Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Evaluation of AADK leadership of the
Just and Democratic Governance theme
in ActionAid International
Report
Cowan Coventry
January 2012
INTRAC
Oxbridge Court, Osney Mead,
Oxford, OX2 0ES
UK
www.intrac.org
0
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
List of abbreviations
AADK
AAI
BLD
CEO
CSO
EAPN
EASA
ELBAG
GAC
HRBA
ID
IGT
JDG
MOU
MNC
MS
NDS
P4C
SAARC
TCDC
TOT
T4C
WACAR
ActionAid Denmark
ActionAid International
Building Local Democracy
Chief Executive Officer
Civil Society Organisation
European Anti-Poverty Network
East Africa and Southern Africa
Economic Literacy and Budget Analysis in Governance
Ghana Aids Commission
Human Rights Based Approach
International Director
International Governance Team
Just and Democratic Governance
Memorandum of Understanding
Multinational Corporation
Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke
National Development Strategy
People for Change
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
Training Centre for Development Cooperation
Training of Trainers
Training for Change
West Africa and Central Africa region
1
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Background to governance work in AADK and AAI ..................................................... 7
1.2. Background to evaluation ........................................................................................... 7
1.3. Methodology of evaluation .......................................................................................... 8
2. Implementation of IGT work plans and quality of work ................................................ 9
2.1. Promoting mainstreaming, learning and capacity building ............................................. 10
2.2. Building Just and Democratic Governance at local and national level…………….....14
2.3.Promoting cross-cutting work..................................................................................... 16
2.4. Supporting fundraising, funding and knowledge sharing ........................................... 17
2.5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 19
3. AADK leadership of JDG .............................................................................................. 22
3.1.Leadership of the IGT ................................................................................................ 22
3.2. IGT accountability to AAI ......................................................................................... 23
4. Lesson learned.............................................................................................................. 23
5. Implications of new AAI strategy ................................................................................. 26
Annex 1: Summary of people interviewed ...................................................................... 30
Annex 2: Selective bibliography ...................................................................................... 31
2
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Executive Summary
1. AADK and AAI entered into a two year agreement in December 2009 for AADK to
lead the Just and Democratic Governance (JDG) theme across the federation. This
evaluation of AADK’s leadership of the theme was conducted as a condition of the
MOU that this experimental arrangement be evaluated before the end of 2011.
2. AADK assumed responsibility for a small International Governance Team (IGT) of
three people early in 2010. An expanded team of ten was not in place until November
2010. The evaluation will review the implementation and quality of work in 2010 and
2011. Particular emphasis will be placed on the 2011 work plan since this reflects the
priorities and performance of the expanded IGT subsequent to the MOU.
3. Data was gathered for this evaluation through desk research, semi-structured
interviews with key staff and respondents and material from four surveys of the
perceptions of AAI Country Directors; country-based governance focal persons;
participants on International Governance Team (IGT)/Training Centre for
Development Cooperation (TCDC) governance courses and the commissioning
managers of course participants.
Implementation and quality of work
4. Despite a delayed start, the work of the IGT is viewed very positively by AA country
programme staff who have had contact with it. 87.5% of Country Directors and
91.6% of governance focal persons who responded thought the work of the IGT
moderately or very important to helping deliver their governance work. A similar
percentage would welcome AADK’s promotion of and support to governance work in
the new strategy.
5. The IGT has a number of achievements to its credit. Governance training organised
at TCDC and in-country, the quality of written materials and the availability of a Seed
Fund, are most frequently quoted by respondents and highly-rated in the survey
returns.
6. Perhaps the most significant achievement has been the training of more than a
thousand ActionAid, partner and other CSO staff in 53 governance courses in
2010/11. Both participants and commissioning managers in survey returns expressed
a high level of satisfaction with the quality and effectiveness of these courses, and
reported the training to have improved the delivery of governance programmes. This
has created an important, skilled constituency of support for governance work under
the new AAI strategy.
7. The quality of manuals, discussion papers and handbooks produced has also
contributed to a positive view of the work of IGT. 87.5% of Country Directors and
100% of the governance focal people who responded rated IGT manuals as good or
excellent. The Economic Literacy and Budget Accountability in Governance (ELBAG)
handbook series is the key, user-friendly resource for ActionAid and partner staff.
Two handbooks have been produced to date; the remaining three are due to be
published and distributed before March 2012.
3
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
8. A 5 million DKK Seed Fund established in 2010 to supplement or start up
governance programmes at country level has also played a major role in publicising
and popularising the work of the IGT. A total of 32 projects have been funded in 17
countries. In the case of Myanmar, it enabled pilot work on local government
accountability to leverage EC funding to scale up the work.
9. IGT has also been responsible for the delivery of the AAI priority National
Development Strategy (NDS) project, focusing on the development and promotion of
alternative models of development. IGT’s work on this priority theme, including
stakeholder mapping, commissioning research and concept papers, and convening
meetings, is positively rated by country directors and governance focal persons and
will form the basis for national advocacy work in 2012.
10. The IGT has been unable to meet its targets in some other areas. The plan to map
governance work and make it available on a searchable database on the AAI intranet
is as yet unfulfilled. An assessment of the capacity development needs of
governance focal persons has been postponed and has not, therefore, fed into T4C
course planning. A number of concept papers have been delayed or postponed.
Plans to incorporate advisors and inspirators into governance programmes are still in
a preparatory stage. Success with support to fundraising efforts has been limited to
date. Efforts to promote the sharing of learning through exchange visits and webbased applications have been limited.
AADK leadership of the JDG theme
11. Having a team leader who was well-connected within AAI has helped the IGT make
progress despite initial delays. Adequate planning, reporting systems and
arrangements for teleconferencing are in place, but inconsistently implemented. A
tighter planning framework e.g. a log frame, and more effective prioritisation would
have helped deliver a more achievable work plan.
12. None of the management arrangements put in place under the MOU to ensure that
AADK’s leadership of the JDG theme was accountable to the AAI Secretariat, have
been implemented. There is no evidence that this was intentional or that it has had a
negative effect on the work of the IGT. However, systems of formal accountability to
the Secretariat have been weak.
Lessons learned
13. The break in continuity and subsequent loss of institutional memory in the IGT
contributed to delays in taking the work forward. It will be important not to repeat this
in the transition to the new strategy.
14. The IGT interface with and accountability to the Secretariat has been weak. The
delegation of international work to Member affiliates in the new strategy must be
accompanied by a clear mandate and project structure, strong leadership, clear TOR
and a transparent system of accountability to the Secretariat.
4
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
15. Support to governance work under the new strategy should exploit more fully the
opportunities to communicate effectively on the work to the objective using the wide
range of options available with electronic media.
16. The work of IGT has been knowledge-rich but mostly confined to the provision of
training and written outputs. With the establishment of a sizeable constituency of AA
and partner staff who have benefited from these inputs, greater attention should be
paid to horizontal systems of learning including exchange visits, easy-to-use content
through the web, user-friendly database/s, and ‘virtual’ communities of practice
17. Future support for international work on governance work would benefit from an
explicit capacity building framework within AAI. This should encompass training;
institutional strengthening e.g. through advisors; knowledge sharing including peerto-peer exchange (such as Inspirators), and web-based tools such as e-learning.
This would enable AADK to coordinate and achieve more synergy between its
different programme components.
18. Such a framework should clarify whose capacity is to be strengthened so that
delivery systems and materials are customised for specific target groups. For
example, it is of specific interest to Danida that AADK is able to demonstrate how
and how much its support to international governance work within AAI provides direct
benefits to Southern civil society. This will require T4C/TCDC to revise its data
management systems so that information on training participants can be
disaggregated by stakeholder groups.
Implications for the new strategy
19. The new AAI strategy offers an opportunity for AADK to continue to promote and
support governance work in the federation by including a specific objective on
governance and recognising the delegation of international work to Member affiliates.
This evaluation concludes that the credibility, experience and expertise accumulated
under AADK leadership of the governance theme are assets which should continue
to inform and support governance work within the new strategy. This will require
AADK to broaden its approach to strengthening capacity and support new areas such
as policy and advocacy work.
