The challenge of managing civil society consultation features prominently in all MCA Monitor field reports to date, and was the subject of an InterAction report on Madagascar's early MCA experience. These reports all focused on the challenges of civil society participation in the early phase of compact development. This report focuses instead on the period since compact signing, and illustrates that managing public participation, especially with NGOs, does not get easier after the compact is signed. Madagascar's example highlights the need for explicit investments of time and expertise in engaging with civil society, similar to the level of investment that the MCC and partner countries demand in technical areas such as financial management, specific sectoral issues, and M&E. This is especially important in countries like Madagascar where civil society is relatively weak.
Compared with those in many countries in Africa, NGOs and community-based organizations in Madagascar have low capacity, are poorly organized and have little experience with policy engagement or advocacy. Madagascar lacks well-established umbrella organizations that serve as liaisons between broader civil society, the government and donors. NGO leaders described a lack of effective platforms for NGOs to coordinate programs or develop advocacy strategies, and very limited NGO capacity to come together with one vision and engage with the government. In contrast, business leaders described good organization and collaboration within the sector. There are numerous professional associations and other organizations that represent specific industries and private sector interests. These organizations regularly promote dialogue between firms and engage in coordinated policy advocacy. Despite this, business leaders lamented that most of their policy recommendations are not followed and dialogue with the government is not yet well developed.
In this context, this section describes three aspects of the MCAM's approach--selection of the program zones, collaboration with partners, and systems for managing ongoing consultation. The MCAM has made good strides on the first and second, but needs improvement on the third, most challenging, aspect.
Components of Managing Civil Society Consultation
Selection of the program zones: The MCAM's process to select the last three program zones was innovative and broadly participatory. The nation-wide, participatory process included civil society members and local government officials from each of Madagascar's regions (except the two already selected for the MCAM program). Together they went through an exhaustive process to select criteria to measure the regions' degree of potential and level of need in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction, and to design a survey tool to select target zones.
The regional selection was an illustration of MCAM's desire to greatly expand opportunities for consultation (beyond that which occurred for compact design), and the MCC's willingness to fund consultation efforts. On the other hand, the process was so exhaustive that it left the MCAM overextended and wondering if it had gone too far. And one could argue that the process came too late. These issues raise key questions of sequence, guidance and support. That is, should the MCC insist on a sequence in which countries identify target zones in initial proposals and in compacts before signing? Can the MCC offer better guidance so that partner countries neither fall short nor go overboard on civil society consultation? And can the MCC find creative ways to use pre-compact funding to support thorough consultative processes earlier on?
Programmatic collaboration with civil society organizations: The MCAM is pursuing programmatic collaboration with a number of civil society groups such as CARE International and WWF. While this is no substitute for consultation with the broader public, formalized collaboration at the program level is one good way to ensure meaningful civil society engagement during program implementation. One NGO leader described his organization's planned coordination with the MCAM as a way to help the MCAM make direct links to community groups and local beneficiaries. A second described the collaboration as a good way to influence MCAM policy and practice. In addition, the MCAM has signed MOUs with multilateral donors and with a number of firms that will represent the "market" for the small producers' products. As of August, most of these MOUs had not gone beyond the conceptual stage, but they do signal the MCAM's interest in active collaboration with civil society in a tangible, practical way at the regional and community level.
Systems for ongoing consultation: The MCAM's approach to fostering ongoing communication and outreach with civil society still needs improvement and clarification. The primary mechanism for ongoing consultation is the MCAM Advisory Council (AC). The AC is composed of 12 members representing the NGO community, the private sector and regional governments. The mission of the AC is to represent the priorities of its constituents to the MCAM, and it describes itself as a "guardian angel" to the MCAM (rather than a "watchdog" - a decidedly non-Malagasy concept).
