Decentralised Cooperation Programme
“Mapping study of civil society organisations
in the Republic of Mauritius”
Contract no. DCP II/PE1/3.5.2
Final report
March 2013
This project is realised by ARS Progetti
This assignment is supported and guided by the European Union 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation
Programme II and presented by ARS Progetti S.P.A.
The views expressed herein are those of the consultants and therefore in no way reflect the official
opinion of the European Union.
Report prepared by:
Gianfrancesco Costantini
Geetanjali Gill
2
Contents
Acronyms
4
Executive Summary
5
1. Background
1.1. Rationale for the mapping study
9
9
1.2. Objectives
10
2. The analytical categories
2.1. Clearing the ground: defining a concept of civil society for the purpose of mapping
11
11
2.2. A tiered model of civil society
12
2.3. Sectors and areas of activities
13
2.4. Capacity building
13
3. Methodological framework
3.1. The methodological approach
14
14
3.2. The scope of the CSO mapping
14
3.3. The sources of information
14
3.4. Information gathering tools
15
4. The context
4.1. An overview of Mauritian CSOs
16
16
4.2. The legal framework
17
4.3. The policy framework
18
4.4. Resources for supporting CSOs in Mauritius
23
5. The stakes and emerging issues
5.1. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Mauritius
25
25
5.2. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Rodrigues
27
6. An Analytical view of Civil Society Organisations in Mauritius
6.1. First level organisations
30
30
6.2. Second level organisations
34
6.3. Third level organisations
41
6.4. Fourth level organisations
42
7. Strategic and operational recommendations
7.1. Supporting CSOs in Mauritius
45
45
7.2. Supporting CSOs in Rodrigues
47
7.3. Operationalising recommendations
48
Annexes
Annex 1 – Documentary references
52
52
Annex 2 – Persons and organisations met (in depth interviews)
54
Annex 3 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings - Rodrigues
56
Annex 4 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings – Mauritius
57
3
Acronyms
AFD
Agence Française pour le Développement
AUS Aid
Australian Agency for International Development
CS
Civil Society
CSO
Civil Society Organisation
DCP
Decentralised Cooperation Programme
DFID
UK Department for International Development
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
MACOSS
Mauritian Council of Social Services
NCRD
National Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled
NEF
National Empowerment Foundation
PILS
Prévention Information Lutte contre le Sida
RCSS
Rodrigues Council of Social Services
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
4
Executive Summary
In the framework of the 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation Programme II the need was identified to conduct a
CSO mapping exercise in order to help to identify the actions required for increasing CSO capacities (i.e. with
regards to assessing poverty issues, effectively participating in poverty alleviation actions; monitoring and
evaluation; and effectively participating in policy dialogue and decision making). Moreover, the mapping of CSOs
was also expected to contribute to the identification of possible synergies between the Decentralised
Cooperation Programme II and other programmes.
The study rationale and main features
The rationale for the CSO mapping study in Mauritius is identified in the framework of EU support for the
development of CSOs in partner countries. EU policies are based on a progressive and increasing recognition of
CSOs as actors in development, policy, and policy dialogue processes. Within this framework, CSOs are
expected to play a political role – that is, not only that of an opposition within political institutions, or a
“watchdog” from outside institutions, but as a partner, able to actively participate in governance processes at
different levels. This role includes: providing information about issues at a local level; serving as a ‘bridge’
between citizens and institutions; serving as a ‘bridge’ between local and international realities; monitoring
public policies and public services; and managing “common goods” (e.g. environmental resources, knowledge,
information, etc.).
The study was guided by the adoption of an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society
organisations” as all forms of grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal, that are
characterised by (relative) autonomy from other actors; voluntary and free adhesion of members;
independence from family and kin linkages; an action space that is mainly out of “political institutions”; an
action that is not aimed at generating “profit”; a legitimate social (but not necessarily juridical) status; a focus
on “social responsibility”.
In order to effectively use this concept of CSO defined, it has been imperative to consider the many differences
existing amongst organisations. Organisations were therefore considered as related to four main organisational
levels: the first level, which includes grassroots groups, self help groups and CBOs (including the informal ones
such as the “forces vives”); the second level, composed of NGOs and other intermediary organisations tha
produce services and generate knowledge and policy actions, above and beyond any benefit to the member
constituency or members; the third level, comprising aggregations of CSOs focusing on a particular sector,
geographical area or campaign, such as platforms or umbrella organisations; the fourth level, which consists of
general aggregations of CSOs, such as national civil society platforms.
From a methodological perspective, the mapping study – which is taking into consideration both Mauritius and
Rodrigues - is characterised by certain features, including:
a) An integration of quantitative and qualitative information;
b) An integration between information with “factual elements” (i.e. processes, situations, resources,
actions, etc.) and information with “cognitive elements” (i.e. the representations of reality, the objectives
and goals of stakeholders, their expectations, etc.);
c) A capitalisation of existing knowledge and information, based both on the mapping and analysis
of available documentary sources (e.g. previous studies, carried out both in the framework of academic
research and in the framework of policy making) and on the consultation of key informants and researchers;
d) A participative approach and a focus on participation and collective construction of knowledge based on the
recognition of actors involved in social processes not only as “sources of information”, but also as bearers of
important perspectives for the construction of a relevant knowledge on social processes and dynamics.
CSOs in Mauritius
Civil society organisations are not a novelty in Mauritius: this tradition contributes to the existence of a large
number of associations of different kinds as well as of private foundations: today, approximately 9000
associations are registered with the Registrar of Associations. The number of both associations and foundations
experienced an exponential growth in recent years following the issuing of regulations in 2010 that supported
5
the increase of funding to associations and foundations from the private sector through the Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
Despite their large number, associations, foundations and other CSOs do not have a well defined role. Many
associations are engaged in service provision and charitable activities: referring to CSR-accredited associations
which have actively functioned for at least 2 years, there are approximately 500 such associations. Another very
large group of registered associations includes: sport clubs and socio-cultural organisations, together with
women, elderly and youth organisations which largely carry out social and cultural activities, and which are
associated to and receive funds from government ministries. In some cases, organisations and associations are
also created as a means for individuals to gain representation on councils related to the government, and thus
access to political positions. Some general characteristics amongst the large number of organisations recognised
as CSOs can be identified: a) There is a prevailing engagement in service provision; b) “Volunteerism” is a main
feature of most organisations. c) Despite the lack of engagement in policy related activities, linkages between
organisations and politics exist at several levels.
Policy framework
While the legislation does not appear to define limits and opportunities that influence, in a important way, the
functioning of CSOs in Mauritius, over the last 10 years, a policy framework has been progressively set up by the
Mauritius government that produces several consequences for CSOs and their development: CSOs are largely
identified as NGOs, and they are considered an important partner for government in the implementation of
projects and provision of services. A national NGO policy paper was presented in December 2012 by the Ministry
of Social Security, National Solidarity & Reform Institutions. The NGO policy addresses 5 main areas: Legal and
regulatory framework; Funding, Capacity development; Social entrepreneurship (arguing for the setting up of
“Social Business Indicators” within umbrella organisations and leading NGOs, and promoting training and
education on social entrepreneurship); Partnership and networking, promoting clustering around leading NGOs
in project and programme implementation, and arguing for NGOs to act as an advocacy group vis-à-vis
government institutions.
In addition to the general government NGO policy, most line ministries have their own approaches, policies,
resources and activities for the engagement of CSOs. These policies are not always coherent with National NGO
strategy.
Private foundations
An important role in front of CSOs is played by private foundations, including those created by larger and more
traditional actors in CSR in Mauritius, as well as those that have been created in recent years as a tool for
engaging/managing CSR resources. While foundations fund activities in most sectors, some foundations are
engaging themselves in system actions aimed at strengthening the “NGO sector” as a provider of services (such
as the setting up of and support of website, the setting up of networks and platforms, the identification and
dissemination of innovative practices), and even supporting CSO policy engagement in specific sectors and on
specific themes.
The stakes for Mauritian CSOs
The analysis of the context in which CSOs operate has revealed some important stakes for Mauritian CSOs, as
well as some issues that CSOs can actively engage with. Many of these issues were also identified during
consultations held with CSOs, government actors, and international organisations.
Reconstructing politics from below -Civil society can contribute to the reconstruction of politics not through the
creation of “new parties” nor the attempt to occupy political institutional space, but by informing public
decisions, monitoring public policies and public services, representing interests, etc. at different policy levels,
from the local one (through the establishment of “multi-actors” governance mechanisms) to the national ones.
Local governance - Local governance often appears as a problematic space. CSOs can play a key role in
increasing the effectiveness of local governance and the accountability of public services to citizens, by orienting
policy decisions at local level; by informing citizens about political processes and policies and their functioning
(such as by setting up public policies and public services monitoring mechanisms), and supporting citizens in the
identification and analysis of problems emerging at a local level; by participating in the governance of service
delivery at a local level in order to make them more accountable to citizens.
6
Reconstructing trust and overcoming divides - examples from both the international and national level show
that CSOs can play a key role in re-constructing trust in a context of communal division. In order to play such a
role, CSOs should engage in actions that create bridges between communities and groups and avoid targeting
specific “communal groups” or defending interests that can be seen as related to specific communal groups. An
important step towards the assumption of a stronger bridging role is for CSOs to work in partnerships with other
organisations.