20. It is likely that working groups will be established to support the delivery of objectives
and key promises in the new strategy. A key dimension of choice will be whether
these groups will be supported by a budget and the level of leadership responsibility
delegated to them. This could result in different approaches ranging from a
governance ‘community of practice’ facilitating learning on citizen accountability
across programmes to a governance ‘team’ coordinating national and international
work to achieve Key Promise 3.
21. The latter model would be best suited to enable AADK to continue offering leadership
and funding to governance in AAI through its proposed model of programme and
seed funding, and support for ‘knowledge hubs’ in the region.
5
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
22. In either case, the evaluation suggests how AADK might meet the expectations of
both AAI and Danida regarding accountability. In the former case, the AAI Chief
Executive and/or Director of Programmes must have responsibility for how best to
leverage AADK funding and expertise in support of Objective 2. In the latter case,
AADK must be able to demonstrate its added value as a conduit for Danida funding
to the South and the contribution that this funding makes to strengthening Southern
civil society.
6
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
1. Introduction
1.1. Background to governance work in AADK and AAI
In 2007 MS took a strategic decision, with the support of its major donor Danida, to focus its
programmes exclusively on governance work. In the same year it formalised its conceptual
approach in the paper ‘Building Local Democracy’ (BLD), focusing on the interconnected
themes of making local government accountable and political empowerment. MS country
programme strategies were required to refocus their work for the period 2008-12 in line with
strategic guidance documents and to allocate a minimum of 50% of their programme
resources to governance work. Subsequent reviews - for example, a BLD Synthesis Report
in 2008 and Thematic Review in 2010 - acknowledged that the process had resulted in more
focused and coherent country programmes.
During this period, MS became an Associate Member of Action Aid International (AAI) in
2008 and a full Member as ActionAid Denmark in July 2010. AAI had recently committed
itself in its 2006-10 strategy to work on international governance by initiating ‘Just and
Democratic Governance’ (JDG) as a standalone theme in 2006 along with others e.g.
education, women’s’ rights, HIV/Aids and emergencies and conflict. A small International
Governance Team (IGT) was established in 2006 to raise the profile of and support
governance work across the Federation, albeit with limited resources. Key among the
achievements of the IGT during this period was the formulation of the Economic Literacy and
Budget Analysis in Governance (ELBAG) approach to grass roots accountability, now
established as a core competence of ActionAid’s work on governance. The 2009 mid-term
review of the AAIstrategy2009 review “Taking Stock” underlined the importance governance
work as a theme and cross cutting issue.
In December 2009, AADK and AAI entered into a two year agreement for AADK to promote
and support the Just and Democratic Governance theme across the federation. This was a
unique, experimental arrangement whereby a Member was to lead the work of an
international theme on behalf of, and being accountable to, the Secretariat. An MOU was
signed that defined governance theme and work; role of IGT; focus and specific areas of
work; and the management roles and relationships surrounding the agreement. Four
objectives were identified as the basis for collaboration:
1. Increased support including funds
2. Support AADK to deliver accountability to Danish government
3. Test the model of Affiliates doing pilot work
4. Improve quality of governance work in countries etc.
The MOU also stipulated that the implementation of the agreement should be reviewed
before the end of the two year period.
1.2. Background to evaluation
Since the agreement was a unique arrangement within AAI, the importance of using the
experience as a source of learning within the federation was recognised from the outset. In
September 2011 INTRAC was commissioned to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
7
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
AADK including eleven component elements. Key among these was an evaluation of the
AADK’s support to governance work in AAI. The focus of the evaluation was to be:
 AADK’s role in leading the international governance theme
 The implementation of plans and relevance and quality of work (including concept
development, manuals and training).
 The performance of IGT as assessed by country office staff and key informants.
 Whether the objectives of the management contract had been achieved.
 The lessons learned for the potential of delegating AAI work to members.
The TOR also sought the evaluation to make some recommendations regarding the potential
for AADK to continue to lead and support governance work in AAI.
Section 2 of this report will review the implementation of the IGT plans and quality of work.
Section 3 will review AADK leadership of the international governance theme and the
fulfilment of the objectives of the management contract with AAI. The perceptions of countrylevel stakeholders and key informants, gathered through surveys and interviews, will be
incorporated in both Sections. Section 4 will identify some lessons learned to date from this
model of delegation within the federation. Section 5 will outline options for AADK’s
continuing promotion of and support to governance work in the new AAI strategy.
1.3. Methodology of evaluation
Data was gathered for the evaluation through three sources - desk research, semi-structured
interviews and electronic surveys. A selective bibliography of key documents consulted is
attached in Annex 2. Semi-structured interview formats were prepared for Country Directors,
ActionAid Secretariat and IGT. A total of 20 respondents were interviewed on the work of the
IGT (see Annex 1).
Data was gathered through four electronic surveys on stakeholder perceptions of IGT
support to governance work. These were:
Table 1: Surveys drawn upon for analysis
Survey
Sample size
Responses
Response rate%
Country Directors
34
10
29.4
Country governance focal persons
55
15
27.2
Governance course participants
485
111
22.2
Commissioning managers of course participants
142
22
15.5
The total populations of Country Directors and governance focal persons were comparatively
small and the response rate modest, despite prompts. There is, therefore, a risk of some
bias e.g. that that those who responded were familiar with and sympathetic to the work of the
IGT.
The preliminary analysis of this evaluation was triangulated with the analysis of other
component elements of the comprehensive evaluation, in particular People4Change and
TrainingforChange evaluations. A presentation of its initial findings was made to the
evaluation Reference Groups on 28th November before the draft report was submitted on the
9th December 2011.
8
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
2. Implementation of IGT work plans and quality of work
Following the signing of the MOU, the IGT, with AADK financial support, was expanded from
three to eleven members in 2010.The IGT, as an operational team, currently consists of an
International Head; part-time assistant to the Head; three Regional Coordinators for West
and Central Africa; East Africa, Asia, and a part-time Regional Coordinator for the Americas;
three thematic specialists based in Copenhagen; and a capacity development specialist
based in Pakistan.
The International Head leads the work of the team on a day-to day basis and is responsible
for implementing and reporting to the annual plan, and liaison with the AAI Secretariat.
Regional Coordinators play a key role in liaising with and supporting country-based AA
country office and partner staff. The thematic specialists in Copenhagen are experts in
different areas of the theme and are primarily responsible for the production of written
outputs and, along with the capacity building specialist, support to the development and
implementation of training courses.
IGT responsibilities include helping to strengthen the capacity of AA and partner staff;
facilitating cross-cutting learning; developing and sharing tools and methods for governance
work; supporting fundraising for governance projects; and strengthening relationship with
external networks.
The evaluation will focus on the IGT priorities of work as set out in the 2010 and 2011 work
plans. However, the 2010 work plan was largely inherited from the previous team and
significantly affected by the staff changes and recruitments. The new IGT lead was
appointed in May 2010 but three original IGT members left in the first half of the year to
become AAI Country Directors. A recruitment process followed and the newly expanded IGT
was not in place until November 2010. While the 2010 work plan will be reviewed, particular
attention will be paid to the 2011 work plan since this reflects the priorities and approach of
the team put in place subsequent to the signing of the MOU.
The annual work plans are lengthy and detailed; the 2011 workplan, for example, originally
set out an ambitious plan of work under 3 general objectives, 7 specific objectives and 19
key actions and 74 activities. Reporting to the implementation of the work plans by activity
would be lengthy exercise and risk losing sight of achievements and outputs. The 2010 and
2011 work plans are organised under slightly different objectives but there is a significant
overlap on key activities regarding building local governance and cross-cutting work. The
evaluation, therefore, will review performance to the work plan by focusing on the delivery of
outputs and processes under the four objectives of the 2011 work plan, making reference to
the 2010 work plan where relevant.
It should be pointed out that the 2011 work plan has been significantly changed in the
course of the year. What follows is a review of the implementation of the revised work plan
with reference to the original work plan. The AAI Secretariat issued instructions early in 2011
to curtail the number of training initiatives across the federation so that training in its core
methodology Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) could be rolled out. Following the IGT
team meeting in Copenhagen in June 2011the work plan was revised and activities reduced.
Specifically, the in-country and TCDC trainings on Empowerment were cancelled as a result.
9
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
The section will conclude with some general conclusions about the effectiveness and quality
of work of the IGT during the two year period, drawing upon the data gathered through
interviews and survey material.
