FRAMEWORK CONTRACT COM 2011 LOT 1 – STUDIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN ALL SECTORS
MAPPING OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY AND PROJECT IDENTIFICATION OF A SUPPORT PROGRAM TO THE CIVIL SOCIETY IN RWANDA Letter of Contract N°2013/328195
FINAL REPORT MAPPING
Prepared by Gianfrancesco COSTANTINI Stefano VERDECCHIA Fidèle RUTAYISIRE
December 2013
The project is financed by The project is implemented by IBF International Consulting the European Union and STEM-VCR
“The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Institutional Framework and objectives ...... 10 1.2 The EU policies for supporting CS ...... 10 1.3 National policies for supporting CS ...... 11 2 The categories used in the mapping ...... 13 2.1 The concept of CS ...... 13 2.2 A tiered vision of CSOs ...... 13 2.3 A dynamic view of CSO structures and processes ...... 14 2.4 An operational definition of governance ...... 14 2.5 An operational definition of “capacity building” ...... 16 3 The methodology of the mapping ...... 17 3.1 A general view of methodology ...... 17 3.2 The geographical scope of the mapping ...... 17 3.3 The sources of information ...... 18 3.4 The tools for information gathering ...... 19 3.5 Limits and obstacles met in the mapping ...... 21 4 The context of CS in Rwanda ...... 22 4.1 A diachronic view of CSOs ...... 22 4.2 The legal framework ...... 24 4.2.1 The NGO Law ...... 24 4.2.2 INGO Law ...... 25 4.2.3 Other relevant legal frameworks ...... 25 4.2.4 Some issues related to current legal framework ...... 26 5 The stakes for CSOs in Rwanda ...... 28 5.1 The stakes related to CSOs contribution to Rwanda development and governance processes ...... 28 5.2 The challenges for CSOs ...... 28 6 Analysis of CSO dialogue and with Government ...... 31 6.1 The consultation activities launched by government ...... 31 6.2 Engagement in decentralisation processes ...... 31 6.3 The dissemination of information on rights and public policies ...... 31 6.4 The exercise of “Voice” functions ...... 32
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 3 of 84
6.5 Improving the functioning of service delivery ...... 32 6.6 Other entrance points for CSOs engagement in governance ...... 32 7 The differentiated analysis of CSOs ...... 34 7.1 First level organisations ...... 34 7.2 Second level organisations ...... 36 7.3 Third level organisations ...... 38 7.4 Fourth level organisations ...... 42 8 Media and civil society ...... 45 9 Support to CSOs ...... 47 9.1 The EU support to CSOs ...... 47 9.2 Government support to CSOs ...... 48 9.3 International donors support to CSOs ...... 48 9.4 International NGOs ...... 50 10 Concluding remarks ...... 52 10.1 The stakes of CSOs proactive engagement ...... 52 10.2 The uncertain position of CSOs...... 54 10.3 The basis for setting a CSO support strategy ...... 54 10.4 Operational indications for supporting CSO engagement in governance ...... 55 Annex 1 – Documentary sources ...... 61 Annex 2 – Quantitative Analysis ...... 65 Annex 3 – CSOs engaged in EU support initiatives ...... 70 Annex 4 – Leading CSOs engaged in Governance initiatives ...... 71 Annex 5 – List of consulted people ...... 72 Annex 6 – Participants to workshops ...... 75 Annex 7 – Participants to focus groups ...... 77
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 4 of 84
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACP Asia and Pacific Countries
ADL Rwanda Human Rights Organization
AMUR Association of Muslims of Rwanda
ARDHO Association Rwandaise pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme
ARIPES Rwanda Association of Private Institutions of Higher Education
CBO Country-Based Organization
CCOAIB Collaborative Council of Organizations for Basic Initiative Support
CEJP Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace
CEPR Episcopal Conference of Catholic Bishops in Rwanda
CESTRAR Confederation of Trade Union of Workers in Rwanda
CLADHO Collective of Leagues and Associations for the Defence of Human Rights in Rwanda
COPORWA Community of Rwandese Potters
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CS Civil Society
CSO Civil Society Organization
DFID Department of International Development - UK
EDF European Development Fund
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
EU European Union
JADF Joint Development and Action Forum
JGA Joint Governance Assessment
GIZ Deutsche Gesellshaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit Gmbh
IBUKA Umbrella of organizations for defence of genocide survivors’ rights in Rwanda)
IMBARAGA Union of Farmers in Rwanda
INGO International Non Governmental Organization
INTEKOIZIRIKANA Retired Elderly People Organisation
LA Local Authority
LIPRODHOR Ligue Rwandaise pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l'Homme
MINALOC Ministry of Local Government
NAO National Authorizing Officers
NINGO Network of International NGOs
NSA Non State Actors
PA Public Authorities
PDP Policy Dialogue Programme
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 5 of 84
PPIMA Public Policy Implementation, Monitoring and Advocacy
RALGA Rwanda Association of Local Government Authorities
RCSP Rwanda Country Strategy Paper
RGB Rwanda Governance Board
RISD Research Institute for Social Development
Sida Sweden International Development Cooperation Agency
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 6 of 84
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main features of the mapping
In line with recent CSOs mapping exercises carried out in the framework of EU, an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society organisations” as all forms of autonomous grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal (i.e. Collective organised action) which bear a focus on social responsibility. Therefore, the study focused not only on NGOs, but also on a wider and multifaceted universe of organisations. The mapping concerned the Rwanda CS as a whole. Consultation and information gathering activities were carried out in Kigali, Rusizi, Rubavu, Nyagatare Huye, Musanze. Various different information sources, including: documentary analysis; consultation of CSOs at different levels (through in-depth interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, organisation description fiches, visits and analysis of documents); consultation of public authorities, donors and other supporting organisations, etc.. 107 CSOs were directly involved in the mapping activities, as well as 13 representatives of public authorities, 10 donors and 10 international NGOs.
The stakes related to CSOs contribution to development and governance in Rwanda
In Rwanda, there is a political will to increase citizens’ participation to policy making, coherently with the 2003 Rwanda Constitution and the “Vision 2020”. In such framework, CSOs risk to be lagging behind: their contribution to such process is often just that “responding” to government inputs, by assuming the role of implementing partners or by assuming that of service delivery bodies. In a very limited number of cases, some CSOs assume the role of “critical witnesses”, but not really engaging or influencing public policies and their implementation. An issue therefore emerges about the way CSOs can assume a more effective role in participating to Rwanda development dynamics, both at local and national level. Such a role seems to be particularly important in reference with dynamics, such as those related to decentralisation, social cohesion, building trust among citizens and public authorities, access to information and services, social inclusion and innovation. In these domains, public action to be effective needs to be accompanied and supported by CSOs. CSOs in fact can both, make more visible societal processes and interests and directly participate to decision making, policy implementation, policy monitoring and the improvement of service delivery at the different levels.
The challenges for CSOs
Really playing a role in governance processes is not automatic for CSOs. In Rwanda, most CSOs have been engaging mainly in the delivery of services. For really being able to play a role in policy and governance, CSOs should be able to overcome a set of challenges, including: . The need for defining or re-defining civil society role and position in a changing environment. . The need to avoid the prevalence of service delivery and reducing dependency from external agendas. . The possibility to establish adequate representation and cohesion within civil society. . The building of the capacity to interact with government and local authorities in governance processes. . The recognition and inclusion within the CSO community of new emerging actors, particularly at grassroots.
The spaces and experiences for policy dialogue and governance engagement of CSOs
Spaces exist in which dialogue among CSOs and with Government has been or carried out. While dialogue still appears largely guided by government and public authorities, these spaces can constitute a set of opportunities to be capitalised. Moreover these spaces can be further developed. Identified and analysed spaces include:
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 7 of 84
. Consultation activities launched by government, such as the consultation of individual NGOs on law/policy formulation; sector working groups held at sector level, or in the framework of the JADF at local level; informal consultation. . The decentralisation processes, planning process including JADF, District and Sector Development Plan, and the participation in Budget setting and their monitoring and evaluation. . Projects and programmes aimed at disseminating information and at awareness raising on rights and public policies. . Initiatives for “channelling the voice of citizens to the government”. . Initiatives for improving the functioning of service delivery and policy implementation, particularly at local level (including evaluation and monitoring activities, direct engagement in service management, etc.). . Thematic fora, media dialogue, gender cluster, conferences, etc.; . Other spaces also exist, such as - at grassroots level - the management of local resources and the conciliation of locally emerging conflicts.
A differentiated analysis of CSOs
The four different groups of CSOs have been analysed with the aim of identifying main emerging capacity building needs related to the possibility to engage in governance. CBOs and grassroots organisations (First level CSOs) represent a diffused and multi-faced phenomenon (cooperatives, parents club, church related groups, micro-finance local schemes, students clubs, etc.). Their main characteristics are the lack of recognition as actors; the risk to play a role limited to economic activities; dependency and a general lack of capacities. Nevertheless, at this level it is possible to observe a “de facto” – often not recognised as such - engagement in the governance of common goods at local level. Second level organisations, quite only consist of NGOs: there are few “strong” organisations (i.e. organisations with a functioning structure, a real agenda, resources and actions); they are considered mainly as implementing agencies; they tend to stay into a “comfortable space” (avoiding to engage critically with other actors) and to work isolated and in solitary from other NSAs. Weak linkages exist between these NGOs with local communities as well as a tendency to use of CBOs as beneficiaries. Shortage of capacities to engage in governance functions is common, as well as a continuous loss of capacities due to high staff turnover. Third level organisations include a number of networks and umbrella organisations. Many of them, however, have few active member organisations. Main features of these organisations are: unclear functions; dependency from donors and government as for agenda setting; the lack of capacity to function as a place for communication among member organisations; the presence of conflicts among the different “parties” in the organizations; variable capacities for project implementation and shortage of capacities to engage in governance. At fourth level, it is only possible to identify one organisation: the Rwanda Platform of Civil Society (RPCS). The main elements emerging in umbrella organisations are also relevant regarding the general platform. Moreover, the RPCS suffers the fact of having a very mixed constituency. It includes not only civil society “umbrellas”, but also organisations belonging to other sectors and even single individual NGOs. Such situation potentially results in conflicts.
The risk of a drift process involving CSOs
CSOs position appears to be an uncertain one, since different elements challenge them. Renouncing to support CSOs to face these challenges, would imply both to lose the contributions they can provide to Rwanda development processes, and the emerging of a drift process that would involve in the mid- term both a crisis of organisations. Such crisis can easily result in the loss of the possibility to foster “common interests”, to manage “common goods”, to mediate social processes and emerging conflicts, particularly at grassroots level.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 8 of 84
The basis for setting a CSO supporting strategy
Supporting CSOs in facing these challenges would require, on the other side, an effort of both donors and government to: . Recognise CSOs as an actor - with a legitimate status related to its own existence and mobilisation and by their accountability to their constituencies – and as a partner. . Recognise that CSOs are diverse for nature and functions and that therefore can assume and play different roles, and recognise as legitimate actors informal groups engaged in identifying and solving locally emerging issues. . Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and structures. . Support institutional capacity building and organisations’ development; taking into account the differences among organisations at the different levels. . Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to collaborate with CSOs and to welcome their contribution. . Strengthening existing partnership and dialogue spaces, and enlarging them, recognising that a governance space exists and that it is not overlapping with the space of political institutions. . Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSA at local, national and international level.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 9 of 84
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Institutional Framework and objectives
The current document is the draft final report of the Mapping study on CSOs in Rwanda.
This exercise follows up the experience of CSO mapping in the framework of EU activities in other ACP countries, and the recognition of civil society as an important partner in development policies shared by both the EU communication on “The Roots of Democracy and Sustainable Development”1 and the Rwanda recently adopted EDPRS II 2. The EU Delegation in Rwanda launched the CSO mapping as an instrument for defining a strategic vision of the issues, opportunities and possibilities for strengthening the engagement of civil society organisation into development and governance processes in Rwanda. Moreover, it constitutes a tool for facilitating the identification of the 11th EDF Support program to the civil society in Rwanda and for identifying possible spaces of participation of CSOs in the 11th EDF activities. The mapping represents in this framework a starting point for the setting of a “Road Map” on supporting CSO in Rwanda.
The mapping exercise is the first of its kind in Rwanda. However, it follows up other studies carried by local organisations and donors3 as well as the EU initiatives for supporting the civil society. This latter have been carried out both in the framework of the 9th, the 10th EDF and in the context of the thematic programmes NSA-LA (Non State Actors and Local Authorities Programme) and EIDHR (European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights). The mapping capitalised on such experiences.
The implementation of the mapping exercise started on October 20, 2013 and completed in December 2013. For implementing the mapping study, a team was established, comprising Gianfrancesco Costantini (team leader), Stefano Verdecchia (civil society expert) and Fidèle Rutayisire (civil society expert).
The global objective of the assignment is to enhance the quality of the performance, improve the accountability process as well as to support an enabling environment for the civil society to foster its role as partner in the governance dialogue in line with the Paris Declaration and the Busan partnership document.
The specific objectives are: . To conduct a EU joint mapping of the civil society organisations operating in Rwanda with a special focus on those acting in the governance dialogue, oversight and advocacy of civil liberties including the media . To contribute to the identification of a "civil society support program" under the 11th European Development Fund aiming at supporting the CSOs and the media in engaging with State authorities in the governance policy dialogue, oversight and advocacy as well as to increase their capacity to deliver quality services. 1.2 The EU policies for supporting CS
A main reference in the implementation of the mapping study, as well as in the identification of a “civil society support programme” under the 11th EDF, consists of the policies which have been defined in the framework of the EU since the Cotonou agreements for improving the engagement of Civil Society
1 EC Communication on “The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with civil society in external relations”, COM (2012) 492. 2 Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, May 2013 (http://www.edprs.rw/content/edprs-2) 3 Such as, for example, the CIVICUS report on Rwanda, the CCOAB studies on CSOs roles in decentralisation, the USAID, UNDP and DFID diagnostic studies.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 10 of 84
Organisations and other Non-State Actors into the setting and implementation of development policies.
The Cotonou Agreement particularly recognises the “complementary role of and potential for contribution by NSA to the development processes” (Art.4, General Approach); defines de concept of NSA, including “civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics” (Art.6, Definitions), and establish under the Art. 7 (capacity building) the aim of “encouraging and supporting the creation and development” of community organisations and non-profit non-governmental organisations, as well as the aim of “establishing arrangements for involving such organisations in the design, implementation and evaluation of development strategies and programmes”.
The recognition of NSA in the Cotonou agreements was further developed in the following years, particularly through a variety of actions under the 9th and 10th EDF and under the EU thematic programmes, and through the enhancement of the policies for supporting CSOs. The recent European Commission Communication on “The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with civil society in the external relations”4 represents an important step in the definition of the Europe's engagement with Civil Society.
Box n. 1: The pillars of The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations . Towards a more strategic engagement with CSOs in Developing, Neighbourhood and Enlargement countries . Facilitate constructive relations between states CSOs in partner countries . Stronger democratic processes & accountability, development outcomes
Several steps compose the process of definition of the EU strategy to support Civil Society. Main ones are the Structured Dialogue process through the involvement of CSOs' and LA representatives, and the Agenda for Change (Busan Conference) recognizing "the emergence of an organised local civil society able to act as a watchdog and partner in dialogue with national governments.” 1.3 National policies for supporting CS
A key reference in the implementation of the mapping and in the identification of the 11th EDF programme for supporting civil society organisations in Rwanda are the national policies concerning civil society engagement in development policies and initiatives. The government recognises to civil society a crucial role to the implementation of the EDPRS II, as well as in the implementation of key national policies, as those related to: . Decentralisation (particularly as in the work of JADF, in which CSOs are recognised as an actor for local development); . Good governance, accountability and the struggle against corruption (where CSOs play a key role for the improvement of services delivery; . Gender equality and the policies related to innovation and access to information.
In this framework a new law governing the organization and functioning of national non-governmental organizations was issued in 2012, and a set of specific programs and instruments have been launched for increasing citizens and civil society participation in development policies, including, but not limited to: . Policy Dialogue Program (PDP) which was launched with the goal to strengthen and enhance civic participation, transparency, vertical and horizontal accountability and research
4 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations. Brussels 12/09/2012.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 11 of 84
based evidence in public policy processes, and that also serves as a strategic forum for networking with international governance indexes in order to objectively assess Rwanda’s governance. Policy dialogues have been conducted on: the Mo Ibrahim Foundation Index and reports on Rwanda; the Media Law and the Media Development Policy, the Anti-Corruption Policy, the Legislative Reform. . The Joint Governance Assessment (JGA): an assessment undertaken jointly by the Government of Rwanda and the development partners; based on clear and understandable objectives and on some main principles: joint ownership among partners; consultation and openness; orientation towards the identification of priorities of actions; credibility; linkage with specific and historical context of Rwanda; evidence basis; provision of a basis for dialogue among stakeholders. . The launching of Joint Action Development Forum (JADF), aimed at involving all partners (Public authorities, Private Sector and Civil Society) in the guide of local development processes and in the coordination among their activities to maximise the use of available resources. . The establishment and strengthening of a set of means to improve involvement of NSA in development processes, including: Umuganda (mandatory community service); Ubudehe (involvement of communities to play an active role in solving problems at cell level, supported by the work of Ubudehe facilitators, who visits cells and support people in discussing the characteristics of poverty and their role in poverty reduction); Imihigo (Performance-contracts, in which development partners engage on specific objectives, the contract that should reflect local priorities is signed with the President of Rwanda5); Abunzi6 (community mediators that resolve disputes at community level). . The establishment of a “Civil Society Organisations Management Information System”7, aimed at supporting registration of CSOs and access to information about their activities (the construction of such system is in progress).
5 Imihigo is based on an ancient tradition: an individual would set himself/herself targets to be achieved within a specific time and to do so by following some principles and having determination to overcome the possible challenges. In the modern day Rwanda, the Imihigo practice was adopted to accelerate the progress towards economic development and poverty reduction. Imihigo has a strong focus on results which makes it an invaluable tool in the planning, accountability and monitoring and evaluation processes (http://www.rgb.rw/main-menu/innovation/imihigo.html) 6 Like Gacaca (proximity courts established in the post-genocide transition), Abunzi was inspired by Rwandan traditional dispute resolution systems, particularly in the form of family meetings (inama y’umuryango). The Abunzi system is designed to decentralise justice, making it affordable and accessible. Disputes resolved by these Mediation committees are those that can involve people living in a same community or in a same family and of a modest value of three million Rwandan francs maximum, with some of one to three million Rwandan francs maximum. (http://www.rgb.rw/main-menu/innovation/abunzi.html) 7 This system, which is managed by MINALOC and RGB, will allow information on NGOs and their activities to be accessible to both authorities and NGOs themselves. The system is currently under development.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 12 of 84
2 THE CATEGORIES USED IN THE MAPPING
2.1 The concept of CS
In line with recent CSOs mapping exercises carried out in the framework of EU actions for supporting CSOs, an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society organisations” as all forms of grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal (i.e. Collective organised action)8, that are characterised by: . autonomy from other actors (thus organisations whose decisions do not depend upon the state and political institutions, nor upon religious institutions and market actors 9); . voluntary and free adhesion of members (thus organisations whose members are not legally or socially obligated to participate); . independence from family and kin linkages (thus organisations that are not a direct emanation of family or kinship related institutions); . action space that is mainly outside the realm of “political institutions” (thus organisations that do not directly participate in political elections and in the functioning of political institutions, such as political parties, parliament, representative democracy institutions, government; however, CSOs can interact with these institutions); . actions that are not aimed at generating “profit” (however, organisations carrying out economic activities aimed at generating resources to be reinvested for achieving organisation goals are to be considered as CSOs); . (Socially) legitimate status that does not depend from legal frameworks and provisions, but is linked to the fact of being a group created by a group of citizens to support a cause and/or solve a problem.