Fostering a “change approach” to poverty - Some good practices, and innovative experiences and knowledge
concerning the support to change processes have been produced by some CSOs that could be scaled up or used
as a basis for development. Among others, these practices include targeting a specific territorial area, focusing
on the identification of structures and dynamics that are linked to poverty, recognising and making the most of
local knowledge and adopting a multi-sector/integrated approach that includes policy setting. Assuming a
change approach to poverty also requires a shift in the focus of CSO activities away from service delivery and
project activities (including the focus on the number of actions carried out and on the number of beneficiaries)
to a focus on mid-term outcomes and results, described in terms of change in the original situation.
In order for CSOs to be able to assume roles in the four areas discussed above, there is a need for openness to
and recognition of CSO by political institutions, as well as a move away from CSOs’ traditional role of “project
implementer”. Moreover, there is a need to construct a “social space” for civil society, made up of shared
representations, behaviours, social norms, and social meanings that allow relationships amongst CSO to
change from competition and fragmentation to the development of a shared vision of civil society. Finally,
there is a need to develop capacities of CSOs for playing an active role, taking into account different shapes
and features of the different categories of CSOs.
The stakes for CSOs in Rodrigues
Rodrigues presents some specificities regarding the stakes for CSOs. These may be mainly focused around 4 axes:
Reinforcing governance and strengthening politics as a “common good” by supporting the setting up of local
governance mechanisms that are not dependent upon politics for sharing experiences, co-operation, and
speaking with a common voice; promoting Innovation and the approach to poverty by assuming a major role in
fostering innovation through the identification of new opportunities and new ways to work on existing resources
and on limitations for Rodrigues development; Structuring the space for civil society - by reducing tensions and
competition for funds (mainly related to service delivery and project implementation) among CSOs, and by
adopting attitudes of cooperation; Building capacities for playing an active role, by promoting partnership
among key organisations and the many small NGOs and CBOs.
An analytical view of CSOs
At the “first level”, the study has identified a wide and diversified group of CSOs, including both many registered
associations (from sport clubs to women, elder and youth groups, to quasi-NGO and charitable associations, to
registered neighbourhood associations), and a large number of informal organisations, such as the so called
“forces vives”. First level organisations are normally characterised by being highly vulnerable to politics: it is easy
for political leaders and political parties to use grassroots groups as mechanisms for creating consensus.
However this relationship with politics can create a divide amongst local grassroots organisations. The thematic
foci of most first level organisations is in the areas of social assistance and education, followed by health and
gender. Service delivery is the most frequent type of action undertaken by first level organisations, followed by
the organisation of beneficiaries for accessing services provided by larger NGOs or by public bodies. From an
organisational perspective, first level organisations can appear to be relatively weak. Communication and access
to information is another issue for organisations.
As a whole, first level organisations are characterised by a diffused process leading to the transformation of
grassroots organisations into NGOs (and thus, into second level organisations), providing services to “external
users”, rather than simply supporting their constituency. This phenomenon is supported by the mechanisms
concerning the access to private sector funds, which allows mainly “recognised” NGOs to receive support.
The differentiation of second level organisation is not as high as amongst first level organisations. In fact, most
organisations at this level are NGOs; and there are also increasing numbers of foundations as well as a few nonprofit companies (but both of which largely function as traditional NGOs). Most second level organisations are
7
engaged in service delivery: in some cases on a project basis, while in other cases, managing permanent centres
for service delivery. A few organisations are involved in policy-related activities. An even smaller number of
organisations are involved in research activities.
Engagement in service delivery is seldom focused on the achievement of defined results or on the production of
change. More often, it is related to an approach based on the centrality of activities: second level CSOs tend to
focus their attention on the activities that they carry out and on the “beneficiaries” they target. Moreover, while
many CSOs provide services to beneficiaries in a permanent and consistent manner, they can only access funds
for “projects”. Therefore, they often suffer from irregular funding and a high turnover of staff. Many other
organisations provide services as “projects” without giving consideration to the consistency of their actions. In
both cases, mechanisms for assuring sustainability from both technical and financial perspectives are seldom
defined and seldom implemented.
While occasional cooperation can emerge based on opportunities (including the pressure of external actors such
as donors and private foundations) or specific needs, and some preferential relationships can emerge between
organisations, structured cooperation and especially the sharing of knowledge, experiences and practices are
very weak. A further phenomenon related to competition and funding dynamics is a general tendency to avoid
assuming public positions that can be considered to be touching sensitive issues.
Third level CSOs include sector and geographic umbrella organisations and coordination bodies. This group of
organisations is extremely weak in Mauritius. While occasional cooperation and coordination occurs amongst
second level CSOs, there are only limited instance of networking (both at first and second levels). However some
emerging networks exist, sometime with a formal organisational framework, others through informal structures.
Fourth level CSOs consist of “general” platforms or umbrella organisations. In Mauritius it is possible to identify
one only permanent organisation at this level: MACOSS (the Mauritius Council of Social Services). Other general
coalitions have been created in the past, but mainly for discussing specific issues. MACOSS focuses largely on the
implementation of activities, which potentially places it in competition with member organisations.
Given the fact that MACOSS’ members only represent a fraction of the total number of CSOs accredited to the
NEF/CSR, the legitimacy of MACOSS as a representative body for all Mauritian CSOs is called into question as
well as the relevance of its actions.
Strategic and operational recommendations
This study also provides some key operational recommendations, primarily relevant for those actors playing a
role in supporting civil society development. However, the recommendations are also relevant for CSOs
themselves, in order to launch a debate over the role and functions that they can play. The Decentralised
Cooperation Programme (DCP) may assume a leadership role in transforming the following recommendations
into concrete actions.
These recommendations are meant to be a starting point to foster debate amongst stakeholders; and it is hoped
that this debate will result in a “roadmap” for the development of CSOs in Mauritius. Thus, it is the stakeholders
themselves who can directly play a role in taking many of these ideas forward.
Recommendations focus on:
a) Recognising the governance role of Civil Society, and avoiding an “opportunistic” approach to CSOs
b) Recognising Civil Society at grassroots level, and avoiding the transformation of CBOs into something else
c) Reinforcing Civil Society as a vehicle of innovation, and avoiding an approach based on the use of CSOs as
a tool and as an implementing agency for plans set by other actors
d) Qualifying and improving CSOs’ actions
e) Supporting vertical and horizontal integration/structuration
Recommendations were also defined for supporting CSOs in Rodrigues, mainly focusing on: the reinforcement of
cooperation structures and platforms; the overcoming of political divides; the fostering of innovation and the
support to internationalisation and access to knowledge.
8
1. Background
The 9th European Decentralised Cooperation Programme I, which ran from September 2005 to March 2010,
aimed to enhance the capacity of Non State Actors (NSAs) to undertake poverty reduction actions using a
participatory approach, and to complement government efforts to enhance state, civil society and private sector
actions in the fields of poverty alleviation, good governance, SMEs, and natural resource management. In followup to this programme, the 10th EDF Decentralised Cooperation Programme II was launched in October 2012.
The DCP II emphasises the achievement of “poverty reduction in synergy with other NSAs and empowerment
and poverty alleviation programmes and initiatives”. This overall objective has two main purposes: a) to
reinforce the capacities of NSAs with the aim of improving their strategic planning, implementation and
monitoring of poverty alleviation projects; and b) to foster a more coherent and informed approach to poverty
issues among decision makers and NSAs, with the aim of improving the policy dialogue between the state and
NSAs. DCP II intends to achieve an improvement in: the quality of NSA projects; the capacities of CSOs to address
poverty issues; the capacity of CSOs to monitor project implementation; CSO participation in policy dialogue and
decision making; and the complementarities between DCP and other ongoing programmes.
DCP II identified the need to conduct a CSO mapping exercise in order to help to achieve its intended results. In
particular, the exercise would help to identify the actions required for increasing CSO capacities (i.e. with
regards to assessing poverty issues, effectively participating in poverty alleviation actions; monitoring and
evaluation; and effectively participating in policy dialogue and decision making). Moreover, the mapping of CSOs
was also expected to contribute to the identification of possible synergies between the Decentralised
Cooperation Programme II and other programmes. As such, the CSO mapping exercise will involve the analysis
of CSO actions and CSO partnerships with other actors, as well as the identification of government and donor
interventions for supporting NSAs.
Following the launching of an international call for tenders for the implementation of a CSO mapping study, DCP
II awarded the bid made by ARS Progetti S.P.A., an international consulting company based in Rome, Italy. ARS
Progetti contracted a team composed of Gianfrancesco Costantini as Key Expert, and Geetanjali Gill as Local
Expert to carry out the study.
This document is the final report of the mapping study, which was carried out in the month of February 2013.
1.1. Rationale for the mapping study
The rationale for the CSO mapping study in Mauritius is identified in the framework of EU support for the
development of CSOs in partner countries. EU policies are based on a progressive and increasing
recognition of CSOs as actors in development, policy, and policy dialogue processes. This recognition is an
important element of the Cotonou Agreements (Principles Article 2; Chapter 2), as well as in recent EU
policy documents1. Within this framework, CSOs are expected to play a political role – that is, not only that
of an opposition within political institutions, or a “watchdog” from outside institutions, but as a partner,
able to actively participate in governance processes at different levels. This role includes: providing
information about issues at a local level; serving as a ‘bridge’ between citizens and institutions; serving as a
‘bridge’ between local and international realities; monitoring public policies and public services; and
managing “common goods” (e.g. environmental resources, knowledge, information, etc.).
