MFS II Joint Evaluation of international lobbying and advocacy

841 Pages·2015·9.62 MB·English

MFS II EVALUATIONS

Joint evaluations of the Dutch Co-Financing System 2011 - 2015

Civil Society contribution to policy change

_______

International Lobbying & Advocacy report

_______
July 2015

SGE
Stichting Gezamenlijke Evaluaties
PREFACE

This report is one of a series of evaluation reports, consisting of ten reports in total, reflecting the
results of the jointly-organised MFS II evaluation:
- eight country reports (India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Uganda, Indonesia, DR Congo, Liberia, Pakistan);
- a synthesis report (covering the eight country studies); and
- a report with the results of the international lobbying and advocacy programmes.

This series of reports assessed the 2011-2015 contribution of the Dutch Co-Financing System (MFS II)
towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, strengthening international civil society,
setting the international agenda and changing decision-makers’ policy and practice, with the ultimate
goal of reducing structural poverty. On July 2nd, 2015, the reports were approved by the independent
steering committee (see below), which concluded that they meet the quality standards of validity,
reliability and usefulness set by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

MFS II has been the 2011-2015 grant framework for Co-Financing Agencies (CFAs). A total of 20
alliances of Dutch CFAs were awarded € 1.9 billion in MFS II grants by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
CFAs receiving MFS II funding work through partnerships with Southern partner organisations
supporting a wide range of development activities in over 70 countries and at the global policy level.

The MFS II framework required each alliance to carry out independent external evaluations of the
effective use of the available funding. These evaluations had to meet quality standards in terms of
validity, reliability and usefulness. The evaluations had to focus on four categories of priority result
areas, as defined by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and comprise baseline assessments serving as a
basis for measuring subsequent progress.

Out of the 20 alliances receiving MFS II funding, 19 decided to have their MFS II-funded activities
evaluated jointly. These 19 alliances formed the Stichting Gezamenlijke Evaluaties (SGE)1, which
acted on their behalf in relation to the joint MFS II evaluation. The SGE was assisted by an ‘Internal
Reference Group’, consisting of seven evaluation experts of the participating CFAs.

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO/WOTRO) managed the evaluation and
selected ten research teams to carry out the joint MFS II evaluation: eight teams responsible for
carrying out studies at country level, one team responsible for the synthesis of these country studies,
and one team responsible for the study of international lobbying and advocacy. Each study comprises
a baseline assessment (2012) and a final assessment (2014). Research teams were required to
analyse the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of development interventions funded by MFS II.
An independent steering committee was appointed to verify whether the studies met with the
required quality standards. In its appraisal, the steering committee drew on assessments by two
separate advisory committees.

1 Stichting Gezamenlijke Evaluaties can be translated as Joint Evaluation Trust.
The evaluation has been implemented independently. The influence of the CFAs was limited to giving
feedback on the first draft reports, in particular to correct inaccuracies. The contents and
presentation of information in this report, including annexes and attachments, are therefore entirely
the responsibility of the research team and/or NWO/WOTRO.
However, as SGE we are responsible for adding this preface, the list with parties involved and a
table of contents, in the cases that the report is a compilation of several reports.
In addition we would like to note that when reference is made to individual case studies, these have
to be seen as illustrative examples, and not as representative for the whole partner portfolio of a
CFA.

The Dutch CFAs participating in this unique joint evaluation are pleased that the evaluation process
has been successfully completed, and thank all the parties involved for their contribution (see the
next pages for all the parties involved). We hope that the enormous richness of the report will serve
not only accountability but also learning.