Moreover, according to the concept adopted in the research, civil society actors are bearers of a focus on social responsibility, since they are operating in favour of the collective interest and of social and economic development in their own territory. This will imply that organisations directly promoting individual or “party” interest will not be included among CSOs. 2.2 A tiered vision of CSOs
Based on the above operational concept, the study focused not only on NGOs, but also on a wider and multifaceted universe of organisations that can be analysed through four main organisational levels: . the first level includes grassroots groups, cooperatives and Community Based Organisations (including informal ones such as “forces vives”);
8 The definition of civil society organisations is based on the discussion on this concept by Civicus (CIVICUS Civil Society Index, Summary of conceptual framework and research methodology; and Volkhart Finn Heinrich, Assessing and strengthening Civil Society Worldwide, Civicus; to which reference is also made by the EU documents on NSA (regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of 18 December 2006 establishing the financing instrument for development cooperation: introductive paragraphs 14 and 22; Article 3: general principles, comma N. 3.3; 3.8 (b); 10; Article 5, geographic programmes, comma 2 (g); article 7, Asia, comma b; and Article 11 Thematic programmes (a); Article 19 Geographic strategy papers and multiannual indicative Programmes, comma 3 and 8; Article 20 Strategy papers for thematic programmes, comma 2; Communication of the European Commission “The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external relations”, 2012, 492 final) and on CSO mapping studies (EU, Mapping CSO in Asia, Operational and Methodological Note, 2010; (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/images/a/a9/Mapping_in_Asia_operational_note.pdf). 9 The operational consequence of this is that both trade unions and enterprise organisations – and in general organisations directly involved in industrial/labour relations and in contract negotiation activities, thus defending the interest of a specific group of actors in the labour market - will not be considered as “Civil Society Organisations”. Moreover, also private foundations because of their dependency upon enterprises, will be not considered among CSOs.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 13 of 84
. the second level is composed of NGOs and other intermediary organisations, characterised by the fact that they produce services or generate knowledge and policy actions, rather than aim to benefit the member constituency or members; . the third level comprises the aggregations of CSOs focusing on a sector, a geographical area or a campaign; . the fourth level consists of the general aggregations of CSOs, such as national civil society platforms.
Such categorisation does not pretend to photograph reality but it allows for a better analysis of dynamics, as tested in most CSO mapping carried out in the framework of EU initiatives for better understanding CSOs. Special focus is on the dynamics concerning the border areas between the different “levels” as well as on to the emergence of organisations that participate in more than one level. The model mainly serves as a reference for identifying dynamics and capacity building needs. When relevant, the study considers other features to identify emerging CSOs sub-groups (e.g. engagement in specific sectors). 2.3 A dynamic view of CSO structures and processes
The analysis of organisations at the different levels focused on the set of dynamics shortly described below. These dynamics regard the functioning of the organisation itself, to the relationships among the different CSOs and to other actors, and to the outcomes of the activities of CSOs. . Internal governance, organisational development and sustainability dynamics within CSOs and in the processes they generate; . Social capital and trust, as well as bonding and binding dynamics (i.e. the creation of linkages among different actors or – on the contrary – the strengthening of linkages and cohesion within a single actor/group of actors); . Social and cultural change and social innovation dynamics, such as those related to the recognition of new actors and to the support to innovative social action (i.e. the development/recognition/fostering of collective and individual actions, new social representations, social expectation, etc.); . Knowledge management and innovation, both within organisations and with regards to the external social and political environment; . Policy and governance dynamics, including those related to engagement in advocacy activities and in policy setting and those related to participation in governance mechanisms, both at local and national levels; . Service provision and the struggle against poverty and social exclusion, including dynamics related to service delivery (i.e. quality of services, standard setting processes, access of people to services, etc.) and those related to the reduction of poverty and social exclusion processes as well as to the fostering of sustainable development processes. 2.4 An operational definition of governance
Governance engagement of CSOs is a key focus of this mapping study. It required defining an operational concept of governance. Such operational concept takes into account the EU policies related to the “Agenda for Change”10 and the analysis of new aid modalities for better development outcomes and governance11. On this basis, it is possible to identify governance with the processes
10 Accroitre l’impact de la politique de développement de l’UE: un programme pour le changement, Communication de la Commission européenne, COM 2011, 637 final (13.10.2011) 11 Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities, For better development outcomes and governance, EU, January 2011
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 14 of 84
that involve the different actors in the identification and analysis of emerging (social, economic, environmental, etc.) problems and in the identification, implementation and monitoring of possible solution to such problems. Governance functions are therefore not only played within political institutions12 and by political actors (as elected representatives and government), but are played by any actor – collective, public, private, etc. – that engage itself in the management and/or change of social reality in its different dimensions.
Actually, CSOs effective engagement in governance functions can facilitate the “governing” of social settings and situations that are out of reach of the direct action of public bodies, for instance: . remote geographical areas in which public action would be too expensive; . social areas in which problems emerge that cannot be managed by using the instruments of law, because the law application would produce paradoxical effects (as often happens in conflict management) or because they are out of the reach of law (as where negotiation and consensus among parties are key elements for solving problems); . social areas in which the direct involvement of the public bodies will involve “collateral” effects (such as the emerging of dependency upon public intervention or such as the emergency of patron-client relationships).
Adopting this concept, governance does not consist simply of the functioning and participation to government functions13, but it consists of the engagement in a wide set of activities and actions, including: . Problem identification & analysis at local, national and transnational level, including through research; . Identification and implementation of problem solutions at the different level, particularly through the engagement of the different stakeholders (including other NSA as the private sector, LA and government bodies); . Management of “common goods”, such as environmental resources and the public space, including the monitoring of their uses and the setting and implementation of multi-actor arrangements for their use (as in the case fishermen agree on the use of water basins, or in the case in which they involves in the surveillance on the exploitation of resources14); . Management of public services, such as education and health, through participation in their governing bodies, participation in standard setting processes, evaluation & monitoring of their functioning, delivery of information and advice for their improvement; . Participation to (public) policy formulation, policy setting and policy evaluation & monitoring; . Information and mobilisation of citizens on issues related to the exercise of citizenship rights (including campaigns for rights enforcement or enhancement); . Engagement with public authorities for the improvement of conditions for the exercise of citizens’ rights as well as for the advancement of rights (including through monitoring, evaluation and advocacy actions, at the different levels, and through actions for the protection of rights).
12 Political institutions include government, parliament, political parties, public bodies, etc. These institutions are legitimated by the law rather than by social dynamics and legitimacy processes. In addition to political parties and representation mechanisms (i.e. the parliament and the government, as well as elected or nominated local authorities), political institutions include public bodies, because these respond to the national and local government. In some cases, political institutions can include also other organisations (e.g. state enterprises) that are depending upon political decision making. 13 Limiting “governance” to the engagement of CSOs with or in political institutions moreover easily generate a confusion between the space of civil society and that of “political institutions”, resulting sometimes both in the emergence of conflict between government and public authorities, on the one side, and CSOs, on the other side, and/or in the invasion of civil society space by political institution (thus involving a politicisation of CSOs) or vice-versa (thus involving a reduction of the “rule of law” compliance by public bodies). 14 One cooperative participating to the mapping focus groups in Rusizi for instance played these functions.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 15 of 84
Effective participation of CSOs to governance requires: . CSOs to be able to play an autonomous role, in which linkage with communities and the capacity to identify and/or solve problems can guide their action more than the linkages with donors, authorities or stronger CSOs (notably for CSOs being actually autonomous and independent). . CSOs to develop the capacities for effectively acting into this “governance space” and to perform “governance functions” (as those related to make voice of citizens perceived, to effective advocacy, to effective management of social dynamics, etc.). . The presence of spaces in which the governance functions can actually be performed, without entering in conflict with political institutions. This implies that political institutions recognise that a “civil society” space exists, which is distinct from the political space, even if public policies are influenced. Such “civil society” space functions according to dynamics that are different from those of politics: legitimacy of actors participating to this space is not based on the “consensus” of citizens or upon their backing – as in electoral competition and in the political space – but upon the own organisation self-mobilisation and “standing”)15. 2.5 An operational definition of “capacity building”
The identification of capacity building needs of civil society organisations is a main element of the mapping study. Needs were identified by addressing three dimensions: . individual skills, knowledge and capacities; . organisational internal dynamics, including organisational identity (values, mission and ethics), efficient and effective management, and available resources; . Inter-action and relationships among CSOs and their external context (including institutional framework).
The identification of CSOs’ capacity building needs and the formulation of strategic indications for supporting CSO development were not only based on the analysis of the gaps between CSOs’ existing capacities and those that are desirable according to abstract models of CSOs. Rather, the analysis of the stakes and issues related to CSO development and engagement in governance processes constitutes the main reference in the identification of capacity building needs.
15 The definition of governance have two main foundations: the academic studies on civil society engagement in governance (see the discussion in: Hyden G., Julius Court and Ken Mease; Civil Society and Governance in 16 development countries, ODI, 2003; de Nève D., Governance and Civil Society - Pluralising the State, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012; Caramani, D., Comparative Politics, Oxford, 2008; Shabbir Cheema G., Popovski V., Engaging Civil Society: Emerging Trends in Democratic Governance, UNU, 2010) and the previous EU elaboration on this theme (EC Communication, Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change, 2011, 1172 final; 1173 final; EC Communication, The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external relations, 2012, 492 final; Structured Dialogue on the involvement of CSOs and Local Authorities in EU development cooperation 2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/who/partners/civil-society/structured-dialogue_en.htm).
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 16 of 84
3 THE METHODOLOGY OF THE MAPPING
3.1 A general view of methodology
The mapping adopted of a specific set of methodological principles shortly described below. . A participative approach – involving the use of rapid participatory appraisal techniques – and a focus on participation and collective construction of knowledge, based on the recognition of the actors involved in social processes not only as “sources of information”, but also as bearers of important perspectives for the construction of a relevant knowledge on social processes and dynamics. This requires that analysis and data collection are not simply carried out by the experts’ team, but are shared, cross-checked and validated through the consultation of stakeholders . The integration between quantitative and qualitative information: statistical data were collected when reliable information was available and when information was relevant for analysis. While for analysing processes and dynamics on which statistical information is unavailable or is unreliable, “proxy” indicators and indices were using qualitative information. . The integration between information on “factual elements” (processes, situations, resources, actions, etc.) and information on “cognitive elements” (such as the representations of reality, the objectives and goals of stakeholders, their expectations, etc.). This will allowed an analysis that not only provides a picture of the current situation of CSO and NSA processes and dynamics, but also is able to provide information on possible developments and change processes. Moreover, this facilitated the identification of the perspectives and viewpoints of the main stakeholders and a better understanding of information and data. . The capitalisation of existing knowledge and information, based both on the mapping and analysis of available documentary sources (including previous studies, carried out both in the framework of Academic research and in the framework of policy-making) and on the consultation of key informants and researchers. 3.2 The geographical scope of the mapping
The mapping concerned the Rwanda CS as a whole. In order to be able to consider the differences and features of the different regions of the Country, consultation and information gathering activities were carried out not only in Kigali, but also in other five districts, namely: . Rusizi (West) . Rubavu (West) . Nyagatare (East) . Huye (South) . Musanze (North)
Three elements constitute da basis of the selection of these districts: . The geographical distribution in different parts of the country (thus their geographical representativeness); . the presence of CSOs of different kinds; . the fact that they are included among the cities considered in the EDPRS II as development poles.
The chosen districts moreover are characterised by different features – as different kinds of economic structures, different kinds of morphological contexts, differences in the existing base of resources,
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 17 of 84
position on different communication and road axes, etc. – so they offered the possibility to reflect into the mapping study the diversity of the country.
The definition and use of a statistical sample were impossible in the framework of the mapping implementation, due to the lack of information on the universe of CSOs in Rwanda (particularly regarding the total number, and distribution of CSOs in the Districts16) and due to the limits of available resources. Therefore, the activities carried out in these districts contributed to a greater representativeness of the informants and increased the possibility to identify “enjeux”, issues, dynamics and spaces of opportunity that might be not visible from Kigali. These activities included the consultation of the CSOs of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level and the consultation of local authorities and field office of INGOs. Actually, while it would not be appropriate to consider the sample of organisations consulted as statistically representative, it is possible to define it as “sociologically representative”, since it considers the variety of organisations and conditions in the Country. 3.3 The sources of information
The mapping integrated several and different information sources, shortly identified in the following table.
TABLE N. 1: INFORMATION SOURCES
First degree information sources Second degree information sources Reports on EU funded programmes and EU Policy documents and EU CSP projects Reports of major donors programmes and National Policy documents initiatives concerning CSOs – NSA Policy documents from national and Research reports on CSO and Documentary international CSOs in Rwanda development in Rwanda sources CSOs’ documents on their own resources, Evaluation reports on CSO support activities, statute, etc. initiatives by the EU and other donors Main international donors documents CSO Mappings and diagnostic studies (European Donors; UN agencies; WB; produced by CSOs (national, regional and USAID) – providing information on their international) own policies and projects Scholars engaged in CSO analysis and EU staff involved in CSO support activities, qualified informants not having a direct role including youth and gender focal persons in CSOs or in public institutions. Government representatives engaged in dealing with CSOs (RGB, Minaloc, etc.) Representatives of the local authorities and JADF in the visited Districts Representatives of EU funded programmes Live sources supporting CSOs Representatives of International NGO The CSOs and their representatives platforms Representatives of other NSA (Media, Trade Unions, Private foundations, etc.) Representatives of national and local CSO platforms Representatives of donors engaged in initiatives supporting CSOs and NSA
16 According to the Platform of Rwanda Civil Society, current estimates about the number of CSOs identify a range between 700 and over 2000 organisations, regarding the registered NGOs; while studies concerning the whole civil society defined that over 40.000 CSOs can exist in the country if community based organisations are counted.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 18 of 84
3.4 The tools for information gathering
In order to consult different information sources17 , it was a set of data gathering tools including: . In-depth interviews, with 2nd, 3rd and 4th level organisations; . Structured questionnaires for 2nd level organisations (this questionnaires were self-filled by CSOs, with the support of the mapping team); . Structured fiche for the collection of information on 1st level organisations; . An analysis framework for collecting and organising the information on 3rd and 4th level organisations, through different kinds of sources; . Focus group meetings and small workshops, carried out using a “discussion guide”; . Visits to CSOs offices, activities, projects, etc.
In the following tables, a quantitative view about sources of information is presented.
TABLE N. 2: TOOLS FOR INFORMATION GATHERING
Structured Data collection Focus In depth Documentary questionnaires fiche groups interviews analysis 1st level ● ● organisations 2nd level ● ● organisations 3rd level ● ● organisations
1st level organizations
Five workshops have been held outside Kigali and one in the Capital with the aim to discuss the main actual stakes for cooperatives and community-based associations as well as their strength and weaknesses. During each workshop, the participants have filled a structured data collection fiche. The following table presents the number of participants for each focus group.
TABLE N.3: FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR 1ST LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS
1st level organizations Provinces Focus groups Structured fiche Kigali 6 6 Rusizi 12 11 Huye 9 9 Nyagatare 8 8 Rubavu 18 16 Musanze 13 12 Total 66 62 (*) (*) most organisations participating in the focus groups also filled the structured fiches, thus there is among these two groups of organisations almost a complete overlapping
2nd level organizations
A similar focus groups methodology was used to discuss the main stakes for second level organizations. Five focus groups have been held in the Provinces. In Kigali, however, in addition to bilateral meetings with CSOs, a workshop was held with national and international NGOs on November 14th at the EUD, with the aim to discuss the preliminary findings of the mapping.
17 The questionnaires for second level organisations and the “fiche” for 1st level organisations, as well as the discussion guides for focus groups management, are reported as annexes.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 19 of 84
ND TABLE N.4: FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR 2 LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS
2nd level organizations Provinces Focus groups Questionnaires Kigali (*) 10 Rusizi 8 8 Huye 11 9 Nyagatare 5 5 Rubavu 18 12 Musanze 13 9 Total 55 53 (**) (*) In Kigali, 10 2nd level organisations have been met in bilateral meetings (in depth interviews). These organisations also filled the questionnaires. (**) As for 1st level organisations, also for 2nd level organisations a partial overlapping exists between those that participated to focus group meetings and those that filled the questionnaires.
3rd and 4th level organisations
Third and Fourth level organisations have been involved in bilateral meetings. Particularly: nine (9) umbrella organisations (3rd level) were met, as well as the Rwanda Civil Society Platform (4th level). Of the nine (9) umbrella organisations, seven (7) have been analysed, based on the interviews, the analysis of documents, information provided by key informants, information gathered during focus groups meetings with 2nd level CSOs.
Government and local authorities interviewed
In the inception phase of the mission, the Team was able to meet two important stakeholders like the National Authorizing Officer and the Rwanda Governance Board. The discussion with Government Authorities has been very useful to understand the social dynamics at national and local level. Even at local level, the Team have met representatives of JADF, Vice Majors and representatives of the Immigration Unit.
TABLE N. 5: MEETINGS WITH GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Provinces N° Kigali 4 Rusizi 4 Huye 1 Nyagatare - Rubavu 2 Musanze 2 TOTAL 13 The table below gives an overall picture of the organizations met, for each category of CSOs.
TABLE N° 6: NUMBER OF RWANDAN ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN THE MAPPING STUDY
1st level Org 2nd level Org 3rd level Org 4th level Org Total Kigali 6 10 (*) 9 1 26 Rusizi 12 8 - - 20 Huye 9 11 - - 20 Nyagatare 8 5 - - 13 Rubavu 18 12 - - 30 Musanze 13 11 - - 24 66 57 9 1 133 (*) As already mentioned, in Kigali NGOs were met in bilateral meetings, while in the other provinces they were met through focus groups. Different meetings with international donors have been organized, with the aim to collect information about the strategy and the initiatives of donors regarding Civil Society and Governance issues. Avoid
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 20 of 84
overlapping and intervention duplication is crucial. The next EU-CSO support Programme will take into consideration the other donors policies and perspective with the aim to create synergies and common policy of intervention.
International NGOs have been met as well, with the aim to understand their specific view on Rwandan CSO and to understand as well their policies and modus operandi in the field of the CSO support.
TABLE N. 7: MEETINGS WITH CSO SUPPORT MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
Group meetings Meeting/In-depth interviews INGO 12 13 (*) Donors 10 5 (*) Gov/LA 13 EUD 6 As in previous cases, INGOs and donors that participated in group meetings where also consulted through in- depth interviews: therefore these data are not to be summed. 3.5 Limits and obstacles met in the mapping
Considering the resources and time available for the implementation of the mapping it has been necessary to limit the research work out of Kigali to just five of the 30 Districts or Rwanda. The potential limits deriving from such necessity have been minimised through the selection of a set of districts characterised by important differences and representatives of the diverse regions of the Country. It is to be noted, however that a large number of 2nd level organisations and most of 3rd level organisations, as well as the Rwanda Civil Society Platform, are concentrated in Kigali.
A further limit of the mapping concerns the possibility to involve in the research activities all the different kinds of grassroots organisations: while it has been possible to involve in the meetings and focus groups grassroots “cooperatives” engaged in a variety of sectors and themes, it has been impossible to involve “informal groups” or organisations. Actually, when these groups exist they tend to remain “invisible” (presenting themselves just as “beneficiary” groups) or to consider themselves “external” to civil society community and communication networks.
The need for citizens’ groups to be registered and to have a legal personality implies that small groups or organisations tend to register themselves as NGOs or as cooperatives even when they are at an early development stage. Consequently, in some cases NGOs participating in the focus groups were characterised by low levels of organisation, of activity and of funding (often just self-financing their activities with members’ fees). Moreover, they were characterised by the identity between their members and their beneficiaries, so that they were more similar to community based (first level) organisations than to real second level “intermediary” organisations and NGOs.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 21 of 84
4 THE CONTEXT OF CS IN RWANDA
4.1 A diachronic view of CSOs
Rwanda civil society is considered as a recent phenomenon18. Before 1994, civil society organisations mainly emerged within the framework of Christian churches (particularly the Catholic Church, which from 1956 established organisations such as Caritas and started to be a recipient of international catholic organisations aid, as that of CRS – Catholic Relief Service). In the authoritarian situation that characterised pre and post-colonial Rwanda, the church was somehow the only space in which activities out of the state control were possible19. Further development of CSOs were the diffusion of cooperatives, peasant associations and agricultural development NGOs in the 1980s. The number of registered NGOs reached 170 in 1991, while since the 1973 Habyarimana Coup thousands of farmers’ cooperatives were created (according to some esteems these latter were one for every 35 households). However these latter were tightly controlled by the state20.
In late 1980s and early 1990s – linked to the relative opening of the political system - also other kinds of organisations were created, including human rights organisations (as LIPRODHOR, ARDHO, ADL, and the umbrella CLADHO), women organisations (as Haguruka Réseaux des Femmes), and some umbrella organisations aiming at supporting grassroots initiatives (as CCOAIB). In this period, also trade unions started to organise out of the direct government control. An issue raised by CSOs in such period was that of the return of Rwanda people living abroad since 1959.
However, in a context that was still authoritarian, this period was characterised by a politicisation process (intended not as fostering political participation into the civil society domain, but as assuming a partisan positions, and entering the politics sphere) which involved CSOs at all level.
