-state actors (i.e. not directly involved in governmental affairs) working at both the national and sub-national levels to advance societal interest aimed at ensuring that the state meets the basic social needs of its citizens, and that it is responsive, accountable and transparent in the provision and delivery of such needs. Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) are defined as second level non-state actors working at the level of local communities to promote the welfare of citizens through self-initiative and at the same time advancing the collective interest of citizens through civic engagement with local state actors2.
Data for the assessment was collected during the period August 8 to September 14, 2017, during the peak of the rainy season in Liberia. Of course, this had an impact on movements across the region, especially traveling on roads not paved. The team spent more time than allotted, and sometimes had to adjust times to make up for set appointments.
vi. Review of Related Literature
A Civil Society Rapid Assessment (2014) conducted by a consortium of organizations, including Search for Common Ground in Liberia, the West Africa Civil Society Institute and CIVICUS stated some of the challenges that hinder collaboration and networking
2 This definition and categorization of CSOs and CBOs was agreed to and included into the approved final resource protocol (attached). Page | 5
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
between CSOs and CBOs in Montserrado and rural parts of Liberia3. For example, there are very few methods for sharing information as a result of poor road networks, a lack of transportation, weak mobile phone networks and poor infrastructure. In many cases, CSOs lack a vision and mission; and where these do exist they are imprecise or overlap. At the same time, each organization focuses on its perceived domain with little coordination or collaboration.4
A Civil Society Forum, sponsored by Trust Africa in 2009 sought to strengthen NGOs through strategic collaboration, coordinated policy advocacy and constructive engagement with national government. It stated that collaboration between individual groups and coalitions is one of the “weakest links” in the civil society sector. This affects the impact that civil society, particularly NGOs, could have in their advocacy work and in contributing to the national development agenda5.
A Mid-Term Evaluation on Strengthening the Capacity of Civil Society to Promote Sustainable Governance in Liberia stated that collaboration between national and local partners is a challenge. Local partners sometimes feel national partners consider them as a strictly logistical counterpart— in charge of inviting people, finding a room for an event and so on—rather than as real programmatic partners who can learn from each other. There also were issues of coordination between the local and national partners when two partners would be willing to organize an activity at the same period in the same county.6
3 See: “Civil Society Rapid Assessment: Liberia” (Search for Common Grounds, 2014) 4 See also: “How are Organizations Learning In Liberia?” (iCampus and LAVI, August 2017). 5 See: “Report of the Civil Society Forum: Strengthening NGOs through strategic collaboration, coordinated policy advocacy and constructive engagement with National Government.” Trust Africa, April 4, 2009) 6 See: Strengthening The Capacity of Civil Society To Promote Sustainable Governance in Liberia: Mid-Term Evaluation Report (Search for Common Ground, October 2014)
Page | 6
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
SECTION TWO
2. Methodology
The data collection in this study involved a desk and literature review, 16 focus groups, and 32 key informant interviews to collect qualitative data from representatives of CBOs and CSOs.
i. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Phase one of the KIIs consisted of KIIs conducted using a set of questions (see Appendix for the questionnaire) developed by CODRA’s program team. The questions asked related to coalitions and networks, and challenges in CBO/CSO collaboration. A total of 32 persons participated in the KIIs. The sample selected were key personnel from CSOs and CBOs, who are mainly responsible for planning and executing joint programs with other organizations (See appendix for a full list of informants per county).
KII with staff of in Bassa Youth Caucus KII with staff of Institute for Research and (BYC) in Grand Bassa County Democratic Development (IREDD) in Montserrado
KII with staff of Liberia Media Center (LMC) KII with staff of Sanniquellie Youth in Montserrado County Association (SYA) in Nimba County
Page | 7
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
ii. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Phase two consisted of FGDs with CSOs and CBOs separately. The purpose of the Focus Group Discussions (FGD) was to provide sufficient space for participants from the interview phase of the assessment, to interact and discuss these issues with others. The exchanges reinforced many of the points made in the interviews. A total of eight (8) FGDs were conducted in the five (5) counties: Two FGDs (one all CBOs and one all CSOs) each in Nimba, Margibi and Grand Bassa Counties; and one FGD each in Bong and Montserrado Counties. On the aggregate, 35 persons across the five (5) counties participated in the FGDs. The number of target participants for the research varied per county. The FGDs for CSOs and CBOs were separated in order to provide sufficient space for all to participate
equally.
FGD with staff of Bass Youth Caucus, Women A female participant from the Foundation for Rights Watch & Women in Development in International Dignity (FIND) makes a Grand Bassa County presentation during the FGD in Gbarnga, Bong County iii. Assessment Limitations This assessment may have been limited as a result of the use of questionnaires for both the KIIs and the FGDs as instruments for the collection of the data. Because questionnaires are usually brief and direct, areas that may require exhaustiveness may not be adequately probed. Meaning that the questions were developed based on the team’s perceptions and views of the issue. However, questions designed for the FDGs were only intended to jump-start the discussion and were not necessarily limiting the space for the discussions.
Page | 8
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASESSMENT
SECTION THREE
3. Findings
Demographic Profile
The team was informed by the participating organizations that the respondents were key program personnel involved in advocacy on different issues within the sub-sectors (forest, mineral, oil and gas) of NRM and concessions. Some are involved with policy reform issues, like the management of the County Social Development Fund (CSDF), while others are involved in human rights and accountability issues. There are some CSOs and CBOs who work both at the county and national levels. Some work locally but are affiliated with organizations at the national level.
The findings from the assessment are based on the two sets of data collection instruments (the questionnaires from the KIIs and the FGDs) and will be categorized based on the differences of the responses to the questions as follows:
i. KIIs Findings
Definition of CSOs/CBOs and their Roles in Advocacy around NRM Issues
CSOs and CBOs seem to have an appreciable understanding of their roles and responsibilities, giving the flourishing of democratic space in Liberia. However, based on the contextual definition of CSOs and CBOs, there is a thin line in terms of the understanding of the definition CSOs outside of Monrovia and CBOs; in our interaction with the respondents, they seemed to have the understanding that CSOs and CBOs working outside Monrovia are one because, according to the Executive Director of Grassroots in Buchanan, “Once you work outside of Monrovia, you are treated as a small community-based organization, there is absolutely no distinctions.” Another Program Officer from the Foundation for International Dignity in Gbarnga, stated that, “CSOs in Monrovia are a donor-centric group who are out of touch with happenings in other parts of the country. So, their treatment of CSOs and CBOs working outside of Monrovia reflects that.” But there is a much clearer line between CSOs from Monrovia and CSOs and CBOs outside Monrovia. Therefore, for the purpose of this report, the team will categorize the respondents as CSOs/CBOs outside Monrovia on one side and CSOs from Monrovia on the other side. As such, the responses to the question of the definition and roles of CSOs and CBOs in advocacy will be categorized as such.
a) CSOs
Interacting with the CSOs, the assessment found out that CSOs in Monrovia have appreciable understanding of the roles and functions of CSOs. Respondents expressed, unanimously, that CSOs are part of the governance process of a country. As such, their
Page | 9
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
roles should be to ensure a balance of the governance process by bridging state/citizens divide, through the amplification of the voices of citizens. A respondent from IREDD in Monrovia defined CSOs as, “a group of people that come together with one interest and goal, to transform society and make change of specific issues that are of societal concern”. This presents a strong case of the level of awareness of the roles and responsibilities of CSOs to the governance of natural resources. A respondent from DEN-L, on the other hand, made the distinction between a CSO and a CBO. He defined CBO as, “a group that is structured at the community level, and they are structured in a way that they are driven by a vision, mission and a common interest. CBOs are not as structured as CSOs, and may not have national recognition.”
However, from perspective of CSOs from Monrovia, CBOs as less in terms definition, scope, and operations. This definition of CBOs by CSOs, therefore, set the framework for the way they treat CBOs; they see them as lesser partners and “errant servants,” meaning that CBOs are just there to be used for certain kinds of job like mobilization and follow-ups.
CSOs believe that they have an advantage over CBOs, as expressed by NAYMOTE’s respondent, “It is because of the experiences that we have as CSOs that give advantage in joint advocacy.” The structural composition of the different coalitions and platforms in Monrovia speak to the fact that CSOs see themselves as having the edge over CBOs. It is this relationship that has distanced CSOs, especially the Monrovia based from CBOs thus, disenfranchising CBOs from joint advocacy.
a) CBOs
CBOs have a problem defining who they are and identifying their clear roles and responsibilities. Making the difference between CSOs and CBOs is a challenge. One of the CBOs from Nimba, defined the role of CSOs in advocacy as “CBOs are to serve as watch dogs in the society; they are there to link the voiceless to the policy makers, they care for the less fortunate in the society and promote transparency and accountability so that the government is aware of the fact to provide basic social service for its citizens.” One key finding from the assessment with the CBOs is that they do not recognize the difference in the roles, based on mandates, visions and scope of operation; instead, they seem to believe that there should be no difference. As such, both CSOs and CBOs can play equal roles in advocacy at all levels.
However, one CBO interviewed in Margibi County, expressed that there is a difference between a CBO and CSO, in terms scope, “CBOs function and are effective at the community level while CSOs function and are effective both at the county and national levels.” Legally, the organization expressed that, “many CBOs are not legally registered with the government; they are more concern about looking at issues affecting the communities.”
Page | 10
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
CSOs Advantages they bring to Advocacy around NRM Issues
a) CSOs
Most of the CSOs and CBOs interviewed have participated in joint actions and advocacy campaigns. Their experiences cover the planning and execution of joint actions at both the local and national levels. However, CSOs bring to the table as an advantage, the following:
National and international perspectives;
Knowledge through research;
Resource mobilization (communication, logistics, human capital, etc.);
Organizational skills (capacity and ability to develop and implement a plan);
Access to policy makers
b) CBOs
CBOs have the following:
Knowledge about the history of the issues at the communities level;
Knowledge of the cultural norms of the communities;
Knowledge of who are the key stakeholders (allies, spoilers, etc.), as result, would know what strategy to employ to mobilize stakeholders and make follow-ups before, during and after advocacy events.
The Engagement of CSOs and CBOs in Advocacy Campaign around NRM Issues- a Description of the campaign.
CSOs
The assessment revealed that a number of the CSOs assessed, have engaged in an advocacy campaign with CBOs either once or twice. From the different experiences related, the assessment team presents the following as excerpts from the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) experience: SDI’s respondents narrated they have been involved with collaboration with some CBOs in the forest sector. The Government of Liberia was reneging on payments of it part of the benefit sharing cost to communities that were affected by the operations of logging companies. The Community Forestry Development Committees (CFDCs), the structure set up under the new Forestry Law to manage funds coming to the communities, decided to lunch an advocacy campaign to have government pay some of the money it owed. Up to the time of the advocacy campaign, the government through the Forest Development Agency (FDA) was indebted in the tune of $5m US Dollars. In River Cess County where the CFDCs had decided to carry out an advocacy campaign, they decided to invite the SDI to come and collaborate with them, in order to strengthen
Page | 11
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
their voices in the advocacy process. SDI accepted and joined the collaboration. Along with the CFDCs, the collaborating partners were able to plan and implement the advocacy campaign to logical conclusion. They used lobby meetings with key legislators and people in the Executive branch of government, radio outreach, letter writings, and other pressure to arrive at a point where the government agreed to begin to remit the first trench of pay in the tune of $2m USD to the communities’ accounts at the various commercial banks. The collaboration was successful because the CFDCs, from the community level, were involved at every step of the negotiation and encouraged to play its role in the negotiation with the government and other key actors like the World Bank, the European Union and the US Government.