A second element which forms part of the foundation of the mapping study is the recognition of CSOs as a
diversified group of actors, i.e. bearers of different interests and with different features and needs.
Results from the many initiatives carried out in the framework of the 9th EDF has led to the
acknowledgement of the diversity within and amongst CSOs. As a fact, while actions within these initiatives
were at the start targeted at NSAs as a undifferentiated group (i.e. encompassing NGOs, CSOs, trade unions,
1
2010, Structured Dialogue on the involvement of CSOs and Local Authorities in EC development cooperation, EC reference doc.
N°12, January 2011, Engaging non-state actors in new aid modalities, No. 12.
9
private sector foundations, professional associations, etc.), it soon became clear that unless a more
differentiated approach was taken (i.e. recognising NSA actors’ different interests, and their different social
dynamics), the support given to the NSA sector would not be very effective. Experiences from the 9th EDF
revealed the need to identify a plurality of groups and levels within the wider community of civil society
organizations, as well as the need to recognise that a variety of different demands exist in relation to the
strengthening of civil society actors2.
A third element instructing the mapping exercise is the recognition of two kinds of approaches for
strengthening CSO capacities: one aimed at building the basic capacities of CSOs; as well as a more
strategic one that focuses on the better positioning of CSOs in order to play a more effective “partner”
role in development and policy. The first set of approaches focus on the reinforcement of skills related to
project cycle management and to the management of CSOs as organizations (e.g. internal governance,
leadership, accounting and financial management, etc.), as well as on basic capacities related to the
implementation of activities and advocacy. This approach characterized most first generation programmes
that supported CSOs (e.g. standardized capacity building activities, “training of trainers”, and the
development of training manuals for CSOs). In contrast, the second set of approaches, which characterises
most second generation programmes, is based on an analysis of the actual and potential roles and positions
of CSOs in the framework of local/regional development processes. In this framework, capacities to be
reinforced are not related to a single model of a CSO (i.e. “one size fits all”), and capacities cannot be
defined without the analysis of specific groups of CSOs and their position within local development and
policy dynamics.
1.2. Objectives
The general objectives of the mapping study are to provide an overview of the structure and existing capacities
to contribute to the national development of CSOs in Mauritius; to understand their roles, structures, and
legal framework; and to identify the capacity building needs for their more effective contribution to society.
Within this framework, the CSO mapping study has the following specific purposes:
a) to carry out a mapping of CSOs and their linkages with both national institutions and
development partners, also including a SWOT analysis of CSO participation in development and cooperation
processes and the formulation of recommendations in areas (s) to be reinforced so to enable CSOs to
actively play their roles;
b) to identify key organisations and structures in civil society as well as their key constraints faced in terms of
service delivery, advocacy, policy dialogue and networking as well as their primary capacity building needs;
c) to identify areas for improvement, strategies for capacity building and sustainability of CSOs, and ot
prepare a roadmap for a more structured civil society and the effective participation of CSO in
policy dialogue and sustainable development processes.
2
Floridi M. et al., Étude de capitalisation des programmes d’appui au renforcement des capacités des acteurs non étatiques sous le
9ème FED, 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/civilsociety/documents/final_rep_capit_study_fr.pdf)
10
2. The analytical categories
The study was guided by a set of concepts and theories that are briefly described in the paragraphs that follow.
2.1. Clearing the ground: defining a concept of civil society for the purpose of mapping
Often, civil society organisations (CSOs) are identified as “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs), and
“charitable organisations”. In other cases, CSOs are defined as “all organisations without the realm of the
government and that of the market” (for instance, this was the approach used in the Civil Society Index study
carried out in Mauritius in 2006)3.
However, there are problems with the use of both of these definitions. The first definition appears to exclude
from “civil society” most actors that are not involved in service provision; yet these actors play an important role
in representing the interests and voices of citizens, and some groups set up by citizens aim to solve problems or
to foster the common good.
The second definition appears to include all organised actors within society (e.g. religious groups, families, NGOs,
clubs, political groups that are not participating in political institutions, criminal groups, etc.), resulting in the
equivalence of CSOs with all “collective actors”, and eventually, the equivalence of “civil society” with society as
a whole.
As such, these two definitions offer little value as an analytical tool: in the first case, a too large area of society is
excluded, while in the second, too much of society is included.
In this CSO mapping study – similarly as in most recent CSOs mapping studies carried out in the framework of EU
actions for supporting CSOs - an operational concept was adopted that defines “civil society organisations” as all
forms of grouping or aggregation involving citizens, formal and informal, that are characterised by:
-
(relative) autonomy from other actors (thus organisations that do not depend in their decisions on state
and political institutions, nor on religious institutions and market actors4);
-
voluntary and free adhesion of members (thus organisations to which it is not compulsory to participate,
because of legal or social obligations);
-
independence from family and kin linkages (thus organisations that are not a direct emanation of family or
kinship related institutions)5;
-
an action space that is mainly out of “political institutions” (thus organisations that do not directly
participate in political elections and in the functioning of political institutions, such as political parties,
parliament, representative democracy institutions, government - however, CSOs can interact with these
institutions);
-
an action that is not aimed at generating “profit” (however, organisations carrying out economic activities
aimed at generating resources to be reinvested for achieving organisation goals are to be considered as
CSOs);
-
a legitimate status that is not necessarily linked to legal frameworks and provisions, but to the fact of being
a group created by a group of citizens to support a cause/solve a problem;
-
a focus on “social responsibility”, e.g. is operating in favour of the collective interest and of social and
economical development (this will imply that organisations directly promoting the particular interest of
specific individual, group or “party” will be not be included as CSOs).
3
2006, The Civil Society Index Study Republic of Mauritius, MACOSS.
The operational consequence of this is that both trade unions and enterprise organisations – and in general organisations directly
involved in industrial/labour relations and in contract negotiation activities, thus defending the interest of a specific group of actors
in the labour market - will not be considered as “Civil Society Organisations”. Moreover, because of their dependency on
enterprises, “private foundations” will also not be considered as CSOs.
5 As a consequence of this, in most cases “family foundations” will not be considered as CSOs (family foundations would be
considered as CSOs only if it is clear that the family/individuals providing the patrimonial basis for the foundation’s activities is/are
not guiding the organisation itself).
4
11
2.2. A tiered model of civil society
In order to effectively use the concept of CSO defined above, and in order to define a set of feasible strategies
and recommendations for supporting CSOs, it is imperative to consider the many differences existing amongst
organisations. Viewing CSOs as a differentiated group of actors allows for the identification of: actors to be
analysed; the dynamics, roles, and positions of CS actors; as well as effective ways to support CS actors.
In this framework, there is a need to recognise different functions and social dynamics: from grassroots
engagement to “high level” institutional engagement, CSOs tend to “function” in different ways, tend to be
characterised by different dynamics and to play different roles. Even a particular function (e.g. voicing citizens’
interests) tends to work in a differentiated way at different levels.
In order to analyse these different functions and dynamics, four main organisational levels have been
considered:
-
the first level, which includes grassroots groups, self help groups and CBOs (including the informal ones such
as the “forces vives”) are normally made up by collective actors who are both members of the group and
beneficiaries of the group activity;
-
the second level is composed of NGOs and other intermediary organisations which are characterised by the
fact they produce services and generate knowledge and policy actions, above and beyond any benefit to the
member constituency or members;
-
the third level comprises aggregations of CSOs focusing on a particular sector, geographical area or
campaign, such as platforms or umbrella organisations;
-
the fourth level consists of general aggregations of CSOs, such as national civil society platforms.
It is important not to view these four levels as hierarchical levels: organisations placed on these levels are not
“superior” or “inferior” to each other. The levels described above are merely a descriptive tool, and have an
analytical function.
Moreover, the proposed model does not have any pretention to be exhaustive or to comprise all organisations:
often organisations can be identified that cannot be placed on one single level or that function in boundary
areas between levels. For example, most “network based organisations” (such as “Caritas” or “ANFEN” in
Mauritius) are “umbrellas” or platforms, as well as “second level” organisations. Similar examples can be
provided for first level organisations (that tend to shape themselves as NGOs) as well as for organisations at
other levels.
12
As such, the “borders” between the different levels should not be considered fixed or as definite separations.
There is a continuous movement of organisations among the different levels. The levels or tiers are a dynamic
space rather than a stable structure.
The study gives special attention to the dynamics occurring within border areas, as well as to the emergence of
groups of organisations that participate in more than one level. The different strata of organisations will be
assumed as reference areas for identifying dynamics and capacity building needs. When relevant, other features
(e.g. engagement in specific sectors) will also be considered in order to identify emerging CSO sub-groups to be
included in strategies for supporting CS development and engagement in policy making and governance.
2.3. Sectors and areas of activities
In this mapping study, limited importance has been attributed to sectors and areas of activities. While an
organisation’s engagement in a defined “sector” may be an important feature of the organisation itself, it does
not define the position of the CSO in civil society as a whole, nor in the more general governance space.
This mapping study recognises two facts:
a) CSOs can play a social and political role that is not directly related to their sector of activity. Participation in
local governance and policy dialogue, and the capacity to represent interests and actors need not be linked
to particular sectors. Moreover, CSOs can mobilise on issues that are not directly related to their “sector
focus” (e.g. in the case of education or sports organisations mobilising on issues related to the environment);
b) “Categorisation” of CSOs according to their sector of activity often generates segmentation within civil
society and a reduction of CSO roles to that of “service providers”, and in the case of a few organisations,
“knowledge provider”.