Five main components have been identified in Rwanda civil society before the genocide: . Cooperatives . Peasant Associations . Tontines and informal associations (ibimina) . Foreign and local NGOs . Churches’ organisations21.
As for the country as a whole, also for CSOs the genocide marks a steep divide: many organisations were actually victimised in this period, while most of existing grassroots organisations did not mobilise for limiting the genocide, or even in some cases took an active part in it.
Following the genocide, the associative phenomenon assumed a more complex and new shape. CSOs number rapidly increased to more than 200022, as many organisations were created to address the genocide and conflict consequences, both through the initiative of Rwanda people and through the initiatives of International NGOs. Two main groups of organisations have been developing in this framework: i)those engaged in the protection of Human Rights, and ii) those engaged in relief and assistance to survivors, refugees, etc..
18 CCOAIB, The State of Civil Society in Rwanda in National Development. Civil Society Index Rwanda Report, UNDP – CIVICUS, 2011 19 CCOAIB, Société Civile Rwandaise, Problèmes et perspectives, Kigali, 2003 20 Uvin P., Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, 1998 21 Uvin P., Prejudice, Crisis, and Genocide in Rwanda, 1997 22 CCOAIB, The State of Civil Society in Rwanda in National Development. Civil Society Index Rwanda Report, UNDP – CIVICUS, 2011
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 22 of 84
Women organisations further developed in this period, often also assuming a strong role in peace building, in the recovery of “social trust” and in the fostering of proximity justice, as through the support to the Gacaca transitional justice system.
Also thanks to the opening of the country to international dimension, other kinds of organisations started to work in this period, such as environmental organisations or organisations engaged in health care and in supporting prevention and care of HIV/AIDS. According to analysis and assessments23, in early 2000s most organisations were engaged in the mere execution of development and social projects, while only a relatively small number of organisations engaged on Human Rights and Gender were also carrying out advocacy activities and activities regarding public policies. However, despite the lack of a direct engagement in advocacy and policy issues, many organisations were recognised24 to be involved, since the end of ‘90s in public campaigns aimed at “educating” people on different issues: from participation in decision-making to peace and reconciliation, from health and HIV/AIDS prevention to gender equality. The engagement of CSOs in these campaigns is related to the transition of the country from a situation mainly marked by emergency and relief needs to a situation in which development needs became prevalent.
According to informants (particularly experts supporting CSOs in the framework of donors’ activities and of RCSP), the transition from relief to development not only marked the need for assuming new roles and initiate new activities by CSOs, but also a rapid reduction of the availability of international support. While some international NGOs continued to work in the country, often supporting both financially and through technical assistance local CSOs, many other international NGOs left, as well as many donors. A consequence of that has been in the late period a decrease in the number of active CSOs (particularly NGOs). Such decrease is also linked to the change of the NGO Law, which required to NGOs to register newly, setting some requirements that not all existing organisations were actually able to meet. Presently, the new registration process is still in progress (National NGOs were requested to register not later than March 2013); registered organisations - according to the RCSP - are expected to be between 700 and 1.000.
While NGOs have been decreasing, according to some informants representing main CS umbrella organisations, because of the decrease of funds and because of legal provisions (such as the need to re-register), during last few years the number of cooperatives rapidly increased to more than 500025. This increase also results from the national policies aiming at fostering the organisation of people – particularly for carrying out productive and income-generating activities – and at fostering the registration and regulation of informal groups, including those involved in saving schemes or in activities linked to the management of local resources. Registration and “formalisation” of groups intend to better integrate them in development policies. Other organisations also are growing, under the umbrella provided by churches and religious organisations or under the umbrella of NGOs and other public or private institutions. This latter group of organisations includes, for instance: . saving and loan groups, which are registered under micro-finance schemes; . youth clubs and parents’ committees, which can be created in the framework of the school activities or under NGOs supporting education or youths; . service users committees, which are often created within the action of NGOs; . informal women, youth and sport groups, which often constitute the basis for the creation of new NGOs or of new cooperatives.
23 ARD/USAID, Civil Society in Rwanda: Assessment and Options, USAID, 2001 24 Mukamunana, R.; Brynard, P.A., “The role of Civil Society Organisations in Policy Making Process in Rwanda”, in Journal of Public Administration, n. 4.1., 2005 25 According to the Rwanda Cooperative Agency, registered cooperatives are 5389. (http://www.rca.gov.rw/ wemis/registration/all.php).
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 23 of 84
4.2 The legal framework
Since Civil Society Organisations can hardly be framed just as an “NGO”, the legal framework for CSOs in Rwanda is multi-faced, as different laws regulate NGOs (national and international NGOs) and other kinds of citizens’ collective actions and organisations. The main regulatory body regarding CSOs in Rwanda consist of the Law N° 4/2012 (NGO Law). 4.2.1 The NGO Law
The law regulating NGOs has been approved in 2012, following a consultation between the government, the parliament and NGOs. Proposals coming from NGOs have been only partially included in the law formulation. Nevertheless, the new law marks an advancement in the relationships between public authorities and NGOs. In fact, it warrants freedom and autonomy of associations, it establishes a “registration” system rather than an “authorisation” system, and it defines clear rules concerning the right of association to recur against authorities’ decisions.
Box n. 2: The NGO law The law N° 4/2012 provides for national NGOs to be registered and periodically evaluated by an autonomous body, the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB), which also register the faith-based organisations. Organisations can operate before the registration, however the pre-registration period shall not exceed 2 years. Registration requires: i) authenticated statutes; ii) head of office and full address of the organization; iii) name of the legal representative and of his/her deputy, as well their duties, address, CV and judicial records; iv) minutes of the general assembly which appointed the legal representative. Registration can be refused, but the competent authority shall provide in writing the reasons thereof in a period of 60 days. Reasons for refusing are: a) non fulfilment of registration requirements; b) evidences that the organisation intends to jeopardize security, public order, health, morals or human rights. The legal representative of the NGO can file a case against the refusal decision in the competent court. The Law also provides for a set of rights and duties of NGOs. On such basis, the registration of an NGO can be temporary suspended by the competent authority. Such suspension can became final if the causes leading to the suspension itself are not removed. In addition, in this case a case can be filed against the suspension decision. Moreover, the judicial authority can dissolve NGOs. NGOS can be composed by natural persons or by autonomous collective voluntary organisations. NGOs are categorised under three main categories, according to their objective and membership: a) public interest organisations, which serve “public interest”; b) common interest organisations, which act in a specific domain in favour of their members; c) foundations, which have the purpose to establish a fund or to collect funds and to manage and use them to support beneficiaries. NGOs can conduct commercial activities when the profit from such activities is meant to be used for the organisation objectives. Commercial activities carried out by NGOs respond to the laws regarding enterprises and cooperatives. The NGO Law provides for NGOs to “enjoy financial, moral and administrative autonomy” and that the government of Rwanda and NGOs may engage in partnerships. Moreover, the Law provides that government should include in the national budget funds meant for supporting NGOs, while the modalities for granting the support would be defined by the public authority in charge of NGOs (such authority is defined by the law as a Minister, while it has been further identified in the RGB). Limitations to NGOs concern: a) distribution of earning and profit; b) engage in support for any political organisation or any candidate campaigning for a political office; c) support by criminal individuals or organisations. The law also set the obligation for NGOs, to inform to local authorities about debates in meetings of the General Assembly.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 24 of 84
4.2.2 INGO Law
The Law N.05/2012 regulates International NGOs. As the NGO law, this law substitute previous laws allowing for a greater autonomy of INGOs. The law require INGOs to be registered and to have a legal status to operate. INGOs can operate provisionally when the registration process is in progress.
Registration is possible for up to 5 years, but information should be provided to authorities each year. Actually, a long list of documentation and information is required to INGOs, including the implementation schedule and its various stages of planning, detailed cost estimates with data, an indication of who will continue activities launched by INGOs after they have completed their work, and all information relating to its geographical establishment throughout the world.
Among obligations for INGOs, some are worth to be detailed, as those concerning the presentation of: . annual action plan for fiscal year (July-June) should be aligned with the vision 2020, with EDPRS II and with DDP(District Development Plan); . signed proof of funding/or a commitment letter from the donor or INGO international head office; . a recommendation letter or a Valid Memorandum of Understanding from the partnering line Ministry; . the proof of submission of action plan to the respective districts of operation, by using a specific application form; . the organizational structure of the INGO in Rwanda.
For applying for a registration longer than one year, some more documents are requested, including the “strategic plan” of activities for more than one year, showing its budget execution and performance indicators endorsed by the Line Ministry;
In the case of INGOs, the Directorate General for Immigration and Emigration plays a registration and monitoring function similar to that of RGB. Registration can be at national level, for the organisations working in more than one district, or at district level for those working in just one district. In all cases, the registration of organisations requires that relevant authorities (for instance District Mayors or line ministries) provide a “collaboration letter” and approve organisations annual reports. As registration of INGOs should be renovated annually, therefore collaboration letter and reports should be issued each year by relevant public bodies. Through the interviews and discussions with NGOs, it emerges that often the need to obtain collaboration letters by the line ministries and by district authorities is perceived as an incentive to engage in “concrete activities”, such as those regarding the direct delivery of services or the provision of funding to local public initiatives (such as the JADF “open days” carried out ad district level). Moreover, it discourages organisations to engage in activities that can potentially generate mistrust in local authorities or line ministries, such as monitoring of service delivery and policy implementation. 4.2.3 Other relevant legal frameworks
In addition to the NGO Law, other regulations influence the development of CSOs in Rwanda, particularly at grassroots level. These include: . the legislation regarding cooperatives, as national policies promote the transformation of grassroots organisations in cooperatives; cooperatives are mainly meant to have economic objectives and are regulated by the Rwanda Cooperative Agency, which registers them and provides them support; . The Law N.06/2012 that concerns Faith Based Organisations is relevant to the life of many CSOs (particularly CBOs) that function under the umbrella of churches and other religious
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 25 of 84
institutions. In addition to faith based NGOs, often churches and other religious institutions are the places where people meet and discuss about emerging issues, sometimes also concerning development, access to public services and even on public policy implementation at local level). . the Media Law which was issued in 2012, regulates not only “commercial media” but also “community medias”, defining the rules for the exercise of journalism and of publishing activities. The law provides for a wide autonomy of journalists and publishers. The law however provides that the dissemination of information can be limited for national interest and public order interest. . The body of legislation and regulations concerning decentralisation. While NGOs and other CSOs are not requested by their own regulation to take part to the bodies set up for promoting local development, decentralisation regulations (and particularly recent minister orders concerning the functioning of JADF – Joint action development forum) require to CSOs to participate in JADF, to contribute to the implementation of District and Sector Development Plan and to sign “Performance Contract” that are periodically evaluated. The compliance with these rules can be a condition for issuing the “collaboration letter” required for maintaining the registration of INGOs. . The legal provisions concerning credit, under the control of ministry of finance, regulates also micro-finance institutions, thus involving also the “saving groups” at grassroots level. In some cases, these groups are transformed in cooperatives, so to facilitate their further development, and in many cases these groups carry out activities and functions other than that of credit. . The education and health service regulations, which provide for the existence of semi- formalised “users’ committees” which can collaborate to the service management, and in the case of schools for the existence of semi-formalised “clubs” that can involve in several activities. Youth and students club particularly engage in managing and mediating conflicts. In these cases, clubs and committees are recognised by the service management body or are created in the framework of NGO actions. When these groups assume a more independent status, they are requested to register, as an NGO or as a cooperative. 4.2.4 Some issues related to current legal framework
As already stated, the recently approved laws and policies regulating Civil Society Organisations have been generally considered positively by CSOs and by other NSAs26, and without any doubt sign advancement in fostering autonomous CSOs. Nevertheless, some shortcomings emerge, particularly regarding the local application of the law. . A first issue concerns the relationships between CSOs and local authorities. Participation to JADF, to local development plan at district and sector level, and to “performance contracts” often are managed in a different way in different districts and with different CSOs. In some cases, “participation” is mandatory for CSOs; in other cases just as an “opportunity”. In some cases CSOs are required to modify their activities according to existing local plans while in other cases, they are just required to inform LA about their own plans, etc.. . A second issue concerns the role assumed sometime by the public authorities in the life of CSOs. Particularly in the case of conflicts within the organisations and among the members of the organisations, public authorities have been intervening in some cases just for moderating conflicts. In other cases authorities intervened in a stronger way. Even, in some
26 Even if the proposals coming from CSOs community have been only partially included in the final text of the law that actually reflected also some emerging changes in the structure of public administration.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 26 of 84
cases, “imposing” changes in the CSO boards. While the state intervention aims at facilitating the life of organisations and at reducing the impact of the conflicts or crises, nevertheless it is an interference reduce the sphere of autonomy granted to NGOs by the law and government general policies and risk to transform the nature and functioning of concerned organisations. . A third issue concerns the possibility that the requirement to all organisations to register themselves (mainly as cooperative or as NGO) would generate undesired effects. Particularly it can foster a tendency by some “informal organisations” to remain invisible (as consequence that these organisations cannot play a clear and transparent role in governance processes). A further possible consequence is the change of the original scope of organisations in order to be registered. Such risk can involve cooperatives that in some cases consist of groups of people originally created to solve problems or to advocate for solutions, rather than for carrying out economic activities. A risk also exists regarding the possibility that the organisation and governance structure of CSOs is crystallised at an early stage of development, because of the need to formalise them in the statute. The requirement to involve a notary can generate a further undesired effect, such as de-motivating people to act in an organised way to solve common problems, waiting for external actors – as INGOs or the public authorities - to solve them.
Rather than requiring changes in the legal framework, addressing these shortcomings would mainly require agreements among the parties on the application of existing regulation.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 27 of 84
5 THE STAKES FOR CSOS IN RWANDA
5.1 The stakes related to CSOs contribution to Rwanda development and governance processes
There is in Rwanda a political will to increase citizens’ participation to policy making, coherently with the 2003 Rwanda Constitution and the “Vision 2020”. Such political will results in the establishment of a wide set of institutional and operational mechanisms, expected to increase responsiveness of public actions to citizens’ needs. In this framework some specific aims are pursued, namely: a) increasing the capacity of public authorities to reflect needs emerging at local level in policy planning and implementation; b) increasing the accountability of public authorities, both in front of the political institutions (such as the government and the parliament) and in front of citizens; c) making government closer to citizens. A variety of means are used in this framework, from “flattening” or public authority structures (creating a direct linkage between the president and the districts), to the modernisation of procedures (as the establishment of “one stop shop” or digitalisation) and to the engagement with NGOs as vehicles for enhancing citizens’ capacities and awareness about rights.
In the framework of this reform process of governance mechanisms, CSOs risk to be lagging behind: in most cases, their contribution to such process is just that “responding” to government inputs, by assuming the role of implementing partners or service delivery bodies. In a very limited number of cases, some CSOs assume a role of “critical witnesses”, but not really engaging or influencing public policies and their implementation.
An issue therefore emerges about the way CSOs can assume a more effective role in participating to Rwanda development dynamics, both at local and national level. Such a role seems to be particularly important in reference with dynamics, such as those related to decentralisation, social cohesion, communication and trust among citizens and public authorities, access to information and services, social inclusion and innovation. In these domains, public action to be effective needs the accompaniment and support of CSOs. Particularly such support can consist of making societal processes and interests more visible, and of directly participating to decision-making, policy implementation, policy monitoring and to the improvement of service delivery at the different levels. 5.2 The challenges for CSOs
Playing a real role in governance processes is not automatic for CSOs. As it emerged in the diachronic overview of civil society in Rwanda, most CSOs have been engaging mainly in the delivery of services: to play a real role, CSOs should therefore be able to overcome a set of challenges, shortly analysed below.
The first challenge concerns the need for CSOs for defining or re-defining their role and position in a changing environment. A large number of CSOs have been created in the context of post- genocide and some few (but sometimes strong) of them were created before the genocide. CSOs positioned themselves in two main roles: a) as service delivery bodies, in a moment in which public authorities and public services were collapsed and had to be recovered and to be made functioning again; b) as defenders of human rights, in a situation in which the victims were to be supported, the rule of law had to be re-established and ways to obtain “justice” without generating further conflicts (or further
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 28 of 84
victims) had to be found, practiced and monitored. Nowadays the context is completely changed: while some wounds from the genocide are still there and can be expected to be there for a long time, Rwanda undertook new development processes at a fast pace, often generating new challenges and issues. CSOs should therefore actualise their mission and vision, understanding in which position they can really contribute to national development.
A second challenge concerns the need for most CSOs to avoid the prevalence of service delivery and reducing dependency from external agendas. According to recent studies, over 75% or local NGOs depends from external sources as international donors or the government27, and almost all of them are engaged in service delivery (mainly on “project basis”). Such a situation leads CSOs to be dependent from external agendas and consequently tends to generate a gap between CSOs and their constituencies, perceived more and more as beneficiaries.
Third challenge for CSOs is gaining a stronger recognition as an autonomous actor. This minds that CSOs are recognised as an actor that: a) has its own right to stand (even without being “approved” by authorities); b) plays a function because of its “existence” and because of its capacity to bring a specific perspective on development processes and on common goods. This also minds that CSOs should not recognised based on the contribution they provide to the implementation of plans set up by other actors or because of the implementation of activities. Actually, few organisations are recognised as actors bringing an original perspective to be considered in policy making, while most are just considered as a project implementing body or as a provider of (tangible or intangible) services.
Closely linked with those above, a challenge emerges concerning the representation and cohesion within Civil Society. Even if platforms and umbrella organisation exist, it is difficult to perceive a “civil society voice” in Rwanda. Each CSO seems to be alone when the need emerges of having support from other CSOs (in almost all meetings held with CSOs during the mapping, consulted organisations declared to feel alone and without support when facing authorities or donors).
Another key challenge for CSOs is building the capacity to interact with government and local authorities in governance processes. Despite the existence of many channels for influencing policies, there is little capacity to make the most of them. CSOs tend to assume a relatively passive attitude, just following directives by authorities or donors; or they tend to assume a “confrontation” attitude, that often results in conflicts rather than in influence. In both cases, influence on policies is limited. Building the capacity to interact with government would include strengthening analytic capacities (policy analysis, etc.), strengthening advocacy capacities (evidence based advocacy, etc.) and strengthening the linkage among CSOs and their constituencies (thus having a “perspective” or a “viewpoint” and avoiding to play just the role of “consulting firms”).
A key challenge for CSOs is finally that of recognising and including within the CSO community the emerging actors, particularly at grassroots level. Within the Rwandan society, new actors emerge – bringing in new capacities, knowledge, practices and social representations – but remain relatively invisible and therefore cannot play any role in governance, despite their potentialities. These actors sometimes are organising themselves as NGOs, but because of scarce experience and access to resources remain at the margin of civil society community, information channels and debate. However, in most cases they emerge on the boundary area between NGOs and private “for-profit” sector.
A further challenge concerns the engagement of Diaspora. A large number of Rwandans still live abroad, in refugee camps in the region, as well as people settled, studying and doing business in all
27 According to the already mentioned 2012 “CSO Barometer”, almost 75 % of CSOs depends from donors, while about 25 % receive resources from the government
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 29 of 84
continents. The Rwanda government is actually launching initiatives to take back in the country these people, which can bring new economic resources, new capacities and even social innovation. However while the government action is mainly dealing with the goal of taking back to Rwanda individuals and families, an issue emerges concerning the possibility to make the most of “organised groups” and associations of Rwandan abroad. In many cases, these “organised groups” seem often to be still much polarised along political divides so that their capacity to influence and enrich Rwanda development policies and dynamics is still very low. However, an action seems needed to identify and integrate within Rwanda civil society community and debate those groups, associations and organisations that can play a “social innovation” role.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 30 of 84
6 ANALYSIS OF CSO DIALOGUE AND WITH GOVERNMENT
As already observed in previous paragraphs spaces exist of dialogue among CSOs and with Government. Dialogue still appears largely guided by government and public authorities, but these spaces constitute a set of opportunities to be capitalised and further developed in fostering CSO engagement in governance and policy. 6.1 The consultation activities launched by government
A first space for dialogue consists of the consultation activities launched by government. Out of the consultation and dialogue programme already mentioned in which specific issues are matter of debate (but that is more a “joint reflection space” than a space related to governance), other initiatives exist, including: . the consultation of individual NGOs on law/policy formulation, based on specific areas of intervention or to specific capacities of involved organisations; . sector working groups held at ministry level, or in the framework of the JADF at local level; however, few organisations do actively participate in working groups and consultation is more focused on getting the consensus on already defined policies than to involving CSOs in the preparation of decision, . informal consultation (CSOs having experiences are asked sometimes to provide their advice and ideas: this is more frequent with INGOs, as they are considered knowledge providers). 6.2 Engagement in decentralisation processes
JADF more probably constitute the main space for governance participation of CSOs, together with the spaces created in the framework of the decentralisation process. These include also the formulation of District and Sector Development Plan, and the participation to Budget setting and their monitoring and evaluation. These spaces are currently mainly “dominated” by public authorities, however in some cases the role civil society or private sector actors play in them is a key one.