CBOs
Grassroots for Justice, Grand Bassa, narrated that they have been involved in some joint advocacy campaigns. They explained that Grand Bassa County was given some metal scraps to sell and use the proceeds to engage in some social developments. The county authorities decided to use the proceeds from the sales of the craps to purchase some pieces of earth moving equipment (yellow machines). The CBO decided to invite other groups, including the women, the youths, as well as other CSOs, to come and join the advocacy campaign to engage the county authorities, so that they prioritize the construction of a community college for the youth, instead of prioritizing the purchase of yellow machines. The respondents explained that the groups came together and joined their efforts in an advocacy campaign to dissuade the county authorities from purchasing the yellow machines. For months, the group engaged the county authorities and the Legislative Caucus in an advocacy campaign. It consisted of a sustained dialogue and a presentation of a prepared petition. After some sustained engagements, the county leadership decided to agree with the campaigners for a community college instead of yellow machines.
Challenges that CSOs and CBOs face when trying to work together
The following were stated as the key challenges that CSOs and CBOs face when trying to work together:
CSOs
Limited resource (finance, logistics, etc.) for CSOs and CBOs to take advantage of and sustain their joint advocacy actions;
The lack of mobility on the part of most CSOs, makes it sometimes very difficult to work with CBOs to do joint monitoring of government projects in the NRM sector;
Lack of information sharing on the part of CSOs when they are working with smaller groups (CBOs);
The lack of donor funding. Because of the economic crisis the world economy is facing, many donors are heavily cutting back on funding and as such, they are reshaping their priority areas and their strategies.
Page | 12
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
CBOs
Disparity in salaries and skills. CSOs have an appreciable number of skilled personnel and these personnel in many instances make more money as oppose to personnel of CBOs who have low skills and make less money. Because of such disparity, it has been a challenge for the two actors to work together in a coalition;
CBOs’ commitment to the work. Many a time, it is very difficult to the full commitment of CBOs to effective do a piece of work. A respondent from NAYMOTE said “it is very hard to work with CBOs, especially when it comes to the submission of reports. Many a time they will always the delay the submission of their reports and that affect us the CSOs because the donor expects us to report within time; if don’t, it affects us greatly”.
Resource mobilization. Many CBOs lack the ability to raise resources for their operations and sustainability.
Computing priorities. Many CSOs do not see the need of working with CBOs as priority. Many CSOs feel that they need the collaboration of CBOs to carry on their projects because they the needed manpower and skills to the job.
The lack of capacity. It was seen that many of the CBOs assessed do not have the capacity to manage the implementation of projects thoughtless about managing joint projects. Besides, many CBOS are not well structure in terms of how they are operating-no office, no systems (financial, human resources, etc.). CBOs are feeling that bigger CSOs do not to provide capacity building and mentorship for CBOs because they fear that these CBOs might rise to level and thus be in still competition with them when it comes to donor funding.
The lack of access to information. This is one challenge the assessment team found that is a major impediment to the two trying to work together. In some areas visited mobile networks access is a challenge and as such, CBOs in these areas face a lot constraints in access the internet to source information. Some do not have it at all.
Why do CSOs and CBOs not work together more on advocacy campaigns?
CSOs
The team found out that generally, there were three cardinal reasons that were common to the CSOs: The lack of trust; CSOs and CBOs do not trust each other in many things, including, handling of finances and sharing of information on joint activities;
Limited funding, because of the limitation of funding, CSOs will tend to concentrate more on themselves as oppose to thinking about including CBOs in the implementation of their projects.
Self-interest and lack of commitment on the part of CSOs and CBO, each of the two actors do not have a common interest that unites them, and that is the reason why they don’t tend to work together more; everyone is prioritizes protect his/her own interest.
Page | 13
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
CBOs
Lack of trust and accountability. CBOs and CSOs do not trust each other and as such, it has been difficult for the two actors to work together. The two actors have accused each other of not being transparent and accountable in terms of what they had been entrusted with.
CSOs say they do not have the finances to maintain CBOs and more instances, CSOs develop projects and ignored CBOs because they themselves want to implement all aspect of the project. One of the reasons they provided was that the project proposal is fixed in terms of administrative cost and since the CSOs is working to satisfy the donor; nothing is place within the budget to take care of CBOs.
CBOs informed the assessment team that they will not like to work with CSOs because of how the CSOs look down upon them; they only want to work with them when they want them to do certain things to support their campaign.
ii. FGDs Findings
A total of eight (8) FGDs were conducted in the five (5) counties: Two FGDs (one CBOs-focused and one CSOs-focused) each in Nimba, Margibi and Grand Bassa Counties; and one FGD each in Bong and Montserrado Counties. Participants in each of the eight (8) FGDs responded to a set of questions (See annex for questionnaires). The responses from the FGDs were all very similar, as stated below: The knowledge and information that both CSOs and CBOs have on the NRM and concessions sector is very limited. All of the participants at all of the FGDs unanimously pointed out that the very limited level of information on the sector has served to hinder effective joint action and advocacy. Knowledge, where it does exist, is mainly within CSOs, with many CBOs not engaged in any way in joint actions around NRM issues.
CBOs reported that it is very challenging to seek redress from local government authorities because those authorities themselves are challenged by a lack of the knowledge and information on the sector and are usually very reluctant to entertain discussions around natural resource management and concession issues.
Most of the joint advocacy campaigns are donor funded. These projects adhere to donor timelines and therefore rarely include follow-up actions over time in a way that could generate greater sustainability.
Participants at Monrovia FGD were unanimous in expressing that at an appreciable level, CSOs have worked successfully in coalitions and networks around NRM issues. CSOs efforts including: the work of Publish-What-You-Pay Coalition7, Liberia NGO Network and the Private User Permit8 and the
7 Publish-What-You-Pay Coalition is a CSO initiative that works with the Liberia Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (LEITI), promoting transparency and accountability.
8 The PUP was a scheme within the forestry reform law but was abused. CSOs in this coalition worked to ensure that the abuse was dealt with by the President of Liberia. http://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/Executive%20Order%20_44%20- %20Moratorium%20on%20Private%20Use%20Permits.pdf Page | 14
Voluntary Principle Agreement in the Forestry sector, and the LAVI/NRM Coalition in the administration and operations of the County Social Development Fund. However, most of these efforts were done with CSOs collaborating with each other, very limited roles and responsibilities of CBOs.
A participant in one of the FGDs stated, “When CSOs/CBOs receive information on the sector, they make efforts to reach local government authorities, but they do not get redress because these local authorities themselves do not have adequate knowledge on operations in the sector to explain or clarify anything.” A woman from the Margibi Rural Women during the FGDs said: “Information is strength.”
CSOs and CBOs Capacity to Engage in Advocacy within the NRM and Concession Sector: Both the participants in the KIIs and the FGDs indicated that a key challenge is dealing with the perception that because CSOs and CBOs are the “watchdogs” of society, they supposed to have the capacity and the know-how to effectively engage in advocacy. It is perceived that CSOs and CBOs are the “experts” in advocacy and should therefore be effective unfortunately, knowledge and information gaps exist, and advocacy is a process that requires planning, execution and follow- up over time. This means that there is a divergence between the perception of CSOs and CBOs and the realities- which could undermine legitimacy over time.
The assessment found that beyond the attraction of donor funding to facilitate advocacies, CSOs and CBOs in the FGDs agreed that the current process of engagement in advocacy is usually not thoroughly laid out and carefully explained to all of the actors in the coalition or network. Hence, some very important steps and processes that could contribute to the effectiveness of joint action are either overlooked or ignored. This makes these “marriages of convenience” difficult to sustain. Some reflective but very critical questions were highlighted by participants at the Gbarnga FGDs, as a means of reflecting on the challenges faced when ensuring that the advocacy processes are thorough, as follows: What happens after the first and second engagements? Do the leaders of these coalitions and networks take time to explain to all the actors the status and progress of the work? Are planned actions and strategies reviewed and revised according to the contexts? Are the leaders of the coalitions and networks patient enough to sacrifice their own individual goals for collective progress?
The challenge of fixing the capacity gap for effective advocacy does not only require the supply of timely information and knowledge-building in the subject matter- it also requires getting the process and incentives behind the advocacy right.
Page | 15
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
Major Limitations in Networking and Collaboration Our assessment found three key limitations to networking and collaboration among Liberian civil society and community-based organizations:
The information and knowledge about a specific issue needs to be a priority for any group of people. Unfortunately, CSOs and CBOs have emphasized that they have very serious limitation in the level of information and knowledge of the natural resource management and concession sector. As such, it has served to hinder the both the momentum of the advocacy or the depth at which these organizations can engage. The Executive Director for Grassroots for Justice, Grand Bassa County stated in the Grand Bassa FGDs, “When it comes to the information and knowledge of the NRM sector, CBOs are far behind and need urgent attention.”
Inadequate planning processes. CSOs and CBOs do not yet have the systems, knowledge or capacity to plan effectively for multi-stakeholder, long-term, effective advocacy campaigns. Nor are there currently efforts ongoing to support internal organizational development in ways that could address these challenges over time.
Usual Path for Advocacy in the Sector: What’s Working and what’s Not Working – Lessons Learned:
Discussing the current status of the sector, CSOs and CBOs agreed that most of the issues being advocated for by coalitions and networks are issues identified and supported by international institutions. This can mean that they are short-term and bound to specific log frames and outputs. This was described by one participant in Buchanan, Grand Bassa County as a “touch-and-go” strategy. This is not effective in a context with a government that relies on the exploitation of natural resources to maintain the status quo in Liberia and is not in a hurry to ensure reforms. Therefore, if civil society and community-based organizations are to make meaningful contributions to the reform process, it will require sustained engagement and advocacy to change government processes. In order to do that, CSOs and CBOs will need to come together as coalitions and networks to advocate for the necessary reforms over the long-term.
There has been some progress over time in the way civil society has approach the issue of forming coalitions and networks. The utility of working in coalitions and networks is recognized and some CBOs/CSOs are making efforts to form these coalitions and networks- as demonstrated by the LAVI-NRM Coalition, CSO Network on Land Rights, CSO Consortium on Natural Resource Management, NGO Coalition Network, etc.
Page | 16
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASESSMENT
SECTION FOUR
4. Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the assessment, the following recommendations are made:
i. A conscious effort must be made by donors, development partners and other international organizations to encourage CSOs and CBOs to form and work in coalitions and networks. However, respect for diversity and fairness must be reflected in the effort; and the support should be long-term to allow for the necessary timeframe for advocacy to show success;
ii. Granting institutions and organizations need to consider delineation in standards between CSOs and CBOs accessing grants; efforts must be made to set up different standards for CSOs and CBOs in calls for applications or proposals. This will place CBOs in a much better position to access direct funding and be taken seriously in terms of their roles in coalitions and networks;
iii. Existing coalitions and networks need to recognize the gaps in their collaboration (identified challenges and barriers) and work collectively to address them. This could begin with a discussion around the roles and responsibilities of each member of the group, as well as joint planning and advocacy development;
iv. CSOs and CBOs will need to make efforts to discuss and deal with each other’s’ perceived fears (perceptual understanding of each other). CSOs should play a key role in addressing the sense of inferiority of CBOs by including them into their programs in meaningful ways and supporting their growth and development through mentorship and accompaniment as partners at the local level;
v. CSOs and CBOs will need to work to build a critical mass of organizations with expertise in natural resource management and concessions issues. In order to do this, horizontal and peer to peer learning needs to be encouraged through co-locations of key staff, mentorship, joint planning events, and education and awareness seminars. This will allow for greater awareness and promote education across the different regions of the country;
vi. Provide capacity building for CBOs in the areas of Financial Management , fund raising, proposal development and organization development;
vii. Provide basic logistical support to CBOs. This will enable them to become operational and will position them to getting donor’s support; viii. Do a comprehensive mapping of CBOs working in the NRM and concession sector so as to have a data base that will aid donors and other organizations that may want to work with these CBOs in the sector; Page | 17
ix. Hold multi stakeholder engagements or dialogues with key actors (CSOs & CBOs) in the sector to begin conversation around building networks and coalitions that will work to address critical issues in the sector; and x. Due to our discussion around coordination and collaboration, the impact of the work of the umbrella body of CSOs and CBOs (National Civil Society Council of Liberia) has an effect on the proper organization and operation of everyone. Therefore, it is very important that a study is commissioned, in order to understand the Council’s mandate and vision for improving organization, coordination and collaboration, with focus on any existing framework or guide for promoting CSOs/CBOs collaboration.