2.1. Promoting mainstreaming, learning and capacity building
A key objective of the IGT has been to build the capacity of AA and partner staff to empower
poor and excluded people, mainly women, to participate in local governance. The budget for
this objective in 2011 is £651,278just over 50% of the total budget. This has focused mainly
on three sets of activities - mapping, the production of written materials and training.
 Mapping
IGT planned to conduct a number of mapping processes in 2011 i.e. of stand-alone
governance work; cross cutting governance work; country-based governance specialists and
their capacity development needs; and the local capabilities of potential ‘knowledge hubs’.
These have been only partially completed and their potential exploited e.g. to promote
knowledge-sharing and inform curriculum development.
A first priority for IGT was to form an overview of the governance work being done by all AA
countries and consolidate this in a database. A mapping process of both stand-alone and
cross-cutting governance work has been conducted by IGT Regional Coordinators. This
turned out to be a much bigger task than anticipated and is still ongoing. A searchable data
base to store the information collected by the mapping processes is nearly completed. The
intention is to link this to the AAI intranet environment HIVE so that AA staff can easily find
key information and best practices on governance within the federation.
The IGT has also brought together a list of ‘governance focal points’ across the federation.
Some focal points are governance specialists, others are policy leads who have, as part of
their responsibilities, a governance brief. This is currently a list for the internal use of IGT. It
is not available of the AAI Intranet HIVE, nor used as a means of promoting a community of
practice among governance practitioners.
The assessment of the capacity development needs of governance focal points has been
postponed until the restructuring of the AAI Secretariat is completed. A training needs
assessment of a primary target for IGT training courses, therefore, has not contributed to
their design. Similarly the work on mapping local capabilities in preparation for knowledge
hubs e.g. in Nigeria, Tanzania, Nepal, and Brazil, has also been postponed, pending
clarification on how governance work will be taken forward in the new AAI strategy.
 Written outputs
An important first step for the team was to clarify the definition of the concept of governance
as a common frame of reference across AAI.A strategic concept paper “The Right to Just
and Democratic Governance” was produced at the end of 2010.In the same year the team
revised and distributed 2,000 manuals on Accountability (Africa and Asia versions) and
1,000 on Empowerment (Asia version) which have formed the basis for governance
trainings. An Asia version of the Accountability manual was produced and distributed later in
10
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
the year, drawing upon imagery and case study material from the region. This was a key
resource in the in-country accountability trainings that took place in 2010.
The production of a number of popular guides in line with the key concepts of the concept
paper has been pivotal to the 2011 work plan. The thinking of the IGT about these guides
e.g. whether they should be in resource pack or handbook form, has evolved in the course of
year. In mid-2011, the team decided to produce a series of handbooks, branded the
ActionAid ELBAG Series, in line with the new AAI strategy. The work plan commits the IGT
to producing and distributing five handbooks in 2011. These aim to support frontline staff and
partners in improving service delivery for poor and marginalised people and to achieve a
fairer distribution of resources to finance public policies aimed at poverty reduction.
Two handbooks were produced in September 2011 - “Accountability: Quality and Equity in
Public Service Provision” and “Budgets: Revenues and Financing in Public Service
Provision”. Two further handbooks - “Democracy: Justice and Accountability at the local
level” and “Voice: Representation and Peoples’ Democracy” - are due to be produced and
distributed by December 2011. A fifth - “Power: Elite Capture and Hidden Influence” - is due
to published and distributed by March 2012.
There is no doubt that the ELBAG series proving to be a valued and useful resource for
governance practitioners. 100% of the governance focal people who responded to the
survey rated IGT manuals i.e. the ELBAG handbooks, as good or excellent; two-thirds rated
them excellent. Nine out of the ten Country Directors who responded rated the handbooks
as good or excellent. They are available in electronic format on HIVE and the AAI website
but not on the ELBAG website. They are also available to date only in English, although they
are currently being translated into Spanish and Portuguese and it is hoped to distribute them
in relevant AAI country programmes in December 2011.Their translation into more local
languages might make them more available and accessible to Southern civil society
organisations e.g. in Asia.
 Training
Perhaps the most significant contribution of the IGT to governance work in AAI has been the
training offered to AAI and partner staff and other CSOs. TRC records a total of 1,247
participants on IGT designed trainings in 2010/11. However, this number should be treated
with some caution as the number of ‘participants’ is not synonymous with the number of
people as individuals may attend more than one training. It has not been possible to confirm
the number of people who have participated in more than one course to confirm the net
number of people who attended IGT governance courses.
623 participants attended 29 AAI governance training courses in 2010. A further 276
attended governance-related courses organised and held independently at TCDC. The
objective of the majority of the IGT courses was to give a general introduction and overview
to Accountability and Empowerment governance issues for AAI staff and partners. Two
Training for Trainers and two curriculum development courses were held. 13 of the courses
were held at TCDC and 16 held in-country, the majority in Africa as illustrated in the
following table:
11
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Table 2: IGT courses held in 2010
Course
TCDC
Governance
8
Governance course for Curriculum Development
2
Africa
Regional Governance course
4
In country governance courses
TOT
Asia
12
2
Reflection workshop
1
Total
13
12
4
624 participants have attended 28 IGT-organised courses up to October 2011. A further 523
have attended 24 TCDC governance-related courses and 57 participants at three tailormade courses at TCDC.
The training strategy in 2011 has been to provide ‘strategic training’ courses in accountability
and empowerment to managerial staff in AAI and partner organisations; TOT courses in Asia
for potential trainers who can then provide in-country training for field staff; and
accountability and ELBAG field training in Africa and Asia. The aim is by 2013 that AAI staff
and partners systematically apply JDG methods and approaches in governance work across
the federation.
Three ‘strategic training’ courses on accountability were held at TCDC and one in Nepal, and
three on empowerment held at TCDC. The regional TOT course on Accountability was held
in Bangkok. The in-country trainings were equally balanced between Africa and Asia in
2011. Six in-country trainings on Accountability were held in Asia - Bangladesh, Myanmar,
Nepal, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Six in-country trainings on Accountability took
place in Africa - Liberia, Ghana, South Africa, Malawi, Gambia, Kenya, and three ELBAG
trainings in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania (at TCDC).
Table 3: IGT courses held in 2011
Course
TCDC
Strategic course on accountability
3
Strategic course on empowerment
3
Africa
Asia
1
In-country accountability courses
6
In-country empowerment courses
1
Regional TOT on accountability
6
1
In-country Elbag training
1
Workshops for CDs on ELBA & taxation
1
2
Workshops for CDs on hidden power
1
Accountability TM DevW/S
1
Mid-term evaluation
1
Total
10
9
9
The Training for Change evaluation gathered data through two electronic surveys from
participants in governance trainings and managers who sent participants on courses or
commissioned governance trainings. The samples were drawn from participants on 2009/10
12
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
courses and commissioning mangers of 2010 courses in order to assess the usefulness of
the courses and any resulting change on governance work.
Survey responses were collected from a total of 111 training participants and 22 managers.
Their responses do not refer to IGT courses exclusively but to both IGT and TCDC courses
on governance. Nonetheless, their responses offer some pointers to quality and
effectiveness of governance training provided by AADK.
Just over half of the participants who responded to the survey were AA, former MS or
partner staff; 46.7% came from other CSOs. The responses of participants were
overwhelmingly positive. Over 54% rated the courses as excellent and on a scale of 1-10
(excellent); the average score for all respondents was 8.64. 89.4% of participants considered
the course ‘very relevant’ to their work. 52.9 % said the course had improved ‘a lot’ the
delivery of their work and 41.3% ‘to some extent’. Evaluation reports collated by TCDC for
IGT governance training courses also provide very positive feedback.
All of the managers who had sent staff on or commissioned governance courses felt that it
had helped them to deliver governance-related work - 57.1% ‘a lot’, 42.9% ‘to some extent’.
92.9% said they would use T4C again for governance courses (13 of 14 respondents).
However, staff from partner organisations and local CSOs tended to see the benefits of the
course e.g. in terms of improved understanding of the topic; practical tools to apply at work;
enhanced skill and confidence more highly than AADK/MS staff. This is reflected in the
degree to which participants were able subsequently to apply the learning from the course in
their work, as illustrated below:
To what extent have you used the learning
from the course in your work?
