Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors

Since the EU is the main actor on the donor scene in Macedonia, it is instructive to first examine the mechanisms of EU aid planning.

The planning of EU assistance is based on an assessment of the past and current Enlargement strategies, an analysis of the selected criteria in these strategies, their achievements and their relevance for the coming period. The priorities are identified in

260 Phone interview with an official from the Swedish Embassy in Macedonia.

261 Interview with an official from the Open Society office in Macedonia.

262 Interview with an official from the UN office in Macedonia.

partnership with the government. The main interlocutor of the EUD within the Macedonian government is the Secretariat for European Affairs (SEA) which is responsible both for the process of EU integration and the overall aid coordination in the country (except for the German and French assistance and the IFIs, which goes via the Ministry of Finance). The government has an important role in drafting the MIPDs (now Country Strategy Papers) as each ministry is invited to give inputs to the strategy.²⁶³

At the moment, the dialogue between the EU and the Macedonian government on the preparation of strategy does not include civil society, but this will be required in the future.

The EUD has taken on the responsibility to consult with EU Member States and civil society in ‘any step of the programming on any document’. However, these consultations seem to consist mostly in asking for feedback on strategic documents (which is similar to EUD consultations with implementing agencies and other donors):

When we are discussing the strategic documents we invite them as our guests in the first two rounds, but our aim is almost all the time, once we have the first meeting, to do a joint presentation towards the civil society and towards the Member States, saying “these is our joint views, what is your opinion?”²⁶⁴

The EUD added that its attempts at organising a more formal consultative process have failed due to the lack of interest on the part of CSOs.

According to the interviewee from the EUD, there was insufficient interest when the EUD sent a request to form CSO working groups in 2012 and, more generally, local organisations are not aware of the importance of aid planning:

263 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia.

264 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia.

Their awareness of things is not on the right level and I will consider that those NGOs who are bigger in capacity and knowledge have to be responsible also to engage other smaller ones which could contribute when the programming document is being prepared.²⁶⁵

However, another official at the EUD involved in IPA II said that the EUD has invited CSOs to participate in consultations when they have particular expertise that is helpful to the topic.²⁶⁶ The FOSM interviewee said that the level of involvement of a donor with civil society often depends on the personality of the people in charge. The respondent suggested, as an example, that the Ambassador at the EUD in Macedonia was very open to communication with civil society, while the current one is exclusively focused on the relationship with the Government.²⁶⁷ Several donors stated that they identify priorities for their programming based on the EU Progress Report and other EU documents.

For example, the priorities of the Dutch MATRA programme are defined on the basis of the EU Progress Report and the political criteria for the country identified there. However, the interviewee added that they are amongst few donors in the region that fund projects on exporting culture from the home country as part of democracy promotion, e.g. Dutch design or Dutch contemporary dance. While the Dutch Embassy used to consult the government for bilateral development assistance, this is not the case for the MATRA programme. The primary consultative process with government is now taking place through the IPA process, though the Embassy does informally consult with CSOs within their ‘network of contacts’.²⁶⁸

265 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia.

266 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in Macedonia.

267 Interview with an official at the FOSM. office in Macedonia..

268 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Macedonia.

The SCO representatives stated that they rely on Macedonia’s Stabilisation and Accession Agreement (SAA) with the EU as the basis for their strategy, and that the overall goal of their support is ‘Macedonia becoming a socially inclusive market economy democratic political system in view of European integration’. The SCO organises roundtables with selected CSOs to consult them on Swiss strategies.²⁶⁹ The UK Embassy representatives also stated that the EU Progress Report is the main basis for defining priorities. In addition, all projects are geared at fulfilling the EU criteria and Acquis in specific areas. There is no consultative process, but there are regular contacts with government and civil society. In some cases, the Embassy conducts ‘stakeholder analysis’.²⁷⁰

This ‘top-down’ approach with less input from local stakeholders also characterises German aid planning. While the German bilateral assistance programme used to be developed in cooperation with the government, the priorities of the remaining regional programmes are entirely defined by the German government.

Local actors do not have any say in the

definition of these priorities (not even the local GIZ office). This is a top-down approach in which priorities are developed in function of German or global development interests. The objective is to prepare the region for the future, to support sustainable development. According to the interviewee from GIZ:

It’s about development, not that you extinguish the fire, but that these development projects are working on a long-term basis, long-term effects, with sustainable effects. As far as German assistance, it is not to extinguish a fire that is now burning, but rather to prevent fires from igniting in the first place.²⁷¹

269 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Macedonia.

270 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Macedonia.

271 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Macedonia.

By contrast, the UN develops its strategies in cooperation with government and in consultation with civil society. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is an overall strategic document for all UN agencies, which covers a period of 4-6 years. Each UN organisation then has its internal planning which has to fit into the overall priorities identified in the UNDAF.²⁷² It is prepared on the basis of a situation analysis and an assessment of the results achieved thus far. The UN then engages in broad consultations with government and CSOs. However, the UN does not have any formal procedure for consulting with CSOs at the strategic level. CSOs are included in the consultations on an ad hoc basis, on the basis of informal contacts and existing partnerships, as well as in project advisory and management boards, so they are consulted with regard to the implementation of projects (instead of aid programming). Of the UN agencies active in Macedonia, UNICEF has the most elaborate process of consultations with local stakeholders. The respondent from the UN office added that, a few years ago, the UN attempted to involve civil society in its strategic planning in a formal manner. However, this initiative did not take root and the enthusiasm for involving CSOs has been lost.²⁷³

USAID employs contractors to carry out assessments. In 2009, they had a US-based company doing a very comprehensive assessment of the democracy sector in Macedonia. They also conducted an assessment of the USAID strategy for 2011-2015 and an assessment of their previous civil society programme. The USAID interviewee claimed that local stakeholders were

extensively consulted in the planning, but there does not seem to have been any formalised consultation procedure.²⁷⁴

272 Interview with an official at the UN office in Macedonia.

273 Interview with an official at the UN office in Macedonia.

274 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Macedonia.

The FOSM priorities and activities are defined by the Foundation’s Board, the members of which are from Macedonia. The priorities defined by the Board are then presented to the President of the Open Society Foundation, who provides feedback and advice on how to improve the planning. The priorities are revised in function of developments on the ground. FOSM is very flexible and can easily adapt to changes in the local context. However, FOSM does not conduct any direct formal consultations with civil society actors. Its needs assessment is based on the knowledge of board members who are experts in different fields and who are in permanent contact with CSOs. The respondent added that direct, formalised consultation with CSOs would be problematic, because priorities would be driven by the narrow interests of grantees.²⁷⁵