Page | 18
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
Annexes:
i. Bibliography
Bloh, O. and Clark, A. “Civil Society Rapid Assessment: Liberia (2014) 34 - 36
Trust Africa and Humanity United. “Report of the Civil Society Forum (April 4, 2009)
McKeown, M. and Mulbah, E. “Civil Society in Liberia: Towards a Strategic Framework for Support” (April2007) 19
Page | 19
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
ii. Abstract
This assessment is an attempt to examine and document the current challenges and successes of CSOs and CBOs in collaborating and networking around reforming the natural resource management (NRM) sector, in order for different actors to not only learn from them, but to also sit together and brainstorm on how to address these challenges put forth in the report.
The report draws from past and ongoing initiatives, including initiatives funded by USAID through the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI).
Page | 20
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
iii. Questionnaire for the Key Informant Interview
1. How would you define a CSO? What is commonly their role in advocacy? 2. How would you define CBO? What commonly is their role in advocacy? 3. What ad advantages do CSOs bring to advocacy, specifically around NRM? 4. What ad advantages do CBOs bring to advocacy, specifically around NRM issues? 5. Have you engaged in an advocacy initiative around NRM issues that included both CSOs and CBOs? Describe the campaign. What was the experience like? 6. What are some challenges CSOs and CBOs face when trying to work together? 7. In your opinion, why do CSO s and CBOs not work together more on advocacy campaigns? 8. What would you recommend to improve CSO-CBO collaboration in advocacy around NRM issue? 9. What support do you think is required to improve collaboration? (capacity development, logistical networking opportunities)
Page | 21
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
iv. Questionnaire for Focus Group Discussions
a. What is considered Natural Resource Governance? - What are challenges to improving governance in the sector? b. How much information do CSOs/CBOs have on the sector? - Is the lack of information a hindrance to advocacy? c. How do CSOs/CBOs respond the information or the lack of it? d. Hove CSOs/CBOs conducted any joint advocacy action on NRM issues before? - --What are examples of successes or failures in the joint actions? What could be responsible for the successes or failures of the particular action?
Page | 22
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
v. The List of CSOs and CBOs that took part in the assessment
Bong
Bong Women Organization (BWO) Panta Women Organization in Gbarnga (PWO) Center for Justice and Peace Studies (CJPS) Catholic Justice and Peace Commission (JPC) The Development Education Network-Liberia (DEN-L) Federation of Liberian Youths (FLY, Bong Chapter) Bong Youth Caucus (BYC) Foundation for International Dignity (FIND) Suakoko Youth Association (SYA) Boisein Youth Parliament The National Union of Persons with Disability (Bong Chapter).
Grand Bassa
Bassa Women Development Association (BAWODA) Women Rights Watch Women in Development, Bassa Youth Caucus (BYC) Bassa Concern Citizens Movement (BCCM) Grass Root Advocacy for Social Justice (GRASOJ) Compound 3 Youth Association (CYA) Gorblee Youth for Development (GYD)
Nimba
Grass Root Democracy Early Actions to Restore Stability (EARS) Special Emergency Activity to Restore Children Hope (SEARCH) Sanniquellie Youth Association (SYA) Collective Actions for Rural Development (CARD) Humanity Care Liberia Sanniquellie Concern Women (SCW)
Margibi
National Action for Research and Development (NARD) Margibi Women Development association (MAWODA) National Rural Women (NRW, Margibi chapter)
Page | 23
CSOS AND CBOS LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
Liberia Youth Network (LIYONET) National Governance and Peace Committee of Liberia National Youth United for Transparency and Accountability The Dropped out and Less Fortunate Students Association
Montserrado
NAYMOTE- Partners for Democratic Development, The Institute for Research and Democratic Development (IREDD) Citizens United for Peace and Democracy in Liberia (CUPPADL) Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) Platform for Dialogue and Peace (P4DP) Liberia Media Center (LMC) Rural Human Rights Activist Program (RHRAP)
Page | 24
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
EXPERIENCE SHARING AND LEARNING CONFERENCE
EVALUATION REPORT LAVI APS-003: Promoting Best Practices and Information Sharing Among Civil Society Actors for Advocacy and Policy Reform: Natural Resource Management and Concessions Sector
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 1
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
Title of Conference Learning in Liberia: Best Practices for Advocating for Change in the Natural Resource Management Sector
Venue The Madam Suah Koko Center for Rural Women Empowerment, Cuttington Univesity main Campus, Suakoko District, Bong County Date December 1-2, 2017
Name of host Organization Community Development and Research Agency (CODRA)
Organized in collaboration with USAID/Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) (institution/organization)
Nature of attendance Community based organizations, civil society organizations, Academic, government and the public (citizens) Participation of attendants2 The attendees participated overwhelmingly during the event. They took keen interest in the topics and issues that were being discussed and they expressed satisfactions and commited themselves to returning to their various institutions and communities to help educate others about the NRM and Concession sector. Objectives of Conference o To create the space for horizontal and vertical learning and experience sharing of different increased, using findings from the assessment and building on existing good practices to improve networking and collaboration; and
o To advance ways and strategies for addressing identified barriers and challenges that serve to impede networking and coalitions between CSOs
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 2
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
and CBOs proffered jointly.
Main results/outcomes The conference created a space to increase the horizontal and vertical learning and experience sharing of different actors using findings from the assessment and building on existing good practices to improve networking and collaboration; Ways and strategies for addressing identified barriers and challenges that serve to impede networking and coalitions between CSOs and CBOs proffered jointly identified; Participants had an increased knowledge on the different issues affecting the NRM and Concession sector that came up during the presentation of various topics; CSOs and CBOs had an increased understanding and the willingness to form a collaboration or network to pick up a hot button issue and advocate for change within the NRM and Concession sector; The findings from the Assessment, as highlighted in the conference, showcased the scale of the challenges of CSOs and CBOs working together in networks and coalitions. It challenged participants to pay attention to some of the details of defining roles and responsibilities, as well as being thorough in the planning and execution of advocacy campaigns; The conference participants learned of the relevance and unique place-value (either local or national) of each stakeholder (CSOs and CBOs) in advocacy initiatives, and realized that no one group can replace the other in advocacy; and The conference participants also realized and emphasized that shared resources and joint capacity development are essential to achieving the overall purpose and goal of any network or coalition in advocacy. Hence, the need for regular and constant information flow as well as education and awareness
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 3
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
on the core objectives of the tasks engaged in, cannot be overemphasized Media coverage From Novemver 27-December 1, 2017, CODRA conducted wide media coverage for the holding of the Learning Conference. Radio Gbarnga held a talk show to create publicity about the event and also broadcasted the program live. Two newspapers covered the conference; they were the Daily Obsever and Front Page Africa all based in Monrovia.
I. FORM OF INVITATION USED TO REQUEST ATTENDANCE OF TARGET AUDIENCE
CODRA resorted to sending out official written communications to selected participants to attend the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference. Participants were drawn from CSOs that are working within the NRM and Concession sectors, Local Government, the Community and Academic Institutions (universities). There were three categories of participants attending the conference: panelists, special guests and general participants.
There were documents that were given to the invitees that attended. During the conference, CODRA distributed the CSOs and CBOs Learning and Knowledge Assessment Report to the particpants. A total of 80 copies of the research report were printed and distributed to the guest to help inform them about the contents of the assessment especially the findings and recommendations . This was also done to enhance the full participation of everyone and to ensure Hoparticpants contribute to the way forward agenda item of the conference. This is where the delegates drew up final recommendations for the conference conveners.
II. APPRECIATION OF FINAL ATTENDANCE
CODRA managed to have good quality of presenters and participation despite not having everyone that was invited showing up for the event. Feedback gathered from the participants was that the conference was a worthy gathering of delegates from five (5) different counties and presented an excellent national perspective on CBOs, CSOs and community engagements. All sessions were well regarded with specific reference on the keynote speaker, with many delegates offering their thanks for being able to listen to such a high quality speaker. The delegates praised
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 4
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
the various panellists, topics and the different levels of experience they each had which was considered to provide balance to the forum.
A total of 100 persons from over 56 Organizations from five counties (Bong, Grand Bassa, Lofa Mar Gibi, Montserrado and Nimba Counties) were invited to attend the conference. From the analysis of the attendance sheets for the two days event, an average of 71.5% of those invited to participate in conference attended. This shows that a majority of those invited attended the event and great work was done to mobilize invitees to attend the event.. The attendance from the first day of the conference was 80%, a total of 80 person (50 males and 30 females), which means that a lot was achieved in getting those invited to conference attend. On the second day, there was a total of 63 persons (30 males and 33 females) in attendance to conclude the conference. This accounts for 63% of those expected to have attended for the two days.
III. KEY PARTICPANTS INDETIFIED AND THEIR RELATION IN ENGAGING IN ADVOCACY TO CAPTURE AND SHARE LESSONS-LEARNED Many of the participants invited represented CSOs andCBOs as well as other establishments from five counties. These CSOs and CBOs are working around natural resource management issues(NRM). Key participants during the conference were those invited to serve as panelits. They were people who were knowledgeable and have requisite experiences with respect to the issues within the NRM and concession sectors. This was reflected in their presentations during the conference. The panellists demonstrated control over the contents of their presentations, which spiced up the conversations that ensued their presentations. The different presentations provided participants with a clear insight of the different issues with respect to the NRM and concession sector. Below is summary of the different presentations of the panel discussions and other working sessions:
Panel 1: Defining CSOs/CBOs and the Role each plays in Advocacy around NRM issues ( Aaron Weah-Weah) – The panelist provided from his personal perspectives, the definitions of CSOs and CBOs, and their roles in advocacy. But, the emphasis of the discussion was on what elements that make CSOs different from CBOs. Panelist Aaron Weah-Weah suggested that the main difference is the scope of work that each takes unto themselves. Therefore, in order for advocacy to be effective, the both will have to complement each other. The participants agreed that each is very important to advocacy and that both have distinct roles that the other cannot perform more effectively without the support of each other.
Panel 2. Looking at the advantages that CSOs and CBOs Bring to Advocacy around NRM Issues (Aaron Juakollie and Mrs. Yorlor Kayar). Both panelists had auniqueness in terms of what they bring to the table. CSOs have a better administrative and advocacy leverage advantage at the national level, and can easily satisfy donors requirements and accelerate responses to calls for applications and CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 5
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
proposals. CBOs, on the other hand, are much more closer to the target beneficiaries and do have a much better understanding of the context and the environment. As such, it was a consensus that in order to harness these advantages, the need to mutually respect one another and collaboration cannot be overemphasized.
Panel 3. Flagging the Challenges CSOs and CBOs face when trying to Work Together (Samukai Sannoh and Monica Dolo) One of the major weaknesses of CSOs and CBOs in advocacy is that they do not follow-up on advocacy initiatives when they are started. Therefore, it’s time that CSOs/CBOs work to strengthen follow-up mechanism in the communities. This is part of being thorough in planning joint actions and initiatives. Panelist Monica Dolo said, “Let’s ensure that local people voices are heard and included in the formulation and implantation of various development agreements.