Other
Another civil society organisation
MS Partner
MS Office
ActionAid Partner
ActionAid Office
0
1
Not at all
2
3
4
To some extent
A little
A lot
Training participants were asked how future trainings might be improved. Four issues
emerged:
 A more practical approach: this was the most frequent comment by participants
e.g. “ more practical sessions”; “improve the variety of practical/field work”; “time to
present from ground experience”; “ participants should be given homework to come
up with relevant case studies for presentation”.
13
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012



Follow up: participants were keen to continue to build on the trainings e.g. “continue
communicating with alumni… to share new learning…. not covered through the
course”; “include follow up to support participants to carry out project in relation to
course learning”
Length of course: many participants suggested that the length of the course should
be extended so that more practical work can be incorporated.
Cost: some participants commented on the high cost of the training, the associated
travel costs; and the preference for in-country training.
2.2. Building Just and Democratic Governance at Local and National Level
IGT support to this objective has focused on two areas of work - strengthening ELBAG in
countries and, more generally, promoting key concepts of the JDG approach such as
people-centred decentralisation, participatory democracy, the right to information and anticorruption.
 Strengthening ELBAG
IGT support to strengthening ELBAG has consisted of mapping and supporting ELBAG
initiatives and compiling best practice and lessons learned in accountability. A number of
written outputs were planned to support ELBAG work at local and national level in 2011. Not
all of these have materialised as originally envisaged.
 The plan to produce a best practice paper on ELBAG was revised. A CD was
produced in June 2011 instead which documents how illiterate community members
have been supported to understand basic governance issues such as national
budgets; tax awareness; and expenditure tracking and monitoring at community
level, and been able to hold duty bearers to account.
 It was also intended to map some best practices on Accountability and
Empowerment and produce a report. It has proved to be difficult to elicit best practice
experience from countries and the aim now to incorporate best practice into the
ELBAG series handbooks rather than produce a separate publication.
 A Brazilian edition of a “Critical Watch on Public Policy Monitoring and Societal
Accountability” has been translated into English as planned and it is hoped to
distribute later this year.
 It was also planned to develop a paper on the HRBA approach in conflict-affected
situations. This has been delayed in part through the maternity leave of the staff
member leading this. Studies on Myanmar, Ethiopia and RDC have been
commissioned it is hoped to produce the report by the end of February.
 The team has also been working on producing a women’s’ political participation
resource pack since 2010. This is an interesting example of active collaboration with
another AAI theme - along with its leadership of the National Development Strategy
(NDS) project (see Section 2.3). Case study material has been gathered from four
countries and a workshop held with AAI programme staff in April 2011. The resource
pack is now expected to be available in December 2011.
The 2011 work plan commits to improving the management ELBAG website by resolving a
longstanding problem regarding the ownership and administration of the site. A three-year
MOU has recently been signed with AA India and a local organisation to reactivate and
upgrade the site. The site, which should be an important resource for AAI staff and partners
14
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
on the ELBAG approach, is currently unattractive and lacking in content. None of the content
produced by the IGT since 2010 is available on the website. This is an opportunity wasted to
disseminate the work of the team beyond AAI as a federation.
The team has also provided support through the Regional Coordinators to national-level
ELBAG platforms. ELBAG/NDS strategic training was held for staff and partners at TCDC in
May 2011. In Africa, Burundi staff and partners were supported to participate in the Social
Movement training in TCDC, and ELBAG training was held in Liberia with support from the
WACAR Secretariat. ELBAG workshops were held in Nicaragua and Guatemala in April/May
2011.
An interesting initiative is that the IGT has also sought to support the development of ELBAG
work in Europe. IGT presented the ELBAG approach in a seminar organised by the Europe
Antipoverty Network (EAPN) in September 2011 and an ELBAG workshop for EAPN and AA
Europe countries is planned to be held in early 2012.
 Promoting key concepts.
The 2011 work plan envisaged documenting good practice and producing and distributing
four concept reports on key elements of the ELBAG approach. Only two of the four are likely
to be produced by February 2012.
 A good practice paper on Participatory Democracy in Brazil has been produced and it
is intended to distribute it electronically to country programmes in December 2011.
The concept paper, drawing upon this paper and the University of Syracuse studies
(see below) is planned to be delivered in February 2012,
 A concept paper on People-centred Decentralisation is planned for January 2011,
drawing upon a study of good practices in Africa and Asia has been completed with
support from students from the University of Syracuse. The good practice study is to
be complemented by case studies from Nicaragua, Guatemala and Bolivia, only the
first of which has been completed.
 It was also intended to map and document good practice, and produce concept
papers on Right to Information and Anti-Corruption. An internal discussion paper has
been produced on these issues but it is no longer planned to produce the concept
papers within the lifetime of the current IGT. The priority is now to produce the
remaining three ELBAG handbooks on Power, Voice and Democracy. Relevant
material gathered from the above documentary exercises will be incorporated into the
series.
A number of activities were also planned in support of the concepts above:
 IGT planned to link with the Activista programme to work with youth groups and
media fora to promote the Right to Information during 2011. However, this has been
restricted to regional dialogue with youth in the EASA region on how to engage in
anti-corruption work through the use of media.
 It has provided some on-going support to the Freedom of Information coalition in
Nigeria and other WACA countries.
 A report by IBASE in Brazil has been produced but not yet distributed to encourage a
debate on the accountability of the extractive industries in Latin America and Africa.
 IGT has supported a series lectures and workshops in four cities in China on the
experiences of participatory democracy in Brazil. At the request of LogoLink, a global
network of civil society organizations, research institutions and governments working
15
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
to support citizen participation and local government. These were attended by
Logolink partners, academics and local authorities in addition to AA China staff.
While all of the above activities to ‘strengthen ELBAG’ and ‘promote key concepts’ are not
without merit, it is a very disparate portfolio of activities. A more focussed approach might
have helped prioritise and achieve greater synergy between activities.
2.3.
Promoting cross-cutting work
This body of work in 2011 has consisted in promoting governance work as a cross-cutting
issue work and support for the AAI priority project National Development Strategies (NDS)
i.e. the development and promotion of alternative models of development.
 Promoting cross cutting work
The focus for cross-cutting work in the plan was to promote exchange visits of AA and
partner staff working in governance and to support the development of governance
programmes through ‘advisors’ and ‘inspirators’. In practice, little has been done in terms of
exchange visits although the IGT has facilitated the visit of a delegation of youth leaders
from Malaysia to Vietnam. Similarly, although a number of Country Directors interviewed
expressed their enthusiasm for the concept of inspirators in particular, little concrete
progress has been made in integrating them into governance programmes. TORs are
currently being developed for the placement of inspirators in Nigeria on economic justice and
Kenya on tax justice and NDS. Tanzania and Cambodia have expressed interest in having
inspirators supporting their work on NDS.
 Support for National Development Strategies
Support to National Development Strategies (NDS) was identified as one of three priorities
for AAI at the Country Directors meeting in 2010, along with the HungerFREE campaign and
HRBA. Support for the development and promotion of alternative models of development
features prominently in the new AAI strategy. The project includes programme and policy
work on tax justice, social protection, and access to essential services and was seen as an
initiative that would help break down a silo culture in AAI and help to build coalitions with
other national civil society actors. It was agreed in 2010 that the IGT would be responsible
for the delivery of the priority.
An analytical framework to assist country-level policy research and analysis was developed
in 2010 and support work begun in Kenya, Nigeria and Nepal. In 2011 the plan was to roll
out in six focal countries - Nepal, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Cambodia and Guatemala.
Guatemala has subsequently been dropped from the list but other countries such as
Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Uganda have expressed interest in engaging with
NDS work. It was also planned to document and share the experience of ‘observatory’
countries such as Brazil, India and Sierra Leone. This is now postponed to 2012 although
some experiences e.g. on social protection in Brazil, have been documented.
