Working with partners: Mid-Term evaluation of Norwegian People’s Aid

Background

Norwegian People’s Aid has an international strategy for the period 2012-2015. This also coincides with the period for the implementation of the cooperation agreement with Norad. This is a mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the international strategy focused on NPA’s cooperation with partner organisations in the promotion of a just distribution of power and resources. NPAs main focus is on the strengthening of organisations in the countries were we work so that they can influence democratic processes and political decision-making. 

Purpose/objective

Learning from the implementation of the strategy with emphasis on the effectiveness of NPAs methodology for accompaniment of partners adapting to the local context. Input to the upcoming new strategy period.

Methodology

Case studies of NPAs work in Zimbabwe, Honduras and El Salvador. Data from strategies, plans, reports, reviews and semi-structured interviews with partners and NPA staff at head office and field offices.

Key findings

The evaluation concludes that NPA operates to a well thought-out and coherent methodology. The methodology is in conformity with NPAs identity as a solidarity organisation with its roots in the Norwegian labour movement. NPA’s International Strategy and Partnership Policy are based on an approach in which the local partners have the lead. Partners are self-driven. Project activities are demand driven. NPA’s role is auxiliary and enabling but not decisive. This means that NPA’s support helps partners reach their goals faster and with a wider range than they would have done without NPA. In order to avoid the unintended effect of aid dependence, NPA makes sure the size of the financial contribution to each partner is modest.

The evaluation points to the preconditions for the methodology, most important being the existence of genuine movements to link up with as partners. This kind of partners, operating according to their own agenda, does however not seem to thrive in contexts of heavy development aid. Supply- driven aid activities tend to make movements turn into “commissioned activism” with shallow roots and little impact, which is exactly what NPA seeks to avoid. NPA’s methodology makes the organisation most at home in countries in which the development aid sector does not primarily have its eyes on. This creates some identity problems, as NPA also operates in these kinds of contexts, posing the question of whether to join the mainstream or stick to its coherent and established way of operating. It should be noted that NPA’s country advisors are doing much in-depth analysis of potential partners that are large recipients of aid to ensure that partners are genuine movements with legitimacy in the sense that they are representing certain social groups.  

The three country programmes included in the evaluation shows that NPAs methodology works. This is a method of close follow-up by country co-ordinators and regional advisors, relatively small sums allocated to each partner, a well-thought out mix of partner types of organisations brought together, and not least; the principle of the partner being project owners. In El Salvador the programme contributes to the development of a well-functioning civil society in a period when democracy seems to get institutionalised. In Honduras, the programme contributed to the survival of popular and social movements in a very vulnerable situation. In Zimbabwe, the programme encourages the adaption to a new political situation, where social movements need to be re-built and a new agenda that combine the former emphasis on civil/political rights with socioeconomic rights and redistribution. NPA’s strategy 2012-15 meets these needs almost perfectly.

Recommendations

1. NPA’s methodology and approach position the organisation one step ahead of many other NGO’s when it comes to avoiding unexpected negative effects of its activities. Therefore, NPA when revising the International Strategy should retain core elements of the current strategy.
2. More emphasis should be placed on organisational strengthening –including issues pertaining to internal democracy – of partner organisations.
3. NPA should consider a two-pronged strategy with one approach for the programmes in typical aid-receiving countries characterised by weak and “aid-saturated” social movements and one for the countries where the present strategy works well. The strategy for the aid receiving countries should retain the core elements of NPA’s methodology.
4. NPA needs to be more focused on concretising results and its “value added” in all stages of its country programmes.
5. NPA should consider identifying some specific thematic fields to work to concentrate on during the next programme period, e.g. under the broader headlines of democracy building and fair distribution of resources of wealth and influence.
6. Country programmes may gain from growing bigger. This, however, should not be done by increasing the sums per partner but rather include more partners.
7. For Honduras and El Salvador: The social movements in El Salvador and Honduras need to improve a) their policies on security; b) develop more space for open discussion internally in the groups and movements; c) strengthen competences in the policy fields in which the organisations involve themselves.
8. For Zimbabwe and Southern Africa: The movements especially appreciates NPA’s facilitating role in domestic and regional/international networking. NPA should consider expanding opportunities for partners to meet for shared learning and commitments. Moreover, NPA should consider scaling up its support to the SADC People’s Summit and/or other regional meeting places.

Comments from the organisation, if any

No specific comments, but NPA is taking the recommendations and considerations into account in NPAs present development of an international strategy 2016-19.