Panel 4: Understanding why CSOs and CBOs do not work together more on Advocacy Campaign (Ralph Jammeh and Othello Contowor) – It was agreed that if things are not cleared out from the beginning (for example, who does what, where and how? How are resources for the action shared?), it can leave room for doubts and speculations. Therefore, there they suggested that there be open engagement from the conception and formulation stages of joint actions by all parties, to the closure and sign-out stages. The emphasis on being thorough (not overlooking or leaving out any small details in how things supposed to unfold) in the planning and execution stages of any joint action was highly stressed by participants. This, participants believe, will curb any and all unanswered questions and clarify any and all boubts.
Panel 5: The Perceptual Understanding of the barriers to CSO and CBO in Engagement to Advocacy (Martha C. Treh and Aaron Weah-Weah). Both the panelists and participants consented to the findings of the assessment report and reiterated that there is a huge gap in the perception of each other in joint actions. Some are wrong but some are truth. However, the participants agreed that there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift towards a people centered leadership in the different organizations. As part of the shift, CSOs and CBOs will need to establish structures that enhance their activities and empower more community people. CBOs are the reasons for which CSOs succeeded.
Panel 6: Highlighting Major Limitations in CSOs and CBOs Networking and Collaboration in Advocacy (Joseph Cheyon and Danny S. N. Giwlay) The understanding that CSOs and CBOs are advocating for instead of with the marginalized is a serious limitation. CSOs should always work to empower the locals to lead in advocacy.
Support to CBOs and CSOs on community advocacy action is low. In many instances donors are not willing to sponsor such initiative. Danny Giwley of DEN-L said, “We need CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 6
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
to focus more on empowering local people to strengthen community advocacy at all levels.”
Hearing from LAVI and Other Coalitions/Networks: The different stages of LAVI/NRM’s work was presented to the participants as a case in point (by Jackson Speare). The different planning stages, as well as the carving out of the roles and responsibilities of the USAID/LAVI NRM Coalition members and the setting up of an administrative and governing structure helped the coalition achieve its objectives.
Telling Stories in Joint Action: (Jessie Cole – JPC) presented a a success story of an advocacy work in Bong County led by DEN –L and CODRA (as partner) to empower residents of Kokoyah Statutory district and ensured the provision of US$ 84, 000 to the district. Elements to consider were that there were clear roles and responsibilities, each partner was involved in developing and executing the actions. Each partner was respectful of one another.
IV. APPRECIATION AND LESSONS-LEARNED FROM EVENT There were several lessons learned from the conference that we want to highlight. Key among them were the following: 1. Topics were distributed among the various panellists in a way that there were various opinions/views that stood up during the different presentations. It is important to have a cross-section of views/opinions so that audience gets a fair sense of what the various panellists are delivering. That was exactly what came up among the various discussions that came up. 2. The moderator demonstrated that it is important to go the extra mile to get the audience to fully understand the different presentations. The moderator demonstrated this quality in a way that helped the audience to grasp the points that varous panellists made during the presentation. Each time a panellist discussed a topic, the moderator would highlight, emphasize or summarize the main or key points for the audience. 3. The styles that panellists used when they were delivering their various topics. The panalists were keen in their delivery of their presentations in ways that ensured they emphasized their key points which showed that they were knowledgeable of their various topics. 4. Donor organizations are concerned about develiverables being met and achieving outcome/impact which in many instances have, to some extend, limited CSOs from working with CBOs on bigger scale, it is very important for CBOs to begin to think about other ways of raising funds to sustain their activities.
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 7
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
5. Liberian CSOs and CBOs are doing good work in advocacy, but they are not documenting well their successes as well as not packing and disseminating their results gained from their work.
CODRA was the sole organizer of the conference with funding from USAID through the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI). However, at the end of the conference, Cuttington University expressed interest in working in partnership with CODRA to undertake some learning activities with the students studying Natural Resource Management (NRM) at the university. The Cuttington University delegates at the conference expressed high impression about the various activities that took place at the conference
V. OVERALL IMPACT OF EXPERINCE SHARING AND LEARNING CONFERENCE The over impact of the experience sharing conference was enormous. The conference made lots of impacts. Many of the local government officials do not understand the critical issues of the NRM and Concession sectors. The Paramount Chief of Jorquelleh Chiefdom in Bong County said, “I am very happy that I have been able to come to this conference. I learned a lot of new things that I never knew in the past. I now have idea and understanding of some of the things happening within the NRM”. Many of the participants at the conference praised CODRA for the level of education and insight that it provided to the participants at the conference. The Director of Iterimship at the Cuttington University, Mr. David Fekpolo, having seen the substance of the conference, said, “We are interested in the work you are doing and we would like to partner with you so that our students can learn more about NRM since they are students studying NRM”.
One strategic contact that resulted from the conference was that of the NRM Department at the Cuttington University. One of the lecturers, who accompany the students, Mr. David Fepkolo, expressed institution’s interest in having a partnership with CODRA to help the students who are studying NRM at the university.
The assistance that LAVI provided CODRA was very helpful to the process. LAVI, through its Technical Lead on the project, provided support to the project implementation team of CODRA. Through the brainstorming and the different discussions that ensued, the LAVI team was able to support in the developement of the agenda for the conference, to help connect CODRA with contacts from the LAVI NRM Coalition members who were invited to participate and present during the conference. LAVI also provided logistical support such as transporting materials to conference venue and helping to set up the venue for the two days’ event.
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 8
Annex 15-CODRA’s Evaluation Report on the Experience Sharing and Learning Conference
VI. CONCLUSION AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS From the general perspective, the two day event went very well. The conference provided the space for CSOs, CBOs, local government officials, community actors and academia to meet and have more conversations around NRM and concessions related issues. The conference also created the space for horizontal and vertical learning and experience sharing of different stakeholders.
Following a long and interactive discussion, the plenary discussion agreed that most of these questions should be discussed during the working session, with suggestions proffered for moving forward. However, regarding the involvement of CUC, CODRA clarified that its targets for the assessment was agreed with LAVI before the assessment was commissioned. Hence, most of those interviewed were civil society and community-based organizations who are working in coalitions and networks. However, in order to widen the recommendations for moving forward, it was encouraged to invite CUC’s NRM department, and that’s why an invitation was extended to them.
Based on what was discussed the following recommendations have been advanced: 1. That there are more engagements with the different universities so as to create the space for an increased understanding of the sector by students. This will increase the knowledge base of citizens. CODRA should facilitate the engagement process. 2. That CODRA should hold series of interactive discussions with communities, especially with communities affected by the operations of concession companies so that they understand the sector. These discussions should be in the direction of learning. 3. Hold community dialogues and collect lessons learn and share them with national stakeholders (policy makers).
ANNEXES Annex 01 List of Invitees Annex 02 Expereince Sharing and Learning Conference Attendance List Annex 03 Pictures from Expereince Sharing and Learning Conference
CODRA’s Experience Sharing and Learning Conference Evaluation Report 9
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
LAVI NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CONCESSIONS PROJECT
Final Monitoring and Evaluation Report
Grant Title: Grant No: Grantee Name: Period of Performance: Total Grant Amount:
Date: XXXX
I. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY OF CHANGE The NRMC activities are grounded in this development hypothesis and are focused squarely on the parallel “If” statement:
1
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
If the political parties and candidates commit to establishing long-term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance; the new national assembly session of reform agenda-draft legislation focused on establishing long-term effective and participatory CSDF governance are introduced and influenced; communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives increased; and communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through citizen-centered monitoring/reporting enhanced; then adequate and long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance; and then accountability and transparency in CSDF management increased. The intermediate results in the Results Framework (RF) (see Figure 1) are all necessary and sufficient to achieve the goal of the program.
The Results Framework illustrated below provides the pathway for NRMC to achieve its development goal and objectives and as such, is central to NRMC’s management, monitoring and evaluation approach. The various tiers of the results framework, from top to bottom, represent LAVI’s goal, the overall NRMC goal and four- objectives. The framework also includes LAVI’s indicators (10) as well as NRMC indicators (8). The framework conveys the development hypothesis implicit in the strategy and demonstrates how planned activities and deliverables will lead to expected outcomes, results, and eventual impact.
2
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
RESULTS FRAMEWORK
3
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
II. INDICATOR OVERVIEW
[Complete the indicator table, provide data on progress since March 2017- February 2018 for each NRM indicator]
Table 2: NRM COALITION INDICATORS
Ind. # Indicator Title Type Progress (March 2017- Comments State End of Grant Date)
NRM Number of candidates or Outcome C 1.1 political parties and alliances that sign-on to community election platform and mainstream it in their own platform per county. NRM # of advocacy initiatives Output C 1.2 carried out by coalition members for inclusive participation in decision making processes of the CSDF disaggregated by initiative type. NRM # of participants in Output C 1.3: advocacy initiatives carried out by coalition members for inclusive participation in
decision making processes of the CSDF disaggregated by gender and initiative type.
NRM Number of lawmakers and Outcome C political candidates who
2.1: support the NRMC recommendations NRM Number of community Outcome C 3.1: groups reactivated or
organized as a result of the Coalition Advocacy NRM Number of citizens Output C 3.2: participating in election- related initiatives at the county level disaggregated by gender Per county NRM Number of action plans Outcome C 4.1: arising from community dialogues implemented by
civil society actors, networks, coalitions, and concessionaires per county
4
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
Output NRM Number of action plans C 4.2: arising from community dialogues developed by civil society actors, networks, coalitions, and concessionaires per county
Table 1: LAVI INDICATORS [to be completed by LAVI ME&L team]
Ind. # Indicator Title Indicator Progress (March Comments Type 2017- February 2018)
Number of recommendations Output presented by civil society actors, networks, LAVI coalitions or government
1.1: partners requesting decision makers to introduce, adopt, repeal or change public policies or practices FAF Number of consensus- Indic building forums (multi- Output ator party, civil/Security sector 2.3.1- and/or civil/political) held 7 with USG assistance Number of multi-party meetings held to Output LAVI strengthen the horizontal 1.2: and vertical linkages amongst partners Number of organizations that participate in multi- Output LAVI party meetings to
1.3: strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst partners Number of CSO LAVI organizational capacity Output
2.3 building activities conducted by LAVI or LSP Number of individuals LAVI who participate in LAVI Output
2.4: supported organizational capacity building activities Number of outputs by grant partners and Output LAVI Contractor that generate 4.3: information on issues and practices
5
Annex 16- NRM Coalition Final M&E Report Template
III. MONITORING AND EVALUTION
[Describe the methods that were used for monitoring and evaluation of activities, how the raw data for NRMC indicators was collected, consolidated, analyzed and communicated. In addition, provide detail responds to the following questions: Which activity contributed most or least to the achievement of the NRMC program goal and objectives? Who benefited and how? Are participants satisfied with what they gained from the program?
IV. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE [Highlight how the project ensured that performance data is of a high quality. Specifically, what actions have been taken to validate data to identify and correct data errors, to minimize errors; are there comparable data collection instruments and procedures in place (e.g. excel database/trackers), is data properly stored and readily available, are there proper safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized changes to the data.
V. LIMITATIONS [Highlight if you have had any challenges during data collection, monitoring and evaluation of your interventions, describe any known issues with data quality.].