Work has been carried forward in the five focal countries on stakeholder mapping, convening
coalition meetings, commissioning research e.g. on local tax reform, inequality. The concept
of alternative development strategies has been incorporated into ELBAG trainings e.g. for
staff and partners at TCDC in May 2011. Approximately 45 people, mostly AAI staff,
participated in a knowledge building seminar held in Kenya in October 2011 to share
experiences from ‘flagship’ countries. A concept paper on taxation for financing alternatives
16
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
has been produced and a TCDC course of tax justice is planned for November 2011. It is
hoped that this preparatory work will form the basis for national advocacy work in 2012.
Further cross-cutting work in support of NDS has consisted in IGT participation in panel
debates and discussions at the World Social Forum in Dakar; establishing links with IDEAS,
a regional research centre based in India; and small grant support for Network for
Transformative Social Protection.
2.4.
Supporting fundraising, funding and knowledge sharing
This objective focuses on supporting country programme fundraising for governance work; a
Seed Fund to support country level initiatives in governance; and facilitating shared learning
on governance.
 Fundraising
A key action in the work plan is to support country programmes in developing fundraising
proposals for governance work. IGT have supported AA Uganda to develop funding proposal
to the EC for work on social accountability and AA USA to develop a funding proposal to
expand ELBAG work in Africa. The only example known to the evaluation to date of IGT
support resulting in major donor funding for governance work has been in Myanmar. Seed
Funding (see below) in 2010 enabled the country programme to pilot work on local
government accountability which has proved to be a significant factor in leveraging EC
funding for the same kind of work this year. This is a good example of IGT seed funding
establishing the nucleus of a body of work which has subsequently funded by a major donor.
 Seed Fund
The “Just and Democratic Governance Seed Fund” was established by the IGT in 2010 to
support to governance programmes at country level and has played a major role in
publicising and popularising the work of the IGT in country programmes. The Seed Fund has
a budget of 5 million DK (c. £575,000). Grant applications must not exceed £30,000 for a
one year project or £60,000 for a two year project and fall within the scope and priorities of
the JDG theme. The Guidelines for the Fund do not specify any criteria for applicants to the
Fund but the call for applications is advertised through the AAI intranet and all CDs. In
practice, all grant funded applications have come from AAI country offices.
In 2010, the focus of the Fund was on Accountability work and connecting local and national
levels in governance work. £434,437 was approved to support seventeen projects - ten in
Africa, five in Asia and two in Latin America – in that year. In 2011 IGT prioritised grant
applications related to provision of essential services; progressive tax reform; and
strengthening movements for popular democracy. 15 projects have been approved - ten in
Africa and five in Asia - and it is expected £450,000 will be disbursed this year.
The purpose of the Fund is more to ‘kick start’ work on governance than to promote
innovation. Projects funded have tended to focus strengthening CSO capacity in governance
work and/or raising awareness, and advocating on e.g. more equitable, accountable service
provision. An interesting case study of how seed funding can enable a country programme to
‘scale up’ its governance work is shown below.
17
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Myanmar: Scaling up with Seed Funding
Since 2006 ActionAid Myanmar (AAM), through ActionAid ‘fellows’ and youth village volunteers,
has worked with four partners to empower local communities on governance issues. In 2010 AAM
received Seed Funds to draw on the positive engagement of local communities and authorities to
take the next innovative step to improve governance at local level by building the capacity of local
governance representatives to help deliver public services with greater transparency and
accountability. 40 village communities benefited through a ‘training of trainers’ approach. 20 AAM
and partner staff participated in a training of trainers’ course on accountability and subsequently
trained 40 local government representatives on social audits, village development plans,
community mobilization and other topics. The programme was recently very positively reviewed
by UNDEF. AAM has recently received a grant of 314,000 euros from the EC to scale up the
programme and been encouraged to apply for a further grant of 1.5 million euros.
 Knowledge sharing
IGT has included activities in its 2010 and 2011 plans to help to facilitate learning and
experience-sharing in governance work among country programmes. These have centred
around plans to promote the visibility and accessibility of governance work through a
governance page on the AAI intranet; to facilitate information-sharing through the country
programme visits; to organise regional and annual governance meetings; and to promote
links inside and outside AAI.
Investment in the use of the AAI intranet as a communications and knowledge-sharing tool
has not been prioritised and investment has been comparatively limited. The IGT staff
member responsible for this area of work is also responsible for financial management and
reporting. The latter responsibility has consumed more of her time - in part, since IGT has to
maintain separate financial systems for the Secretariat and AADK. IGT maintains a
governance page on the AA intranet which provides some information on the work of the
team and access to key documents. However, the use of the intranet as a communications
and knowledge-sharing tool e.g. through the use of blogs and communities of practice, has
been under-exploited.
IGT Regional Coordinators play a key role in establishing relationships with the country
offices and local partners; supporting country initiatives in governance; and learning from
and sharing programme experiences of the countries. The Regional Coordinators have
made 29 visits to 19 AAI country programmes in total - 10 in Africa, six in Asia and three in
Latin America/Caribbean. Other IGT members have visited additional countries.
An annual meeting of the IGT took place in Copenhagen in June 2011 though this was
principally an internal meeting of the team. No regional meetings e.g. between governance
focal persons in country programmes, have been held as anticipated. IGT staff have
networked externally visiting or participating in fora such as South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC), CONCORD, European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) and
the 2011 Oslo Governance Forum.
18
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
2.5. Conclusions
The IGT has achieved a number of tangible successes since AADK assumed responsibility
in 2010 for leading the Just and Democratic Governance theme. These achievements
provide a platform for future support to governance work in the new AAI strategy.
At the same time it has underperformed in relation to some targets in ambitious work plans
during 2010/11. This has been due to a number of factors- for example, the delay in
establishing a full team and the revisions required to the 2011 work plan by the AAI
Secretariat. IGT members also acknowledged that they perhaps had underestimated the
complexities of working within a federation where country programmes have considerable
autonomy. For example, the difficulties in obtaining case study and best practice materials
from country programmes probably contributed to the delays in the production of some
written outputs. In retrospect, a stronger sense of prioritisation of outputs would have been
advisable.
The exceptional nature of AADK’s leadership within AAI of the JDG theme, and the
sensitivities surrounding it, also required the team to take a ‘softly, softly’ approach. As one
IGT member said “we threw a baited hook into the ocean and worked with those that bit”.
However, a more explicit, focused work plan to build capacity in governance within the
federation, with a clear sense of the absolute priorities, would have been more effective in
delivering key outputs.
Nonetheless, there is evidence from survey returns that the work of the team is viewed very
positively by those Country Directors and Governance focal people who have had contact
with their work. For example:
 87.5% of Country Directors and 91.6% of governance focal persons who responded
thought the work of the IGT moderately or very important to helping deliver their
governance work.
 88.9% of Country Directors and 92.3% of governance focal persons who responded
would welcome AADK promotion of and support to governance work in the new
strategy.
It has to be borne in mind that only ten Country Directors responded to the survey and 15
governance focal persons, a response rate of just under 30% in both cases. It is also the
case that country-based staff who responded to the survey were largely those who had
experience of IGT support and are, therefore, not representative of all AA Country Directors
and governance focal people more generally. It is possible, however, to draw some
conclusions from the survey results about the perceptions of those country programmes who
have worked with IGT. The perceptions of country staff of the types of support provided by
the IGT is reflected in the following bar chart:
.
19
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Please assess the quality of the following
types of support provided by the IGT.
Seed Fund
Country support
Discussion papers and concept notes
Research
Focal Points
Cross thematic work
Country Directors
Training
Manuals
0
1
Poor
2
Adequate
3
Good
4
Excellent
It is notable that both groups of respondents rate all types of IGT support good or excellent
with the exception of Country Director’s view of IGT research. IGT trainings, manuals and
discussion papers and the Seed Fund score slightly higher than other forms of support,
although country support is also very popular. Research and cross-cutting work score
slightly less well though average a ‘good’ rating.
In Section 2.1 we noted how highly participants and commissioning organisations rated
governance courses. The ratings of Country Directors and governance focal persons further
indicate the quality and effectiveness of IGT-organised governance trainings. In addition to
rating the trainings highly, both survey respondents and interviewees reported to the
evaluation that governance training has had a positive effect on their work and on
governance programmes at country level. By training probably more than 1,000 people in
governance courses since 2010 IGT has contributed significantly to an increased
understanding and commitment to governance work among AAI staff and partners. This
cadre of training ‘graduates’ and body of expertise also provides an invisible but
indispensable platform upon which to deliver Strategic Objective 2 and Key Promise 3 on
governance in the new ActionAid International strategy. In Section 2.1. we noted that IGT
trainings have not been informed by the capacity development analysis originally planned.