Decentralisation represents a potentially important space. Such space is potentially limited by the unclear relationship between CSOs and LA, and by the lack of strength of CSOs. Particularly weak are the capacities to: a) represent interests other than those of the single organisations; b) bring relevant information and knowledge; c) join efforts; d) identify common problems; e) generate shared perspectives and strategies; f) define a common position in front of LA and other NSA.
In several cases individual NGOs and umbrella organisations have been involved in assisting or even in implementing actions in the framework of the decentralisation process, as disseminating information on participation to budget setting (CLADHO), in the formulation of local development plan (Rwanda Never Again, CCOAIB, etc.), in playing a key role in the management of JADF (as in Rubavu District). 6.3 The dissemination of information on rights and public policies
CSOs are often involved in projects and programmes aimed at disseminating information on rights and public policies. After the end of emergency and relief period, for many Human Rights NGOs this became the main activity, including for well-established organisations as CLADHO, CCOAIB, RCSP or Pro-Femme. In many cases, the government bodies (RGB, the MINALOC and the Ministry of Finance) support or even initiate these activities.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 31 of 84
The main risk emerging in this framework consists of the tendency of involved CSOs to renounce to play an active role – initiating activities for responding to the needs and interests of their constituencies or providing to public authorities feedbacks and information for improving policies and for enhancing the exercise of rights. A tendency actually exists of CSOs specialising in the delivery of training and education service under the guidance of other actors. 6.4 The exercise of “Voice” functions
Voice function is recognised by public authorities as a main function of CSOs, and it is mainly interpreted as “taking the voice of citizens to the government”, consequently the government and local authorities often engage with NGOs for supporting the collection of complaints on the functioning of public services and for setting “suggestion boxes” at the different level.
Some NGOs took a leading role in this framework, as Transparency International – Rwanda, which actively collaborates with Rwanda Governance Board (RGB) and with some line ministries (Education, Health, Justice, etc.). A main feature of the way of expressing “voice” is the reference to individual cases. These are in some cases aggregated so to identify “problems to be solved”. Seldom organisations engage on collective cases and on the interests of a “collective” of people or organisations (as this would risk appearing a kind of “political action”, out of the scope of NGO action).
Also by Human Rights organisations often exercise the “voice” function, rising issues related to the actual respect of human rights. Playing the voice function with a “confrontation style” has low effectiveness. “Raising the voice” out in fact appears as a non-legitimate intrusion in to the sphere of politics. During the implementation of the mapping, in six (6) bilateral meetings and in three (3) out of five (5) NGO focus groups meeting CSOs declared to feel not free to engage in raising voice and that doing that often lead to conflict with public authorities. 6.5 Improving the functioning of service delivery
Participation to the improvement of service delivery, particularly at local level, is another domain in which governance engagement of CSOs is increasing, mainly in dialogue or in collaboration with government and local authorities. The main set of initiatives in this framework includes: . the engagement of citizens and service providers at local level in the evaluation of services and in the launching of service improvement initiatives and in participative standard setting, through the use of “Scorecards” (initiatives of this kind involve INGOs as CARE and their local partners, as CCOAIB); . the creation of committees for service management involving service users and service providers in the monitoring of service and in the solution of emerging issues (initiatives of this kind involve among others Transparency International Rwanda which is strengthening committees in schools) . the support of land reform process; in which CSOs are playing a relevant role, both supporting the work of “Abunzi” and making visible the shortcomings of the current land registration process (the LandNet informal network and the National Land Rights Dialogue forum are the most visible initiatives in this context28). 6.6 Other entrance points for CSOs engagement in governance
In the implementation of the mapping, other spaces for policy dialogue and CSO engagement on governance emerged.
28 Declaration of the National Land Rights Dialogue 2013, 18th October. Theme: Justice at the grassroots: Sustainable Land Dispute Management
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 32 of 84
. At grassroots level, the management of local resources by fostering a shared perception of problems and by identifying possible solution emerge as a privileged space in which a dialogue can be developed among Community based organisations (as the cooperatives), the cell and sector authorities and the other stakeholders (as private sector). Cases of engagement of cooperatives managing land disputes and disputes on the use of other resources (water basins) have been reported during focus groups with CBOs. . At national level, two spaces to be further developed are constituted by the Joint Governance Assessment (managed by RGB) - in which CSOs had in the past a limited engagement - and the monitoring of the engagements following the UPR 2011. Also in this case rather than just presenting an alternative report in front of that of the government, CSOs can engage jointly with public authorities in the setting and implementation of an indicators system on dynamics emerging at local level.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 33 of 84
7 THE DIFFERENTIATED ANALYSIS OF CSOS
7.1 First level organisations
First level organisations is a diffused and multi-faced phenomenon composed by cooperatives, parents club, church related groups, micro-finance local schemes, students and parents clubs, women associations, etc.. Some of these organisations are cooperatives, other are NGOs, and a third group are functioning under the “umbrella” of NGOs, churches, etc., without being registered.
First level organisations are mainly engaged in producing “benefits” for their members. Such feature implies that for most of them when achieving a certain degree of stability is easier to be registered as cooperative29, than as NGOs. However, while often these groups are originally created to solve problems (i.e. the access to input for agriculture, the management of common resources as water basins or fishing grounds, the management of service delivery at local level, etc.) when becoming a “cooperative” the economic dimension of their activity takes over the others.
Not surprisingly, 96% of the 62 grassroots organisations that filled the “organisation fiches” were carrying out production related activities, while only two (2) organisations were involved in other kinds of activities. See also the graphics reported in the quantitative analysis annex.
Cooperatives seem to be isolated from other CSOs and having as main reference the public authorities: the district or sector officers or the Rwanda Cooperative Agency. Few (only 14% of the consulted organisations) have partnerships with NGOs (both national and international NGOs). It seems possible therefore to suppose that different “communities” exist at grassroots level: a community of cooperatives (i.e. formally organised, registered, visible organisations) on the one side; and, on the other side, a community of semi-structured, unregistered, invisible organisations, which live under the patronage of national or international NGOs.
Also because of this “segmentation”, grassroots organisations are seldom considered as a real “actor”, that can be able to participate actively in governance functions or in policy dialogue. In most cases, these organisations are just “beneficiaries” or “recipients” of support. In few cases they are considered as collective actors that can influence (and improve) the functioning of public services or the way public policies “impact” the grassroots level of society.
CBOs and cooperative seem to be mainly characterised by a limited consistency from the organisational point of view and regarding access to resources. Among the 62 organisations that filled the fiches, 43% lack a proper office and equipment. As such, they use community centres or other structures made available by other CSOs, or by public authorities.
Despite lack of means over 30% of organisations have been functioning for a period longer than 6 years, an analogous quantity of organisations have been created in the last 3 years. Scarce consistency of organisations thus seems not to lead them to close. All consulted organisations collect fees from members. Nevertheless, in the focus group meetings, the inadequacy of these fees for financing the organisation activities often emerge. Those using other sources of funding are less than 34%.
For the ones that use also other funding sources, these sources are NGOs and public authorities, as Local authorities and line ministries.
29 According to the Rwanda Cooperative Agency, registered cooperatives are about 5380. In addition to these, there are 103 unions, 12 federations, and 477 saving & credit cooperatives. Moreover, in some cases, CBOs register themselves under the cooperative unions (http://www.rca.gov.rw/wemis/registration/).
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 34 of 84
Capacity for fund raising is very low: 61% of organisations never presented any project to any funding agency (NGOS, government bodies or international NGOs or organisations), and 28% tried to present a project just 1 time. Organisations which presented 3 projects are just 3%, those that presented 2 projects are about 8%.
The formal structure required for registration seems to have little influence on the real functioning of organisations: in all focus group meetings, an emerging issue has been that of the dependency of the organisation upon a leader or a small group of leaders.
The following table presents main strengths and weakness identified by the CBOs themselves.
TABLE N.8: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES EMERGED BY THE SURVEY
Individual dimension Organisational dimension Relational dimension . Agricultural . commitment of . Good collaboration equipment members with local leaders Strengths . Income generating . clear vision . Good collaboration activities . young participants with local authorities . access to loans . Lack of permanent . Lack of donors office . Lack of funds . Lack of technical capacities . Analphabetic . Lack of training Weaknesses . Lack of capacity in fundraising . Lack of market knowledge . Lack of fertilisers and agriculture tools . Lack of members contribution Source: Data collection fiches Looking to data from a quantitative point of view it is interesting to observe that: . almost 51% of organisations indicate as main strength the “commitment of members”; . organisations identifying their strength in the relation with local authorities are just 7 - thus about 11% - and those indicating as strength the relationship with donors are just 2.
For almost all the others the main strength factor regards economic activities and access to market.
Weaknesses consist for about 21% of organisations by lack of funding. For 24% of organisation the main difficulties concern the lack of capacities of members. The fact that these are the two main weaknesses identified by the representatives of CBOs, is an indicator of two main issues. The first one is the dependence from other actors (the funding agency). The second one is the fact that often cooperatives have been created as a way to “organise” people, more than a tool for producing adequate income (adequate income would be produced in fact only when capacity of member are adequate). These two facts, together with the relative frequency of the “lack of interest” of members, suggest that - at least in some cases - the creation of cooperatives was not the best way to support citizens’ organisations.
Emerging capacity building needs
Based on the above analysis and considering the outcomes of the various consultation activities carried out in the framework of the mapping study, it is possible to identify the following capacity building needs emerging at CSOs first level.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 35 of 84
. Tools for analysing local needs and for translating needs into “demand” and Capacity building needs claims towards other actors; or in direct actions related to knowledge, . Basic project formulation and management skills information, skills, capabilities . Basic resource management and accountancy skills . Specific skills related to organisation’s mission and activities of activists . Capacities linked to the definition of organisation’s identity (role, functions and mission) . Capacities for self-assessment Organisational capacities . Capacities for setting local development agendas . Capacities for developing an appropriate organisational setting (avoiding to just copy pre-confectioned settings, as those of NGOs or cooperatives) . Capacity to interact with other actors Recognition of CBOs as an actors, both by NGOs and by government bodies Development of modalities for “registering” local initiatives, without asking them to evolve into NGOs or cooperatives Creating linkages among local CBOs and groups, for defining local agendas Institutional framework and for advocating in front of local authorities and of local/national NGOs and supporting organisations Creating linkages between CBOs and other local/national/international actors, including by promoting CBOs participation in networks 7.2 Second level organisations
Second level organisations include NGOs, and in general those CSOs that are not the direct emanation of a “community” or in which a sharp distinction exists between the organisations’ members and the organisations’ “beneficiaries”. Only four (4) of the 53 respondents to the questionnaire for second level organisations are faith based organisations. Some main issues emerged from bilateral interviews with NGOs, umbrella organisations and platforms, and find further confirmation through the questionnaire-based survey and the focus groups.
Despite the relatively large number of organisations only few NGOs have capacities, resources and a (real) defined agenda; while the other just follow the flows of funds from the different sources; avoiding to define a clear domain of action. Thematic specialisation is not frequent among CSOs, on the 53 that responded to questionnaires, 26 are engaged in more than four (4) different domains; those that only work in one (1) or two (2) domains are 20.
Lack of capacities to engage in most governance related activities is a common feature: consequently organisations tend to accommodate themselves in the comfort zone of the work on non- sensitive issues (child and women rights, micro-finance and support to producers, health and the struggle against HIV/AIDS, etc.). Among NGOs participating in the survey, the most frequent domains of intervention are providing social services to special needs people; gender; agriculture and human rights. Organisations engaging on Local Governance and Decentralisation are just four (4) (no any organisation is considering that as the sole or the main domain of activity).
Most NGOs mainly interact with donors and public authorities as a service provider or as a beneficiary, and consequently that they have a scarce autonomy and an high degree of dependency, since rather than following a defined mission tend to follow the agendas of funding agencies. Most second level organisations are engaged in service delivery (28 over 53), and more than 50% of all organisations declare to be involved in advocacy activities (34 over 53; among the latter only 13 are not involved also in service delivery. Organisations participating to local councils or other governance bodies are just 10, while those involved in monitoring public services and local authorities are 8 (all also involved in local councils/governance bodies). In many cases, the term “advocacy” means “awareness raising among citizens”, rather than an activity addressed to public authorities to make them aware of demands, needs or interests. In most cases, advocacy and even the “human rights protection” are carried out as a service, rather than as a way to influence policies and government.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 36 of 84
Project funding is the main source of resources. International NGOs are the main source of funding for over 62% of organisations, organisations funded by international organisations are about 50%, and those receiving public funds are 29%. Only five (5) NGOs receive funds by private companies and just eight (8) partially fund their activities through the collection of users’ fees. The NGOs raising funds by at least three (3) different sources are less the one third.
Dependency upon project funding is often generating a situation of instability in organisations, which has as first consequence an high turn-over of staff (particularly qualified staff) which results in the ineffectiveness of capacity building activities based on training and in a continuous reduction of organisational capacities.
In such a weakness situation, few “strong” organisations are the recipient of a large share of financial resources from donors and government. In addition to a certain decline of opportunistic NGOs, this situation risks producing further dependency among the other NGOs, which follow the “big ones” in defining their agendas.
Participation to umbrella organisations is diffused and it is sometimes considered even a necessity. As it has been discussed in bilateral meetings with NGOs and with platform organisation, often being part of a network is a way to receive funds and in some other cases a way to be legitimated in front of donors and public authorities: among respondents to the questionnaire just one (1) declared to not participate in any network or umbrella. About 41% of organisations belong to just one network, while the others are members of several networks. Despite their participation in umbrella organisations, most NGOs tend to work alone or to have as partners INGOs that can channel funds. In some cases, competition between NGOs and their “umbrellas” are visible and lead to conflicts.
As already observed for first level organisations, the fact that almost in all second level organisations a formal structure exists is resulting neither in good internal governance, nor in a growth of accountability, especially towards constituencies. Often leaders and founders of NGOs play a “father and owner” role, sometime in competition and or conflict with staff. This situation is often also related to the tendency of organisations to be based on the use of paid staff: only 2 of the 53 NGOs which responded to the questionnaire relay on members’ voluntary work (however this is used in 29 organisations, together with paid staff). Use of consultants is highly diffused: over 30% of NGOs are using external consultants: this is as an indicator of the lack internal capacities.
Also for NGOs, an exercise was made asking them to self-evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Main emerging elements are in the following table.
TABLE N.9: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES EMERGED BY THE SURVEY
Organisational Individual dimension Relational dimension dimension . Participatory planning . Staff engagement . Proximity with skills . Quality of reporting beneficiaries . Administrative skills . Decentralised . Tangible activities and management products . Sharing of . Community experiences involvement Strengths . Specialisation . International partners . Technical equipment . Legal status . Permanent staff . Collaboration with LA . Evaluation . National recognition . Using micro-finance . Collaboration with . National dimension government . Well defined approach . Relations with donors . lack of training . Lack of equipment . Lack of donors Weaknesses opportunities . leadership conflicts . lack of access to . lack of . working environment donors
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 37 of 84
TABLE N.9: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES EMERGED BY THE SURVEY
Organisational Individual dimension Relational dimension dimension professionalism and . inappropriate . lack of credibility skills management . lack of representation . lack of language skills . lack of adequate . social and political . lack of project structures working environment management skills . instability . lack of partners . lack of economic . change in sustainability development priorities . limited engagement of members . lack of ownership . lack of permanent resources . limited capacity to mobilise funds . Instability of staff . Lack of staff Source: Survey structured questionnaire Emerging capacity building needs
Based on the above analysis and considering the outcomes of the various consultation activities carried out in the framework of the mapping study, it is possible to identify the following capacity building needs emerging at CSOs second level. . Capacities for Evidence based advocacy and for Policy dialogue Capacity building needs . Knowledge on Civil society in development policies related to knowledge, . Knowledge and capacities regarding “governance” information, skills, capabilities . Project formulation and management, mainly focusing on the use of “theory of activists of change” and “logical framework” . Specific skills related to organisation’s mission and activities . Capacities linked to the definition of organisation’s identity (role, functions and mission) . Capacities for self-assessment . Capacities for collecting information and needs, through the consultation and cooperation with local actors and for setting local development agendas Organisational capacities . Support for developing an appropriate organisational setting (eliminating or reducing gaps between formal and informal structures within organisations) . Capacity to interact with other actors, with a focus on INGO, LA and the government . Knowledge management for reducing inconveniences related to staff turn- over . Recognition of NGOs as an actors, both by INGOs and by government bodies . Development of modalities for active participation to existing local policy forums Institutional framework . Creating linkages among local NGSO, CBOs and other groups, for defining local agendas and for advocating in front of local authorities and of national/international NGOs and supporting organisations . Creating linkages between NGOs and other local/national/international actors, including active participation in networks 7.3 Third level organisations
As previously stated, third level organisations include formal and informal networks, umbrella organisations, “collectifs d’organisations”, platforms and coalitions sector or local based. It is therefore potentially a wide and differentiated set of actors, normally having in their core certain functions, like those related to: . Communication among actors working on the same territory or in the same sector, and between them and other actors, both NSA and the government bodies; . Coordination among actors working on the same territory or in the same sector;
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 38 of 84
. Advocating for common interests of organisations, mainly at second level, but sometimes at first; . Supporting member organisations, facilitating their access to resources.
Looking Rwanda civil society the presence of a relatively high number of umbrella organisations can be noticed. Mostly these organisations are at national level, but sometimes also at district level there are small umbrella/platforms (in some cases set up as “antennas” of the national umbrellas).
Among the wider 3rd level CSOs the following can be mentioned: . CCOAIB, which include about 40 local NGOs (and it is actually one of the oldest CSOs in Rwanda, since it was created in 1987); . Pro-Femme – Twese Hamwe, that comprise over 58 women’s organisations (another old network, now facing a re-structuring phase); . CLADHO, composed by 14 Human Rights organisations; . Legal Aid Forum, composed by 8 Human Rights organisations; . COPORWA (Rwandan Potters), which include 80 cooperatives, nationwide; . Rwanda NGO Forum on AIDS in Rwanda (that coordinate the CSOs working on AIDS prevention and care, channelling the funds from the Ministry of Health, which is the principal recipient of Global Fund resources); . IMBARAGA (Union of farmers in Rwanda, who regroups farmers and herders cooperatives and local farmers unions); . the National Union of people living with disabilities in Rwanda (NUDOR), collecting together 8 national NGOs.
It is interesting to observe that despite NGOs and Cooperatives are considered as distinct groups of organisations, having different goals and social natures and registered under different public authorities, they often co-exist in umbrella organisations.
Umbrella organisations are less frequent locally, even if at district level the representatives of the Rwanda Civil Society Platforms tend in some cases to play a role of “centre” for local networks.
Few informal networks or coalitions exist. Among others, the LandNet grouping the organisations involved on land rights issues is particularly visible, also thanks to the leadership of the second level organisation that initiated it (RISD). In addition to informal networks, coalitions are created as momentary organisations linked to the implementation of campaigns (an example is the coalition that was set up for facilitating the electoral process, involving the participation of national and local CSOs, of public institutions and of INGOs).
In many cases, 2nd level organisations participate to different networks and umbrella organisations.
Such a situation would easily appear as that of a well structured and well organised civil society. However, were looking within organisations and based on consultation of CSOs at the different level such level of organisation and structuring appears to be not so strong.
To analyse the 3rd level organisation, in the mapping was applied a framework based on 6 basic dimensions: 1) democratic management and institutional dynamics; 2) relevance of the mission and coherence between mission and action; 3) Consistency of the organisation; 4) Plurality and transparency of funding; 5) Accountability; 6) Planning.30 By using these categories on a three step
30 These categories have been operationalised in qualitative indicators. Regarding institutional dynamics and internal democracy the presence of conflicts among members and between members and leaders was considered, as well as the presence of external influences in the decision making bodies, and the kinds of linkages with member associations; as for the relevance between mission and action it was observed if umbrella are representing their members, if they are carrying out their statutory activities, or if they are engaged in other kinds of activities, if competition exists between umbrella and member organisations
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 39 of 84
scale (3; green = satisfactory; 2, yellow = somehow problematic; 3, red = very problematic) the situation represented by the following table emerge.