Bart Romijn
Chair of the ‘Stichting Gezamenlijke Evaluaties’

c/o Partos
Ellermanstraat 18B
1114 AK Amsterdam
www.partos.nl
[email protected]
Annex
Consortium MFS II - Programme 2011 – 2015
The authors of the International Lobbying & Advocacy report
Dr. Margit van Wessel (project leader)
Drs. Bodille Arensman
Dr. Jennifer B. Barrett
Ir. Arend Jan van Bodegom
Prof. Dr. Dorothea Hilhorst
Ir. Dieuwke C. Klaver
Dr. Elisabet D. Rasch
MSc. Wolfgang Richert
Drs. Cornélie van Waegeningh
Dr. Annemarie Wagemakers

The SGE Consortia (and their lead organisations)

Freedom from fear (PAX)
United Entrepreneurship Coalition (Spark)
Impact Alliance (Oxfam Novib)
Communities of Change Cordaid)
WASH Alliance (Simavi)
People Unlimited 4.1 (Hivos)
Dutch Consortium for Rehabilitation (ZOA)
SRHR Alliance (Rutgers)
ICCO Alliance (ICCO)
Connect4Change (IICD)
Conn@ct Now (War Child)
Woord en Daad & Red een Kind Alliance (Woord en Daad)
Together4Change (International Child Support)
Child Rights Alliance (PLAN Netherlands)
Ecosystem Alliance (IUCN)
Partners for Resilience (Nederlandse Rode Kruis)
Press Freedom 2.0 (Free Press Unlimited)
Fair Green and Global (Both ENDS)
Kind en Ontwikkeling (Terre des Hommes)

The SGE Board
Bart Romijn (Partos/chair)
Ben Witjes (Hivos)
Harry Derksen (New World Campus)
Jan Lock (Woord en Daad)
Dianda Veldman (Rutgers)
Lucia Helsloot (Partos)
Marouschka Booy (independent consultant)
Mirjam Locadia (Partos, until 09/2014)
Alexander Kohnstamm (Partos, until 10/2013)
The SGE Internal Reference Group
Yvonne Es (Oxfam Novib)
Rens Rutten (Cordaid)
Karel Chambille (Hivos)
Peter Das (ZOA)
Ruth van Zorge (Rutgers)
Dieneke de Groot (ICCO)
Wouter Rijneveld (independent)

NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
Dr. Martijn Wienia (programme coordinator)
Dr. Gerrie Tuitert
Sabine Zinsmeister
Dr. Henk Molenaar (until 11/2014)
Dr. Barbara Plavcak (until 09/2013)

Steering Committee
Prof. Wiebe Bijker (chair), Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Dr. Gavin Andersson, Seriti Institute, South Africa
Prof. Anita Hardon, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Prof. John Rand, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Ms. Mallika R. Samaranayake, independent consultant, Sri Lanka
Dr. Zenda Ofir, independent consultant, South Africa (until 10/2012)

Advisory Committee for the Evaluation of International Lobbying and Advocacy
Dr. Paul Engel, European Centre for Development Policy Management, The Netherlands (chair)
Ms. Tanya Beer, Center for Evaluation Innovation, USA
Dr. Harriet Birungi, Population Council’s Reproductive Health program, Kenya
Dr. Fred Carden, International Development Research Centre, Canada
Prof. John Gaventa, Coady International Institute, Canada
John Young, Overseas Development Institute, UK
MFS
 II
 Joint
 Evaluation
 of

International
 Lobbying
 and
 Advocacy

Endline
 Report

Bodille
 Arensman

Jennifer
 B.
 Barrett

Arend
 Jan
 van
 Bodegom

Dorothea
 Hilhorst

Dieuwke
 C.
 Klaver

Elisabet
 D.
 Rasch

Wolfgang
 Richert

Cornélie
 van
 Waegeningh

Annemarie
 Wagemakers

Margit
 van
 Wessel

For
 further
 information:

contact
 Margit
 van
 Wessel

(project
 leader):

[email protected]

Wageningen
 UR
 joins
 the
 forces

of
 Wageningen
 University
 and

specialised
 reseached
 institutes.

The
 domain
 of
 Wageningen
 UR

consists
 of
 three
 related
 core

areas:
 food
 and
 food
 production;

living
 environment;
 health,

lifestyle
 and
 livelihood.