Strictly speaking the courses have been supply rather than demand-driven although they
have undoubtedly tapped into a real need.
The IGT has focused a lot of the production of written outputs including concept papers,
good practice papers and the ELBAG series of handbooks. Survey results indicate that
these written outputs are highly valued. However, it would appear that the team has been
overly preoccupied and overambitious with the production of a wide range of papers.
Several papers - both good practice and concept papers - have been cancelled and the
production of others rescheduled. At least eight IGT papers are now due to be produced in
the next three months including the remaining three ELBAG handbooks. A stronger focus
and prioritisation of written outputs might have contributed to the ELBAG handbook series,
the key user-friendly resource for AA and partner staff, being completed sooner.
While the IGT has delivered good quality materials and trainings, it has been less successful
in supporting horizontal learning and knowledge sharing. The mapping of governance work
20
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
and focal points, albeit incomplete, could have provided an informed framework for a
broader understanding of knowledge sharing in the governance theme. It remains to be seen
to what extent the mapping to date of governance work will be superseded by the current
process of eliciting and prioritising governance activities at country level under the strategic
objectives of the new strategy (see Section 5).
IGT was not able to support exchange visits between governance programmes as originally
indicated in the work plan. The need to share experiences across programmes was referred
to in the survey responses of governance focal people and, similarly, participants in
governance training courses expressed the need for more follow up learning after their
courses. The IGT has not prioritised support to an evolving community of practice in
governance across the federation. Although the distinctiveness of each national was
frequently stressed e.g. in Country Director interviews, the need for more horizontal learning
across programmes was referred to by focal persons and training participants.
The Seed Fund, not unsurprisingly, has been popular with Country Directors and focal
persons as a means of supplementing or starting up governance programmes. However,
support to fundraising has been limited and, with the exception of Myanmar, the IGT has not
been instrumental in helping country programmes leverage significantly more resources for
their governance programmes. This raises the question whether the team has the
appropriate skill sets to support fundraising efforts.
IGT support to the NDS project is generally well-regarded by interviewees. Country Directors
and governance focal persons feel, however, that its work has had between a little and
moderate effect in their own context (see bar chart below on their rating of IGT performance
to the roles defined for it in the MOU). Other cross cutting work e.g. to incorporate advisors
and inspirators into governance programmes, has been limited.
21
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
3. AADK leadership of JDG
From its inception, the Agreement between AADK and AAI for AADK to lead the Just and
Democratic Governance theme was meant to pilot a model that might provide valuable
lessons for how a Member might lead an international theme within the AAI Strategy while
being accountable to the AAI Secretariat. The MOU set of management arrangements which
will be considered in two parts in this Section:
 AADK’s leadership of the IGT and its programme of work, and
 The accountability of AADK and IGT to the AAI Secretariat for the leadership of the
theme.
3.1.
Leadership of the IGT
The IGT plans its work annually and each member of the team develops an individual work
plan in line with the team work plan. Team members are expected to provide a monthly
update to the Head, though this has been irregular. The expectation is that the team holds
monthly teleconferences to discuss these updates. In practice these have tended to bimonthly and are not recorded. Similarly, there is a monthly teleconference between the
Head and Director to update on progress but no written reports from the Head on the
progress of the work plan.
While the IGT does provide annual reports the systems of reporting do not provide an
adequate framework to internally and externally monitor progress to work plan, especially
during a period of significant change. The IGT reports annually in an AADK format, a Project
Completion Report, and AAI format, the Annual, Review Reflection and Reporting. Neither
provides a detailed report to planned activity had, for example, a logframe been developed
as a framework to implement and monitor the work of the IGT over a two-year period. A
logframe with clear defined outputs, milestones and indicators might have harnessed the
efforts of the team more effectively to focused outputs. It might also have provided a more
effective framework of accountability e.g. through quarterly reports, to the AAI Secretariat
especially in light of the ineffectiveness of the formal management arrangements agreed in
the MOU (see below). If formal reporting has been weak so also has informal reporting e.g.
through the use of the AA intranet, blogs by the Head or Director etc. The work of the IGT,
much of which is worthy of celebration, has not therefore been as transparent to the
federation as it could, or indeed should, have been.
It is clearly not an easy task to manage a team that is geographically dispersed over four
continents. Relationships between team members are constructive. Adequate internal
systems of work planning and reporting are in place but not consistently implemented.
Some Regional Coordinators commented on the isolation of their position and the need to be
motivated and self-organised. Some team members thought internal communications could
have been improved and thought that leadership of the team could have been more proactive. The position of Regional Coordinators is perhaps where good internal
communications and support mechanisms most needed to overcome a sense of isolation
and encourage mutual learning.
The IGT draws upon a Governance Advisory Committee (GAC) consisting of a group of
Danish governance experts and specialists. This was established by the AADK Board in
22
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
March 2009 prior to the MOU to provide advice in the BLD approach. Subsequent to AADK’s
merger with AAI it has continued to meet about twice a year to discuss issues arising out of
IGT work. The Chair and two other members are from AADK’s Board. While the Committee
has been a useful sounding board for the IGT, its membership is exclusively Danish. AAI is a
federation passionately committed to ensuring Southern voices and perspectives are heard
and it is difficult to envisage how any future advisory or reference group to support
governance work would not require a membership more representative of the federation as a
whole.
3.2.
IGT accountability to AAI
The MOU establishes a new set of governance arrangements to ensure the accountability of
AADK’s leadership of the governance theme to the AAI Secretariat. The AADK Director, in
his role as Director of the IGT, was to report to the CEO in AAI; and be invited to participate
in the International Director (ID) team meeting and any policy and programme fora where
international governance was being discussed.
It might be expected that these arrangements would be diligently observed since the
leadership of an international theme by a Member - a new, Northern Member - was unique in
AAI and not uncontroversial within the Secretariat. However, none of the above
arrangements were implemented. A new AAI Chief Executive took up office in June 2010
and the AADK Director has never formally reported to her or to her predecessor on the work
of the theme. Nor has he attended the IDs meetings as per the MOU. This is not by
conscious design. It simply has not happened. Since the work of the IGT is seen to have
progressed satisfactorily it has never been felt necessary by either side to activate these
arrangements. This, and the lack of an adequate briefing to the new Chief Executive on this
arrangement, is the only explanations offered for the failure to activate the management
mechanisms outlined in the MOU.
An explicit objective of the MOU was to “test the model of Affiliates” doing international work
with accountability directly to the International Secretariat”. It is difficult to say what, if any,
lessons can be drawn from the AADK experience with regard to management arrangements
under these circumstances.
We have noted above that the exceptional nature of AADK’s leadership of an international
theme and the sensitivities surrounding it, led to the team taking a ‘softly, softly’ approach to
rolling out its support to governance work at country level. This may also have contributed to
the team making less effort that it could have to communicate and report more effectively to
the AAI Secretariat and to activate the management mechanisms of the MOU.
This is not to say that IGT members were isolated from the AAI Secretariat. As we shall see
in the next Section, throughout 2011 the IGT Head and Director were very actively and
influentially involved in the development of the new AAI strategy.
4. Lessons learned
A number of lessons for future leadership of an international theme begin to emerge from the
previous analysis. These draw also upon the learning outlined in an internal review
23
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
conducted by the IGT in September 2011.
An evaluation of the work of IGT to date, and any lessons drawn from that, must take into
account that AADK leadership of the governance theme in AAI has taken place at a period of
significant change - in AAI, in AADK and within the IGT itself. The departure of original team
members from the IGT in early 2010 meant that a full team has been in place for only 12
months. The heavy involvement of the Head and Director in the development of the AAI
strategy in 2010/11 has affected the amount of time available to lead the team. There was
an inadequate handover to the new AAI Chief Executive regarding the management
agreement surrounding the MOU. A current process of restructuring in the AAI secretariat
casts uncertainty over the future of IGT and individual staff. Three lessons can be drawn
from this with regard to the new strategy:
 The importance of continuity
The break in continuity in the work of IGT in 2010 and subsequent and loss of institutional
memory contributed to delays in taking the work forward. Knowledge of country programmes
and relationships with key staff had to be initiated anew. It will now be a challenge not to lose
the knowledge, expertise, and relationship that the IGT has established under new working
arrangements to support strategy objectives.