As it was already mentioned, of the nine (9) umbrella organisations met, seven (7) were analysed using this framework, using a variety of internal and external information sources.
TABLE N° 10: INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SOME CS UMBRELLA ORGANISATIONS
Funding Transparency Institutional Action/Mission Consistency plurality and and Planning dynamic transparency accountability ORG 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ORG 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 ORG 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 ORG 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 ORG 5 1 2 3 2 2 2 ORG 6 2 1 3 3 3 3 ORG 7 3 3 3 2 2 2 Source: Analysis based on visits, documentary analysis, in-depth interview, focus group meetings, While the funding and organisational consistency are for most third level organisations satisfactory, or at least not problematic, both the coherence between the mission and actions and the institutional dynamics are often very problematic.
Some specific issues tend to undermine the institutional dynamics and the capacity of umbrella organisations to fulfil their missions. These are: . An unclear function: most platforms are not playing any representation role and any coordination role, and often are more and more independent from their member organisations, while at the same time they are more and more involved in project implementation. A consequence of this situation is that organisational consistency and funding are relatively strong, but conflicts and competition often arise with member organisations; as well, in such cases, accountability is mainly towards donors. At least in some cases umbrella organisations play a legitimating role for their member organisations: being member of an organisation produces for the members a certain visibility and legitimacy in front of donors and public authorities. . The lack of autonomy and dependency from donors and public authorities. Most umbrella organisations depend upon the funding for project implementation from donors and public authorities. The contribution of their members and other fund raising mechanisms have a limited importance. In some cases member contribution are even not regularly collected. Umbrella organisations tend therefore to avoid engaging in a critical way with government bodies and even with donors. In some cases, they function as a “top-down” mechanism for disseminating resources, imposing an agenda to member organisation, and diffusing information according to a top-down model. Emerging conflicts within organisations, linked to a different vision of the organisation function or to issues related to the competition between the organisations itself and its member, or even to the competition among leaders are a further factor reducing the organisation autonomy. In fact, they “open the door” to intervention by public authorities aimed at peace-making (peace-making interventions might even imply the imposition of someone as chair of the organisations, or the temporary suspension of the organisation registration).
activities; consistency was analysed considering the infrastructures, staff and means and the presence of critical situations related to access to resources; funding plurality and transparency was analysed considering donors, the way funding is used, the presence of conflicts on funding utilisation; transparency and accountability was considered looking at the way member organisations are involved in decision making and are influencing the umbrella life and work; planning was analysed looking at existing plans and at their correspondence between activities carried out
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 40 of 84
. The lack of capacity to be a “place for communication”. Umbrella at local level lack resources. Umbrella at central level are in Kigali and tend to communicate with member organisations just for “transmitting” information. In most cases, the general assembly of umbrella organisations just meet one or two times per year, while the governing board of the umbrella organisations includes normally a little number of persons (elected as prominent individuals, rather than as representatives of an organisation or of a group of organisations). A consequence of such situation is that interchange of information and experience is not a common practice, normally it is the organisation’s staff mediating it. . Out of few cases in which organisations have very specific constituencies and are maintaining the main function of advocating for specific interests (a relevant example is COPORWA), umbrella CSOs see their constituencies and member organisations as “beneficiaries” to be supported through the channelling of funds or the implementation of training activities. Seldom member organisations are actually playing an active role in guiding the third level organisations or in defining their agendas. Such a situation produces in some cases the fact that the member organisations drop out from umbrellas and platforms, or maintain their membership just formally. . Umbrella organisations in many cases tend to remain into the “comfort space” of project implementation. In fact, organisations consider engaging in advocacy on sensitive issues as a possible source of conflict with public authorities or even with other NSAs. The tendency of not engaging in advocacy generates a situation of isolation and lack of protection for the member organisations, which do not find support when they meet problems in their relations with public authorities. A reason for not engaging on sensitive issues is also the lack of capacities of doing that. In most third level CSOs, there are not capacities for evidence-based advocacy or for facing in a constructive way other actors (NSA, government and local authorities, donors or INGOs). Even when focusing on issues concerning their long- term agendas or the roles they and their member organisations can play, most third level organisations tend to use external consultants, rather than directly involve into a reflection process, together with member organisations. . While at national level networks and umbrella organisations have normally a certain organisational consistency (offices, vehicles, staff, etc.) based on funds generated through project implementation, local umbrella are mostly completely deprived of resources: staff are voluntary, offices are offered by other organisations; equipment are inadequate, and so on.
Emerging capacity building needs
Based on the above analysis and considering the outcomes of the various consultation activities carried out in the framework of the mapping study, it is possible to identify the following capacity building needs emerging at CSOs third level. . Networking skills Capacity building needs . Policy dialogue and evidence based advocacy skills related to knowledge, . Specific skills related to organisation’s mission and activities information, skills, capabilities of activists . Capacities linked to the definition of organisation’s identity (role, functions and mission) . Capacities for self-assessment . Capacities for fund-raising, avoiding the focus on “project funding” Organisational capacities . Capacities for setting thematic agendas . Capacities for developing an appropriate organisational setting for fostering international discussion and dialogue, and for improving member organisations participation)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 41 of 84
. Capacities for developing “discussion fora” and for mobilising informal networks and campaigns . Capacity to interact with other actors . Knowledge management capacities to facilitate the playing knowledge accumulation and dissemination roles . Recognition by NGOs as a discussion forum . Recognition by government as places in which CSOs can define joint Institutional framework agendas . Creating linkages among umbrellas and with CSOs and other local/national/international actors, including CBOs 7.4 Fourth level organisations
Just one organisation can claim to belong to the fourth level in Rwanda: the Rwanda Civil Society Platform (RCSP). This was set up and functions through a joint initiative of the government and CSOs: the main initial function therefore was that of being a space through which government could interact with CSOs through a main, unique channel.
The Rwanda Civil Society Platform comprises 15 umbrella organisations or “collectives”, some members are actually regrouping different autonomous organisations, some others functions as an “organisation supporting other organisations”. Moreover, not all umbrella organisations that are members of the RCSP belongs or have a strong linkage with civil society.
Box n° 3- Rwanda Civil Society Platform Members . AMUR (Association of Muslims of Rwanda) . ARIPES (Rwanda Association of Private Institutions of Higher Education) . CCOAIB (Collaborative Council of Organizations for Basic Initiative Support) . CEJP (Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace) . CEPR (Episcopal Conference of Catholic Bishops in Rwanda) . CESTRAR (Confederation of Trade Union of Workers in Rwanda) . CLADHO (Collective of Leagues and Associations for the Defence of Human Rights in Rwanda) . COPORWA (Community of Rwandese Potters) . TRANSPARENCY RWANDA (Fight Against Corruption Organisation) . RWANDA NGO Forum on AIDS in Rwanda . IBUKA (Umbrella of organizations for defence of genocide survivors’ rights in Rwanda) . IMBARAGA (Union of Farmers in Rwanda) . INTEKOIZIRIKANA (Retired Elderly People Organisation) . MAISON DE LA PRESSE (Umbrella of media organisations) . PRO‐FEMMES TWESE HAMWE (Umbrella of women’s organisations)
Source: Mapping survey/Bilateral interviews
Some of the RCSP members recently left the platform (as the ARIPES, which is the umbrella of private universities) because their linkage with civil society perspective had become too weak; others are participating in a loose way and do recognise that their membership to the platform is not functional. The inclusion into the RCSP of umbrella organisations as well as individual (2nd level) NGOs makes even more difficult for the platform to define a clear role.
The creation of the RCSP responds to a pyramidal idea of civil society: the basis consists of NGOs, these are organised by umbrella organisations and umbrella organisations have a summit organisation that is RCSP. According to such ideas, associations are quite necessarily organised within umbrella organisations (and this explain why 3rd level organisations often play a legitimating role).
The identification of CSOs with NGOs prevails in RCSP: there is not a representation of cooperatives and other community-based groups. In fact, in identifying CSOs a main reference is that of being not involved in “economic activities” (however, the new law allow NGOs to carry out
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 42 of 84
commercial activities and some of strongest 2nd level organisations directly own or manage enterprises carrying out economic activities). The setting of the RCSP seems still anchored to a conception of civil society that is not fully taking into account the rapid change of civil society itself and of its context.
Formally, the RCSP has 3 missions: . to be a platform (or “a cadre”) for discussion and reflection on national and international issues, where CSOs would be expected to dialogue and harmonise their positions and perspectives; . to advocate on the issues on which consensus exists among CSOs (to this aim, RCSP is involved in the production studies and in the drafting of “consensus papers” through the involvement of external consultants) . to represent Civil Society in front of other partners (and then to be a channel other partners can use to enter in contact and communicate with CSOs).
The capacity of the RCSP to play any of these three missions is widely questioned. Almost all umbrella organisations consulted in the implementation of the mapping declared that RCSP is not able to represent them. Moreover they observe that RCSP is not able to raise civil society voice on sensible issues: declarations periodically issued by the platform normally refer to issues on which a wide consensus exist also in government and that are normally more focused on “defending” Rwanda interests at international level, than Rwanda civil society in front of other actors. In some cases, the differences among platform members did not allow the platform to find a common perspective on emerging issues so that the platform itself does not intervene in the public debate.
Despite the lack of capacity to fulfil its missions, the RCSP has a wide range of partners, including several governmental bodies (Minaloc, RGB, RIAM, NEC), the donors (GIZ, EU, DFID) and international NGOs (NPA, Trocaire, SNV, Suisse Corporation, Christian Aid, Action Aid) as well as the association of local authorities (RALGA). In fact, the RCSP is one of the main actors involved in the PPIMA (Public Policy Implementation, Monitoring and Advocacy). This project involves 14 NGOs member of CCOAIB; the Rwanda Women Network, the National Union of disabilities organisations of Rwanda – NUDOR; Pro-femme Twese Hamwe, Transparency International Rwanda).
The involvement of RCSP in the PPIMA project reveals that also for this general platform the temptation to transform itself in an implementing agency is strong, despite the fact that capacities for project management and implementation are not there, and that implementing projects risks to modify the mission of the organisation.
The engagement in project implementation and the assumption of roles related to the channelling of funds, moreover, put also RCSP in a delicate situation in front of other actors. Also in the case of RCSP access to funds is depending from donors and government agencies, so that the autonomy and independency of the platforms from these actors can be easily questioned, as well as its possibility to represent CSOs and to raise the voice and taking a public position on emerging issues.
Emerging capacity building needs
Based on the above analysis and considering the outcomes of the various consultation activities carried out in the framework of the mapping study, it is possible to identify the following capacity building needs for fostering the development of fourth level organisations.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 43 of 84
. Networking skills Capacity building needs related . Policy dialogue and evidence based advocacy skills to knowledge, information, . Specific skills related to organisation’s mission and activities skills, capabilities of activists . Capacities linked to the definition of organisation’s identity (role, functions and mission) . Capacities for self-assessment . Capacities for fund-raising, avoiding the focus on “project funding” . Capacities for setting agendas . Capacities for developing an appropriate organisational setting for Organisational capacities fostering discussion and dialogue, and for improving member organisations participation (including a revision of current membership) . Capacities for developing “discussion fora” and for mobilising informal networks and campaigns . Capacity to interact with other actors . Knowledge management . Recognition by NGOs as a discussion forum . Recognition by government as an autonomous actors, having the role to Institutional framework bring CSOs voice and agendas . Creating linkages among umbrellas and other local/national/ international actors
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 44 of 84
8 MEDIA AND CIVIL SOCIETY
Media sector include in Rwanda the public radio and TV, which have the largest audience, and a wide set of private media houses. Out of journalist associations and of the “Maison de la Presse”, there are few NGOs directly involved in media (IREX Rwanda, Search for Common Ground, Panos Paris, Syfia International). Particularly, there are not organisations engaged in a permanent way in the production and dissemination of media.
Main actors in the media community include: a limited number of newspaper and periodic magazine (about 31); slightly more than 20 radios and 6 “community radios”; a national public TV channel and 1 private channel (in addition to satellite TV channels); about 10 internet providers; 3 main media training institutions and 4 main professional associations31. Among these, 7 radio and 4 main newspapers (4 main newspapers (3 in English and 1 in Kinyarwanda) have a national diffusion32. Between 8 and 10% of population access internet33.
There are not “civil society media” and a large space for CSOs on media. However, media organisations mostly declare that CSOs are not able to provide them “stories” suitable for publication. In fact, CSOs in most cases say to have little access to media (if not through paid broadcasting space).
Government recently reformed Media regulations. Current Media laws provide for freedom of information and establish a media self-governing body (the Rwanda Media Council - RMC). Moreover, the law establishes a system in which censure is not permitted. Since 2011, a code of ethics governing journalist activity was issued, through a cooperation between three main organisations: the ARFEM (Association Rwandaise Femmes des Media), REFO (Rwanda Editors Forum), ARJ (Association Rwandaise des Journalistes)34. Also because of the memory of the role that has been played by media before and during the genocide – media tends in most cases to self-censure, not to assume a strong ”critical role” or to not engage on issues that are felt to be “politically sensible”. Self- censure is in fact often denounced by external observers, such as international human rights and media organisations35.These organisations often also denounces threats to journalists.
Regarding the domain of “governance”, in most cases media tend to disseminate information about government policies, or to engage in fostering people participation to government related activities (including the community work). However, the attitude of media to avoid intervening in “conflict situations” does not always prevent them from assuming a role of “watchdogs” and in informing citizens about misbehaviour of public authorities or about the shortcomings of public policies. Examples include recent campaigns against corruption and the publication of news concerning the delay in the compensation of dwellers who lost their houses for facilitating road construction in Kigali (October 2013). Moreover, increasingly, media (particularly radios, which are the media with larger audience in Rwanda) provide space for debates and for people to express their personal problems or discontent about specific issues.
Intervention concerning media development has been up to now mainly focusing on: . the setting of media commission as an autonomous body for governing media activities; . the training of journalists (including community reporters);
31 Rwanda Media High Commission (http://www.mhc.gov.rw/) 32 www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14093244 33 ww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14093244 (data by Internetworldstats.com). 34 http://www.mhc.gov.rw/fileadmin/templates/PdfDocuments/Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.pdf 35 Reporters sans frontiers (http://en.rsf.org/report-rwanda,38.html); Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/rwanda)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 45 of 84
. the use of media for disseminating “messages” concerning democracy, decentralisation, gender, etc.; . the development of “community radios”, often in collaboration with local authorities.
There are not visible initiatives for creating permanent linkages between media and civil society organisations. As emerged during the consultations held in the implementation of the mapping, further efforts need in this direction, particularly: . continuing to support the creation or the management of “community radios”; . developing bridges and institutional agreements between media houses and CSOs, so to facilitate the dissemination of information on CSO by media; . developing capacities within CSOs to interact with media (for instance, producing “stories” and data that can be easily communicated); . strengthening of journalists and media publisher capacities to interact and to understand civil society and governance dynamics; . fostering the visibility of CSO and CSO initiatives in governance, by supporting specific media actions.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 46 of 84
9 SUPPORT TO CSOS
Rwanda has been for a long period the target of emergency and relief aid, provided by a wide range of actors - including international organisations, bilateral aid agencies, international NGOs and philanthropic institutions. As mentioned already, local NGOs have been a main channel for emergency and relief aid. Local NGOs mostly played the role of implementing agencies and that of “organising” final beneficiaries, creating groups and cooperatives. International aid seldom engaged in the strengthening of national CSOs and of the Civil Society as a whole.
Such a situation changed at least partially during the last decade, as the government increasingly took the responsibility of the services before managed by NGOs. Currently, many initiatives exist in Rwanda for supporting CSOs development. Donors established an informal “working group” for promoting the coordination of their activities and the development of joint strategies. INGOs are reinforcing their “networking”. The World Bank, UNDP and European Commission, as well as other international agencies are promoting specific support projects. The central government and local authorities channel to NGO funding and capacity building activities. 9.1 The EU support to CSOs
EU experience in supporting CSOs in Rwanda during 9th and 10th EDF mainly consisted of grants for project implementation. In fact, most of geographical cooperation with Rwanda consisted in “budget support”, directly supporting the state. Nevertheless, even in such framework, some activities fostered the support to CSOs in their contribution to governance. Such activities mainly concretised in a programme, directly managed by NAO under the name “Voice and Accountability”. CSOs have also been supported in the framework of thematic programmes, such as in particular the “European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights” and the “Non-State Actors – Local Authorities Programme”. Grants provided by the EU supported a wide variety of CSOs actions. A typology of the actions is below.
BOX N° 4: PROJECTS TYPES SUPPORTED THROUGH CSO GRANTS
Kinds of activities included in the projects supported through CSO grants 1 Rights and governance related activities 2 Access to and monitoring of Justice 3 Media strengthening 4 Capacity strengthening for local organisations in participating to the monitoring of public policies 5 Research, information dissemination and training on civic participation 6 Support to LA capacities 7 Support citizens actions in the improvement of service delivery 8 Fight against malnutrition 9 Women and children protection Capacity building for grassroots organisations in income generation, including through the 10 improvement of agricultural practices 11 Access to basic services to communities living in out of reach environment Capacity building for grassroots organisations in advocating for rights access/enforcement – 12 including through legal aid and fostering of communication Source: Elaboration on EU official data The modalities for grant provision from EU changed in time: . In the period preceding 2009, grants provided very relatively small (the minimal dimension of grants was 50.000 Euro). This resulted in a large number of small projects, mainly proposed by local NGOs, which were often changing the scope of their activities following the calls for proposals. According to consulted EU staff, further consequences of such a situation have
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 47 of 84
been the proliferation of NGOs without a real constituency; the proliferation of consultants specialised in “project formulation” (thus a gap often emerged between the project design quality and the project implementation quality) and the difficulty for the EU delegation to adequately follow up and assist projects. . In the following period, grants dimensions was increased (the lower threshold was put at 150.000 Euro). This resulted in a reduction of the number of supported projects and in a higher quality of project design and implementation. However, INGOs proposed and implemented a larger percentage of supported projects and just few national NGOs were able to get the funds. Impact on small CSOs and particularly on CBOs did not necessarily decrease, since a wider percentage of projects involves the engagement of the leading NGO with local small NGOs and CBOs.
The number of received proposals did not meaningfully change in relation with different kinds of CfPs: response to each call sums at about 100 proposals. Only in the case of the “Voice and Accountability” Programme a different situation was observed, since proposals were just 12 (5 of them receiving grants). 9.2 Government support to CSOs
As already mentioned the new NGO Law set that the government can provide funds for CSOs. This resulted in a new area of action for government (and particularly for RGB), that is providing resources under different schemes and using resources from national budget and from donors.
According to Transparency International – Rwanda “Civil Society Barometer”, in 2012, almost 25 % of CSOs were receiving resources from the government. TI-R survey did not ask which public bodies provide funding).
Among the various schemes set for supporting CSOs, it is worth to mention the following ones: . funds for carrying out research activities, as a tool for supporting the government and CSOs in their activities (as the abovementioned “Civil Society Barometer”); . funds for carrying out activities concerning the dissemination of information on laws and policies (as the grants provided to CLADHO for implementing actions concerning participation to the setting of the national budget); . funds for carrying out projects aimed at increase people voice (as in the case of grants provided in the framework of the EU funded “Voice and Accountability” Programme); . funds for implementing government projects on a contract basis (according to “Civil Society Barometer” contracts were implemented by about 45% of CSOs, even if only 25% of CSOs were regularly implementing government projects); . local authorities (District and Sector) funding of projects and initiatives implemented through local CSOs.
Specific projects, which sometimes include technical assistance activities (as in the case of a recently established UNDP-RGB Programme), provide further support to CSOs. 9.3 International donors support to CSOs
A relatively small group of bilateral and international donors provide support to CSOs in Rwanda. These are summarised in the following box.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 48 of 84
BOX N° 5: DONOR’S SUPPORT TO CSOS
Main areas of intervention Main partner Notes People participation in National NGOs decentralisation process USAID People participation in the National NGOs improvement of service delivery Public Policy Information DFID and Sida are mainly National and Monitoring and Advocacy working in partnership. International NGOs Programme International NGOs are involved as channels for Support to Aegis Trust for funding and capacity building genocide Research and International NGOs of local NGOs. DFID Reconciliation Programme Main recipient of SIDA funds Support to the Institute of is NPA (Norwegian People Research and Dialogue for National and Aid) than thus support Peace (IRDP) managed by International NGOs institutional capacity building Interpeace Eastern and Central of a set of national CSOs. Africa Office CSOs involved in DFID activities are both 3rd and 2nd level organisations The Public Policy Information, Monitoring and Advocacy Public Policy Information (PPIMA) is the main project National and Monitoring and Advocacy funded in this framework, International NGOs Programme involving 15 CSOs, including the national platform and umbrellas. Main international NGOs involved are TROCAIRE; CARE, NPA.
