3.2.3.1 Approaches to partnering (2, 2a, 2b) Multi-actor approach
FNV does not follow a one-partner approach. Although the organisation may have one or more strong bilateral partners, it is also looking for broader cooperation, especially through GUFs, ITUC or international NGOs. This mix is considered more effective since it generates flexibility, helps to pinpoint the best opportunities, promotes a more demand-driven way of working and reduces the risk of over-financing a particular partner. The approach also promotes the development of a broad and inclusive trade union base at country level.
By keeping tabs on various aspects of society and societal actors in the partner country, FNV learns about important issues and key players. In that sense, not implementing a formal and extensive contextual analysis need not be a problem: the majority of multilateral and bilateral partners and the experience obtained provide enough information for FNV to gauge the potential of partners and estimate the risks involved.
External facilitative support
The effectiveness of projects depends on many variables including the improved choice of partners. For example, FNV has decided to make increasing use of independent local or regional consultants who help unions with planning and organisation, proposal preparation and monitoring. A recent example is the local consultant for Indonesia whose contract has been extended, including an extension of support for both bilateral partners and multilateral initiatives. In Latin America, this facilitative modality has been available for some time and is still considered very valuable. It also helps the programme officers to remain in touch and receive first-hand information. Additionally, it can help to create greater uniformity in project proposals, using the LFA approach and/or linking them to the outcomes and main strategies identified by FNV. These factors generate better proposals and a more effective estimate of the risks involved.
The constellations and functions of partnerships differ, and so do the relevance, place and function of organisational analyses.63
3.2.3.2 Choices and effectiveness (2b)
An organisation can qualify for various types and duration of partnership with FNV. The following constellations have been identified from the cases recorded in the three country dossiers and field visits. (NB The list is not exhaustive.) Each constellation has been
evaluated in terms of increased effectiveness and in particular the likelihood that proposals and implementation will improve:
- The organisation has been a long-standing bilateral partner and there is no reason to doubt the performance of future projects (e.g. Ghana TUC or Colombia ENS). These partners are also strategic since they open up relations with other organisations like GTUC affiliates, and therefore also with a large membership base. In all such cases, the starting point is continuation of the partnership. The organisational capacity is nevertheless assessed by the programme officer whenever a new financing proposal is to be prepared. In some cases this is automatic (e.g. assistance to Ghana TUC). In Colombia a more in-depth review was prepared by the programme officer.
Project implementation is likely to be effective because of the existing organisational capacities and position. Moreover, communication is straightforward, and the partners understand what FNV wants to have done and how. If necessary, organisational strengthening activities are incorporated as a function of the project. If a certain project requires specific skills such as negotiating or capacity building, activities for generating these skills are included in the project budget. This should increase the quality of the project proposals and implementation.
- The GUF is the partner and organisational assessments of GUFs are not done in the same way.64 The beneficiary organisation in the country is one of the (sector) affiliates of a GUF (ITUC or an international NGO) and benefits from a more generic type of financing through the GUF. Any organisational assessment of the affiliates is in principle done by the GUF and organisational strengthening may be included in the activities. FNV has no direct control over the implementation; it depends on the performance and working methods of the particular GUF and their monitoring of the projects at affiliate level. In some cases, FNV has stopped working with a particular GUF for a number of reasons, including the low quality of project management at central or country level.
- A new partner may receive more substantial bilateral or multilateral financing. In this case, a one-year project is initially formulated. After one year, continued financing is subject to an evaluation, including an organisational assessment. If necessary the organisation can receive short-term functional support, but in general, only organisational strengthening activities will be included as a function of the project activities if the partnership and projects are continued. Typically, the quality of project proposals and implementation will be expected to improve.
In order to minimise risks, the choice of relatively solid (‘frontline’) partners like FSPMI in Indonesia helps to guarantee that the projects will be effective because they are properly managed. Furthermore, such organisations are relatively stronger than their competitors. Screening is based on the programme officer’s own organisational analysis and by talking to other institutions and donors like ILO or FES.
- A number of organisations are organised around an issue in a particular country, often by the GUF. The ‘group-partnering’ may initially be ad hoc,65 and subsequently organised in a specific way (for instance as a joint committee for instance) for a relatively short duration. For instance:
The ICEM Social Dialogue project in Indonesia includes six Indonesian unions/federations – all of which are affiliates of the GUF.
Seven healthcare unions are working jointly on a number of issues in the Health Sector Project in Ghana.
Collaboration between the Colombian CUT and the GUF PSI also falls into this category. Seven CUT affiliates from the public sector that are also affiliated to PSI have established a joint sector union. This is a result aimed at by CUT and supported through a project cofinanced by FNV.
In such cases, both stronger and weaker organisations can participate. The aim is to have broad participation and coverage of the sector and issue-related aspects. Lead partners are identified through a somewhat elaborate institutional analysis, which also identifies other partners to work with. Such institutional analyses are not part of a formal contextual analysis.
An organisational analysis may determine whether and to what extent participant organisations need strengthening in order to carry out tasks and implement the joint project. However, it is primarily an inclusive process and should therefore not prompt deselection. These analyses are done by the GUF in association with FNV. Participant organisations themselves indicate their needs as well. Effectiveness in this case depends mainly on whether the process of collaboration is appropriately structured, managed and sufficiently facilitated (by FNV and/or others and on the basis of the organisation’s own means).
- The partnership in the framework of the multiannual programme as described above for Colombia. A separate and more formalised joint organisational structure has been set up for coordinating and strategically orientating the programme. It does not affect projects, as these are still to be implemented by the various actors. Whether or not the approach is feasible and effective will become apparent in the future.
3.2.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations on FNV organisational analyses Conclusions
- In the countries where FNV runs a substantial programme, the various constellations of partnerships may exist side by side. This is one of the important mechanisms that can make the programme non-focused. Nevertheless, individual projects, whether short-term or multiannual, complex or simple, may be of high quality and effectively implemented (see the Ghana case, chapter 2). The Indonesian and Ghana cases also showed that opting for a limited number of common-interest issues, in combination with a multi-actor approach, was crucial to creating a relatively content-wise focus and being effective (see also chapter 2).
- Depending on the partnership’s constellation, organisational analyses are more or less functional. Most analyses are geared towards continuing the relationship or inclusiveness (multi-actor approaches) and identifying capacity improvement needs as a function of the particular project activities.
- The multi-actor approach is highly effective, considering the short-term results achieved in both Indonesia and Ghana. Collaboration with multilateral labour-related organisations is a vital function of the multi-actor approaches, especially because of their relationship vis-à- vis several unions in a given country. The very fact that the GUF is independent and all unions in the same sector may be members of that GUF means that affiliates are more willing to join in.
- The contention that without formal organisational and institutional analyses, partner and project choices were by definition sub-optimal, is not well-founded. The more informal and casual analyses done by the programme officers were and continue to be valuable, also as part of the monitoring and evaluation during implementation, although they are non- systematised.
- The quality of projects appears to be mainly determined by the way of working with partners and managing collaboration processes.
Recommendations
- Organisational analyses should be a more systematised part of the project and partner selection process.
- In the framework of a more country-specific VMP programme, the Multiannual Country programmes should define the strategic orientation and – as a function of this – ways of working and partnership constellations. Too many different modalities at the same time may not be manageable.
- In view of the experience and successes obtained, multi-actor approaches should be given more priority, along with strategic bilateral partnership, especially with a view to focus and effectiveness.
3.3 CNV