6
LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND VOICE INITIATIVE (LAVI)
KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE ASSESSMENT (KAPA) REPORT
OCTOBER 2017 Contents
ACRONYMS ...... 2
BACKGROUND ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ...... 4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ...... 5
METHODOLOGY ...... 5 SAMPLING DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS ...... 5 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ...... 7
KEY FINIDNGS ...... 7 FGDS FINDINGS ...... 7 FGD RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 12 KII FINDINGS ...... 13 KII RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 16
GENERAL CONCLUSION ON FINDINGS ...... 16
ANNEXES: ...... 18
1 Acronyms
CBO Community Base Organization CC County Coordinator CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDF County Development Fund CSDF County Social Development Fund CSO Civil Society Organization CUPPADL Citizens United for Peace and Democracy in Liberia DAI Development Alternatives Inc. DDC District Development Council DYC District Youth Council EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAMs Field Activities Monitors FGD Focus Group Discussions FOI Freedom of Information IREDD Institute for Research and Democratic Development KAPA Knowledge Attitude and Practice Assessment KII Key Informant Interview LAVI Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative LEITI Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency ME&L Monitoring Evaluation & Learning MNG Mehmet Negif Gunal NAYMOTE National Youth Movement for Transparent Elections NRM Natural Resource Management P4DP Platform for Dialogue and Peace PM Project Manager PMC Project Management Committee RHRAP Rural Human Rights Activists Program RWA Rural Women Association SDI Sustainable Development Institute USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government NTAL National Teachers Association of Liberia
2 BACKGROUND
Introduction Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI), a five-year USAID funded project implemented by Development Alternatives Inc., aims to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms in Liberia. LAVI will contribute to the overall goal of USAID/Liberia’s civil society and media interventions, to increase the influence of citizens and media in governance of public goods and services. The program supports Development Objective 1 in USAID Liberia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS): more effective, accountable, and inclusive governance.
Four key objectives underscore the goal of LAVI:
Increased horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues; Increased organizational capacity of targeted civil society organizations (CSOs) to participate in issue- based reforms; On-going capacity development of services available on the local market; and Learning methodologies shared and applied by other development actors.
To achieve these objectives, LAVI is implementing activities based upon thematic windows. The first thematic window topic is Natural Resources Management and Concessions and was established by USAID. LAVI brought together eight (8) Liberian CSOs to create the Natural Resource Management (“NRM”) Coalition, with a focus on advocating for decision making and engagement of citizens in County Social Development Fund (“CSDF”) governance. The LAVI ME&L team has been collecting quantitative data on indicators below (see Table 1) that provide information about the number of events and individual’s participation and engagement in the NRM Coalition activities supported through LAVI, as well as indicators that support higher level objectives of the LAVI project, such as increased capacity of CSOs to foster engagement of citizens, civil society’s engagement with their voices being heard in decision making and monitoring processes and the quality of engagement between civil society and government. Table 1. LAVI’s indicators LAVI Objective: Strengthen Multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor accountability reforms LAVI 1 Quality of engagement between civil society and the government Civil society’s satisfaction with their voices being heard in decision making and monitoring LAVI 2 processes LAVI 3 Increased capacity of CSOs to foster citizen engagement LAVI IR 1: Horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues strengthened F 2.3.1- Number of consensus building forums (multi-party, civil/security sector, and/or civil/political) 7 held with USG assistance. F 2.4.1- Number of CSOs receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions 9
3 LAVI Number of multi-party meetings held to strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst 1.2 partners LAVI Number of organizations that participate in multi-party meetings to strengthen the horizontal 1.3 and vertical linkages amongst partners
This data allows LAVI to measure the progress towards the output and impact results. However, this information provides neither an in-depth analysis nor comprehensive picture of citizen’s knowledge on their rights in relations to CSDF governance, nor a deep understanding of their attitudes and actions taken as a result of the advocacy events they have attended. Overall, the existing data doesn’t allow us fully to measure the effectiveness of partners’ activities or define what differences these changes have made in communities and citizens’ lives. Therefore, as part of LAVI’s Knowledge Management Strategy, the ME&L team will continue focusing on the core functions to: a) generate and capture knowledge; b) analyze, synthesize, and package information; and c) improve the uptake of best practices through communication, collaboration, and learning. Accordingly, the Knowledge Attitude and Practice Assessment (KAPA) is an approach that will enable LAVI to capture, retrieve, and share knowledge for the purpose of learning.
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) studies are well-established methodologies to investigate the extent of knowledge of beneficiaries, their attitude, and practices/actions in relations to a specific theme as well as measure the effectiveness of partner’s activities ability to change the situation.
The LAVI ME&L team carried out the KAPA from September 15th to October 10th, 2017, targeting LAVI’s key stakeholders including the NRM Coalition (8 CSOs), and 150 citizens from fifteen (15) counties who participated in the project’s supported partner events to generate knowledge and deepen the understanding of changes that occurred as result of LAVI’s partner supported activities.
Additionally, it is hoped that the participatory assessment process will enable LAVI to create an opportunity to develop learning partnerships by creating a space for dialogue involving USAID Implementing partners, LAVI implementing partners, and the beneficiaries.
The results of the study provide a basis for discussions on how to improve programming and where best to allocate future resources. Furthermore, the results will be shared with the partners as part of knowledge management and learning and will assist the NRM Coalition to collectively create a framework for sustainability following the conclusion of LAVI funding.
Goal and Objectives The overall goal of the KAPA is to identify whether or not the NRM Coalition has contributed towards achievement of its following objectives: Objective One: To encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections commit to establishing long term policy mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance Objective Three: To increase communities’ and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives Objective Four: To enhance communities’ and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting
4 Specific objectives
To measure the knowledge and awareness of targeted citizens in relations to CSDF governance, compliance and monitoring/reporting To deepen understanding through more in-depth information about the improvement (if any) in citizen’s attitude and practices in relations to CSDF governance, compliance and monitoring/reporting To assess what works well and what doesn’t work well in achieving the NRM Coalition objectives To help set program priorities and make program decisions
METHODOLOGY This section provides details about the methodological aspects of the study including sampling techniques, data collection tools, field work, and methods of data collection and analysis. This was an exploratory study. The design of the study was based on qualitative method, aimed at generating robust and contextually impactful findings. Specifically, the qualitative data collection was used to gather data from different categories of respondents: key informant interviews with CSOs/ NRM Coalition members and fifteen (15) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) (one in each of LAVI’s targeted county). The FGDs were conducted among 147 citizens who attended the NRM Coalition events from April to September 2017.
Sampling design and participants The objective of a sampling methodology was to use an unbiased technique and establish representative and reliable data that enables learning and informs decision making as well as program implementation. To ensure that each member of the sample frame had an equal chance of being selected, a random sampling technique was used in selecting individuals for the FGDs. The individuals were selected from the attendance sheets completed during the NRM Coalition events and submitted to LAVI’s Field Activity Monitors. The purpose of the study and its objectives were explained to all participants prior to the interviews. Each of the fifteen (15) FGDs comprised a minimum of eight (8) to a maximum ten (10) participants. Each FGD included women, a community leader, a representative from CBOs/CSOs, government representatives, and ordinary citizens. The FGDs were organized and facilitated by LAVI field activity monitors in the counties at convenient and private venues and were facilitated by well-trained moderators.
A total of twenty-three (23) key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with CSOs Leaders and County Coordinators of the NRM Coalition by the LAVI ME&L Manager and Field Activity Monitors. Out of this number, eight (8) KIIs were held with the Executive Directors and Project Managers in Monrovia. The following NRM Coalition members in the table below were interviewed:
Table 2. Names of CSOs and Leaders interviewed # CSO Executive Director County Coordinator Program Manager 1 National Youth Movement for Eddie Jarwolo, Moses Bailey- Bong Transparent Elections (NAYMOTE), S Aaron Weah Weah III Otis Wreh- River Gee Lawrence Myers- Maryland
2 Citizens United to Promote Peace & David Flomo, Christian T.L. Martina M. Gbarlar-Grand Bassa Democracy in Liberia (CUPPADL) Peah Joe Tee Kollie- Marbibi Joseph Sahn- Montserrado 5 3 Development Education network Dorothy Tooman, Peter Dolo Liberia (DEN-L) 4 Institute for Research, Democratic Harold M Aidoo, Prince Gaye Jouthy A. Johnson- Grand Gedeh Development (IREDD) Emmanuel Zorh- Nimba Fomba A. Tulay- Sinoe 5 Rural Human Rights Activists Lorma Baysah, Duwana Alfred Scott- Gbarpolu Program (RHRAP) Kingsley Andrew S. Jorgboyan- Bomi A. Mohammed Konneh- Grand Cape Mount 6 Sustainable Development Institute Nora Bowier, Sampson Eric Opa Duo- Rivercess (SDI) Williams Patience Odarbeh- Grand Kru
Moses Vangar- Lofa 7 Liberia Media Center (LMC) Larmii Kpargoi, G. Ralph Jimmeh 8 Platform for Dialogue and Peace Jimmy Shilue,T Wordeplee (P4DP) Marwolo
The table below illustrates the numbers of focus group participants interviewed per county disaggregated by male and female and dates of interview:
Table 3. Location and number of FGD participants by gender # County Male Female Total Date of interview 1 Bomi 2 8 10 September 15, 2017 2 Bong 4 6 10 September 28, 2017 3 Gbarpolu 7 3 10 September 19, 2017 4 Grand Bassa 7 3 10 September 19, 2017 5 Grand Cape Mount 5 5 10 September 18 2017 6 Grand Gedeh 7 3 10 September 28, 2017 7 Grand Kru 7 3 10 September 23, 2017 8 Lofa 9 1 10 September 25, 2017 9 Margibi 6 4 10 September 20, 2017 10 Maryland 7 3 10 September 23, 2017 11 Montserrado 7 1 8 September 11, 2017 12 Nimba 8 2 10 September 14, 2017 13 River Cess 6 4 10 September 23, 2017 14 River Gee 10 0 10 September 24, 2017 15 Sinoe 7 3 10 September 26, 2017 Total 99 49 148
6 Data collection and analysis Data collection work in the field was administered by the Field Monitors in September 2017. Key stakeholder interviews with eight (8) CSO leaders were conducted by the LAVI ME&L Team in Monrovia. The field work was conducted from September 15th to October 10th, 2017. Upon completion of the interviews/discussions, the completed questionnaires, notes and records were verified and analyzed by the LAVI ME&L.
The following steps were taken to analyze the qualitative data collected during the KIIs and FGDs.
The notes and recordings were transcribed All data were coded (placing similar labels on similar answers to sort comments into similar categories) The categories/information were organized based on interview guide questions, supported by some quotations of participants noted during the discussion.
KEY FINIDNGS The key findings of the study provide a basis for discussions on how to improve programming and where best to allocate future resources. The findings for the FGDs and KIIs are broken down into two categories: i) Knowledge and Awareness and ii) Attitude and Practice.
FGDs Findings
A. Knowledge and Awareness The following questions were asked the participants in order for LAVI to understand how our Partners’ (NRM Coalition members) activities and events have increased their knowledge and understanding about County Social Development Fund (CSDF) governance, and their rights in regards to CSDF. o What kind of events (e.g. advocacy trainings, multi-stakeholder dialogues, county level meetings, district mobilization meetings etc.) did you attend during the last six months facilitated by NRM Coalition o What did you learn about County Social Development Fund (CSDF) from the NRM Coalition events you have attended during the last six months? Was the information communicated useful o Do you know how you can be involved in CSDF decision making process (e.g. in 1. Selecting CSDF projects 2. Follow up/ monitoring of CSDF implementation 3. Management of CSDF) o Are you aware of the structures and/or processes in your community for you to complain or ask questions about CSDF o In your opinion, has there been any change in access to information about CSDF in your communities over the last six months
Generally, but primarily in Nimba, Bong, Grand Gedeh, Grand Bassa, and Margibi Counties, participants reported that the NRM engagement brought a better understanding of how the CDF and CSDF work. A female participant in Grand Gedeh FGD knew that, “CDF is [a] fund set aside under the national budget, for each county in the amount of 200,000 per fiscal year that goes toward the support of county development priorities. This fund cuts across all counties, regardless of size, location and population.” A CSO Coordinator in Buchanan City, Grand Bassa County, spoke exclusively to the CSDF, noting that “the CSDF is an amount allotted from concession agreement as a result of permission granted by a county or community for use of their land or extraction of natural resources. Usually, this fund goes toward meeting the need of basic social services.” However, Grand Kru citizens expressed little knowledge on involvement with CSDF, citing infancy of awareness programs. In River Gee, residents expressed regrets over lack of access to basic information regarding CSDF and the Freedom of
7 Information (FOI) Law. Documentation on these topics remain on the desks of county officials, thereby necessitating citizens to heavily rely on media coverage to broaden their knowledge about the two issues.