Rwanda Peacebuilding International and SIDA IRDP and Interpeace Programme National NGOs
Support to Abunzi (Land International and RCN Rights) National NGOs
Media reform International NGOs IWPR
Support to AEGIS trust International and (Rwanda Peace Education National NGOs Programme) Good Governance and GIZ activities involve a variety Decentralization Program of actions, including the German Human rights and the civil National NGOs and seconding of technical cooperation peace Local authorities advisors within local implementation of the new organisations media Law In addition to grants to local Swiss National CSOs CSOs, there are activities Strengthening of national CSOs cooperation (including3rd level) seconding technical advisors to CSOs.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 49 of 84
BOX N° 5: DONOR’S SUPPORT TO CSOS
Main areas of intervention Main partner Notes Grants to CSO projects, mainly International NGOs in focusing on access to services cooperation with national and local development CSOs Belgian A main partner in this Technical Institutional support for CSO International NGOs in framework is 11.11.11, which Cooperation development through cooperation with national supports financially local international NGOs CSOs CSOs (as CCOAIB) and that has not an office in Rwanda. Rwanda is among recipients of the “Global Partnership for Social Accountability”. This Support to CSOs engagement National NGOs in programme functions as a World Bank in the improvement of public cooperation with public facility, funding on a services authorities competitive basis projects in recipient countries. Projects have a dimension between 300.000 and 500.000 USD. For supporting CSOs UNDP Support to capacity building of is establishing a grant and national CSOs, for Access to technical assistance UNDP National 3rd level CSOs Justice; Media Development; programme which is Citizens Participation channelled through the “Rwanda Governance Board” 9.4 International NGOs
International NGOs have often a long-standing presence in Rwanda, that date back to the post- genocide and in some cases even before. In recent years, the presence of International NGOs is decreasing, because of the reduction of available funds. Nevertheless, it remains a strong one. In the five districts visited during the mapping, the INGOs participating to local JADF and registered at district level were always over 20. In most cases, INGO presence and activities still mainly focus on service delivery and on direct implementation of projects, channelling aid to population through the engagement of national NGOs and of local CBOs. Because of that, national NGOs question the presence of INGOs. Rather than considering INGOs as supporting organisations, national NGOs see them as competitors. The recruitment of qualified personnel constitutes a further competition element: international NGOs pay better salaries, thus they often drain qualified staff of national NGOs. In some areas (education, health, agriculture), International NGOs are recognised as bringing in high professional capacities and specialised knowledge. Consequently, the government tend to involve INGOs in dialogue activities and in policy setting, rather than local CSOs, which are technically weaker.
International NGOs cooperation modalities
International NGOs practice some main cooperation modalities: . directly engaging in the delivery of service (in Health, Education, Agriculture, etc.) through the use of international volunteer and the involvement of local personnel; very often in working at grassroots level cooperation with local groups is fostered, however training and capacity building activities are mainly concentrated on income generation activities, on health and education practices, on gender and family, etc.; in some cases the action of these organisations is perceived by national NGOs and by Local Authorities as producing just short term benefit and as in competition with local actors;
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 50 of 84
. supporting national NGOs in projects focusing on income generation, resource management, service delivery and strengthening their capacity to identify and manage projects, without directly engaging in governance and policy (this is for instance the way of acting of a long standing NGO as CRS, which supports small groups organised in the framework of Catholic church); a main risk emerging in this case is that of maintaining the ownership of actions, thus fostering dependency rather than autonomy of CSOs; . supporting national NGOs in the implementation of projects, through the channelling of funding and through capacity building activities, and using focus on concrete issues (such as micro-finance or income generation activities) as an entrance for working on the organisation of local organisations and for improving the participation of local organisations to decentralised governance structures (such a practice is diffused among a small group of large organisations, including CARE, TROCAIRE, NPA, and to a lesser extent PLAN); . institutional support to local CSOs, by covering partially or totally some of their running expenses on the basis of an agreed institutional development and activity programme, as it is done remotely by INGOs as 11.11.11.
International NGOs have a coordination and communication mechanism constituted by the Network of International NGOs (NINGO). Such mechanism involves the rotation of coordination responsibilities among member organisations. It currently appears not effective in coordinating activities, sharing information and advocating for member. For instance, NINGOs has not acted in any way to define a common position among international NGOs on the way to take part to JADF and on the way to deal with “contract-performances” that some district mayors asked to sign. NINGOs as well, seem to be not engaged in establishing a general policy or at least a general perspective concerning the relationships and the partnership agreements between international and local NGOs. The lack of such a general policy involves that many INGOs continue to maintain direct “service delivery engagement” and do not recognise local NGOs if not as local implementation agents. However, the current registration mechanism requires to INGOs to “contribute” in a tangible way to development: INGOs that act in capacity building or partnership with local CSOs and do not “directly implement” find themselves in an uncomfortable situation in front of public authorities.
In the current situation of dependency on project-funding, national NGOs tend to accept unequal partnerships with international NGOs, which are actually perceived as donors. This situation generates discontent, and potentially produces conflicts and results in a limited transfer of capacities and knowledge among international and national organisations. Considering INGOs as a channel for obtaining funding, national NGOs do not see them as a source of support for innovation or for policy engagement.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 51 of 84
10 CONCLUDING REMARKS
There is in Rwanda a political will to increase citizens’ participation to policy making, coherently with the 2003 Rwanda Constitution and the “Vision 2020”. Such political will results in the establishment of a wide set of institutional and operational mechanisms, often offering space for CSO engagement in policy dialogue and governance. In such wide reform process of governance mechanisms, CSOs risk to be lagging behind: their contribution to such process is just that “responding” to government inputs, by assuming the role of implementing partners or by assuming that of service delivery bodies. 10.1 The stakes of CSOs proactive engagement
An issue therefore emerges about the way CSOs can assume a more pro-active role in participating to Rwanda development dynamics, both at local and national level. Such a role seems to be particularly important in reference with the following main dynamics: a) Making decentralisation work
Rwanda government promoted a rapid decentralisation process, devolving responsibilities to District and Sector level authorities, fostering a stronger financial autonomy of local authorities and establishing a set of structures that can support local decision making on development policies. However, decentralisation risks to work only partially and to remain under the guide of national government. Without an active engagement of CSOs, the linkage of LA with government tends to remain stronger than that with local actors. Consequently the preparation and formulation of “local development plan” risks to remain limited to the collection of “local demands” (mainly in terms of infrastructures and service delivery) and to the coordination of the actions of different actors intervening at local level, without the definition of a real joint strategy. The possibility to set such a strategy – effectively reflecting the perspectives and interests of the different local actors – would in fact be limited without the assumption of an active role of CSOs in making visible the problems, interests, opportunities that emerge at grassroots level. b) Fostering social cohesion from below
Despite the excellent performances of Rwanda in pursuing economic development and in recovering after the genocide, still many wounds remain open. Conflicts arise at grassroots level over the control of resources. Trust level among people is low out of the family sphere36. Social imbalance in access to resources remains high37. In such a setting, as demonstrated by the actions of NGOs with youth clubs and by the actions at grassroots level of cooperatives and other kinds of groups38, CSOs can play a key role for reconstructing social trust and for supporting “conflict transformation”. Fostering social cohesion from below also includes the promotion of social inclusion of social and geographical areas that are out of the reach of public authorities (because of social reasons or because of geographical isolation and remoteness).
36 According to the TI “CSO Barometer” (2012), level of people trust from Rwandans from a different region is low or very low for almost 23,7 of people; trust in Rwandans from a different ethnic group is low for almost 19,8 % of people; trust in Rwandans with a different historical background is low for about 23,2 %. 37 According to World Bank statistics Rwanda Gini Index is for 2011, 50,8 (0 represent perfect equality and 100 implies perfect inequality). According to official statistics poverty is currently involving about 30% of population (poverty rates are higher in rural areas). 38 See for instance the activities carried out by the NGO “Rwanda Never Again” with about 78 youth clubs. Activities carried out by cooperatives at grassroots levels for mediating local conflicts over resources have been mentioned in all the focus groups carried at District level in the implementation of the mapping. IRDP study “Les enjeux de la paix ..”, carried out in 2011 highlights a set of challenges related to social cohesion to which CSO engagement can contribute.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 52 of 84
c) Strengthening communication and trust among citizens and public authorities
Rwanda democracy is young and a fast developing one. This implies that often gaps emerge among actors, as well as among the institutional setting and the people’s culture. Rwanda Government have set up several structures and processes for improving communication and making government closer to citizens. Despite that, recent research studies have highlighted that communication among citizens and public authorities is still weak and it is based more on claiming on individual cases (both in a public way using radio “forums” or through the use of “suggestion boxes” and other similar mechanisms) than upon claiming for “collective” interests39.
Moreover, as the organisation of community work reveals (community work is organised by persons appointed by the public authorities at local level and perceived as an obligation and as a way to be informed about policies and opportunities set by the public authorities) mostly communication is “top – down”40. Even the media seem to be able to reverse the direction of communication. As emerged in some meetings with District representatives, a role of CSOs for improving the communication between citizens and public authorities is therefore a key one. This is particularly important in reference to the need to have valid knowledge about the processes and dynamics at grassroots level and about the actual impacts of the policies and public actions, for improving policy making and implementation. d) Facilitating access to information and services in peripheral areas and contributing to social inclusion
Access to information, including access to ICT, is a key element of the Rwanda development strategy and is the subject of several public policies and actions. However, despite the pace of increase in education enrolment, the diffusion of radio, the very fast and capillary dissemination of cellular phones even in remote areas, and the increased availability of internet, access to information is still difficult for a wide share of Rwanda population. Both local NGOs and CBOs can play a key role in this framework. CSOs can be both a vehicle for channelling information (top-down and bottom to top) and an actor for setting mechanisms facilitating access to information (from the creation of “media houses” to the provision of TA for accessing and using information at the various levels). e) Supporting innovation processes
Innovation in service delivery as well as in economic activities is another key element of Rwanda development strategy. To this aim, the Rwanda Government is establishing and supporting policies and concrete actions at several levels, including the engagement with private sector. Innovation to be effective needs the “embedding” of new knowledge, new capacities and new practices into those existing. Public authorities alone cannot play the role of promoting such “embedding” and the consequent establishment of new modalities for “technology governance” at grassroots level – that is where innovation happens. In fact public authorities focus on public interest rather than on the interests of the various groups involved in innovation. Moreover, public authorities bring their own culture, practices and knowledge that differ from those of citizens. Neither private sector alone can play such role, as it is necessarily bringing specific “private” interests. Because of their positioning at community level and/or because of their positioning as a “supporting” actor for people, CSOs are an actor that can effectively play both a direct role in establishing mechanisms for governing innovation at
39 IRDP (in partnership with Interpeace), Citizen’s participation for democracy in Rwanda, September 2010 (Draft report); IRDP, Les enjeux de la paix, vus par les Rwandais, 17 après le génocide des Tutsis, Aout 2011; IRDP, Ethnic identity and social cohesion in Rwanda: Critical analysis of political, social and economic challenges, September 2010 40See RGB description of Umuganda (http://www.rgb.rw/main-menu/innovation/umuganda.html) and Uwimbambazi P., An Analysis of Umuganda: the policy and practice of community work in Rwanda, 2012 (http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10413/8964
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 53 of 84
local level, and a bridging role between communities and other actors, including universities & research institutions, private enterprises and public authorities. 10.2 The uncertain position of CSOs
Considering this stakes, and despite the fact some spaces for participation in policy dialogue and governance exist, CSOs position appears to be an uncertain one. Different elements, both of internal and external nature, challenge them: . most are engaged in service delivery while experiencing a reduction of available funds and a reduction of the space and needs for delivering services, which are growingly directly managed by public authorities; . despite being member of umbrella organisations and platforms most CSOs are isolated and tend to be unable to face pressure from other actors; . as a consequence of the reduction of available resources, and of the general reduction of the projects in which CSOs are involved, most organisations experience an high turn-over of human resources having as main consequence the loss of capacities for the organisations and the fact that even most capacity building activities tend to be ineffective; . few organisations perceive as a key issue that of re-defining their role in the current rapid change context, while most remain in a “comfort zone” of dependency by funding agencies; . recognition of CSOs is uncertain: most partners consider them just “beneficiaries” or “implementing agencies”; . in most cases linkages with constituencies are weak (and in some cases institutional processes linked to national registration policies risk to weakening this linkages even more) . the capacity to see and welcome the “new” within Rwandan society is very limited both at the level of individual organisation and at the level of umbrella and platforms; consequently autonomous innovation capacity is low.
Renouncing to support CSOs in facing these challenges would imply not only to loss of the contributions CSOs can provide to Rwanda development processes, but also the emerging of a drift process. Such drift would involve in the mid-term not only a crisis of organisations (which already start to be visible), but also the loss of the possibility to foster “common interests”, to manage “common goods”, to mediate social processes and emerging conflicts, particularly at grassroots level. 10.3 The basis for setting a CSO support strategy
Supporting CSOs in facing these challenges would require, on the other side, an effort of both donors and government to: . Recognise CSOs as an actor - with a legitimate status related to its own existence and mobilisation and by their accountability to their constituencies – and as a partner, rather than as a group of implementing agencies, just legitimated by their activities and by their accountability to public authorities . Recognise that CSOs are diverse and that different groups and level of organisations play different roles, and recognise informal groups engaged in identifying and solving locally emerging issues as legitimate actors, not forcing them to assume a legal status that risk to undermine their existence and functioning. . Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and structures (thus renouncing to ask to CSOs just to implement public policies).
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 54 of 84
. Support institutional capacity building and organisations’ development, so to overcome existing weaknesses; taking into account the differences among organisations at the different levels. . Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to collaborate with CSOs, and to welcome their contribution, not as a way to build consensus, but considering that an increase of policy effectiveness is only possible by taking “on board” the perspectives of the different relevant stakeholders. . Strengthening existing partnership and dialogue spaces, and enlarging them, recognising that a governance space exists that is not overlapping with the space of political institutions. Such a civil society governance space moreover cannot develop without open dialogue and discussion among actors. . Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSA, at local, national and international level, so to facilitate access to information, resources, innovation and to increase the capacity of CSOs to play “bridging functions” while participating to governance processes.
Assuming these as axes of a CSO development strategy can be – on the medium term - the first step for building a “road map” to guide and coordinate the different actions that together or in an autonomous way the different partners in Rwanda development policy are identifying and implementing.
Assuming these axes can be – on the short term – the basis for the identification of the new EU programmes for supporting CSOs in Rwanda, as for integrating the geographical cooperation initiatives (including those carried out for supporting sector based budget support) and the thematic programmes. 10.4 Operational indications for supporting CSO engagement in governance
For each of the strategic lines identified in the above paragraph some concrete indications are provided, suggesting relevant possible practices or activities. a) Recognise CSOs as an actor and as a partner
The core of this line is to fostering the recognition of civil society organisations legitimate status, as based on their own existence and mobilisation capacity, as well as their social accountability toward their constituencies.
Such recognition is based both on the perception of the autonomy of society from legal norms and political framework, and on the process of recognition of such a situation that has involved the EU and its partners since the Cotonou Agreements, that recognize CS as a policy actor. A key legal basis for such recognition is the “Busan Declaration” Art.22. Actually, Rwanda has played a key role in the formulation and approval of such declaration.
Fostering the recognition of CSOs as an actor and as a partner by: . promoting the dissemination of knowledge and capacities regarding civil society, civil society/state partnerships and policy dialogue experiences, both among public officers at different levels and among citizens’ organisations; . supporting media campaigns on CSOs and their development role, focusing on governance initiatives and potentialities, rather than on service delivery; including the presentation of experiences and stories from abroad;
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 55 of 84
. fostering the adoption of regulations and “ministry orders” promoting the “voluntary participation” of CSOs in policy consultation, policy making processes, and policy monitoring and assessment initiatives, particularly at local level (promoting voluntary participation requires that the possibility to participate is granted to any CSO willing to participate, without a selective process by the government, and information about possibilities and modalities for participation are diffused in a public way) . supporting concrete initiatives in which CSOs and public authorities work together, with well-defined roles but with an equal status (facilitating these initiatives would require technical assistance provided by an external actor, and the identification of initiatives in which CSOs and PA can actually participate with an equal status: initiatives can concern the identification and solution of problems related to “common goods” – as water, land, etc. – as well as the policy making, implementation and monitoring at national level); . Supporting CSOs actions claiming for a wider recognition ; . Increasing the visibility of CSOs of the different levels, particularly on media. b) Recognise the diversity among CSOs and recognise informal groups
This strategy focus on fostering the adoption of measures that do not transform CSOs when trying to support them. Actually, when asking to a small group of people that was created to solve problems to register as an NGO or to register as a cooperative, it is very likely that the mission, scope and functioning of such organisations are completely transformed, and that their capacity to engage in governance would be reduced. Moreover, transforming the “informal organisations” in “formal organisations” leaves a void in the social environment in which the informal organisations were created. Other forms of collective and individual action would easily fill this void. However, these new forms will be less visible than the former ones, and not necessarily aimed at “common good” or development. If there were not new emerging “social actions”, there would remain a “void social area” in which dynamics are not guided. In such social area easily not-mediated conflicts can emerge among existing interests and representations. In this framework, the following actions are possible: . Local research studies aimed at increase knowledge on “informal actors” and their contribution to governance, as well as their visibility, focusing on the many existing clubs, groups, committees which are set for solving problems, and trying to understand how they function and how it would be possible to engage them in governance activities; . Fostering the activities of NGOs for supporting the “governance” initiatives emerging at the very local level and involving the small informal and formal groups, through the provision of long term technical assistance, rather than by simply carrying out training activities, and linking such initiatives to local authorities; . Fostering adapted funding mechanisms managed by NGOs for supporting informal initiatives with very small funds, to be used for facilitating actions and/or purchasing equipment, avoiding the construction of local bureaucracies; . Fostering the issuing of regulations and administrative orders allowing “informal initiatives” to register at local level – cell or sector - maintaining an informal nature (thus without the need to be a “cooperatives” or a “NGO”). c) Open spaces for civil society to re-define its roles, functions and structures
Such strategy has the aim to support CSOs in discussing and re-defining their roles, functions and structures, based on their changing social and political environment. To this aim, it is possible to: . Foster a “civil society conference process”, putting together CSOs to discuss about their roles, functions and structures; such “conference” process to be effective would need to start
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 56 of 84
at local level, providing support to local organisations that desire to engage in such endeavour; in addition of financial resources TA is to be considered a key need. . Support “institutional development processes” in individual CSOs, through the provision of TA to accompanying and providing training to groups of organisations, so to facilitate collective dynamics of institutional development and the establishment of partnership and synergies among CSOs. . TA to groups of networks and umbrella organisations for fostering institutional development, including the re-assessment and eventually the reform of institutional mechanisms; also in this cases rather than the simple provision of TA to a single umbrella, it is possible to set groups of organisations and to promote exchange of experiences and synergies. d) Support institutional capacity building and organisations’ development, through: . TA and integrated capacity building activities to support the acquisition of new capacities (knowledge and skills, organisational capacities, capacities related to inter-action with other actors) in NGOs, including through the provision of TA and training to groups of organisations based on the same territory, assisting the implementation of concrete governance actions; . Supporting local CSOs in establishing “permanent facilities for CSO capacity building”, including through the setting of partnerships among different organisations and with other NSAs (universities and think thanks, INGOs, etc.); . Facilitating access to capacity building opportunities and information, supporting documentation centres, web-based archives, and initiatives aimed at collecting and disseminating information relevant for CSO engagement in governance, policy dialogue and development policy making and monitoring e) Reinforce the capacity of public authorities at national and local level to collaborate with CSOs
The purpose of this strategy is that of facilitating collaboration and communication among state and NSAs, with a particular reference to CSOs. To this aim, on the one side, it appears necessary to foster harmonisation among policies, practices and representations of the public authorities at the different levels; on the other side, it seems necessary to support public authorities in understanding civil society and its potential contribution to governance. It would be possible therefore to: . support training and capacity building activities addressed to public authorities, at central and local level, about policy dialogue and partnerships with CSOs, based on the experiences of other countries, on the experiences gained during EDF 9th and 10th as well as on the analysis of the Rwandan experiences; . support concrete policy dialogue initiatives, in which CSOs and public authorities are called to discuss emerging issues, both at local and at national level, through an open debate (including “contradictory debates”) aimed at clarifying the different interests rather than at generating consensus on pre-defined agendas or solutions; . support training and capacity building of local authorities for promoting the development of JADF as places for jointly identifying development priorities, local emerging issues, relevant solutions, etc.; promoting real partnerships with local NSAs. Promoting analogous activities at sector level.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 57 of 84
f) Strengthening existing partnership and dialogue spaces, and enlarging them.