.
2 of 661
Acknowledgements
This endline report is part of a larger framework of evaluations of the Netherlands Co-Financing
system known as MFS II and has been carried out by the Social Sciences Group of Wageningen
University and Research centre (Wageningen UR)1 and external consultants from the global South
and North. Beyond the authors of the report, we would like to acknowledge Udan Fernando and
Winnie Wairimu, who have conducted field work in different African and Asian locations and
contributed reports that served as input for several of the Alliance chapters. We thanks also Alfredo
B. Mazive, Marloes Hofstede and Iris Bekius who contributed to data collection. We would like to
extend our special appreciation to the MFS II alliances for their time, openness and feedback, as the
evaluation would not have been possible without this level of interaction. In addition, we appreciate
the external partners and experts who have so generously contributed through in-depth discussions
with us on the relevant issues. The team would therefore like to thank all for their efforts to explain
and elaborate on their work, for the time consuming and frequent meetings and interviews and for
their feedback and critical questions posed to us as evaluators. Finally, we want to thank Martijn
Wienia (project manager for this evaluation at WOTRO), the Advisory Committee and Steering
Committee for this Evaluation, and Partos.

Wageningen, April 25 2015
3 of 661
4 of 661
Executive summary
Background to the evaluation
The Co-Financing System (Medefinancieringsstelsel, or ‘MFS’) is the 2011–2015 grant framework for
Co-Financing Agencies (CFA). A total of 20 Alliances of Dutch CFAs were awarded €1.9 billion through
the MFS II grants framework by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NL MoFA). The MFS II
framework stipulates that each consortium carry out independent external evaluations to be able to
make valid, evaluative statements about the effective use of the available funding. To meet these
evaluation requirements, a joint evaluation programme was developed and approved by the NL
MoFA. The overall purpose for evaluating MFS II-funded development interventions is to account for
results and to contribute to the improvement of future development interventions.
The MFS II has been evaluated through country studies. In addition, this evaluation of International
Lobby and Advocacy (ILA) was commissioned as a thematic evaluation across the MFS II. This
evaluation concerned the lobby and advocacy programmes of 8 Alliances. The specific aims of this ILA
programme evaluation are 1) to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of ILA programmes
funded by MFS II; 2) to develop and apply innovative methodologies for the evaluation of ILA
programmes and 3) to provide justified recommendations that enable Dutch CFAs and/or their
Southern partners to draw lessons for future development interventions. The evaluation covers the
period 2011–2014.
The five main research questions have been formulated as follows:
1. What are the changes achieved in the three priority result areas through international
lobbying and advocacy on the thematic clusters ‘sustainable livelihoods and economic
justice’, ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’ and ‘protection, human security and
conflict prevention’ during the 2011–2014 period?
2. Do the international lobbying and advocacy efforts of the MFS II Alliances and their partners
contribute to the identified changes (i.e. measuring effectiveness)?
3. What is the relevance of these changes?
4. Were the efforts of the MFS II Alliances efficient?
5. What factors explain the findings drawn from the questions above?

The Call for Proposals for this evaluation (issued by NWO-WOTRO), distinguished three priority result
areas for this evaluation: 1) agenda setting, 2) policy influencing and 3) changing practice.

Scope of the evaluation
The scope of the evaluation is determined by the thematic clusters and the priority result areas
defined by NWO-WOTRO in the call for proposals. NWO-WOTRO distinguishes three thematic
clusters for this evaluation: (i) sustainable livelihoods and economic justice, (ii) sexual and
reproductive health and rights and (iii) protection, human security and conflict prevention. Under the
responsibility of Partos and WOTRO, Partos’ evaluation manager and two consultants developed and
carried out the selection of programmes to be evaluated, in consultation with the Alliances. The
selection process primarily focused on representativeness in terms of thematic focus. The three
clusters were established so that each of the eight Alliances with an ILA component could be
5 of 661