o Members see the RDF as continuing to play a role in promoting informal communication, sharing ideas and speaking openly about strategies, and providing updates and different types of information which donors need.
o Some donors think that the RDF should evolve from a discussion
forum to a framework for addressing donors’ essential problems, including sharing and developing best practices, developing common, complementary strategies, and setting basic principles for grant- making etc.
o At the same time there are opinions that express the need to achieve something concrete. RDF involvement in advocacy for issues related to the development of the NGO sector was the idea that came up most often. Also, some of the donors feel the need for a more strategic approach.
o Donors who are not current members thought that more information
see the RDF as a place with open communication channels with all other sectors – the media, public authorities, business and NGOs. The RDF should have the necessary credibility and professionalism to speak clearly outside of our country in front of big international donors or multinational companies about the real needs.
(Development Agency – currently not member of the Romanian Donors Forum)
It is apparent from the interviews that non-members see a wider and stronger role for the Forum while, at least for the present, members see it more as an information exchange platform.
Donors’ opinions with regards to RDF structure and membership are presented below:
o Most of the donors who are currently members see it continuing as an informal group, at least in the near future.
A formal structure for donor cooperation would be too difficult. A structure like the current one with a friendly, warm atmosphere would be the best. The current situation is almost an ideal one. (Multilateral Donor)
o Another possible option is to register as an independent association, but this depends on the level of involvement from donors, the number of ideas to be put into practice and resources committed to these ideas.
Whether the RDF should register as an independent association depends on how innovative and creative the ideas of its members are: some members have a lot of great ideas, but for that you would need a full time RDF coordinator or a whole institution – putting ideas into practice is a problem. (Private Donor)
o A possible idea to structure the work of the RDF would be to split the
meetings and agenda on two levels – strategy and implementation – and invite the most appropriate donor representatives to each.
o In terms of membership, some interviewees suggested enlargement to include banks and major companies, in an attempt to raise additional resources for the NGO sector. But such possible enlargement should be planned carefully, in order to keep the Forum open and
representative but functional at the same time.
There are different opinions expressed of what should be done in the future to ensure a better functioning of the Forum. Generally though, they are related to a more structured approach, sharing more in-depth information and working on concrete issues.
8.4 CHAPTER’S SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
Although information sharing is seen as the most frequent level of cooperation and donors use a variety of sources and methods to obtain information – such as personal contacts, web and electronic information, regular publications – the level of information about other donors is still considered insufficient.
The most frequently mentioned information needs are other donors’ strategic priorities and grant recipients. Other information needs include: fields and target areas, program analysis, funding procedures and mechanisms. Most often mentioned means for updating this information are web related
mechanisms, followed by electronic publications and paper format reports and newsletters.
Many donors felt the need to improve donor cooperation at a wider level. They also gave examples of issue-based donor coordination and specific program partnerships that can serve as a basis for extending future cooperation. The following barriers to wider cooperation were identified: the current low level of information about other donors, low flexibility of donor strategies, limited internal procedures and policies to promote organizational involvement in donor cooperation.
Donors point out that the ideal roles of a powerful donor community active on civil society development should be: increasing local resources through assistance for the development of local philanthropy; promotion of closer links between programs and grant recipients; sharing lessons learned and good practice; and increasing awareness of the role and benefits of a strong civil society through joint communication.
The Romanian Donors’ Forum has played an important part in cooperation among donors and has contributed to increased communication and information sharing among members.
The Romanian Donors’ Forum should continue to play a role in promoting informal communication between donors, but also should move to address more of the concerns of donors through: sharing and developing good
practices; developing common and/or complementary strategies to improve the balance of support and increase impact through pooling resources; setting principles for grant-making. Some donors also see other possible roles: advocating for the development of the NGO sector, maintaining communication with the media, public authorities and businesses, and attracting corporate donors.
8.5 ACTION POINTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Donors might consider the following for improved information sharing and cooperation:
Increase the commitment of resources, especially of staff time, for information sharing with other donors; create clear policies to promote institutional
involvement in donor cooperation.
Produce and distribute to all donors easy to use materials about strategies, practices, results and grantees; studies can be commissioned by donors individually or in groups to provide them with synthetic, user-friendly, practice-oriented information.
An agreement could be reached on with regards to the donors’ interest to use a common recording system (based on the relationship between costs and
benefits) that would allow for the gathering of comparable data and better inform implementers and decision makers.
Romanian Donors’ Forum members might consider the following:
Facilitate a common understanding between member donors of the RDF role, objectives and identify the best mechanisms to respond to the diversity of needs.
Increase communication of the RDF’s goal, objectives and priorities to donors who are not members and to other stakeholders.