Montserrado, Nimba, Maryland, and Bomi, citizens noted that by assisting with Project Management Committee (PMC) programs, they got involved with following up on development programs in their districts. A participant in Ganta said, “I thought it was his, and he was doing us a favor when our lawmaker bragged of rehabilitating a road project in our district. After I discussed with the PMC Chairperson, I realized that the project was funded by the CSDF and its implementation was poor, even if we measure with minimum acceptable standards.”
The procedure of withdrawal and deposit from the CSDF account was expressed by some citizens to be a bit technical, fumbling on jargon while attempting to explain the process. The main idea they grasped was that each county is entitled to a development fund as a way of allowing them (counties) to get a share of the national wealth. The citizens understood that this account is subjected to 4 signatories: the County Development Superintendent (in his or her stead- county superintendent) as signatory “A”, and the Chairman of the PMC (in his or her stead- PMC Treasurer) as signatory “B”.
Section 9 of the Budget Law was put under the spotlight by the citizens in all the counties, and it was realized that this section gives lawmakers absolute management Except of Section 9 of the Budget Law-2015/16 right of the county funds while citizens have no major say in its use.
Regarding meetings and fora, citizens said they are aware of the County Sittings, held once a year to discuss overarching issues that concern the county, noting that the meeting is usually chaired by the County Superintendent and attended by Lawmakers, District Commissioners, Representatives of women and youth groups, the Elder Council, and other CBOs and CSOs. A participant in Bomi County noted, “Members of the County Sitting are supposed to be elected by the residents in the districts rather than being appointed or selected by county officials. If this is done, the independence and credibility of the delegates will be maintained”.
The District Development Committee (DDC) was said to be a replica of the county sitting, but cascaded at the district level, centered on matters of general concern; be it the district development fund or social or political issues. According to the citizens, the meeting is chaired by the district commissioners and participants 8 are selected at the community level to represent the views of the local communities. Participants from the Maryland FGD said, “If we don’t compromise our integrity, we can place a lot more on the table regarding our development initiatives.”
The multi stakeholders and advocacy events held were narrated to be meetings which trained the citizens on advocacy planning and community relations. Citizens in Grand Kru said they attended an advocacy dialogue with Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) and got coached on how to engage their lawmakers in a constructive manner rather than through violence.
Pledge cards were distributed by NRM partners in the CSDF meetings to acquire a signed commitment from lawmakers, political aspirants, and key stakeholders. These cards were considered by participants to be a very good idea to make aspirants accountable on campaign promises. They considered also relying on the monitoring strategies taught by the NRM Coalition Partners to guide on how to monitor their official’s programs. “I am told that when we organize ourselves, we have the right to make field visitations or even invite our officials to join us so that we have a joint monitor initiative over the projects and programs the pledge cards were signed onto,” a local female journalist in Gbarnga stated who attended an event held by NAYMOTE.
Overall, CSDF discussions have reached most districts in the counties and major stakeholders and influencers including journalists, religious leaders, women, youth, student groups, and traditional leaders actively participated and made meaningful contributions. Most residents in Nimba and Maryland Counties feel involved with the CSDF process when they monitor community level initiatives and give appropriate advice. However, Grand Kru citizens expressed little knowledge or involvement with the CSDF, citing infancy of awareness programs.
One major issue identified is the lack of official method to file complaints. Official complaints must reach the right authority for appropriate redress, however this is difficult to accomplish. For example, in Gbarpolu County, complaints emanate from the community level and resonate through the elders and chiefs, and later elevate to the district commissioners, onward to the county superintendent – a long and convoluted process. In Grand Kru and Bong Counties, the media and Monrovia authorities are the common points of contact. For example, when discussion on delay of the construction of the Bong County Community College in Gbarnga, Bong County was brought before the local media, the issue became regularly discussed on community radio stations, Attyre Shops, etc. in the county. After few weeks of discussions and awareness raising, the project recommenced.
B. Attitude and Practice The following questions were asked to the participants for LAVI to understand what difference these changes have made in the communities (attitude and practice) because of LAVI Partner activities in the counties about CSDF governance, and their rights in regards to CSDF. o What actions have you taken to learn more about CSDF and your rights regarding CSDF in your communities? (e.g. 1. Requested more information CSDF rights from the NRM Partner, 2. Asked Community Leader to help get access to funds, 3. Contacted my local the Superintendent to get access the Funds, 4. Contacted my local Civil Society Organization (CSO) or Community Based Organization (CBO) for assistance, 5. My community and I have created own CBO to lobby for change, other
9 o Did you take any actions to get involve in CSDF decision making process in your communities over the last six months? (e.g. in 1. Selecting projects 2. Follow up/monitoring of implementation 3. Management of CSDF o What other actions did you take in regard to CSDF in your communities o Did you complain and/or raised concerns about CSDF in your communities? If so, where did you go and whom did you complain or raise your concerns about CSDF? If so, did they provide the necessary feedback and was the complaint process effective?
Notably, citizens are beginning to take positive steps on NRM management and leading advocacy approaches, as well as building relationships with their officials. These changes are incubated through stakeholders’ engagements, workshops, translation of messages, and interpretation and translation of key CSDF messages in local vernaculars, particularly by the media and through LEITI pull up banners which summarize concession related agreements for the community.
In addition to this, the media and other civil society organizations have embarked on advocacy programs as a way of amplifying the voices of people who were not able to relay their concerns to the necessary source. In Bong and Bomi Counties, local radio stations have dedicated nearly half of their early morning show time to the public to openly express their views on current events. Radio Bomi, for example, has dedicated a section of its Thursday’s edition of “The Early Morning Show” to this endeavor. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 3 out of every 5 listeners of Radio Bomi who participated in the FGD in Grand Cape Mount County stated that they usually expressed their views on CSDF by calling into programs on the radio. A Radio Gbarnga reporter has also reported that the general views expressed over the last 6 months on the radio mirrored the slow pace of the rehabilitation of Gbarnga Broad street project and other streets, and lack of accountability of the Bong Technical College rehabilitation. “Our engagement caught the attention of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and led to the dismissal of the School’s President as well as the implementation of an audit,” a member of the Civil Society Coalition in Gbarnga noted. “I am confronted, almost on a daily basis, by my citizens regarding the rehabilitation of road projects which the Mehmet Negif Gunal (MNG) Gold Company promised to have rehabilitated,” a female Commissioner in Bong County also mentioned.
In Grand Bassa, River Cess, and Margibi counties, DDC members regularly meet first to brainstorm on common position before stepping up at the County Sitting. This gives a unified voice to the district delegates and ensures good representation of the people’s views. In Bomi County, the DDC was reactivated after a district mobilization workshop, and is now much more active than it previously was.
The National Teachers Association of Liberia (NTAL) usually meets in Bong County after every learning event to remind themselves of lessons learned and to share experiences. This arms them to better teach their students. A participant in Grand Bassa County said that they “send out invitations to resource persons/groups to speak about CSDF issues. For example, Citizens United to Promote Peace and Democracy in Liberia (CUPPADL) was invited by a group of concerned young people in June 2017 to speak more about Section 9 of the Budget Law. At the end of the event, they raised concerns about amendment of that law noting that the law gives lawmakers the right to manage the budget with low citizens’ role in the management process.”
In Gbarpolu County, there was very low enthusiasm about the county sitting as previous sittings had frequently been suspended due to a lack of coordination on the part of the county officials as reported by the citizens. A member of the Rural Women Association (RWA) in the county reported that the affairs of the
10 county are decided on and managed by the county officials unilaterally because of the regular suspension of meetings organized to gauge the citizens’ views on county level issues.
In the rest of the country, citizens are recognizing that they are major stakeholders in CSDF management. A small group of citizens in Gbarpolu County organized themselves peacefully and summoned their Development and County Superintendents, holding them accountable to the slow execution of a town hall project in Henry Town. The impact of such action is felt immediately by citizens, one RWA participant stating that “our officials now feel our pressure and know that we are monitoring how our county resources are being managed.”
In Nimba County, the attendees have participated in a variety of events hosted by IREDD including town-hall meetings, advocacy trainings, and sessions to introduce the pledge and score cards and learn about the FOI law, which citizens have taken advantage of on numerous occasions. One participant from District 2 explained that after a town-hall meeting, a community-based organization he is a part of submitted a Freedom of Information Law request for the resolutions passed by county sitting delegates from 2006 to 2015 to track how the CSDF has been spent in their community. They received no response and made an appeal to the superintendent’s office who claimed this information could not be released so close to the election and advised that citizens would need to “consult the president” to get the documents they requested. After sharing this experience with their colleagues at the Carter Center, the citizens appealed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for information on CSDF spending.
Throughout the FGDs, moderators found that citizens were becoming increasingly aware of CSDF. One participant noted that “through discussion on the radio, people are getting to know about the CSDF and what it is intended for and how it should be used...during the debate, even the citizens themselves…asked questions about money for the affected communities.” Another participant from District 12 in Nimba County attended an LMDI electoral debate in which one of the questions asked by the moderator was, “if you were elected tomorrow, what change will you make about the CSDF?” The participant said members of her community are cataloguing these responses to follow up on them post-election. In addition, focus group participants agreed that the trainings by IREDD helped citizens learn how to more effectively advocate for their community issues. A citizen explained, “before people used to make noise and were fighting each other, but now, you will hear people talking and when they are making claims, they have something to show."
In Montserrado County, citizens from District # 7 have established their DDC to get involved in CSDF decision-making process and establish a district office. They have a constitution to govern the DDC but need help in printing final copies and holding a meeting to launch the constitution and distribute copies to the 17 DDC members. They have also organized a District Youth Council (DYC) to work with DDC. The DYC has been involved in clean-up campaign exercises to raise awareness about the CSDF. A participant from District # 8 said, “We engaged our current Representative of the District to provide a comprehensive report about the funds allocated and used in the district. The representative provided a skeleton report that wasn’t comprehensive, but contains some information that citizens of the district can use to hold their leader accountable for funds used without their involvement.” Another citizen from District # 10 stated, “we provide free training for people who visit our center using the CSDF brochure we received from CUPPADL. This has increased the understanding and awareness of individuals who come to our center.”
11 There seems to be growing trend of information dissemination amongst citizens on some issues of the CSDF. In Tichein District, Grand Gedeh County; Kakata, Margibi County; and District 6 in Montserrado County, participants at the FGDs reported that they are regularly briefed by delegates who attend the county sittings and DDCs. These briefings take place at regular community meetings organized by town and clan chiefs. In one instance, and bannered NRM agreement information developed by LEITI was taken down from the administrative building in Gbarnga, Bong County. After citizens filed complaints against the act to LEITI, it was requested that the banner be reposted. The Superintendent complied and placed the banner back up for public viewing. This move by Bong citizens motivated colleagues in Buchanan, Grand Bassa County to verify if theirs was still posted.
While procedures vary by county, participants generally felt they knew how to file complaints on issues that bother them, but their complaints weren’t being addressed. In Margibi County, citizens said they frequently file complaints of water pollution perpetrated by the Firestone Rubber Plantation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but they (EPA) usually leave with empty promises of remedy.