2.4. Capacity building
This CSO mapping study views capacity building as a set of processes concerned not only with the
transfer/development of skills, but as linked to three different sets of dynamics:
-
dynamics related to skill development and the transfer/acquisition of skills by individuals (these are the
processes normally linked to “training”);
-
dynamics related to the development of organisational features and capacities (i.e. internal factors allowing
an organisation to play a certain role, to use available skills and resources and to develop new skills);
-
dynamics related to the relationships between an organisation and its environment that influence their
potential of playing a role, carrying out actions, etc. (this set of dynamics concern the relationships between
CSOs and with the “CSO community”, as well as those between CSOs and public authorities, private sector,
etc. and including also the legal environment).
13
3. Methodological framework
3.1. The methodological approach
From a methodological perspective, the mapping study is characterised by certain features, including:
a) An integration of quantitative and qualitative information;
b) An integration between information with “factual elements” (i.e. processes, situations, resources,
actions, etc.) and information with “cognitive elements” (i.e. the representations of reality, the objectives
and goals of stakeholders, their expectations, etc.);
c) A capitalisation of existing knowledge and information, based both on the mapping and analysis
of available documentary sources (e.g. previous studies, carried out both in the framework of academic
research and in the framework of policy making) and on the consultation of key informants and researchers;
d) A participative approach and a focus on participation and collective construction of knowledge based on the
recognition of actors involved in social processes not only as “sources of information”, but also as bearers of
important perspectives for the construction of a relevant knowledge on social processes and dynamics. This
would require that analysis and data collection are not simply carried out by the experts’ team, but are
shared, cross-checked and validated through the consultation of stakeholders.
These four main features have guided the definition of information sources and data gathering tools for the study.
3.2. The scope of the CSO mapping
The study has focused on two main geographical areas: Mauritius and Rodrigues.
In Mauritius, the need to take into account differences amongst regions and districts has been considered.
Specific activities were carried out in order to analyse emerging processes in different areas.
Rodrigues was considered as a whole. As such, geographical differentiation was not made in the collection and
analysis of information on the island.
3.3. The sources of information
The study was based on two sets of information sources: documentary and live.
Information sources
First degree information sources
EU policy documents and EU CSP
National Policy documents
Policy documents from CSOs
Documentary
sources
DCP I and DCP II reports and studies
CSOs’ documents on resources,
activities, statute, etc.
Main international donor websites and
policy documents (European Donors; UN
agencies; WB etc.)
Live sources
EU staff involved in CSO support activities
14
Second degree information sources
Reports on EU funded programmes and projects
Reports on major donors programmes
and initiatives concerning CSOs/NSAs in Mauritius
Research reports on CSOs and development
in Mauritius
Evaluation reports of CSO support initiatives
by other donors
CSO Mappings
Scholars engaged in CSO analysis and experts
from international organisations
First degree information sources
Government representatives engaged with
CSOs
DCP staff
Representatives of NSAs (including CSOs,
Trade Unions, Private foundations, CSO
Platforms etc.)
Representatives from donors engaged in
initiatives supporting CSOs and NSAs
Representatives of CSOs at various levels
CSOs’ activities and offices
Second degree information sources
3.4. Information gathering tools
To explore these different sources of information, the following tools have been used:
- 50 in depth interviews with stakeholders, including CSOs (NGOs, CBOs, Platforms, etc.), international
organisations, governmental and semi-governmental bodies, private foundations and other key
informants
- 6 focus groups meetings, with an attendance of 40 CBOs
- 25 semi-structured questionnaires to NGOs
- 31 semi-structured questionnaires to CBOs
- Analysis of documents (policy documents, reports of projects for strengthening NGOs, NGOs’
brochures, academic studies, websites, etc.)
- Field visits to projects and “poverty pockets” in different regions in Mauritius and Rodrigues
- Visits to CSOs’ offices and to CSO managed services
15
4. The context
4.1. An overview of Mauritian CSOs
Civil society organisations are not a novelty in Mauritius: citizens’ organisations played a key role in the
Independence movement in the country and in the setting up of the Republic. Moreover, a long tradition exists
both with regards to the engagement of organisations related to specific social groups in the provision of
services, and private sector actors supporting citizens’ initiatives. Finally, in recent decades, citizens’ movements
and trade unions have often played an important role in the Mauritian societal and political environment,
providing a voice to social groups and fostering policy and legal reforms.
This tradition contributes to the existence of a large number of associations of different kinds as well as of
private foundations: today, approximately 9000 associations are registered with the Registrar of Associations.
The number of both associations and foundations experienced an exponential growth in recent years following
the issuing of regulations in 2010 that supported the increase of funding to associations and foundations from
the private sector through the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
Despite their large number, associations, foundations and other CSOs do not have a well defined role. Many
associations are engaged in service provision and charitable activities: referring to CSR-accredited associations
which have actively functioned for at least 2 years, there are approximately 500 such associations. Another very
large group of registered associations includes: sport clubs and socio-cultural organisations, together with
women, elderly and youth organisations which largely carry out social and cultural activities, and which are
associated to and receive funds from government ministries. In some cases, organisations and associations are
also created as a means for individuals to gain representation on councils related to the government, and thus
access to political positions6.
Not only is the role assumed by organisations not always clear, but the extent to which they can be considered
as part of “civil society” is also often unclear: the state registry includes not only “autonomous” organisations
but also those that have been created within the framework of government action and that respond to
government in their activities. Moreover, the registry includes associations that foster the interests of specific
groups (as in the case of some private sector organisations). Yet further complexity is added by the fact that
some kinds of organisations are registered under different registers (as is the case of “Foundations” and “nonprofit companies” that are registered with the Registrar of Companies); and further more associations are not
registered at all (as in the case of many “movements” and local groups).
Some general characteristics amongst the large number of organisations recognised as CSOs can be identified:
a) There is a prevailing engagement in service provision. Organisations engaged in policy related activities (e.g.
policy dialogue, public advocacy in front of Local Authorities and Government; promoting policies and policy
changes, etc.) are very few in number. There are no organisations focusing on human rights, and only a few
focusing on citizens’ rights7.
b) “Volunteerism” is a main feature of most organisations. Relatively few organisations have more than one
paid staff. While most organisations rely on their members and on the support of volunteers, often
members are not active in the life of organisations and finding “active” volunteers has become increasingly
difficult. Moreover, although a large amount of resources have been invested in training, volunteers are
often still under or ill-qualified for the carrying out of NGO activities.
c) Despite the lack of engagement in policy related activities, linkages between organisations and politics exist
at several levels. Organisations often seek out the support of political actors for their operation. Also often,
6
In most councils established by government, from the Mauritian Olympic Council to the National Economic and Social Council to
those related to specific ministries (Women, Youth, Elders, etc.), members are elected by the associations registered in the specific
sector, so often “ad hoc” associations are created to foster the election of a person. An individual being a member of several
associations, and being a member of the boards of several associations is a common phenomenon.
7 While there was once a national branch of “Amnesty International”, it is not functioning. A former leader of Amnesty
International recently set up another CSO called ‘Dis-Moi’. Most organisations working on the defence of “rights” and on the
advocacy of citizens’ rights largely focus on “consumers’ rights”.
16
leaders and members of organisations can be connected with persons engaged in political institutions.
Giving support to political parties at a local level and particularly in electoral periods can also be a feature of
smaller organisations. The attempt to maintain “good relationships” with all political parties (i.e. to appear
non-partisan), and to not “embarrass” politicians is a concern for many organisations at different levels (thus,
CSOs refrain from engaging on issues that involve politics and policy making; and in many cases, policy
action is carried out through direct communications between CSOs’ leaders and government/parliament
members).
4.2. The legal framework
Registrar of Association Act
As previously stated, most CSOs in Mauritius function under the “Law of associations” or “Registrar of
Association Act”. This law requires all groups of citizens to be registered as an “association” in order to be
recognised as a legal entity, to be able to receive funds, to carry out activities, and to open a bank account.
However, the legal right for informal (non-registered) associations to exist and to carry out activities, in
accordance with human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international law has been guaranteed by an
amendment to the Registration of Associations Bill, issued in 2008.
Unlike many other countries, registering an association is a relatively simple operation in Mauritius. The creation
of an association shall be communicated within 14 days from its creation and a new organisation shall be
registered within three months from the foundation providing to the Registrar with a set of documents,
including: (a) 2 copies of the rules of the association; (b) a list of the members, showing their names, occupations
and addresses; (c) a list of the officers, showing their titles, names and addresses; (d) a certified copy of the
minutes of proceedings of the meeting at which the rules were approved and the officers were appointed; (e) a
notice of the address of the office of the association; and (f) the prescribed fee.
The role of the Registrar – which functions under the Ministry of Labour - is not that of “approving”
associations but simply of registering them. As such, the Registrar only carries out a formal control with respect
to the legal requirements for the creation of associations. An association shall not be registered where it does
not comply with the Registration of Associations Act, or where: (a) any of its objects is unlawful; (b) it is engaged,
or is about to engage, in activities likely to cause a serious threat to public safety or public order or has made, is
making or is likely to make, available any resources, directly or indirectly, to a terrorist or a terrorist organisation
or for the purposes of terrorism; (c) its rules are not clear or are ambiguous; (d) its name (i) is the same as that of
a registered association or so resembles that of a registered association that the public may be deceived or
misled; or (ii) is, in the Registrar’s opinion, objectionable or otherwise unsuitable; or (iii) in the case of a foreign
association, its registration would not be in the interest of Mauritius.