Spaces exist in Rwanda policies and institutional framework for an improved participation of CSOs to policy dialogue and governance. However to make the most of these spaces further enhancement are needed, namely: opening spaces to information, discussion and decision making about local development policies, rather than using them just as coordination spaces or as spaces in which different actors are framed within pre-set agendas. This is possible through: . TA and capacity building activities especially aimed at supporting the development of specific capacities for engaging in governance, such as: policy analysis, evidence based advocacy, local development planning, policy dialogue, etc.; mainly through the setting of initiatives involving together different CSOs working in the same geographical area and providing them in a coordinate way TA/integrated training – including the launching of “assisted” experimental governance initiatives - so to facilitate synergies and cooperation; . TA and financial support to local initiatives concerning local development issues, launched and managed by CSOs, in partnerships with LA or with other actors, with the concrete aim to define solutions to concrete problems; . TA and financial support to local CSOs for the participation in evaluation missions/activities on local development plans, performance – contracts, local development initiatives; . Funding and accompanying local governance initiatives of different kinds – problem identification and solving; management of local service delivery; standard setting for service delivery and policy implementation; policy local implementation monitoring; etc. - launched and managed by CSOs, and involving as partners public authorities and other NSAs, at district level and sector level; . Involving local and international NGOs in funding and accompanying governance initiatives at sector and cell level – such as joint actions for the solution of problems concerning common goods – comprising actions for the reinforcement of capacities of formal and informal grassroots organisations; . Supporting NGOs and umbrellas in launching and managing policy dialogue initiatives at national level, including the organisation of issue based forums, the setting of informal/temporary issue based networks and the launching of campaigns, mainly targeting government institutions and public service providers. . Support the documentation and dissemination about CSO governance initiatives (including through the use of radio, TV and printed media), proving their usefulness for national and local governance, and making clear the possibility of “governance spaces” that do not conflict with the space of political institutions. g) Reinforce the linkages and interaction among NSA
This strategy aims at making the most of national and international experiences for improving governance engagement of CSOs, and the setting of inter-organisation bridges for enhancing the innovation capacity of CSOs. Means for pursuing such strategy comprise: . Supporting through TA and funding issue based activities involving CSOs and other NSAs, such as media, private sector, universities and local authorities, etc., including: networking and creation of permanent communication channels; dialogue platform on common issues; exchange of practices; campaigning targeting central government or donors; . Supporting the participation of national CSOs to international and regional networks, based on the identification of specific objectives and results (thus avoiding generic
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 58 of 84
participation to meetings) and involving the dissemination of resulting information and knowledge through formal umbrellas, informal networks and the media; . Supporting the setting of networks and partnerships involving local, regional and international NGOs, on specific issues, for setting common agendas, for facilitating information and practice exchange, for establishing mutual support mechanisms; . Supporting partnerships among CSOs based in the country and “Diaspora” with the specific aim to foster the transfer of knowledge and practices for fostering innovation in service delivery, in local authorities, in governance initiatives.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 59 of 84
ANNEXES
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 60 of 84
ANNEX 1 – DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
«20as LDGL. Aperçu, défis et perspectives» in Amani. Magazine de la LDGL, N.127,Mai 2013 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), Mo Ibrahim Foundation 2013 (www.moibrahimfoundation.org) Abbot P., Developing Customer Service Delivery: Development with a Smile? – Policy Brief, IPAR, Kigali, 2010 ARD/USAID, Civil Society in Rwanda: Assessment and Options, USAID, 2001 BARIHUTA P., Civil Society Organisations and Civic Engagement in Rwanda, IPAR, Kigali, 2012 CCOAIB, Résultats de la recherche-action sur la mise en valeur des terrasses radicales au Rwanda, CCOAIB, 2012 CCOAIB, Résultats de la recherche-action sur la satisfaction des bénéficiaires du Programme “Girinka Munyarwanda”, CCOAIB, 2012 CCOAIB, Société Civile Rwandaise, Problèmes et perspectives, Kigali, 2003 CCOAIB, The State of Civil Society in Rwanda in National Development. Civil Society Index Rwanda Report, UNDP – CIVICUS, 2011 CCOAIB, Etat des lieux de la fourniture des services par les instances décentralisées (District, Secteur et Cellule) et son impact sur la vie socio-économique de la population au Rwanda, Kigali, 2013 CCOAIB, Pour une plus grande efficience de la filière Maïs au Rwanda, Rapport de recherche dans le cadre du DAF Plus, Kigali, 2012 CIDSE Working Group on Enabling Environment and ACT Alliance; Research on enabling environment for civil society – innovative approaches, strategies and interventions for strengthening civil society as development partners - Terms of reference; CIDSE Working Group on Enabling Environment for Civil Society; Research on indicators, stakeholder approaches, strategies, interventions and good practice for an enabling environment for civil society - Concept note CLADHO, The Budget of Rwanda. A Citizen’s Guide 2012 – 2013, MINECOFIN, Republic of Rwanda, with the support of NPA/PPIMA Project, 2012 Communication de la Commission européenne, Accroitre l’impact de la politique de développement de l’UE: un programme pour le changement, COM 2011, 637 final, Bruxelles, 13/10/2011 Communication from the European Commission, The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations. COM (2012) 492, Brussels 12/09/2012. Dastgeer A., Bourque A., Kimenyi A., Evaluation of the SIDA and DFID funded Public Policy Information, Monitoring and Advocacy (PPIMA) project in Rwanda, DFID, 2013 Declaration of the National Land Rights Dialogue 2013, 18th October. Theme: Justice at the grassroots: Sustainable Land Dispute Management (2013) DFID Rwanda, Operational Plan 2011-2015; Department for International Development (DFID), 2012 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67358/rwanda-2011.pdf) DFID, Evaluation of the Sida and DFID funded Public Policy Information, Monitoring and Advocacy (PPIMA) project in Rwanda; august 2012 DFID, Public Policy Information, Monitoring and Advocacy (PPIMA) Project; Mid-Term review, October 2011 EU Delegation in Rwanda, List of Grants, 2013 EU, Health care and training (Promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights in 22 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries). EU, Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development. In-country intervention – RWANDA; Guidelines for grant applicants (Budget lines 21.03.01 and 21.03.02), 2011 EU, Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development. In-country intervention – RWANDA; Guidelines for grant applicants (Budget lines 21.03.01 and 21.03.02), 2012 EU, Official Gazzette no 10, Brussels 11/03/2013 EU, Official Gazzette no 15, Brussels 15/11/2013 Europeaid, Energy generation and supply, Community assisted access to sustainable energy Europeaid, Gouvernance et Démocratie, Soutien à l'Etat de Droit au Rwanda, Appui aux Gacaca Europeaid, Health Care and training, Empowering women to improve sexual and reproductive health
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 61 of 84
Europeaid, Peace and Capacity Building, Media for Reconciliation: Radio and film supporting demobilisation and reintegration in Rwanda Europeaid, Post Conflict reconstruction, Being a children and head of household in Rwanda European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The Root of Democracy and Sustainable Development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in External Relations, Brussels 12.09.2012 European Union, Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities, For better development outcomes and governance, EU, January 2011 Fiacre Bienvenue, Post Genocide Rwanda: The challenges for a post-ethnic civil society and the potentialities for good governance (power point) Floridi M., Sanz B., Verdecchia S., Capitalization Study of the EU 9th EDF Support Programmes to CSOs – 2009, EC, 2009 Government of Rwanda – Ministry of Health, Rwanda Nutrition Stakeholder Mapping, Government of Rwanda – UN, 2012 Government of Rwanda, Second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, May 2013 (http://www.edprs.rw/content/edprs-2) IRDP (in partnership with Interpeace), Citizen’s participation for democracy in Rwanda, September 2010 (Draft report) IRDP, Arbitrariness and the Culture of Legality in Rwanda, June 2008 IRDP, Democracy in Rwanda, December 2006 IRDP, Ethnic identity and social cohesion in Rwanda: Critical analysis of political, social and economic challenges, September 2010 IRDP, Les enjeux de la paix vus par les Rwandais, 17 ans après le génocide des Tutsis, Août 2011 IRDP, Mechanisms to fight against the negation of the Tutsi GENOCIDE, May 2008 IRDP, Peace in Rwanda as Perceived by Rwandans: 17 Years after the Genocide against Tutsi, August 2011 Kevin Kelly, Development for Social Change, The challenge of building civil society in Rwanda, Trocaire Development Review, 1999 L’élevage ici et là-bas… Rwanda et Belgique: partageons nos techniques, Vétérinaires sans frontières – Belgium; IMBARAGA – FUGEA – EBI, EU Mary Balikungeri, Immaculate Ingabire, Security Council Resolution 1325: Civil Society Monitoring Report Media High Council, 4th National Dialogue on Media Development and TAEF 5th Biannual general meeting. Theme: Investing in Media to enhance Democratic Governance, Kigali, November 2012 MINALOC – CCOAIB, Popular Guide on the Decentralization Process in Rwanda Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, EDPRS 2 “Shaping our Development”, February 2013 Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Guidelines for Development of Sector Strategies in the Context of EDPRS 2 Elaboration (2013) Mukamunana R., P. A. Brynard, The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Policy Making Process in Rwanda, School of Public Management and Administration - University of Pretoria, 2002 Mukamunana, R.; Brynard, P.A., “The role of Civil Society Organisations in Policy Making Process in Rwanda”, in Journal of Public Administration, n. 4.1., 2005 Musoni E., “ARBEF leadership Dissolved”, New Times Rwanda, May 21, 2012 (www.newtimes.co.rwhnews/index.php?=14999&a=53854) Never Again – Rwanda, A summarised version of Bugesera District Development Plan (2012 – 2018), Bugesera District, Republic of Rwanda, Never Again –Rwanda, Akiba Uhaki, 2013 Never Again - Rwanda, Civic Participation and Peacebuilding Project 2013, GIZ-Zfdm-Never Again Rwanda, 2013 Never Again – Rwanda, Incamake y’idenaigambiry’akarere ka Huye (2012 – 2018), Rwanda Governance Board - Never Again –Rwanda, 2013 Plan, Promoting Child Rights to end Child Poverty in Rwanda, 2013 Pro-femmes, Newsletter, March 2012 Pro-femmes/Twese Hamwe – Umbrella of Rwandan Organizations working for the Promotion of Women, Peace and Development, Kigali
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 62 of 84
Rapport du Groupe de travail de la Commission Africaine sur les populations/communautés autochtones, Mission en République du Rwanda 1 -5 décembre 2008, CADHP, IWGIA, 2010 Report of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review – Rwanda, United Nations – General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 14 March 2011 RUTAYSIRE P., Le rôle de la société civile dans le contexte de la gouvernance décentralisée au Rwanda, CCOAIB, 2007 Rwanda Civil Society Platform, East African Civil Society Organizations Forum, Concept Note of launch of EACSOF-Rwanda activities Rwanda Civil Society Platform, Open Forum for CSOs Development Effectiveness Rwanda Consultation Report, Kigali, 25th of June 2010 Rwanda Civil Society Platform, Survey on citizens’ participation in the performance contracts "IMIHIGO" process, Final Report, Kigali, December 2011 Rwanda Civil Society Platform/UNDP, Civil Society Mapping, Kigali 2011 Rwanda MCC Threshold Programme, Civil Society Strengthening Project, Impact Assessment, Kigali, Hune 2010 Rwanda NGO Forum on Aids and Health Promotion, Kigali Rwanda Official Gazette no 15 of 09/04/2012 Spadaccini B., Empowering Rwandan Communities One step at a time. How voluntary savings and loans build access to financial and social services, CARE international in Rwanda – Intambwe, 2010 Tengera G., Defending Civil Society. Report on Laws and Regulations Governing Civil Society Organisations in Rwanda, World Movement for Democracy, 2009 The Budget of our district 2012 -2013: Gakenke – Fatsibo – Ngororero - Nyarugu, CLADHO, 2012 The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (In collaboration with The National Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Justice, Republic of Rwanda), Programme “Voice and Accountability” – Guidelines for grant applicants, 10th European Development Fund (Reference: EDF/132-853/M/ACT/APR/RW), 2012 Taksdal Skjeseth T., Donors, civil society and democratisation in Rwanda, University of Oslo, Oslo 2011 Tiedermann T., The collaboration between Civil Society Organisations and Local Governments in Rwanda. Findings and Recommendations. Final report, GIZ – German Cooperation, 2013 Transparency International Rwanda, Rwanda Civil Society Development Barometer, UNDP – RGB, Kigali, 2012 Trocaire, Projet de Participation Citoyenne « Le droit de la population de participer dans la gouvernance », en collaboration avec la RCSP, C.E.J.P Rwanda, Fédération IMBARAGA Tsinda A., Abbott P., Catalysing Self-Sustaining Sanitation Chains in Informal Settlements (3K-San), IPAR – Splash, 2012 Twagirayezu I., Tiedemann T., Practical Guide on Operational Collaboration of CSOs and LGs. Short consultancy commissioned by Rwanda Governance Board (RGB) and German International Cooperation (GIZ), Briefing at GIZ DGG, February 19th, 2013 UNDP/CCOAIB, The State of Civil Society in Rwanda in National Development: Civil Society Index Report; March 2011 USAID, Civil Society in Rwanda: Assessment and Options USAID, Extending the Reach of Rwandan Civil Society Organizations through Community Volunteers Uvin P., Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, 1998 Uvin P., Prejudice, Crisis, and Genocide in Rwanda, 1997 World Bank, Rwanda - Quality of Decentralized Service Delivery Support Development Policy Operation Project: summary of discussion, World Bank. Washington DC, 2013 World Bank/IMF, The Role of Civil Society in PRSP Process, March 2008 Websites http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI (World Bank data on poverty) http://tirwanda.org/ (Transparency International Rwanda) http://www.ipar-rwanda.org/ (Institute of Public Analysis and Research Rwanda) http://www.liprodhor.org http://www.npaid.org/ (Norwegian People’s Aid)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 63 of 84
http://www.ombudsman.gov.rw/ (Republic of Rwanda Office of the Ombudsman) http://www.ralgarwanda.org http://www.rca.gov.rw/wemis/registration/all.php?start=5380 (Rwanda Cooperative Agency) http://www.rcsprwanda.org/ (Rwanda Civil Society Platform) http://www.rgb.rw/main-menu/innovation/abunzi.html (RGB Innovations: Abunzi) http://www.snvworld.org http://www.rgb.rw/main-menu/innovation/imihigo.html (RGB Innovations: Imihigo) www.rwandangoforum.og www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14093244 (BBC) Media High Council (http://www.mhc.gov.rw/) (Media High Council) ww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14093244 (BBC) http://www.internetworldstats.com/africa.htm#rw (World Internet Statistics) http://www.mhc.gov.rw/fileadmin/templates/PdfDocuments/Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.pdf (Journalists Code of Ethics) http://en.rsf.org/report-rwanda,38.html (Reporters sans frontiers; Rwanda Report 2013) http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/rwanda (Freedom House, Rwanda Report 2013)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 64 of 84
ANNEX 2 – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
In the following table, the graphics illustrating the quantitative analysis carried out on the basis of the two surveys carried out (the first concerning “first level organisations”, and the second concerning “second level organisations”).
First level CSOs
GRAPHIC N° 1: ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE CBOS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY
2% 2% Agriculture
6% Non agricultural 2% 6% Incomegeneration Arts and music 39%
Transport
Fishery
Conflict resolution 43%
Health and Sanitation
Source: Data collection fiche.
GRAPHIC N. 2: CBOS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY THAT BASE THEIR ACTIVITIES ONLY ON MEMBERS’ FEES
34% Members contribution only Members contribution plus other sources 66%
Source: Data collection fiche.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 65 of 84
GRAPHIC N° 3: EXTERNAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE CBOS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY (ABSOLUTE VALUES)
Others
LA and other public authorities
NGOs
INGOs
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Source: Data collection fiche.
GRAPHIC N. 4: PROJECTS PRESENTED BY THE CBOS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY
3% 8%
Never presented 1 project 28% 2 projects 61% 3 projects
Source: Data collection fiche.
