Policy Paper

July 2010

Suggestions on Consultation Benchmarks

For more information, please contact: Vanessa Dick Manager for Intl Development Policy vdick@interaction.org

InterActions membership appreciates this opportunity to provide suggestions on consultation benchmarks for Phase I/II decisions for Feed the Future. We believe that the Consultation Scorecard below is a good start, although there was a general consensus that input from an expert in measurement and evaluation would be important. In addition, we had additional questions and concerns that we felt needed to be addressed in order to make these benchmarks successful. These questions are listed below. While we would like to assume that governments receiving Feed the Future funding will act in good faith and conduct the kind of thorough consultative process we know is necessary; the anecdotal evidence we are getting from our civil society colleagues in these countries has raised serious concerns. Given the demands of putting together these extensive plans, the temptation to resort to the path of least resistance is great and even well-intentioned efforts by some governments fall far short of what is needed to ensure a successful and sustainable initiative. As such, we found it challenging to separate the consultation benchmarks for Phase I/II decisions from the need for the kind ongoing stakeholder engagement that is critical for a successful Feed the Future Initiative. We feel strongly that stakeholders should be recognized as partners throughout the country investment plan process and within all stages of Feed the Future, from planning to implementation to monitoring and evaluation. We recognize that the planning process is ongoing in most of the Feed the Future countries. We believe that it is possible to structure a framework of rigorous consultation and engagement benchmarks that does not require countries to stop what they are doing or to start from scratch. We would be happy to work with you in creating that framework.

www.InterAction.org
1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202.667.8227

Formalizing the Process The example of the MCC is helpful when evaluating what sorts of processes result in meaningful stakeholder engagement. When the MCC began, it estab-

zz

lished informal guidelines for the consultative process. By 2007, the MCC realized that compact countries were interpreting the mandate for consultation in accordance with their specific circumstances and that this was not yielding the level of consultation that were needed or desired. The MCC then developed more specific guidelines for the consultative process, including guidance on reporting on consultations. It felt that ensuring the quality of the consultative process merited focused attention, given that (d)evelopment experience confirms that public participation results in programs that better reflect national priorities and have a higher likelihood of success. (MCC, Guidelines for the Consultative Process, Last Updated February 2009) Consultations are now tailored to individual country circumstances, while following the organizations overall commitment to conduct wide consultation at every stage of Compact development, implementation and evaluation. Within each country, a member of the core team or MCA Accountable Entity someone with demonstrated experience in planning and managing stakeholder consultations is tasked with developing and carrying out a comprehensive communication and consultation strategy. MCC in Washington is able to provide technical support to the consultations, but countries are also expected to seek out additional local specialists as required. MCC does not have a checklist or scorecard against which it measures the thoroughness of consultations, but the country core teams are expected to report back on their efforts at a number of junctures in the Compact process.1 Beyond Feed the Future Adequate measures of the quality of consultations should be applied throughout the USG as a general principle of aid effectiveness, since quality consultations are critical to broad-based country ownership. Not only will consultation strengthen international development strategies, but, done well, it can also build the capacity of citizens to hold their governments accountable. Effective consultation can strengthen the compact between states and citizens, a key goal of all US foreign assistance efforts. Currently, the U.S. government has no operational guidance on what meaningful civil society participation looks like. This has meant that different agencies/programs and initiatives have developed or are developing their own criteria. As a result there is varying guidance to partner countries on how to achieve civil society participation. As the administration continues to plan and begins implementing Feed the Future, there is an opportunity to work towards clear guidance and a USG standard.

The Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCM) employed by The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria provides a valuable model of effective and sustained CSO engagement in decision-making and implementation of funded programs. The CCMs, which require 40 percent membership of civil society organization, have increased civil society participation in GF structures at the country level. The CCM process has played a significant role in strengthening civil society in some countries by bringing new civil society actors to the table such as people living with the 3 diseases, advocacy groups, service organizations and FBOs. While it may not be practically possible for Feed the Future to prescribe a similar model within each focus country, the CCM process does provide a standard to measure CSO engagement.