All associations are registered under the same registry, without differentiation made according to their sector or
activity8; and some CSOs consulted in this study felt that this was problematic. However, given that this mapping
study assumes that CSOs can play an active role in governance and policy dialogue, without any reference to
their sector engagement or activities, the current “open” legal framework should be considered a resource
rather than a liability.
In addition to associations of persons, federations and confederations of association can also be registered; and
they have a juridical personality allowing them to receive and manage resources.
8
Associations under the Registrar can be engaged in any of the following sectors: (a) Amateur athletics, (b) Arts, (c) Assistance to,
or protection of physically or mentally handicapped people, (d)Assistance to refugees, (e) Charity, (f) Civil or human rights, (g)
Consumer protection, (h) Culture, (i) Democracy, (j) Ecology or the protection of environment, (k) Education, training, and
enlightenment, (l Elimination of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or any other legally proscribed form of
discrimination, (m) Elimination of poverty, (n) Health or physical well-being, (o) Historical preservation, (p) Humanitarian or
disaster relief, (q) Medical care, (r) Protection of children, youth, and disadvantaged individuals, (s) Protection or care of injured or
vulnerable animals, (t) Relieving the burdens of government, (u) Religion, (v) Science, (w) Social cohesion, (x) Social or economic
development, (y) Social welfare, (z) Any other activity that is determined to support or promote public benefit.
17
Despite the openness of the “law of associations”, some civil society groups chose not to register themselves
and to maintain an “informal structure”: this may be seen as a way to maintain a movement-like dimension to
the group, as well as to maintain clarity about the fact that the organisation does not endeavour to “collect
resources”. Particularly in recent years, the main goal of registering an association is often to access resources.
Other relevant legal frameworks
The law of associations is not the only relevant law regarding civil society organisations. Some other relevant
legal frameworks that exist are mentioned below:
-
The company laws, which regulate the creation and management of “non profit companies” and of
“foundations”. The main differences between “associations” and non-profit companies/foundations are:
“associations” require members to pay an association fee, while this is not required in non-profit companies;
non-profit companies can have a “limited liability”; foundations are related to the presence of a patrimonial
asset (currently, the patrimonial asset required is relatively low in Mauritius; and foundations have been
increasingly created because foundations are recognised as a vehicle for “CSR”, and private companies can
therefore easily maintain control over resources provided as CSR to their own foundation).
-
The parliament acts recognising an association as a special public interest, often implying that public
resources can be provided directly to the mentioned association and that representatives of the government
are in the association board or council (this is the case of many “welfare” focused associations).
-
The parliament or government acts that establish councils or funds under the responsibility of a Ministry
(e.g. the Ministry of Youth, the Ministry of Women, etc.): associations can be recognised as permanent
members of these councils (e.g. in the National Youth Council some national associations – e.g. the Scout
Association and the Girl Guides Association – are recognised as “Youth associations” having a representative
in the council); moreover, local associations can be registered under the ministries at district level and
obtain funds from ministries.
-
The act establishing the Mauritius Council of Social Services (MACOSS), as an “umbrella organisation” for
Mauritius NGOs: it is established as a preferential channel for communication between government and
CSOs and defines the way MACOSS functions and is funded.
-
The laws regulating the establishment and functioning of other organisations that often play an active role
within civil society, at national and local levels, such as trade unions (that in Mauritius represent a very
diversified group of organisations9) and cooperatives (that often play a role in the organisation of groups of
producers not only in economic activities, but also in local development actions).
There has been a tendency to use law (and the establishment of new laws) to make CSOs or organisations
related to civil society mobilisation and functioning permanent. This phenomenon produces little sustainability
of organisations established through legal acts, and also generates two major issues: a greater dependency of
these organisations upon government funds (and therefore a greater tendency of these organisations to back
away from playing a policy role or a critical role in front of public authorities); and a “crystallisation” of the
organisation themselves that often arrests their ability to function according to “civil society dynamics” and
forces them to function according to “public administration mechanisms” (e.g. focusing on the respect of
regulations and on the continuity of the organisation itself, rather than on objectives, goals or the
representation of citizens’ interests).
4.3. The policy framework
While the legislation does not appear to define limits and opportunities that influence, in a important way, the
functioning of CSOs in Mauritius, over the last 10 years, a policy framework has been progressively set up by the
Mauritius government that produces several consequences for CSOs and their development: CSOs are largely
identified as NGOs, and they are considered an important partner for government in the implementation of
9
About 400 trade unions, most of which are “company based” organisations, exist in Mauritius. However some federations and
confederations also exist as general category trade unions. Very few trade unions maintain relations and collaborate with CSOs,
such as NGOs and CBOs (e.g. among others, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Private Sector Workers); and a very small
group of NGOs and CBOs collaborate with trade unions. Recent movements which have arisen for specific environmental issues
have presented an opportunity for collaboration between trade unions, NGOs and other kinds of CSOs.
18
projects and provision of services. A key initiative in this framework has been the launching of the
“Strengthening of the NGO Sector in Mauritius” project with the technical support of UNDP in 2007.
More specifically, this government framework focuses on the identification of NGOs as partners in servicedelivery projects for poverty alleviation.
The main elements that make up this policy framework include:
-
the National Policy on NGOs;
-
the establishment of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) framework and guidelines;
-
the establishment of the National Empowerment Foundation as a major vehicle for funding and guiding the
struggle against poverty, as well as for involving CSOs as a major “service provider”;
-
the NGO Trust Fund;
-
the NSA Unit;
-
the ministries’ policies for supporting CSOs.
The National Policy on NGOs
A national NGO policy paper was presented in December 2012 by the Ministry of Social Security, National
Solidarity & Reform Institutions. This document follows up the engagement taken in the Government
Programme 2012-2015. The core of the governmental policy on NGOs is the adoption of the concepts of “social
entrepreneurship” and “social marketing” and the idea to promote a shift in the NGO sector towards
“sustainability, autonomy and effective service delivery to vulnerable groups”. The core measures provided
under the policy are: the establishment of an “NGO Trust Fund” providing annual grants; the establishment of a
“Non-State Actors Unit” to pursue volunteer development programmes; and the development of the “Corporate
Social Responsibility” (CSR) Policy.
The policy was defined by a working group in which only two persons can be said to be representative of civil
society (namely, the Secretary of MACOSS and the Programme Coordinator of MACOSS). Validation workshops
were also held, involving the University of Mauritius, CSOs and the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of
India. Despite these workshops, a wide group of CSOs (including some key NGOs) do not consider the policy as
being the product of a participatory process, nor even a consultative one.
The NGO policy addresses 5 main areas:
-
Legal and regulatory framework, arguing for greater transparency and better governance within NGOs, as
well as through self-regulation under the umbrella organisations and leading NGOs (recognised as MACOSS,
the Mental Health Federation, the NCRD);
-
Funding, arguing for the use of performance driven funding, for one centralized source or coordinating
mechanism to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, for “NGO-driven” funding within the CSR10, and for
income generating projects by NGOs;
-
Capacity development, arguing for the setting up of a “Common Capacity Building Strategy”, for a “social
entrepreneurship and social marketing culture”, and for increased volunteering by youth and elders;
10
The concept of “NGO-driven” is not defined within the policy paper. However it seems to be primarily understood as the use of
NGOs as a main vehicle for the implementation of CSR activities. The original regulation allowing companies to create “Foundations”
as a vehicle of CSR has been recently changed with the imposition of some limits (for instance, while in the past it was possible to
accumulate financial resources within foundations, now the funds provided to foundations should be used within a term of 24
months). While NGOs are used for implementing services, often NGOs themselves are the ones that are in charge of both the
identification of activities to be carried out, as well as for finding companies interested in supporting these activities. The adoption
of such an approach is often generating an overload for CSOs (NGOs particularly): the result is that their main engagement tends to
be that of looking for resources to sustain their activities. Moreover, giving CSOs (or NGOs) the responsibility of identifying the
actions to be supported tends to reduce the relevance of development actions: these are defined not according to an analysis of
emerging needs, but according to the “capacities” and “vocations” of the NGOs engaged in service delivery. There are further
concerns with the idea of focusing on “income generating” projects by NGOs. Because the idea of “income generation” is linked to
that of “social entrepreneurship”, there is a risk of distorting the role of CSOs: it may result in more and more organisations
engaging in micro-economic activities that are both external to their original focus and with little relevance as solutions to local and
national issues.
19
-
Social entrepreneurship, arguing for the setting up of “Social Business Indicators” within umbrella
organisations and leading NGOs, and promoting training and education on social entrepreneurship;
-
Partnership and networking, promoting clustering around leading NGOs in project and programme
implementation, and arguing for NGOs to act as an advocacy group vis-à-vis government institutions.
The policy posits itself to be relevant for both Rodrigues and Mauritius.
The “social entrepreneurship” concept in the National NGO Policy
A clear definition of the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is not provided within the NGO Policy paper. However,
according to the paper “social entrepreneurship offers a scope and scale for the NGOs to indulge into viable business
model with the beneficiaries (persons with disabilities, poor, delinquents, etc.) being treated as valuable customers
and consumers and not as passive recipients”.