While some citizens are finding ownership within CSDF, the disabled community across counties have felt largely excluded from the CSDF. Members of this group in Lofa, Bong, Bomi, Mary Land and Sinoe Counties shared these common concerns, noting their exclusion, the Chairperson of Bomi Blind Association stating that they “are advocating through our county leadership so that each county structure can be included in their CSDF and the national budget must also give us special consideration.”
While it is true that citizens are entitled to their individual political differences, a good number of them have said they realized that they need to keep the bound amongst themselves strong if they must achieve on their advocacy objectives. This was demonstrated in District 6, Montserrado County, when few citizens outwardly threatened to not vote any aspirant who didn’t sign the pledge card. At the end of the day, all candidates at the forum in the district signed onto the pledge cards. In Central Monrovia, a school project was put on hold by county officials having realized that they needed to carry out detail consultation with citizens and education authorities.
Across all the counties, there were serious disagreements regarding Section 9 of the budget law when it comes to granting lawmakers absolute management right over the budget. Citizens want this section of the law repealed to give them more voice in the budget management process if the participatory and grass roots governance processes generally talked about must be exercised. The residents believe they have a major stake into this process because the outcome of the budget implementation affects them more.
FGD RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the field activities, the following were the general recommendations by the citizens: o Let there be a technical assistance from NRM coalition partners in the development of petitions and other communication o Let there be a permanent group created to continue capacity building should an NRM Coalition Partner leave o The establishment of female-led groups to address issues of concerns to women is encouraged o Commissioners and city mayors, as stakeholders in CSDF management, be given voting rights at county sittings
12 o The districts must have the right to open separate accounts to facilitate autonomy over district funds
KII Findings
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) took place across the country, facilitated by LAVI Field Activity Monitors and ME&L Team to assess the impact of NRM awareness through one-on-one interview with County Coordinators (CCs) and Project Managers (PMs) from the NRM Coalition members. The assessment aimed at appraising the conduct of the FGDs from the partners’ point of view. Key findings from these engagements are as follow:
Engagement with Political Parties and Candidates: All the CCs and PMs interviewed indicated that they attempted to engage all political parties and candidates in their activities. Engagement with political parties and aspirants was aimed at creating a platform where both citizens and aspiring candidates for the representative positions would interact face to face. Politicians were invited to state their plans for the CSDF management and commit, through the signing of the pledge cards, on their campaign promises. Most of the promises were tailored around restoration of basic social services ranging from rehabilitation or construction of roads and bridges, school and health facilities; providing scholarships; promoting accountability and communication; and empowering citizens through micro economic programs, amongst others. According to the CCs and PMs, all the events they held were implemented peacefully, and there were frank exchange of opinions regarding the CSDF. The candidates generally welcomed the interaction and deemed it necessary to promote accountability, transparency, and management of the CSDF. However, turnout by the politicians was generally low in most of the counties. In Grand Bassa County for example, all candidates were invited, but only one showed up; other candidates citing busy schedules or illness.
Political Parties and Candidates’ Reaction: The CCs and PMs were asked about the reactions the political parties and candidates had on the activities which they have attended. They indicated that political parties and candidates generally welcomed the engagements as a way to build relationships with citizens regarding the CSDF management. According to the partners, the candidates that attended their events indicated that their interactions with citizens demonstrated their commitment to properly manage the CSDF through the signing of the pledged cards. They stated that most incumbents reported that it was their first time signing such an instrument and that the tool was a test of their political integrity and commitment of their campaign promises. Some promised to always hold regular sessions in their constituents for a joint appraisal of their manifesto. Others craved the support of the citizens to help them achieve their promises on the CSDF. They also mentioned that candidates who attended their events termed the engagement as a demonstration of improved democracy for Liberia, such that, citizens and their officials can both be held accountable on key development priorities. Some citizens told the aspirants that they would not vote them into power if the candidates did not sign the pledged cards. For example, at a Multi-stakeholder dialogue in District # 9, Montserrado County, five (5) candidates were invited, one of which had earlier refused to sign the pledge card at a similar event. He later put pen to paper after pressure from the citizens. According to CUPPADL Montserradio Coordinator Josehp Y. Sayhn, the citizens voiced concern that the candidate’s campaign messages were empty promises. Moment after the citizens’ reaction, the candidate immediately signed the pledge card.
IREDD Grand Gedeh Coordinator, Jouthy A. Johnson, put it that, “candidates were not apprehensive about signing, perhaps they wanted to impress the electorates or they were just being true to their pledges.”
13 NAYMOTE Bong County Coordinator, Moses Bailey validated this assertion in his area of assignment, Suakoko Community, Suakoko District.
Most engaging event: The respondents were asked which activities they found most effective at engaging political parties and candidates. There were mixed responses amongst the respondents based on the region and the level of mobilization that encouraged citizen’s attendance. Amongst these engagements, multi- stakeholders’ dialogue stood out to be the most engaging by the CCs and PMs. They mentioned that at the multi-stakeholders’ dialogues, there were massive attendance, and participants had diverse opinions, coupled with the signing of the pledge cards. Participants that attended these multi-stakeholders’ dialogues or events were mixed with some representing the traditional council, students and women groups, religious leaders, members of the marginalized community and the local county officials. At these multi-stakeholders’ dialogues, the partners provided presentations on CSDF and there was time allotted for questions and answers from participants across the floor. According to the CCs and PMs, citizens’ general concerns during discussions was the lack of their participation in the decision-making process in the county and were keen to understand the plans or platforms from candidates on addressing the situation around the management and use of the CSDF. SDI Lofa County Coordinator, Moses Vangar, for example confirmed this and reported that “the multi- stakeholders dialogue was most effective because it involved all stakeholders, including political parties, candidates, county officials, the CSOs and CBOs, and others.” In Kakata, CUPPADL Margibi County Coordinator, Joe Tee Kollie noted that “everyone was given equal opportunity to express themselves.” RHRAP Gbarpolu County Coordinator, Alfred B. Scott, also noted that, “the signing of the pledge cards allowed active participation in multi-stakeholder dialogues. This was because potential voters who were eager for a transparent leadership trooped in to hear the platforms of candidates on the execution of the CSDF management. Most of the candidates signed the pledge cards.”
The only incumbent lawmaker in Grand Bassa County to sign the pledge cards was District # 5 Representative, Robertson Siaway. According to CUPPADL Grand Bassa County Coordinator, Martina M. Gbarlar, candidates did not feel compelled to do so because they already had influence over the citizens in voting them even if they did not sign. Newly registered contestants signed.
Community engagement: All LAVI-supported NRM coalition partners reported that awareness on advocacy techniques was provided to CBOs, and CSOs that attended their events. Citizens from the counties that attended their events were encouraged to always interact with each other especially during consensual building deliberations and trained to engage potential influencers in advocacy campaign.
NAYMOTE Bong County Coordinator, Moses Bailey, noted that criteria for selection of county/district sitting members was to properly ensure that delegates to these fora are selected by community members and not politicians. IREDD Grand Kru County Coordinator, Patience Odarbeh, and SDI Sinoe County Coordinator, Fomba A. Tulay, stressed the need for residents to compel political candidates to make CSDF a priority under their platforms; using the pledge cards as a tool to constantly remind the politicians of their promises.
“DDCS and CSOs/CBOs are being capacitated through advocacy trainings and meetings so that they would be able to engage with other stakeholders for compliance with policy issues and monitoring of CSDF,” RHRAP has also put it.
Inclusion of the marginalized: Invitation through group’s leadership, direct contact via telephone, community mobilization, and radio awareness were the common means by which
14 Joint session of a DDC in Greenville, Sinoe County the marginalized population was engaged to attend as corroborated by the NRM implementing partners. These invites mainly encouraged women, physically challenged, and older people to attend. According CUPPADL Margibi County Coordinator, Joe Tee Kollie, since it was realized that members of the marginalized community find it difficult in showing up at the NRM discussion due to physical or social vices, the number of invitations sent to this constituent doubled the required amount. After constant follow-ups, only 30 percent out of the total invites showed up.
Stakeholders’ coordination: Regular dialogues on CSDF issues have created a bond amongst citizens and their officials according to the partners. These engagements have sometimes been used to settle differences and provide the platform for expression of unhindered opinion and differences by both the county authorities and citizens. In Bong for example, NAYMOTE pointed out that demand by the citizens for the County Superintendent to repost the concession agreement pull up banner determined to be very civil. The citizens’ protest saw success and the banner was reposted. For the case of Lofa, SDI County Coordinator, Moese Vangar, said, “nowadays, the County Superintendent does not necessarily have to meet citizens at the Administrative Building regarding trending issues, but rather at his home, or the homes of his junior officials or perhaps at the residents of some prominent residents. This has made both the authorities and citizens more engaged.”
Even though these bounds and collaborations will have to be nurtured, the partners have outlined a number of measures to improve the situation, such as the continuous provision of a platform for stakeholders’ engagement and follow-ups on invitations to CSDF discussions. “We introduced affirmative action in Gbarma District, to ensure that there were slots reserved for members of the disabled community attending our event due to their dismal representation and participation” RHRAP Gbarpolu County Coordinator, Alfred B. Scott.
SDI Rivercess County Coordinator, Eric Opa, stated that, “every stakeholder was given the opportunity to freely express their opinion and promote dialogue on issues that matter. In all discussion, a way forward on dispute related matters were encouraged.”
Message conveyance: If the message was not well packaged, the essence of the meetings was meaningless, IREDD Grand Gedeh County Coordinator, Jouthy A. Johnson, observed. In support of this assertion, all LAVI field partners mentioned the style of presentation and the available interpretation and translation of information. They all stated that they used simple Liberian English by breaking down technical terms as best practices in getting their messages across. Also, time management, and selection of ideal environment played key part in grasping the attention of the participants.
SDI Rivercess County Coordinator, Eric Opa, said, “We tried not to bore our participants and were more conscious of the fact that they were required to cover long distances back home. Even though person-to- person engagement had direct impact, radio awareness contributed significantly; reaching a wider audience in a given period and to support the campaign in hard-to-reach communities.” In Grand Bassa, CUPPADL noted that the person to-to-person approach was said to have worked well. Local residents were organized and gathered to be debriefed by their delegates on issues discussed at county sittings.
Reaction of Government Partners: Generally, the NRM coalition partners branded the signing of the pledge cards by most senior county officials as positive reaction by government officials, mainly representatives. Notably, most senior officials including, county superintendent, representative incumbent 15 candidates and district commissioners boycotted most of the dialogues blaming it on tight schedules with cases from Sinoe, Maryland, and River Cess Counties topping the excuse chart. The dialogue was described by the officials to be a very good start to promoting joint partnership (citizens/officials) for CSDF management. Many of them pledged continued support to such activities in their areas of operation. According to CUPPADL, a candidate in District Number 5, Monstserrado County, later signed after he refused on grounds that he was not obligated by the instrument.
Challenges: In all the reports forwarded by the NRM Coalition members, bad road and weather conditions were cited as the main natural hurdles. The lack of self-mobility to access hard-to-reach communities were mentioned, thus bringing about reliance on bicycles and motorcycles for means of transport. Some partners said they tracked for long hours during their community mobilization. Some communities were inaccessible by telecommunication network, and as a result, invitations for the event were delivered in-person thereby consuming time. In some quarters, there were delays in the start of the event due to late attendance by participants who had to cover long distances. It was also a significant challenge attempting to change the minds and attitudes of some citizens who had negative perception about the discussion.