 The need to prioritise
The 2011 work plan, even when revised, would have benefited from increased focus and
prioritisation e.g. on those activities which are indispensable to key outputs such as the
ELBAG handbooks. The work plan of an international team in the new strategy, especially
when it is dependent on leveraging the collaboration of country programmes, needs to be
realistic and prioritised.
 The importance of credible ‘champions’
The culture of AAI is characterised by the principle of subsidiarity in which country
programmes have considerable autonomy within the federation. The fact that the IGT, as a
new team, has been able to quickly develop relationships with country programmes and
maintain a positive interface has much to do with having an experienced Head who was
well-connected in AAI, and an effective ‘champion’ for governance in the Director. Credible
leadership of international teams may play an importance role in delivering the objectives of
the new strategy.
A number of other potential lessons for the future can be drawn from the IGT experience to
date:
 The need for clear mandate for international work
The agreement that AADK should lead the JDG theme in AAI was not without its sensitivities
- for example, the evaluation noted an ongoing reflection among several respondents about
the relative importance of governance as a stand-alone theme or cross-cutting issue and the
relative opportunities and risks of Member affiliates leading international work. The ‘softly,
softly’ approach of the IGT to promoting the work of governance across the federation was
perhaps sensible but it has led to its interface with and accountability to the Secretariat has
being weak. It will be important that current discussions on operationalising the strategy
address any ongoing ambivalences on these issues by providing Affiliate support to
24
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
international teams to take the strategy forward with a clear mandate and project structure,
strong leadership, clear TOR and a transparent system of accountability to the Secretariat.
 The need to communicate effectively
The same sensitivities surrounding a Member’s leadership of international work has
contributed to the IGT not taking full advantage to communicate - and celebrate - its support
to governance work as effectively as it could within AAI. It was recognised in retrospect in
IGT internal reporting for 2010and Country Directors report that IGT could improve its
communications. A governance Link newsletter that was circulated by the previous IGT was
not continued and not replaced with an alternative vehicle for updating AAI staff and partners
on governance work. The ELBAG website, established before 2010, as a vehicle for IGT
documents and good practice, is poor and does not offer a platform for ELBAG-related
products and processes supported by IGT. A Governance theme page on Hive was set up in
second quarter of 2010 but has yet to fully exploit its potential. Support to governance work
under the new strategy should exploit more fully the opportunities to communicate effectively
on the work to the objective using the wide range of options available with electronic media.
 Balance knowledge ‘products’ with knowledge processes
The IGT has been successful in offering tangible products that support or add value to the
efforts of country programmes and partners in the area of governance. By providing highlyrated governance courses and high quality materials to support them, IGT clearly has
produced something that ‘works’; that has met a real need; and created an important, skilled
constituency of support for governance work within the new strategy.
Future support to international governance should build on this legacy and seek a better
balance between the knowledge products and processes. The work of the IGT has been
largely knowledge-based and knowledge-rich. However, the delivery model has been largely
restricted to written outputs and the provision of training. With the establishment of a
sizeable constituency of staff and partners working in governance it is recommended that
greater attention be paid to horizontal system of learning e.g. exchange visits, easy-to-use
content through the web, user-friendly database/s, virtual communities of practice etc.
 Achieve synergy within a capacity building framework
The IGT, while coordinating with Training for Change to deliver governance training, has
included other relevant AADK programming initiatives, e.g. People for Change and Activista,
into its work plan only to a limited extent. However, Country Directors generally viewed
positively the potential role of e.g. Activistas and inspirators in their programmes.
Opportunities exist for greater synergy between these different approaches to strengthening
capacity of AAI staff, partners and Southern civil society.
AADK has demonstrated a distinctive contribution to AAI in the form of capacity building,
more specifically through training. Future support for international work on governance work
would benefit from a more explicit capacity building framework within AAI. This should
encompass training; institutional strengthening e.g. through advisors; mentoring; and
knowledge sharing including peer-to-peer exchange (such as Inspirators) and web-based
tools. This would enable AADK to coordinate and achieve more synergy between its different
programme components.
25
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
 Clarify and renew the concept of partnership
A capacity building framework would clarify whose capacity is to be strengthened so that
delivery systems and materials can be customised for different target groups. An issue of
particular importance to Danida, for example, is that AADK is able to demonstrate how and
how much its support to international governance work within AAI provides direct benefits to
Southern civil society e.g. through training offered to local civil society organisations.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible for the evaluation to obtain a breakdown of
participants in TCDC and in-country training by AAI staff, partners and other civil society
organisations. It is recommended that both TCDC and IGT begin to store their data on
courses so that this information can be disaggregated. Data management systems should
also be revised to ensure that the number of people attending courses can be distinguished
from the number of participants i.e. in cases when individuals attend more than one course,
during any reporting period.
5. Implications of new AAI strategy
The new AAI strategy offers an opportunity to AADK to continue to promote and support
governance work in the federation in two key respects.
1. There is a specific governance objective, Objective 2, in the strategy i.e. to “advance
the political influence of people living in poverty to hold governments and corporates
accountable”. Furthermore the definition and description of the objective draws upon
ADDK’s governance approach and areas of expertise. The IGT produced a draft
paper in July 2011 on the pivotal role of Governance in the new AAI strategy
identifying six key governance work areas. Linked to this objective, key promise 3
makes a more specific commitment i.e. “By 2017, through holding governments and
corporates to account, we will have secured improvements in the quality, equity and
gender responsiveness of public services for five million people living in poverty”.
2. Organisational Objective priority 6 commits AAI to “develop effective systems of
delegating responsibilities to members’. In the case of members assuming
responsibility for some area of international work this ‘will be based on consistent and
transparent criteria and clear accountability agreements with the Secretariat in order
to ensure ongoing oversight, equal power among members an coherence with other
threads of work”
The inclusion of these two elements of the strategy is seen by a number of respondents as
potentially the biggest impact of AADK and the IGT. In particular, the potential scope for
AADK to influence governance work in the federation has been extended by the inclusion of
governance as a strategy objective and the organisational commitment to key promise 3.
The IGT Director and Head were active and influential in the development of the new AAI
strategy which was finalised in October 2011. Both participated in the AAI working group that
evaluated the previous AAI strategy and in the writing group to develop the new AAI
strategy. One estimate is that this took 20% of the Director’s time and 30% of the team
Leader’s time during the period August 2010 - June of 2011. The IGT continues to influence
the federation’s thinking about how to operationalise the strategy with two IGT members, the
Team Leader and Regional Coordinator for Asia, participating in the working group focusing
on Strategic Objective 2.
26
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
At first sight the commitment to governance as a stand-alone objective and the recognition
that Members can be delegated responsibilities for international work should provide an
opportunity for AADK to continue to promote and support governance work across the
federation. However, work to develop an operational framework is still underway and there
are ongoing discussions on key issues such as whether working groups to support strategy
objectives should hold budgets. The current process of restructuring within the Secretariat
provides a further uncertainty. IGT staff contracts have been extended till February 2011 but
all Secretariat staff (i.e. all members of the IGT with the exception of Copenhagen-based
staff who are seconded to the IGT by AADK) have to apply for posts within the new
structure.
In anticipation of the new strategy AADK has continued to evolve its own thinking on its
future contribution to governance work. An internal review of the theme in September 2011
envisaged its ongoing support to AAI international governance work in three modalities:



Programme funding and perhaps management of multi-year projects in support of
Objective 2 to which AADK could also provide a specialist advice and support.
Seed funding, managed in partnership by AADK and the Programme Directorate. It is
not clear whether this would be in support of key promises 3 and 4or issues of
citizens’ accountability across all objectives.
Support to ‘knowledge hubs’ on governance issues e.g. in three or four Southern
countries, that could be sources of expertise in the regions close to the ‘point of
delivery’.