The policy views social entrepreneurship as an answer to the need for NGO “financial sustainability” and as a space for
NGOs to explore “long term partnership with private sector” (beyond fundraising), and engagement in economic
activities and social mobilisation at community level.
In the introduction of the NGO Policy paper, the main benefits to be derived by NGOs in adopting the social
entrepreneurship approach are summarised as follows:
(i) achieving financial sustainability and thus enabling the NGOs to develop a strategic orientation of their programmes
and effectively serve their beneficiaries;
(ii) loosening the dependence of NGOs on the requirements of traditional funds providers;
(iii) contributing towards the scalability of social ventures of NGOs and creating the possibility of serving a larger
number of beneficiaries;
(iv) creating the opportunities for NGOs to enlist the services of professionals and thus contribute to the
professionalisation of the NGO sector. This can also be supplemented by the implementation of ‘paid volunteers’
programmes; and
(v) supporting the economic empowerment for vulnerable groups of society.
Assuming the need to recognise NSAs and CSOs as actors in policy making and policy dialogue, a clear gap emerges in
the policy framework: it identifies CSOs as NGOs and it emphasises their role in delivering services to “the poor, the
delinquents, the disabled and other groups of vulnerable people”, who are referred to as beneficiaries, customers and
consumers, but not as citizens holding rights.
The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and
the National Empowerment Foundation (NEF)
The National Empowerment Foundation is a government owned not-for-profit company, that since January
2010, has had the role of managing the “Trust Fund for the Social Integration of Vulnerable Groups” (TFSIVG).11
The NEF also houses the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programme, which is aimed at directing the use
of the funds provided by private companies under the CSR legislation (a company can use a percentage of their
income - originally up to 2% and now up to 1.5 % - to support NGO or private foundation activities; 50% of these
funds must be used for poverty alleviation activities).
Some activities related to the use of the Trust Fund for the Social Integration of Vulnerable Groups are directly
managed by the NEF (including the provision of subsides, the construction of social housing schemes, etc.), while
others are carried out through the engagement of NGOs in service-delivery and project implementation.
The NEF places much emphasis on NGO capacity-building as well as on the targeting of actions. However in
many cases, funded projects are failing to achieve their goals, and in most cases, projects are conceived and
formulated by considering activities and the number of beneficiaries to be “assisted”, rather than the objectives
11
Created in 1999, the TFSIVG is based on the older programme, “Trust Fund pour la lutte contre l’exclusion” which was created in
1995.
20
and goals to be achieved. Moreover, in many cases, NEF activities risk to not be able to tackle “social exclusion
dynamics”12.
Several additional issues concerning the CSR scheme have also been mentioned by CSOs consulted in this study:
-
A “top-down” approach was used to establish the guidelines for the use of CSR funds with the result that
external agendas have been imposed on CSOs;
-
The need to submit projects to CSR Committee for approval often results in cumbersome bureaucratic
procedures, which in turn reduces the interest of companies (especially the smaller ones) in supporting
NGOs’ activities);
-
Some important actions such as research and policy/governance actions are not included among those that
can be funded – and as a result, the opportunity to improve the quality of project/development actions
are lost;
-
Prioritising “poverty alleviation” actions hinders the ability to access funds for activities aimed at reducing
social exclusion factors/structures, and it also drives some NGOs to alter the focus of their activities in order
to more easily access funds;
-
Many organisations with adequate records of activities claim to have been unable to obtain CSR
accreditation, which increases their perception of there being a lack of transparency in the accreditation
process;
-
Changes made to the CSR guidelines also increase the perception amongst NGOs of a lack of transparency
in the process, and increases the difficulties of small NGOs and small companies to abide by changing
regulations;
-
CSR funds are provided for actions up to 12 or at maximum 24 months, however, this time frame is too
short for actions aimed at local development;
-
Related to the point before, CSR funding mechanisms do not meet the needs of most NGOs applying to the
CSR for funding: while most NGOs deliver services continuously through time, CSR only funds project-based
activities – and as a result, NGO programmes experience a constant “stop and go” in activities (which will
lead to a breakdown of trust in relationships between the service provider and the service users, a
dispersion of project resources, a turn-over of staff, and loss of resources invested in capacity building, etc.);
-
The limited amount of resources allowed by CSR to go towards general/administrative costs in NGO
projects reduces the capacity of organisations at a central level since most resources are used for project
implementation/service delivery.
NGO Trust Fund
Set up in 1999 under the Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity and Senior Citizens Welfare & Reform
Institutions, the NGO Trust Fund is aimed at supporting both project and operational costs of a selected group of
NGOs. In order to obtain financial assistance from the NGO Trust Fund, civil society organisations should:
a) be run on a non-profit making basis;
b) work towards the (i) empowerment of the disabled, the elderly, the homeless or such other vulnerable
groups; and (ii) promotion of the welfare of the community in general;
c) be registered under the Registration Act; and
d) be approved by the Committee.
The committee which approves NGOs’ requests for support is composed of a chairman who is nominated by the
Minister; representatives of the Ministries of finance, education, health and social security; and two persons
12
In addition to the relative low capacity of some NGOs, there are other key factors which are contributing to the low efficacy of
NEF actions. Since actions are directly targeted to the “poor” and not towards territories or regions, stigma is often reinforced (e.g.
most new housing schemes – often involving the action of NGOs – are reproducing patterns of territorial segregation; and the same
can be said of actions concerning education or job creation). Also, because of inadequate analysis of poverty mechanisms, poverty
is simply identified with a lack of adequate access to services, goods or income. As a result, actions are aimed at providing these
elements, rather than eliminating/mitigating “social exclusion factors”. Finally, while most actions claim to be aimed at “activating”
the poor to take initiatives for exiting poverty, in reality, most actions consider the poor as beneficiaries or customers/clients; and
as a result, dependency patterns are reinforced.
21
involved in social work and who are nominated by the Minister (and one of whom is a representative of
MACOSS). Since most NGOs in Mauritius respect points a, b, and c in the criteria, the selection of NGOs to
receive support is largely dependent upon decisions made by the committee itself.
The Non-State Actors (NSA) Unit
The Non-State Actors Unit (NSA) was set up in November 2009, and was officially launched on the occasion of
the International Volunteer Day on 5 December 2009. The NSA Unit is located within the Ministry of Social
Security, and is supported by the UNDP.
The main functions of the NSA Unit are as follows: (i) building capacity of NGOs; (ii) providing adequate
financial/technical support for programme implementation; (iii) setting up a professional corps of paid
volunteers for NGOs to tap into; and (iv) providing an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system for
programmes.
In the framework of the activity of NSA Unit, a working group of stakeholders (i.e. the Ministry of Social Security;
the NGO Trust Fund; the NEF; the EU funded DCP (Decentralised cooperation Programme), and MACOSS) was
established in order to set a common policy for capacity building and training, in coherence with the National
NGO Policy.
In addition, the NSA Unit is promoting pilot activities which aim at engaging a wider range of CSOs (thus not only
NGOs) in actions for local development and the eradication of poverty. These actions are currently being carried
out in some “poverty pockets” in Mauritius and Rodrigues.
Policies at a ministry level
Despite the formulation of a national NGO policy, most line ministries have their own approaches, policies,
resources and activities for the engagement of CSOs; and unlike NEF policies and the national NGO Policy,
ministry policies very often involve community based organisations and small organisations. In many cases,
these “ministry based policies” are based on:
-
the setting of “councils” focusing on general and specific issues (health, substance abuse, etc.) or social
categories (elders, women, children, youth, etc.);
-
grants-in aid, including the fact that some services are delegated/contracted to NGOs;
-
the presence of decentralised service centres (e.g. Citizen’s Advice Bureaus, youth centres, social
security/pension offices, community centres, and women’s centres) that are found in all districts and in
most large villages, towns, and cities in Mauritius.
However, a risk can be identified in this framework: in most cases, CSOs are used as vehicles for disseminating
information, for facilitating the distribution of benefits (both material and immaterial), and for facilitating
ministry access to “beneficiaries”. Generally, CSOs are not considered to be actors with the ability to inform
policy formulation and participate in Structured Dialogue (SD) (with a view to making policies more relevant and
effective); rather, they are considered to be simply recipients of information and resources.
Councils are normally not able to be an effective dialogue or policy forum through which political decision
making is actually influenced by civil society. On the contrary they often tend to represent “bottle necks”,
which reduce the space for policy involvement of CSOS: agendas are formulated according to government
perspective, as well as the identification of relevant CSOs. The participation of CSOs in most “councils” is
limited13, and the capacity of CSOs (and particularly NGOs) to influence policies is largely related to their capacity
to directly enter in contact with ministers or with senior ministry staff. While CSOs participate to a greater
degree in local councils, in fact they are spaces for the distribution of resources and for the communication of
ministry agendas more than spaces for policy dialogue.
13
In the Committee which manages the NGO Trust Fund, as well as in Councils set up under line ministries, CSO representatives are
a minority amongst members; most members are representatives of government bodies or are nominated by a minister. As such,
these councils tend to be more accountable to government and political parties than to CSOs or citizens.
22
As a result, not only CSOs are excluded from contributing to policy making, but dynamics that foster the
dependency of grassroots organisations on public bodies can be created. In turn, grassroots organisations
become increasingly vulnerable to political dynamics (e.g. depending upon the relationships with government or
opposition parties, to access resources, and to gain visibility and power at a local level).