Three issues threatened to weaken the AC's capacity to serve as an effective liaison between the MCAM and civil society. First is disagreement around the selection of AC representatives. While nominations and elections took place in November 2005, there remains a fair bit of confusion about the process. Many NGO and private sector representatives do not know who their representatives are (and indeed the names of the AC members were not listed on the MCAM website). Second, even those who can identify their representatives lament the lack of clear mechanisms for communication with them. In fact, no civil society representatives interviewed for this report had heard anything from the AC members since their election in November 2005.[1]
Finally, the AC lacks clarity about its relationship to the MCAM in terms of authority and responsibility. Even a year in, AC members were not entirely sure who they are accountable to, the degree to which the MCAM is obligated to accept the AC's recommendations, and the mechanisms by which the AC is to take its concerns to the MCAM. While five AC members sit on the SC, at the time of interviews for this report, these members had not yet had the opportunity to propose agenda items for the SC meetings. This means that even if AC members were effectively communicating with their constituencies, the current system does not guarantee that civil society concerns reach or inform the MCAM.
Risks and Opportunities in Consultation
Some of the risks of clumsy consultation with civil society are pretty clear--the AC's potential failure to represent civil society's priorities to the MCAM; missed opportunities to improve the MCAM programs based on beneficiaries' comments; and little correction of inflated expectations about the program. But there are even risks in areas where the MCAM has done pretty well so far. For example, the new mechanism for selecting target zones, while creative and encouraging, raises concerns. It was an enormously complex and time-consuming process. MCAM leaders expressed frustration that they "don't know what is enough and what is not enough." While they acknowledged that pre-compact consultation was not thorough enough, they fear that "the pendulum may be swinging the other way." This highlights the need for the MCC to give partner countries clearer guidance and support in managing consultation, particularly in countries like Madagascar that have so little experience in this realm.
The MCC (and thereby MCAM's) focus on civil society involvement, however imperfect at this point, does create enormous opportunities. Civil society involvement in planning aid programs is rather undeveloped in Madagascar. Even the concept of a civil society advisory council is very new. The MCC and MCAM are therefore in a great position to help the country establish the culture and capacity for civil society to be in engaged in development programs, and to exercise accountability over government and donor-funded programs.
Unfortunately one of the greatest opportunities in this area has already been missed--coordination with USAID civil society capacity-building programs. While the MCC sets high standards for ongoing engagement with civil society, it has not specifically funded activities that increase civil society's capacity to engage with the MCAM. Senior MCAM and MCC officials in Madagascar actually argued that it shouldn't because MCC resources fund government-led programs there, and it would be inappropriate for the government (through MCAM) to directly fund civil society. But recognizing this potential conflict of interest should not stop the MCC from finding creative ways, for example through 609g funds and strategic partnerships, to support civil society capacity building initiatives in partner countries. One useful partnership in Madagascar could have been MCC coordination with the USAID-funded Misonga program designed to strengthen capacity among Malagasy NGOs. But the program was recently cut, along with all other USAID democracy and governance funds in the country. And with it has disappeared a big opportunity to leverage existing USG-funded programs to enhance the MCAM's success and to meet the MCC's stated standards on civil society participation in development programs.
The good news is that MCAM seems interested in clarifying mechanisms for communication with civil society and using past experiences as opportunities for learning. AC members themselves gave a convincing description of their evolving plans to foster ongoing consultation, and of the MCAM's willingness to provide funds for their activities. The MCC resident country director is aware of gaps in the MCAM's capacity to develop strategies for ongoing civil society consultation. He explained that, partly because of these gaps, he has recruited a deputy country director with years of experience in NGO outreach and capacity building at USAID (from the Misonga program, in fact). These are encouraging signs, and all eyes should be on MCAM to watch for formal establishment of transparent and effective mechanisms to foster ongoing civil society participation in MCAM programming over the next several months. If MCAM gets is right, it will be a great opportunity for Malagasy civil society to develop new capacities, and for the MCC to demonstrate its role and responsibility in helping partner countries manage consultation.
Next: 3. Innovation in the MCAM/MCC approach
[1] Three of the 12 AC members were elected in December 2006 to represent the three new target regions.