AAI is currently conducting a detailed process on how to operationalise the new strategy;
and to fulfil its strategic objectives and the key promises associated with them. A prioritised
list of key actions at local, national and international level under each objective in the
strategy will be finalised by March 2012. This should provide a clearer definition of the
current and proposed portfolio of work under each objective at country level. It is expected
that country programme strategies will be revised or developed in next the two years in line
with the corporate strategy. While country programmes remain the key operational unit with
the federation it is anticipated that international work in support of the strategy objectives
could be supported by the Secretariat in the form of ‘communities of practice’ or ‘working
groups’ composed, for example, of staff with relevant expertise in the different units e.g.
Campaigns, Policy and Research etc. under the Director of Programmes.
It has to be acknowledged that there remains a degree of caution among some members of
the Secretariat regarding how Members might assume a delegated ‘leadership’
responsibility. There are various dimensions to this:
 Thinking around the current strategy is seeking to redress what was perceived to be
a ‘silo’ culture’ e.g. in relation to work on priority themes, that prevailed in the
previous strategy. Differential investment in, for example strategy objectives might
prolong such a silo culture.
 This allowed for a ‘methodological pluralism’ that enabled a variety of methodologies
and trainings to be developed and promoted within the federation. The emphasis is
now on bringing these together under the umbrella of the HRBA approach.
27
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012


There is a culture of subsidiarity in AAI in which countries are the key operational
unit. There is a reluctance to allow the Secretariat budget to grow in proportion to
country budgets. For example, the current restructuring is seeking to reduce the
number of staff in the Secretariat by nearly a third. There is some reluctance to the
concept of the Secretariat managing larger budgets on behalf of Members, and more
especially at Northern Members managing such ‘pots’ of funds independent from the
systems for resource allocation within the federation.
AAI is a federation in which half of full and associate members are from the South.
There is a natural wariness about Northern members using their funding resources to
drive their own agendas or ‘cherry pick’ programmes.
Nonetheless, there is evidence from this evaluation that AADK support to international
governance has been effective in key respects and that it has a level of credibility among
country programmes. The accumulated experience and expertise of the IGT is an asset
which should continue to inform and support governance work within the new strategy.
There are a number of ways in which this could be done under current thinking in AAI. A
critical dimension of choice will be the level of leadership assigned to working groups in
support of strategy objectives and whether they have a budget-holding responsibility. Two
contrasting models of supporting international governance come to mind, as illustrated by
the following table:
Table 4: Models of support to international governance in AAI
Style
Objective
Scope
Budget
Community of practice
Facilitation
Team
Leadership
Knowledge-sharing in governance
Cross-cutting all Objectives
Achievement of key promises
Objective 2
Yes or no
Yes
 A community of practice on international governance
The primary objective of community of practice on international governance could be to
encourage learning across country programmes e.g. in support of citizen accountability
across all Objectives. The operative principle would be one of facilitation rather than
leadership. This might take the form of individual/s within the Secretariat being responsible
to identify and convene Governance specialists in country programmes in a learning network
to reflect and share their experiences. This could take place, for example, through webbased communities of practice and chat groups with in-house experts and/or exchange
visits. The scope and scale of knowledge-sharing activities would depend on whether
earmarked funds were available to the network. Priority activities in support of Objective 2
e.g. capacity building, research and policy work and advocacy, would be incorporated within
Directorate and departmental plans and budgets.
 An international governance team
The primary objective of the team would be to coordinate and support country-based and
international governance work to achieve key promises 3 and 4. The operative principle
would be one of leadership rather than facilitation. An international team could be formed
consisting of specialists within the Secretariat and country-based programmes with full or
part-time responsibilities for governance work. The Programme Directorate would clearly
define roles and responsibilities to develop plans of work in coordination with country
28
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
programmes to ensure the key promises are achieved. Earmarked funds could be available
to the team at an international level to support these plans of work to strengthen capacity,
learning exchange, research and policy and campaigning in support of the objective.
The latter approach is a similar modus operandi to that of the current IGT. This could enable
AADK to fund a portfolio of governance work; seed fund innovative or start up initiatives; and
support knowledge management/sharing in governance. A key question would be whether a
lead responsibility for delivering a key promise could be delegated to a Member e.g. as
Project Director or Sponsor of a strategy objective. This is distinct from a Member playing a
leading role in delivering a key promise.
In both cases AADK would need to ensure it meets the expectations of both AAI and Danida
with regard to the accountability.
With regard to AAI, the key principle is that the AAI Chief Executive and/or Director of
Programmes is responsible for harnessing resources across the federation to ensure that
key promises are achieved. This would include how human resources are organised; how
groups working in support of objectives are accountable to the Secretariat; and how to
leverage member funding and expertise in support of objectives and promises. This
executive responsibility could be complemented by ‘advisory’ or ‘reference groups’ broadly
representative of country programmes contributing to the objectives that would review and/or
approve work plans and reports. Both mechanisms would work to ensure that a Member
leading the delivery of an objective or promise would be fully accountable to AAI and the AAI
Secretariat.
In order to be accountable to its Frame Agreement with Danida, AADK will need to
demonstrate the effectiveness of channelling funds through AADK in support of governance
work in the South. In particular, it will need to deliver on three inter-related fronts:
 Demonstrate its ‘added value’ as an interlocutor with Southern civil society.
 Describe how its work benefits Southern civil society
 Provide an ‘audit trail’ of how Danida funding strengthens Southern civil society in
line with the Civil Society Strategy.
The evidence of this evaluation indicates that AADK, in a comparatively short period has
demonstrated effective leadership and expertise, and a clear ‘added value’ in strengthening
the capacity of AA and partner staff and other CSOs in governance work. This is an asset
that should continue to play a role in the fulfilment of the new AAI strategy. This will require
AADK to broaden its approach to strengthening capacity and move into new areas such
policy and research.
29
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Annex 1: Summary of people interviewed
Name
Position
IGT
Frans Mikael Jansen
Birte Hald
Jorge Romano
Tasleem Mazhar
Upendranadh Choraqudi
Ivan Salinas
Thomas Johnny
Robin Griggs
Maria Justiniano
Jesper E. Lauridsen
International Governance Director
International Director
International Governance Head
Capacity Development Specialist
Governance Coordinator Asia
Governance Coordinator Americas
Governance Coordinator WACA
Governance Theme Specialist
Governance Theme Specialist
Governance Theme Specialist
AAI Governance/Secretariat
Joanna Maycock
Anne Jellema
David Archer
Rachel Moussie
Irene Ovonji-Odida
Action Aid Country Offices
Shihab Uddin Ahamad
Farah Kabir
Charles Businge
Hussaini Abdu
GB Adhikari
Uzma Tahir
Key respondents
Stephanie de Chassy
Head of Europe
International Director, Policy, Campaigns and
Women’s Rights
Head of Education Team
Women’s Rights Advisor
Chair of AAI Board
AA Myanmar, Country Director
AA Bangladesh, Country Director
AA Uganda, Country Director
AA Nigeria, Country Director
Former AA Afghanistan, Country Director
AA Pakistan, Manager Policy Advocacy &
Research
Head of Social Policy & Governance, Oxfam GB
30
Evaluation of ActionAid Denmark | Report Governance Theme | INTRAC January 2012
Annex 2: Selective bibliography
AADK
MOU related to collaborative work related to International JDG theme and team, date?
Concept paper? “Just and Democratic Governance Theme” September 2011
MS in Transition September 2011
IGT
2010 annual plan and report
2011 annual plan and update on progress (October 2011)
Individual work plans and monthly updates
JGD Project completion reports 2010 and 2011
JGD Annual, Review Reflection and reporting 2010.
“Right to Just and Democratic Governance: Strategic Concept Paper” November 2010
“Pivotal role of Governance in ActionAid’s 20102-2017 strategy” draft July 2011.
Knowledge Hubs
AAI
AAI strategy 2006-10
AAI strategy 2011- 17
“Operationalising Objective 2: Advance the political influence of people living in poverty to
hold government and corporates accountable” HRBA Working Group draft paper October
2011”
Reviews/Evaluations
“Building local democracy: a review of MS programmes. Synthesis report”
MS ActionAid Thematic Review & Feedback and follow from MS March 2010
“ActionAid Strategic Plan JDG 2006-10: Review report”, 2010
“Taking Stock: Asia Perspective and JDG theme observations”, 0ctober 2010.
31