Local authorities
Especially for small CSOs, local authorities represent a source of funding and support. Local authorities – such as
village councils and municipalities – can potentially offer privileged spaces for engaging CSOs in local governance
and policy making; and this role would be relevant both as a way to launch initiatives aimed at reducing social
exclusion factors at a local level as well as a way to foster decentralisation, in line with current reform processes.
However in reality, local authorities – even more than central government – reduce the role of CSOs to that of
service provider, or even worse, to that of a vehicle for generating consensus. Local authorities support CSOs in
their role of diffusing “benefits” to needy persons, and carrying out local projects (and mainly those which
deliver assistance), but not in the setting up of local governance mechanisms.
There are three main causes for this scenario: the first is the low level of autonomy that local authorities possess,
and the fact that the scope of their actions is mostly limited to the management of infrastructure; the second is
that local authorities (elected authorities as well as officers in decentralised government bodies) are more
accountable to their “chiefs” in political parties or in administration bodies upon whom they depend, than to
citizens; the third is the fact that local authority mandates last only 2 years: a time too short for those elected to
engage themselves in anything other than the implementation of short term, quick, and visible activities (such as
small infrastructural work, or “assistance activities”).
4.4. Resources for supporting CSOs in Mauritius
Rapid economic growth and the social development achievements that have characterised Mauritius in past
decades (despite unemployment, degradation of conditions in the labour market, and unchanged levels of
poverty and social exclusion) has meant that the country is no longer a recipient of international aid (except for
very small amounts).
The reduction of international support to Mauritius has had significant implications for CSOs. It has meant that
CSOs are dependent upon the state (through ministries and the NGO Trust Fund) and the private sector (through
the CSR scheme) for funding. Additionally, it has resulted in a marked reduction in the level of international
exposure and networking for Mauritian CSOs. This means that Mauritian CSOs now have limited access to new
ideas, experiences and practices, knowledge transfer and development, as well as a limited critical external
regard. An extremely small number of CSOs continue to participate in international networks and maintain
cooperation and partnerships with international NGOs14.
Currently, the following sources of support are available for CSOs in Mauritius:
-
Private foundations, including those created by larger and more traditional actors in CSR in Mauritius (such
as MCB Foundation, the Rogers’ Foundation, the Foundation Medine – Horizon, the Foundation Nouveau
Regard, etc.), as well as those that have been created in recent years as a tool for engaging/managing CSR
resources. While foundations fund activities in most sectors, some foundations are engaging themselves in
system actions aimed at strengthening the “NGO sector” as a provider of services (such as the setting up of
and support of the Act Together website, the setting up of networks and platforms, the identification and
dissemination of innovative practices), and even supporting CSO policy engagement in specific sectors and
on specific themes.
-
Special international funds, such as the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP)
(managed by UNDP), and the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS (managed by an NGO – and in the case of
Mauritius, by PILS): while these funds have limited amounts of resources, they use innovative approaches to
14
These organisations are largely engaged in specific areas, in which global movements are more visible (such as gender,
environment, HIV/AIDS and GLTB). Most organisations which are engaged in the delivery of services for assisting the poor or
needy/vulnerable people are not involved in international networks/partnerships.
23
engage CSOs. The GEF-SGP supports small CBOs to launch local development initiatives aimed at sustainable
use or recovery of environmental resources, while also often partnering CBOs with more experienced NGOs
for technical support. The sub-granting scheme in the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS places focus on
monitoring and evaluation, effectiveness, and transparency of support. A main feature of both funding
schemes is the coupling of funding with technical assistance.
-
The UNDP supports CSOs through its “Non-Governmental Organisation Sector in Mauritius Programme”
(SNSM) which was implemented by the Mauritius Council of Social Services (MACOSS) and the Ministry of
Social Security. It also supports specific pilot initiatives in Mauritius and Rodrigues.
-
The EU is the main provider of support to CSOs through two main channels: the Decentralised Cooperation
Programme (DCP) and the Thematic programmes. The DCP has been funding projects and training/capacity
building activities under different schemes, including large grants for more established NGOs and small
grants for smaller NGOs. While DCP funds have been mainly used to support poverty alleviation initiatives,
they are now also being used to support the establishment and strengthening of CSO networks/platforms
and the development of policy dialogue and local governance initiatives). Under the thematic programmes,
the main initiative in Mauritius has been the NSA – LA thematic programme, which supports initiatives
undertaken by CSOs (as in Mauritius activities have not concerned Local Authorities, as in other countries).
Some CSOs applied directly to international calls for proposals which are managed centrally by the EU (e.g
European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy, “Investing in People”, etc.). In all cases, grants
(through restricted/open calls for proposals) are given to CSOs. However – particularly in the framework of
DCP - assistance has also been provided to CSOs for project formulation and for project implementation.
-
Bilateral cooperation agencies and embassies also provide funds to CSOs, normally on a project or adhoc
basis. There is no formal coordination amongst donors. Main bilateral donors include: AusAID, DFID, AFD,
USAid, the American Embassy, and JICA.
-
International NGOs and organisations – such as IUCN – are also providing resources to CSOs, particularly in
the environmental sector and in the HIV sector. In some cases, projects carried out or supported by
international NGOs have resulted in the creation and development of local NGOs (this was the case for the
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, an NGO which manages terrestrial environmental protection initiatives in
Mauritius; and more recently the case of “Shoals”, an NGO engaged in the protection of marine resources in
Rodrigues).
In addition to these sources of support, and the funding channelled through government and CSR, some CSOs –
mainly faith based organisations – also receive individual donations (often collected through public collection of
funds). Examples include the resources raised through the Zakhat, as well as through the Catholic Church and
Hindu temples and communities. The ability of CSOs to access these resources can shield them from some
external pressure. However, these resources largely support service delivery activities.
Training and capacity building opportunities
A specialised institution for providing training and capacity building opportunities to CSOs is currently lacking in
Mauritius. Capacity building and training is occasionally provided by MACOSS, the University of Mauritius, and the
Mauritius Institute of Training and Development (MITD). Opportunities provided by MACOSS and by the academic
institutions mainly consist of training courses.
Moreover, support and capacity building to CSOs is provided by some key organisations, in a systematic way (as in the
case of the ANFEN network) or in the framework of specific projects (as in the case of CEDREFI, some women/gender
organisations, and PILS). Support provided by key organisations mainly focuses on the development of capacities,
often also including the provision of technical assistance and of coaching activities.
Capacity building and training opportunities are offered by DCP and in a less systematic way by UNDP, NGO Trust Fund
and other governmental organisations.
MACOSS is currently carrying out a campaign for the building of a training institute for NGOs, mainly focusing on the
creation of a physical space for hosting activities. Many key NGOs do not support this initiative.
24
5. The stakes and emerging issues
The analysis of the context in which CSOs operate has revealed some important stakes for Mauritian CSOs, as
well as some issues that CSOs can actively engage with. Many of these issues were also identified during
consultations held with CSOs, government actors, and international organisations.
Due to the specific context of Rodrigues (i.e. territorial dimension and population, political status, economic
resources, political dynamics and the specific features of CSOs), it is important to differentiate the analysis of
stakes and emerging issues. As such, stakes and emerging issues are presented separately for Mauritius and
Rodrigues in this section.
5.1. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Mauritius
a) Reconstructing politics from below
As elsewhere, political institutions are facing a crisis of legitimacy, as well as of their capacity to represent
citizens and to govern emerging processes. In this context, while citizens lose trust in political institutions, there
is a tendency for political institutions (including government structures, political parties and the institution of
representative democracy) to act as a “separate”, self-referent body, with a limited capacity to understand social
dynamics and limited accountability to citizens. Many phenomena that can be linked to these political dynamics,
such as – among many others - a growing ineffectiveness and inefficiency of public policies, an increasing
emergence of cases of corruption and mal-utilisation of public resources at different levels, a tendency to use
public services as tools for increasing consensus, and difficulties in coordinating policies among different
ministries.
Civil society can contribute to the reconstruction of politics not through the creation of “new parties” nor the
attempt to occupy political institutional space (which can be seen as two indicators of the lack of a space in
which civil society can effectively communicate and dialogue with political institutions), but by informing public
decisions, monitoring public policies and public services, representing interests, etc. at different policy levels,
from the local one (through the establishment of “multi-actors” governance mechanisms) to the national ones.
In order for CSOs to assume an active role in this context, political institutions/public bodies15 must be open to
and must recognise CSOs and their potential roles. Political institutions must not view civil society in an
opportunistic way, such as: (a) using CSOs as simple service providers; (b) “co-opting” CSOs within councils and
committees that are actually managed and “dominated” by the government and political parties; and (c) using
CSOs as vehicles for generating consensus or electoral support.
However, CSOs must also practice a similar openness and recognition of the existence of a specific space and
role for CSOs in policy. CSOs should engage themselves in policy while moving away from the relatively
“comfortable” and familiar space related to service provision.
b) Local governance
Local governance often appears as a lacking function or at least as a problematic space. As previously discussed,
despite the diffusion of ministries’ antennas at a regional level and regulatory changes, decisions and authority
are still held by central bodies; the space for local authorities is limited. Moreover local authorities often
function as though they are in a permanent pre-electoral period. As a result, there can be: ineffective local
governance and management of emerging issues; dependency of local authorities upon political parties and/or
to government; and lack of accountability to citizens.
15
Under the term “political institutions” it is possible to include the government and ministries, the parliament and all
related institutions (including political parties represented or competing for being represented in parliament), the
“representative democracy” bodies at the different levels.