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 66 of 84
Second level CSOs
GRAPHIC N. 5: THEMATIC SPECIALISATION AMONG NGOS RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE (ABSOLUTE NUMBERS)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 2 or less than 2 sectors 3 sectors 4 or more than 4 sectors
Source: Survey structured questionnaires
GRAPHIC N. 6: ACTIVITY DOMAINS OF NGOS RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
25
20
15
10
5
0
Source: Survey structured questionnaires
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 67 of 84
GRAPHIC N. 7: TYPE OF ACTIVITIES OF NGOS RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Provision of Advocacy Local governance Monitoring services
Source: Survey structured questionnaires
GRAPHIC N. 8: FUNDING SOURCES OF NGOS RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 INGOs International Members Public Private Users Org. contribution authorities
Source: Survey structured questionnaires
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 68 of 84
GRAPHIC N. 9: PARTICIPATION TO UMBRELLA ORGANISATIONS
25
20
15
10
5
0
Source: Survey structured questionnaires
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 69 of 84
ANNEX 3 – CSOS ENGAGED IN EU SUPPORT INITIATIVES
List of CSOs benefitting of EU grants, , on-going contracts as of September 2013
4th level International Council for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims 3rd level Nile Basin Discourse Forum
Institut Panos Paris Syfia International TROCAIRE Handicap international CARE Ulandseekretariatet Forening – The LO/FTF Council International NGOs PLAN international 2nd level Save the Children Croix-Rouge Belgium WOLUWE- Saint Pierre (LA) Search for Common Ground Terres des Hommes International Rescue Committee Assist Rwanda: Justice and Human Rights EISA
4th level Rwanda Civil Society Platform CESTRAR 3rd level COPORWA Legal Aid Forum National NGOs IRDP RALGA (*) 2nd level Caritas - Rwanda Transparency International – Rwanda (*) RALGA is the association of Rwandan Local Authorities. It is registered as an NGO, however its member are public institutions
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 70 of 84
ANNEX 4 – LEADING CSOS ENGAGED IN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVES
. CCOAIB, supporting about 40 local NGOs and other CSOs and involved in activities aimed at improving citizenship participation at local level, in service management committees and in JADF . CLADHO, a human rights umbrella, involved mainly in promoting people participation to budget setting at District level . Legal Aid Forum, a human right umbrella involved in advocacy activities on access to justice . Transparency International, working mainly without partners (if not the public authorities) but supporting the development of local groups engaged in service management . RISD, engaging in the land right dialogue, in supporting local organisations and Abunzi, and in the setting of the Landnet informal network . Never again Rwanda, a youth NGO supporting a wide network of clubs within schools and at grassroots level, engaging both in conflict mediation and in local development planning . COPORWA, organisation fostering the rights and social inclusion of Historical Marginalised People (HMP), maintaining a strong linkage with local and grassroots constituency . IRDP, a think tank engaged in research and dialogue activities, supporting local dialogue for conflict resolution . Pro-femme, and its associate women organisations, mainly involved in advocating for women rights
Source: Mapping survey
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 71 of 84
ANNEX 5 – LIST OF CONSULTED PEOPLE
Organisation Name Position Contacts
Donors Delegation of European Daniele Teccarelli Attaché Economy & 078.830.49.28 Union Governance [email protected] Delegation of European Janouk Belanger Economy & Governance 252.58.57.38 Union section [email protected] Delegation of European Kaisa Kruuse Attaché Political Section 07.88.38.57.25 Union [email protected] Delegation of European Achim Tillessen Counsellor Economy & 252.58.57.38 Union Governance [email protected] Delegation of European Diego Zurdo Head of Section Rural 252.58.57.38 Union Development [email protected] Delegation of European Kubach Tarik Programme officer - 252.58.57.38 Union Rural Development [email protected] Delegation of European Mugeni Kayitenkore Social sector [email protected] Union Delegation of European Christiane Rulinda Programme officer [email protected] Union Embassy of the Federal Andrea Hensel Advisor Development 078.45.095.08 Republic of Germany Cooperation [email protected] Embassy of the Kingdom Erik van Oudheusden Second Secretary - 078.49.71.882 of the Nederlands Political Affairs [email protected]
Embassy of the Federal Andrea Hensel Advisor Development 280.575.222 Republic of Germany Cooperation [email protected] GIZ Ruth Bigalke - Nolan Citizen Participation - 252.57.24.39 Component leader [email protected] GIZ Dominique Habimana Decentralization and 252.57.24.39 Good Governance [email protected] Program GIZ Marion Fischer Decentralization and 78.830.5010 Good Governance [email protected] Program - Principal advisor USAID Emily Krunic Democracy and 252-596-800 Governance Office [email protected] Director Embassy of the United Jonathan P. Howard Political Officer 252.596.524 States of America [email protected] International Monetary Mitra Farahbaksh Resident Representative 252.501.185 Fund [email protected] UNDP Nadine Rugwe Governance Unit [email protected] DFID Doreen Muzirankoni Governance Advisor d- [email protected] DFID Scott Caldwell Governance Unit [email protected] Central Government focal persons Rwanda Governance Rugema Theodore Head of CSOs & Political 788.30.27.03 Board (RGB) Mutabarazi Parties [email protected]
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 72 of 84
Ministry of Finance and Francis Nsengiyumva Single Project [email protected] Economic Planning /NAO Implementation Unit- Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Coordinator Ministry of Finance and Ingabire Hakiba Marie Ministry of Finance and [email protected] Economic Planning /NAO Ange Economic Planning EDF/NAO Manager Ministry of Finance and Cristophe Sirikari Economy, Governance & [email protected] Economic Planning /NAO Rural Development Sector Specialist International NGOS Catholic Relief Service Marie Noelle Senyana- Country Representative 252.58.21.14 Mottier [email protected] Catholic Relief Service Joseph Muyango Governance section [email protected] Trocaire Paul Watson Country Representative 07.88.30.80.57 [email protected] VSO Alok Rath Country Director 788.300.940 [email protected] AVSI Lorette Birara Country Representative 78.830.81.02 [email protected] CCFD Marcelin Djoza Chargé de mission [email protected] Afrique Care International Theophile Twahirwa Programme coordinator [email protected] Plan International Casimir Youmbi Program Support 788305392 Manager [email protected] National CSOs CLADHO Safari Emmanuel Executive Secretary 788.48.80.22 [email protected] [email protected] CCOAIB Jean Claude Executive Secretary 252.85.48.65 Ngendandumwe [email protected] Never Again Rwanda Uwitonze Mahoro Eric Executive Director 788.23.22.60 [email protected] LDGL Epimack Kwoko Director 0783465619 [email protected] COPORWA Ruhumuliza Dominique Director of Finance & 788.307.405 Administration [email protected] COPORWA Rugwiro Omar Project Manager 788.75.01.21 [email protected] Rwanda Civil Society Taddée Karekezi Executive Secretary 788.42.40.39 Platform [email protected] LIPRODHOR Patrice Kabahizi Executive Director 255.12.00.74 [email protected] CESTRAR Manzi Eric Secretary General [email protected] Rwanda NGOs Forum on Dufitumukiza Canut Executive Secretary 788.35.06.63 AIDS & H.P [email protected] IMBARAGA Musiné Juvenal Director [email protected] Maison de la Presse Marc Ramba Director [email protected] AJPRODHO Nkurunziza Enock Executive Secretary 788.30.89.64 [email protected] Strive Foundation Ruzibiza Leopold Project Manager 788.30.22.73 [email protected] ADL Léonard Nzabonimpa Director 252 57 56 97 Legal Aid Forum Andrews Kananga Executive Director 788.30.71.74 [email protected]
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 73 of 84
Duhamic Adri Janvier Ugeziwe General Manager 788305329 [email protected] Duhamic Adri Kandera Safia DAF 788305329 [email protected] Profemme Emma Bugingo Executive director 252 578432 [email protected] Profemme Marilena Berardo Technical assistant [email protected] IRPD Naasson Deputy Director 78.830.0883 Munyandamutsa [email protected] RALGA Faustin Serubanza Strategy Planning Unit [email protected] RISD Annie Kairaba Director 788.30.24.52 [email protected] Rwanda Women Mary Balikungeri Founder & Director 784.055.777 Community Development [email protected] Network Transparency Francine Umurungy Institutional Development 788 30 95 83 International and Advocacy [email protected] Coordinator
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 74 of 84
ANNEX 6 – PARTICIPANTS TO WORKSHOPS
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
WORKSHOP for National and International NGOs Kigali: 14/11/2013
Name/Surname Organisation Contacts 1 Ernest Dukuzumuremzi The Legal Aid Forum 07.88.30.37.95 2 Steven Nutangama Institute Panos Panis 07.88.55.83.19 3 Andrews Kamanga The Legal Aid Forum 07.88.30.71.74 4 Belanger Janouk EUD [email protected] 5 Alok Rath VSD 07.88.30.17.72 6 Paul Watson Trocaire 07.88.30.80.57 7 Vicky Nutabaye Byicaza Institute Panos Panis 07.88.45.85.05 8 Mary Balikengeri Rwanda Women Network 07.84.00.5777 James Daale Rwandan Initiative for sustainable 07.83.26.63.33 9 Development (RISD) 10 Annie Kairaba RISD 07.88.30.24.52 Janvier Porongo Rwandan Civil Society Platform 07.88.48.26.28 11 Forum
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Workshop for Donors organizations Kigali: 15/11/2013
Name/Surname Organisation Contacts 1 Eva Paul KFW [email protected] 2 Erik van Oudheusden Netherland Embassy [email protected] 3 Andrea Hensel German Embassy [email protected] 4 Marion Fischer GIZ [email protected] 5 Silvio Flueckiger Swiss Embassy Silvio. [email protected] 6 Joakim Molander Sweden Embassy [email protected] 7 Malin Eriksson Swedish Embassy [email protected] 8 Diego Zurdo EUD [email protected] 9 Achim Tillessen EUD [email protected] 10 Daniele Teccarelli EUD [email protected] 11 Kayihura Rogers World Bank [email protected] 12 Scott Caldwell DFID [email protected] 13 Doreen Muzirankoni DFID [email protected] 14 Nadine Rugwe UNDP [email protected] 15 Ruth Bigalke GIZ [email protected]
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 75 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
FINAL Workshop Kigali: 18/11/2013
Name/Surname Organisation Contacts 1 Ntezimana Julien Norvegian People Aid [email protected] 2 Faustin Serubanza RALGA [email protected] 3 Christine Nurekatite Trocaire [email protected] 4 Michael Niambara NGO Forum on HIV/AIDS [email protected] 5 Ruylindo Jhekson Migration [email protected] 6 Theophile Gwamrwa Care Int. [email protected] 7 Dominique Habimana GIZ [email protected] 8 Jean Bosco Senyabatera CCOAIB [email protected] 9 Achim Tillessen EUD [email protected] 10 Daniele Teccarelli EUD [email protected] 11 Paul Watson Trocaire [email protected] 12 Emily Krunic USAID [email protected] 13 Théodore Mutabazi RGB [email protected] 14 Kabahizi Patrice LIPRODHOR [email protected] 15 Ruth Bigalke GIZ [email protected] 16 Doreen Muzirankoni DFID [email protected] 17 Francine Umurungi Tirw [email protected] 18 Modeste Simbomana Trocaire [email protected] 19 Janvier Forongo RCSPF [email protected] 20 Marie-Ange Ingabire EDF/NAO-SPIU [email protected] 21 Christiane Rulinda EUD [email protected] 22 Eric Manzi CESTRAR [email protected] 23 Annie Kairaba RISD/Landnet [email protected] 24 Ernest Dukuzumurenyi LAF [email protected] 25 Murenzi Edmond Belgium Embassy [email protected]
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 76 of 84
ANNEX 7 – PARTICIPANTS TO FOCUS GROUPS
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA Focus group with Cooperatives Huye: 05/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 NKEJIMANA Jine Tubeho-TUMBA Tumba - Huye 07 88 82 80 49 2 MPAYIMANA Athanasie Twifatanye babyeyi Ruhashya - Huye 07 82 17 42 52 3 HAVUGIMANA Aimable Twongerumusaruro Mbazi - Huye 07 88 89 91 96 4 NIYONSABA Fra usine Tuzamurane Tumba Tumba - Huye 07 22 93 01 21 5 SINGAYIRIMANA Joselyne Koyeyumba Mbazi Mbazi - Huye 07 26 21 74 21 6 NTIBIHANGANA Joseph Abatanduzanya- Tare Mbazi - Huye 07 85 31 99 16 7 NIZEYEMALIYA Speciose Amahoro Mukura - Huye 07 83 88 78 51 8 MUKANKAKA Valérie Rugori Rwera Simbi - Huye 07 84 82 99 8 9 MUKANGAMIJE Beatrice Dufatanye Huye - Huye 07 88 84 97 03
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA Focus group NGOs Huye: 05/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 UWANYIRIGIRA Anselme CESTRAR HUYE 07 88 35 79 16 2 MUTAGANDA Fabien CSO representative HUYE 07 83 67 99 28 3 NKUNDIMANA Anastase CARITAS Diocèse Butare HUYE 07 83 20 95 99 4 MUNYANKIKO Dieudonné Association Modeste et HUYE 07 88 54018 14 Innocent (AMI) 5 MUNYEMENA Ignace SETECOM HUYE 07 88 43 04 64 6 UWIMWNW Floride Justice et paix HUYE 07 88 48 05 50 7 MUHAMYANGABO Fabrice AEE / Huye HUYE 07 88 41 59 63 8 KABOYI Narcisse Association Rwandaise HUYE 07 88 26 68 84 pour le développement Intégré (ARID) 9 MUKAMPORE Viviane Imbaraga HUYE 07 88 80 09 56 10 AKIMANA J. Pierre Imbaraga HUYE 07 88 42 68 92
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 77 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA Focus group Cooperatives Musanze: 07/11/2013
Contacts Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village
1 NIZEYOMANA M. Deo COCT MU Gashaki 07 88 68 70 19 2 NIYIBARA Pierre Célestin COOP. Kundumurimo Mucuzi Muhoza 07 88 55 35 01 3 HITIMANA Innocent Duhaguruke Ikora Muhoza 07 89 25 43 01 4 NDAYAMBAJE Elijah COOP.COOPAY-Mararo Kinigi 07 88 49 81 56 5 AKIMANIZANYE Vincentie COOP.COOSOLIDACP/Urun Cyuve 07 88 48 80 02 ana 6 NDAGIJIMANA Jean COOP. KOPAV Nyange 07 83 02 62 88 7 KARAMIRA Frank COVATRAMO Muhoza 07 88 62 43 09 8 NYIRANEZA Epiphanie Baho Missions Muhoza 07 82 05 80 43 9 NYIRABANZI Monique COOP. Home Guards Muhoza 07 84 48 64 08 10 TWAGIRAMUNGU Abdou Bose Kurumwe/COOP Muhoza 07 88 05 47 72 11 NYIRABAGENI Belancille COOP. Abishyize hamwe Muhoza 07 83 02 98 62 12 KAJYIBWAMI Claude COOP. Imyugariro Musanze-Musanze- 07 88 81 85 98 Kabazungu 13 NIYITEGEKA Hesron COOTAMO-Musanze Muhoza 07 88 22 36 05
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA Focus group NGOs Musanze: 07/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 RUHANAMIRINDI Samir APROGEDEFARWA Musanze 07 88 66 12 38 ([email protected]) 2 MUKANOHERI Vestine Association Impuhwe z’ Musanze 07 88 64 78 58 Imana ([email protected] r) 3 HABUMUREMYI A. Frédéric C D J P-Ruhengeri Musanze 07 88 57 20 17 ([email protected]) 4 NSABIMANA Gilbert Grain de Sereve Musanze 07 88 63 31 54 ([email protected]) 5 NYIRANTEZIMANA Association des Guides Musanze 07 88 67 49 18 Clémentine ([email protected]) 6 NIYONZIMA Laurent Vice Président Musanze 07 88 52 16 56 LIPROOTHOR (niyonzilaurent2@yahoo .com) 7 NYIRANEZA Epiphanie Secrétaire de Baho Mission Musanze 07 82 05 80 43 8 HABINSHUTI Anaclet P S JADE Musanze 07 88 82 24 39 (habanacle2020@gmail. com) 9 HARERIMANA Leonard Yes entrepreurs Musanze 07 88 45 08 28 10 RWABUHUNGU J. Claude APIB Musanze 07 88 45 56 39 ([email protected]) 11 SINZABAKWIRA Elie LIPRODHOL Nyabihu 07 88 49 36 68
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 78 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group Cooperatives Nyagatare: 07/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 KALISA Ruth Cooperative mutima w’ Nyatare-Nyatare 07 88 43 91 65 urugo 2 MUTESI Zur ah Nyatare vision Nyatare- Nyatare 07 88 57 98 53 Cooperative(NVC) 07 26 82 63 63 3 MUKAKARARA Fatuma Cooperetive Urumuli Nyatare- Nyatare 07 83 07 01 51 4 BAGIRINKA Jane Rwanda Rugari Craft Nyatare- Nyatare 07 88 25 99 89 5 GATO Abdallah Cooperative Dukore Nyatare-Barija 07 88 54 93 84 Nyagatare(CDN) 6 NDIZEYE James K. R. M. C Nyatare-Karangazi 07 88 52 57 80 7 MUKARUBUGA Chantal Cooperative Imanzi Nyatare 07 88 54 74 16 8 UWAMBAYINGABIRE Claire Cooperative (T G M C O) Rwempasha 07 83 29 19 00
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group NGOs Nyagatare: 07/11/2013
Contacts Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village
1 MUHIZI Augustin Redeemed Christian Kiyombe 07 88 81 75 28 Church of God (RCCG) 2 GAKWAYA William Rwanda Pente costal Karangazi 07 88 64 85 05 Association of God (RPAG) 3 NDAYISENGA Ibrahim Islam Nyagatare Nyagatare 07 88 67 66 26 4 RUBIBI Jean Claude Rwanda Red Cross Nyagatare 07 88 65 18 55 5 MUKESHIMANA G. Duterimbere ONG Nyagatare 07 88 50 34 02 Djamila
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 79 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group Cooperatives Rubavu: 08/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 NSENGIYUMVA Elias P /Abiru Busasamana/Kabagoyi 07 83 77 98 69 2 NZAKINZWANIMANA P. Impuzabahinzi Mahoko 07 85 54 85 36 Solomon 3 NDAGIJIMANA Innocent P. COTTRARU Gisenyi 07 88 35 59 88 4 RWIRIRIZA Charles COSERGI Nyamyumba 07 88 4865 01 5 RUBAYIZA Gabriel Gérant KAIGA Busasamana 07 82 70 13 85 6 NKURUNZIZA Jervais UNICLECAM Wisigara Rubavu 07 88 76 16 59 7 TUYISENGE Damascene COAT (Abahinzi Bugeshi 07 88 89 62 81 Turikumwe) 8 SENYONI J. Baptiste COOPAGI Nyakiriba 07 83 04 77 63 9 NYIRAKAMINEZA M. UNICOAPIGI Nyakiriba 07 88 80 46 04 Cahantal 10 MUSABYIMANA Moussa Cooperative KAIDU Busasamana 07 88 21 94 55 Moustapha 11 RUKERIBUGA Aoron COOHWI Gisenyi 07 83 46 94 57 07 22 46 94 57 12 SEMAJERI Mussa COOPILAK Gisenyi 07 88 77 00 70 13 BAHIGABOSE J. Bosco AEE/Rubavu Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 84 74 24 59 ([email protected]) 14 UWIMANA Jeannette COCOGIS/ Rubavu Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 88 79 19 78 15 HAKUZWEYUZU E lie OJEPAC/ Rubavu Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 84 39 92 45 (opacificateurs@yahoo. com) 16 BUGENUMANA Pulcherie KOIMPUBU Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 88 47 24 79 17 HABUMUGISHA Michel CODERV Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 88 43 07 00 18 HAGENIMANA J. Claude ACAPE Rubavu/Gisenyi 07 86 42 46 00 (acapegisenyiyahoo.fr)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 80 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group NGOs Rubavu: 08/11/2013
Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village Contacts 1 HAKUNZWEYEZU Elsee Organisation de Jeunes Rubavu / Gisenyi 07 84 39 92 45 Pacificateurs (O JE PAC) (opacificateurs@ yahoo.com) 2 BAHIGABOSE J. Bosco AEE/Rubavu Rubavu / Gisenyi 07 84 74 24 59 (aeegisenyi@ya hoo.fr) 3 HAKUZIMANA Francois Imbaraga Oueste Rubavu 07 83 35 07 98 4 NDAKENGERWA Moise Vision Jeunesse Nouvelle Rubavu / Gisenyi 07 88 51 19 89 (visionjeunesse @yahoo.fr) 5 MBONYUBWABO Epimaque Caritas Nyundo//Gisenyi Rubavu / Nyundo 07 88 58 95 70/07 88 85 11 84 (caritasnyundo2 @yahoo.fr) 6 NIRAMBE Desire IABU/Busasamana Rubavu / Busasamana 07 88 8973 92 07 22 89 73 92 7 MWONGEREZA Clement Point d’ Ecoute Rubavu / Gisenyi 07 88 45 55 34 8 RUBADUKA Jean A R P C D H Rubavu / Gisenyi 07 885278 80 9 NYIRURUGO J. de Dieu A P E F A Rubavu / Gisenyi 07851750 60/07 89 03 76 66 (njeanval1984@ yahoo.fr) 10 RUKANIKA GASANA Plate forme de la Société Rubavu ([email protected] Leonard civile r) 11 DUSENGE APOLLINE CHE Higa Ubeho Rubavu 07 834639 77 (dusengap@yah oo.fr)
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 81 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group Cooperatives Rusizi: 04/11/2013
Contacts Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village
1 BAHATI JEAN BAPTISTE PROJET PECHE KAMEMBE 0788829092 CYANGUGU 2 HAGENIMANA TUJYANENIGIHE GIHUNDWE 0786637546 THEEOGENE 3 MUKANTWARI TWIVANEMUBUCYENE GIHUNDWE 07888781277 ANTOINETTE 4 NDAGIJIMANA ANTOINE TWITE KWFI GIHUNDWE 0783109089 5 HABIMANA MARCEL HANGUMURIMO GIHUNDWE 0788992080 6 MUHIRWA GASITA FELIX GIRISUKU GIHUNDWE 0788235404 7 NAKURE PRUDENCE KTBM GIHUNDWE 0788668394 8 MUKANYUNGURA HAGURUKA MUBYEYI GIHUNDWE 0782004659 DANCILLE 9 NIYITEGEKA DANIEL HUMURA VILLE GIHUNDWE 0788296930 10 BIZIMANA JMV KOTANIRUBWIYUNGE KAMEMBE 0784544518 11 MANIRAGUHA ERNEST COOMOGIRU GIHUNDWE 0788658336
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group NGOs Rusizi: 04/11/2013
Contacts Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village
1 MUKARUGAMBWA BAHO NEZA MWANA GIHUNDWE 0788841083 CLAUDETTE 2 PASTEUR NGAMIJE EMLR KAMEMBE KAMEMBE 0783422397 EMMANUEL 3 NISHYIRIMBERE RRP+ GIHUNDWE 078877280 XAVERINE 4 MUKAYIJUKA JEANNE RESEAUX DES FEMES NYAKARENZO 078610676 D`ARK 5 NYIRASENGIYUMVA ACPLRWA RUSIZI 0788526316 JEANE 6 NGIRINSHUTI FIDELE ODECOR RUSIZI 0788697302 7 MANIRAGUHA OLIVE ASSOCIATION RUSIZI 0783415042 NNZAMBAZAMARIYA 8 BAMURENGEYE LIPRODHOR RUSIZI 0788774563 EUGENIE
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 82 of 84
CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP FOR CSOs MAPPING AND THE FORMULATION OF THE EU-SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN THE 11TH EDF in RWANDA
Focus group NGOs Kigali: 14/11/2013
Contacts Nome/Surname Organisation Town/Village
1 MPAMBARA Abdallah Indatwa za gikondo Kigarama/Kicukiro 07 82 94015 06 2 NDAGIJIMANA Abdul Tuzamurane Butamwa/Nyarugenge 07 87 64 05 90 3 MUSANABERA Colette Twiteze imbere Gikondo 07 86 19 53 18 4 MBANZA Julius Southern Vétérans Murindi/nyarugenge 07 87 35 46 62 coopérative 5 NZUNGIZE Sulaiman United Street Promotion Muhima/Nyarugenge 07 83 65 33 11
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 83 of 84
Mapping of the civil society and project identification of a Support Program to the Civil Society in Rwanda Page 84 of 84