KII RECOMMENDATIONS
Below are some of the key recommendations put forward by LAVI NRM partners:
o The development of a government-led policy paper on the selection of representatives to county seats to ensure that delegates are truly representative of citizen’s desires o Citizens are now closely following the awareness raising, as such, it is necessary that LAVI sustains the support so that a greater segment of the population is fully aware of CSDF/NRM advocacy
GENERAL CONCLUSION ON FINDINGS
Overall, the findings of the KAPA showed that all counties benefited from awareness conducted by the eight (8) NRM Coalition members with a focus on advocating for decision-making and engagement of citizens in CSDF governance. Citizens in concession-prone counties like Bong, Nimba, Bomi, Capemount, Gbarpolu and Grand Bassa had high enthusiasm about these discussions compared to other counties. For example, the pull banner which carried a summary version of the CSDF allotment for Bong County reflected the actual amounts of how much monetary value various concession companies in the county were remitting to that county’s development drive. According to citizens, benefits were not practically felt in their lives and seen in infrastructural development.
Citizens of Maryland and Grand Kru are less involved with the CSDF discussions, given the fact that their county authorities failed to regularly host the county sitting and the DDC meeting. As a result, the media is heavily relied on for information on CSDF. Generally, most citizens attested to participating in capacity building activities, mainly the advocacy approach for CSDF management, having sat a couple of multi stakeholders’ dialogues organized by the NRM partners. Feedback showed that they do have better knowledge and skills to constructively engage their leaders including lawmakers and development partners. The case of a government official in Central Monrovia who was approached by citizens to justify why he unilaterally embarked on the renovation of a school project, sourced from the CSDF, yielded a halt of that official’s actions. Subsequently, broader consultation with the school administration and citizens were held and the project recommenced. In addition to this, there is an increase in relationship bonding between citizens and their leaders. 16
Several citizens reported realizing that they and their Superintendents don’t have to organize a formal event to discuss issues surrounding the CSDF. They would rather meet at tea shops, street corners (with the youth) and impromptu engagements, mostly held at a prominent citizen’s residence, instead of the county administration building to discuss issues emanating around the management and use of the CSDF.
An interesting point to note is that the Media, especially community radio stations are dedicating more time and prioritizing issues around NRM and CSDF. Most radio stations have special shows for said endeavors. In Bomi County, Radio Bomi has the “Early Morning Talk”, while in Lofa County; the “Night Time Talk” on “Voice of Lofa Radio” has attracted the public to express their opinions surrounding the management and use of the CSDF in their respective counties. Officials in the counties and CSOs use these platforms to engage the citizens. Most participants in the FGDs attested to being regular callers on these shows. In Bong County, the President of the Bong Technical Collage was dismissed and an audit was commissioned after citizens took on the airways to vent disagreement regarding how the CSDF was utilized for the college’s rehabilitation.
Finally, key messages on the CSDF were tailored per the level of understanding of different audiences by the NRM members during trainings and by community radio stations. The use of interpreters and local vernaculars were the modest means of conveying messages of the CSDF to rural inhabitants. In semi-urban communities like Buchanan and Kakata Cities, flyers were distributed after multi stakeholder’s dialogues.
17 Annexes: A. Focus Group Discussion Guidance PURPOSE: To gain in-depth information on different opinions, views, concerns, values and behaviors etc., on an issue through a planned and guided discussion. Its flexible, low cost and quick way of collecting results. Focus groups are neither used to build consensus nor for decision making or conflict resolution. GROUP SIZE: 8-10 (Note: ideal is more then 8) TIME EFFORT: 2-2:30 hours PREPARATION: When choosing members for a focus group, select participants who have attended an event/ interested in the issue and who can openly discuss the topic with each other. Consider communication barriers like gender, age, and hierarchy, and peer pressure, social or economic status. Organize/set the times, locations and people involved for all the groups you have scheduled. Arrange for a comfortable room in a convenient location. MATERIAL: A room and chairs, eventually a second member of staff to keep notes or a recording device if participants agree. FACILITATION PROCESS: Introduce the purpose of the discussion; why you selected the participants; what you hope to gain from the discussion. Explain how you intend to handle the process, what you will do with the information you gain and agree with the group on rules for the discussion. Present the topic background and start with your first statement or question. Your questions need to be open and avoid simple Why?-questions. E.g. It’s better to present a description of a situation and ask: What would you do? How would you react? What would you recommend? Encourage participants to elaborate further and to give examples. Never imply answers. Make sure to reconfirm with the participants that you understand what they express. Use the following probing questions: Can you tell me more about that? Would you give me an example? Can you elaborate on that idea? Is there anything else? That’s really interesting, had other people had that experience? Try to reword, reframe and ask for confirmation. Make notes using quotes with the vocabulary of the discussions' participants to avoid that you just list key issues addressed. Also try to keep notes of the reactions of the group, such as nodding in agreement. RESULTS AND FOLLOW UP: At the end of the focus group, summarize or ask a participant to re-cap and conclude the discussion. Immediately after the focus group, draw the seating order, check if recording worked well, read through your own notes and add missing insights, themes, behaviors, etc. After transcribing or review of notes, develop a report containing each key question, participants’ discussion points, significant quotes and your own comments.
18
B.
Key Informant Interview Questionnaire Partner Organizations - NRM Coalition Date: Location, venue: Organization name: Representative name, title: Interviewer:
# Interview Questions Objective 1: To encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections commit to establishing long term policy mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. 1 Did you engage political parties and candidates in your activities? If yes, which activities did you engage them? 2 What was the reaction of the political parties and candidates on your activities which they have attended? 3 In your opinion, which activities/events did you find most effective at engaging political parties and candidates? Why you think it was effective? What has been achieved as a result of the interventions/events you facilitated via LAVI support? Objective 3: To increase communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives. 4 What activities do you implement in promoting communities engagement in CSDF governance? 5 In your opinion, which activities/events did you find most effective at engaging citizens in CSDF governance? Why you think it was effective? What has been achieved as a result of the interventions/events you facilitated via LAVI support? Objective 4: To enhance communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting. 6 What activities do you focus on to increase communities and citizens active engagement in the compliance and monitoring/reporting of the CSDF? 7 In your opinion, which interventions/events did you find most effective at engaging communities and citizens in compliance and monitoring/reporting? Why do you think it was effective? What has been achieved as a result of the interventions/events you facilitated via LAVI support? General 8 What approaches/methods do you use to include marginalized societal groups (i.e. women, youth, and people with disabilities) in the events supported through LAVI? In your opinion, which method did you find most effective? Why you think it was effective? 9 In your opinion, has there been any change in coordination between the following stakeholders (e.g. CSOs, CBOs, Superintendent, Citizens, and Government Organization Government officials) as a result of LAVI’s supported activities? 10 In your opinion, how would you improve the coordination between these partners?
11 What in your view was the most important and effective method/approaches in getting your messages across? 12 What specific examples, if any, of the government reaction did you see to your LAVI supported activities? 19 13 What specific examples, if any, of the concessionaries/private companies reaction did you see to your LAVI supported activities? 14 What kind of response from citizens/communities did you receive on the activities you implemented through LAVI support? 15 What kind of challenges did you experience during the implementation process? How did you overcome them? 16 What would you have done differently under this project?
Thank you for your time!
20 Annex 18-ALab and iLab Q1 Trainings
Training/ Learning Events Date Objective Attendees Rap to be Repped 28-Nov-17 The purpose of the public engagement Liberian was to help selected Liberian artists to Musical build public confidence and provide the Artists necessary skills that will enable them to engage larger audiences on significant messages on Natural Resource Management through songs.
Natural Resource Management (NRM) Film 7-Dec-17 The screening of the Natural Resource iCampus Festival Management (NRM) Films was geared Network towards spotlighting some sparkling members concession stories for policy makers to learn from the mistakes of the past and create positive social change in Liberia.
Introduction to information security 26-Oct-17 The training helped participants iCampus understand the importance of Network information security and confidentiality, members how to handle data with caution, the use of applied tools to enable you protect your information etc
Qualitative Data Analysis Training for NRM 19-Oct-17 The training was to share best practices, NRM Coalition approaches and tools for data collection, Coalition analysis, storage and sharing which aimed Members to improve the NRM Coalition Members’ qualitative data management.
Learning Call Series 2 26-Oct-17 The call what can be learned from Citizens Monitoring & Engagement Annex 19 – LAVI Field Activity Monitor Event Report
Field Activity Monitoring Report
Partner Name: NAYMOTE
Date of Event: October 2, 2017
Event Type: Arrange meeting with DDCs, local authorities and legislators per district
Event Start Time: 10:15AM
Event End Time: 12:10PM
Location & Venue: Gbaota, Jorquelleh District, Bong County
FAM: Z. Abednego G. Mehn
Date of Report: October 4, 2017
Partner Deliverables
Yes No. Deliverable No [tick] [tick]
1 Correct sign-in sheets used Yes
2 Sign-in sheets fully completed ie name, organization, telephone, email Yes
3 Did the Partner follow the Agenda - topics listed Yes
4 Did the Partner take photos of their event Yes
5 Appropriate branding and marking of materials Yes
6 USAID logo and correct date on Event Banner Yes
Event Details
Number No. Details – Participants of
1 Estimated total number of event attendees 16
1.1 Estimated number of total event attendees – female 2
1.2 Estimated number of total event attendees – male 14
3 Estimated total number of CSOs & CBOs in attendance 4
4 Estimated total number of Government representatives - Ministry, Local Got etc. 2
5 Estimated number of total general public attendees 7
5.1 Estimated number of total general public attendees - female 1
Field Activity Monitoring Report Page: 1 Annex 19 – LAVI Field Activity Monitor Event Report
5.2 Estimated number of total general public attendees - male 6
6 How many Partner staff facilitated the event 1
Key M&E Observations
General Guidance (3 - 4 paragraphs) Issues observed included the following:
Participants were interested in the discussion but time was not enough. Out of a little over 14 representative candidates contesting in District 3, only one candidate in person of Att. James Saybay attended the event. Females in attendance did not participate much. A lot of people who attended the meeting were not invited but had interest in the discussion. Constraints: Quotes Mr. Moses P. Kollie chair of the DDC for Jorquelleh Administrative District #2 giving an overview of the DDC said, he was elected in 2012 as the chair for the DDC. Among other things he said, “the DDC was funded by UNDP and turned over to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). The roles of the DDC are to monitor development projects, ensure that the DDC support the implementation of development projects, etc. We have not received support from law makers and the Ministry of Internal Affairs which has rendered us the DDC incapable to function. In some cases, we have been referred to as NGO group. As we speak, we are not aware of any current development project in the District,” the DDC chair added. One concern raised was if the DDC has ever called meeting to alert the district on some of the challenges. In response a member of the DDC said every time they called meeting, people did not turn out. This according to the DDC has made their work difficult. Mr. Joseph F. K. Whama, a Town Chief said “we are happy to hear you have been volunteering. Please let us know any issue with development project. If you do not do we will not know and will hold you responsible should anything go wrong.” In a remark Att. James K. Sabay, a representative candidate for electoral District #3 in Bong County agreed that DDC is very good and should be empowered to oversee development projects in the district. Law makers should not implement development project he added. Att. Saybay expressed dissatisfaction over the slow past of the two major projects, the road pavement and the Bong Technical College financed by the CSDF which are all in District #3. He established that a little over 6 million United States Dollars has been spent on the Bong Technical College which is yet to be completed. Att. Saybay who signed a pledge card during the meeting said when elected, he will establish District #3 Caucus to decide the development agenda of the District.
Challenges DDC has not been recognized by local authority and law makers No salary and operational fund No transportation No stationery Centralized activities of DDC No identification card for DDC members Low technical capacity
Recommendation
Field Activity Monitoring Report Page: 2 Annex 19 – LAVI Field Activity Monitor Event Report
That the Ministry of Internal Affairs recognizes DDC That MIA provides transportation That MIA places members of the DDC on salary Decentralize membership of DDC and let all clans in the District be represented on the DDC That partners and government build the technical capacity of DDC
Photos / Videos
Field Activity Monitoring Report Page: 3 Annex 19 – LAVI Field Activity Monitor Event Report
Field Activity Monitoring Report Page: 4