zz

Additional Recommendations/Questions When Considering Consultation Benchmarks

-

How does this evaluation process work with CAADPs existing evaluation structure? Similarly, how can we piggyback on existing and future consultations within other development initiatives, including the Global Health Initiative? To best measure improvements in CSO participation, it is recommended that Feed the Future countries be asked to do a baseline assessment of CSO participation as soon as possible, regardless of where they are in the planning process. Feed the Future should consider supporting a pilot mapping exercise that can be used to assist the governments in their engagement with indigenous CSOs and to help the USG better understand the landscape of actors and the various ways in which stakeholder consultation can take place. The mapping process itself could be used to more effectively engage civil society and disseminate information about the initiative, while creating a rudimentary database of key organizations to invite to meetings, consultations and other key processes. How do we determine or verify whether or not these consultations took place, were effective, and inclusive? The checklist asks whether or not these activities occurred, but doesnt look at quality of implementation. If a consultation meeting was held with a room full of people, half of whom were unable to contribute input, should that meet the criteria of a consultation meeting? Who will determine or verify these criteria? An independent evaluation should be conducted to assess the degree to which these elements of consultation have been achieved. One way to check on some of these dimensions is through mapping of linkages through the use of social network mapping methodology. Those organizations who perceive that they have a higher number of links to government and/or donors are likely to be seen as being more influential to the consultation process. Those with fewer links would be more marginal. A baseline study could show which organizations are being included in the process and which are excluded. A plan to engage marginal organizations can then be developed. This technology, previously used extensively in epidemiology (contact tracing) is being used more extensively in mapping social networks and in business in understanding the degree to which leverage points can be effectively mobilized to bring about change. There should be a connection between the 2nd and 3rd criteria established in the FTF guide for countries to move from phase 1 to phase 2. Budgetary and policy priorities of the government related to agricultural development and food security should reflect the outcomes of the consultation process. There needs to be a connection between these two pieces otherwise the consultation hold no real value.

zz

Consultation Benchmarks Consultations 1. Is there a plan that provides a timeline for consultation, describes how engagement with stakeholders will occur (both in and outside of the capital), and provides information about communications and outreach strategy? 2. Has a specific agency been named as the point of contact on the consultations, including scheduling and organizing responsibilities? 3. Are consultations held regularly (e.g. twice a year or to correspond to new phases of the project cycle, as appropriate) to inform the plan, provide updates, and receive feedback about implementation, evaluate impact, etc.? 4. Are the consultations inclusive/representative? - Consultations include all interests/sectors connected with food security (e.g. women, small producers, CSOs, private sector, public sector institutions, technical experts, donors, and others). - Consultations include all the appropriate government actors who are empowered to make decisions and recommendations based on information received during consultations. - Consultations are held in and outside the capital. 4. Are the consultations participatory? - The consultations establish rules of procedure/order and employ a professional facilitator skilled in participatory methodologies. - The agenda and consultation process was developed with the participation of key representatives from major stakeholders. - As appropriate to foster participation, separate consultations are held with different stakeholder groups (women, other marginalized groups, different language groups). 5. Are the consultations held in venues appropriate for the government to provide and solicit information? 6. Is there adequate dissemination of information? - Participants know what documents/processes they were being asked to comment on. - Any documents being distributed as part of the consultation are distributed in a timely (enough time to respond) and appropriate manner (translated, and provided in multiple formats to reach a wide audience). 7. Are participants provided with adequate notice to both attend and prepare for consultations? 8. Do the consultations encourage the competition of ideas? - Dissenting voices are accepted and recorded. - There are multiple mechanisms for taking feedback. Transparency 9. Are the consultations transparent? - Expectations about what the consultations can be expected to achieve is communicated beforehand through an agenda or another vehicle. - Minutes of meetings are recorded and provided to the participants (not only provided, but provided in the most meaningful way, taking into account language barriers and most effective 4

zz

media). Coordination Mechanism 10. Does an agriculture sector working group (or similar body) exist? 11. Does the ASWG meet regularly? 12. Is the government a member/co-chair of the ASWG? 13. Does the ASWG have civil society/private sector representatives and/or participation? Are they active? - Is a mix of civil society represented? - Does the USG help facilitate inclusion of civil society perspectives? Reporting 14. Have minutes been submitted? 15. Has the country submitted a stakeholder matrix? Impact/Influence 16. Are updates on actions taken as a result of consultations provided to the participants? 17. Is there an outreach program to provide the public with the main discussion points and outputs of the consultations? 18. Do consultations follow an investment checklist (could include the following elements: gender assessment, social and environmental assessment, risk management assessment, disaster mitigation assessment, organizational development assessment)? 19. Are the consultations credible to the participants and the general public? - Participants believe there is genuine effort to listen to what they have to say (consultation is not a mere window dressing or token activity). - Polling data or other reliable sources of information suggest that the public is aware of FTF investments and the outcomes of consultations taking place.