25
CSOs can play a key role in increasing the effectiveness of local governance and the accountability of public
services to citizens. Their contribution to local governance can be provided in three main ways: (a) by orienting
policy decisions at local level, offering to local authorities information on dynamics, processes and needs
emerging at local level; providing local authorities with “technical information” on relevant issues and on the
policies and decisions to be taken; and making visible to public authorities the actors that emerge in society; (b)
by informing citizens about political processes and policies and their functioning (such as by setting up public
policies and public services monitoring mechanisms), and supporting citizens in the identification and analysis of
problems emerging at a local level; (c) by participating in the governance of service delivery at a local level in
order to make them more accountable to citizens.
These functions go over and beyond those related to a simple “service delivery” (wherein citizens are viewed as
beneficiaries, recipients, clients or customers), which is currently the role most assumed by Mauritian CSOs.
Performing a local governance function would not require CSOs to abandon their engagement in service delivery
entirely, but it would require them to change their approach and focus in service delivery. First, they would need
to assume a “right based approach” (thus recognizing citizens as right bearers, and service delivery as a way to
support the exercise of rights). Second, they would need to move away from simple service delivery towards a
greater role in innovation (including “service design” mechanisms to allow the transfer of the capacities and
responsibility on service provision to public or private providers in the mid-term. Third, they would need to
empower citizens to participate in service governance and provide support to them for the monitoring of social
problems emerging at a local level.
c) Reconstructing trust and overcoming “ethnic” or “communal” divides
In Mauritius, there is widespread recognition of the existence of communal divisions in politics and their
influence upon public and social services. The phenomena of “self-segregation” (i.e. people belonging to a
particular “community” not approaching organizations or public officers that are recognized as belonging to
other communities), and “communal accountability” (i.e. politicians approaching and speaking firstly to
members of their own “communities”) are common. Moreover, although a very small number of CSOs are
framed by communal identity, a much larger group of CSOs are framed by their religious beliefs and communal
divides. Furthermore, some CSOs take part in umbrella organizations and platforms based on communal linkages.
Direct consequences of this situation include:
-
lack of trust amongst CSOs and of citizens towards CSOs (often their positions on policy issues are viewed as
a consequence of their communal linkages);
-
limitation of the efficiency and effectiveness of development actions (that are often unable to effectively
involve relevant stakeholders);
-
lack of independence and autonomy of CSOs themselves (they are not willing to create “problems”, or more
seriously, they are directly dependent upon their linkages with communal politics);
-
the use/manipulation of grassroots organizations by politics.
However, examples from both the international and national level show that CSOs can play a key role in reconstructing trust in a context of communal division. In order to play such a role, CSOs should engage in actions
that create bridges between communities and groups and avoid targeting specific “communal groups” or
defending interests that can be seen as related to specific communal groups. An important step towards the
assumption of a stronger bridging role is for CSOs to work in partnerships with other organisations.
Most new informal movements that have recently arisen strongly claim that they are inclusive and
representative of all ethnic groups in the country. These movements in some ways not only address
environmental issues for example, but they also work to promote social cohesion at different levels. On the
other hand, there are very few more organised CSOs which have the goal of social cohesion as their central aim,
and focus on the issue of bridging communal divides and overcoming social exclusion based on communal
belonging.
26
d) Fostering a “change approach” to poverty
Despite efforts and resources aimed at poverty eradication in Mauritius, poverty (and extreme poverty) appears
to be a permanent phenomenon (according to the World Bank about 7% of the population is considered poor,
despite the growth of GDP per capita and the improvement of social development indexes). In Mauritius,
poverty has been defined as a “lack of income” (thus a poverty line has been set by the Ministry of Social
Security for accessing subsides and services provided to the poor), and/or as a set of problems or issues (lack of
housing, lack of income, drug and alcohol addiction, mono-parental families, etc.). While most NGOs also seem
to share this definition of poverty, a small few also equate poverty with an inability to achieve MDGs.
However, these approaches to poverty often lead to an ineffective response to poverty eradication: CSOs’
activities, as well as those of many public bodies, in most cases focus on provision of services and goods, rather
than on fostering and supporting social change processes. As a result, despite intentions, there is an increase in
dependency of the poor rather than their empowerment.
However, there are some good practices, and innovative experiences and knowledge concerning the support to
change processes which have been produced by some CSOs that could be scaled up or used as a basis for
development. Among others, these practices include targeting a specific territorial area, focusing on the
identification of structures and dynamics that are linked to poverty, recognising and making the most of local
knowledge and adopting a multi-sector/integrated approach that includes policy setting.
Assuming a change approach to poverty also requires a shift in the focus of CSO activities away from service
delivery and project activities (including the focus on the number of actions carried out and on the number of
beneficiaries) to a focus on mid-term outcomes and results, described in terms of change in the original situation.
There is also a need for CSOs to recognise the complex nature of poverty in Mauritius. Generally, the nature of
poverty in this multi-ethnic country is not understood, and there is little consensus. All actors which intervene in
society must make an effort to ensure that all groups are being reached by poverty projects/programmes, and
that poverty projects are appropriate to the needs of each group (as the nature of poverty, causes of poverty,
and manifestations of poverty tend to differ for each ethnic group).
In order for CSOs to be able to assume roles in the four areas discussed above, there is a need for openness to
and recognition of CSO by political institutions/public bodies, as well as a move away from CSOs’ traditional
role of “project implementer”. Moreover, there is a need to construct a “social space” for civil society, made
up of shared representations, behaviours, social norms, and social meanings that allow relationships amongst
CSO to change from competition and fragmentation to the development of a shared vision of civil society.
Finally, there is a need to develop capacities of CSOs for playing an active role, taking into account different
shapes and features of the different categories of CSOs.
5.2. Stakes and emerging issues for CSOs in Rodrigues
a) Reinforcing governance and strengthening politics as a “common good”
Deep political divides exist across all areas of social life in Rodrigues, from political institutions to village level
organisations. As a result of such a divide, the joining of resources, which could produce advantageous
results for the whole community (e.g. in the use of natural resources) is hindered.
CSOs can also be susceptible to division. However, CSOs can also play a key role by supporting the setting up
of local governance mechanisms that are not dependent upon politics for sharing experiences, co-operation,
and speaking with a common voice.
b) Innovation and the approach to poverty
Rodrigues is a small, relatively isolated island, with a relatively small population. As such, limited space and
resources, and limited opportunities for economic and social activities are serious issues. In fact, these are
major factors leading to emigration towards Mauritius: and it is frequent the case that the most resourceful
persons, such as educated youth, are the ones who are leaving. Yet traditional “job creation” and poverty
alleviation measures tend to have little efficacy in Rodrigues: such measures often result in an increased
dependency upon the state and external actors.
27
In order to identify and carry out effective actions against poverty, CSOs must assume a major role in
fostering innovation through the identification of new opportunities and new ways to work on existing
resources. Despite the fact that they often have a limited capacity, CSOs are probably best placed to be able
to access and make the most of information and resources coming from abroad, as well as to test actions
that can eventually be scaled up.
c) Structuring the space for civil society
Village committees and CBOs are the main actors engaged in the setting of the Rodrigues Council of Social
Services that also functions as a vehicle for communication with government. However, there is a lack of
specific spaces for supporting the development of partnerships and for sharing information amongst CSOs
(and particularly NGOs). In order to build up these spaces, CSOs should be encouraged to adopt attitudes of
cooperation which would reduce tensions and competition for funds (mainly related to service delivery and
project implementation.
d) Building capacities for playing an active role
It is widely recognised that both in terms of policy dialogue, and project/service identification and
implementation, most CSOs in Rodrigues have limited capacities. This can be largely attributed to the fact
that most CSOs are working (and have been created) at a grassroots level. However, some key organisations
exist in Rodrigues (e.g. among others, Shoals and Carrefour) that can assume the role of strengthening the
capacities of others. Also in this case, a shift from competition towards cooperation should be supported.
Good and promising practices
Taking into account the stakes and issues related to CSOs’ engagement as actors in Mauritian development listed
above, some practices and cases that can be considered and built upon for further development are identified below.
a) Local development initiatives
In the framework of GEF-SGP, a wide set of initiatives has been implemented in Mauritius and Rodrigues, bringing
together community based organisations, NGOs and other supporting agents in actions aimed at fostering local
development and protecting/enhancing local environmental resources.
Activities have included both economic production and social engagement in the defence of resources, and all have
been characterised by certain features: the centrality of local CBOs in identifying and formulating the project/action;
the implementation of activities aimed at analysing local resources, opportunities, obstacles as a key element of
project formulation and development; the strengthening of CBOs in analysing their situation and the local setting; the
presence of experienced NGOs for the provision of technical expertise to support CBO actions (not requiring CBOs to
play the role of professional bodies); a continuous monitoring of actions and the continuity of follow up after the
project finalisation, to secure sustainability; a direct or indirect linkage with the governance of natural environment at
a local level, eventually including the involvement of local authorities or of public relevant actors; and the
documentation of activities.
b) Networking and strengthening local actors
Networking is a key element of the actions of certain NGOs, which rather than directly managing service delivery at
local level provide support to smaller local NGOs and CBOs engaged in services. Two different but interesting cases are
that of Caritas and Adult Non Formal Education Network (ANFEN). In the first case, the central body of the
organisation is supporting local actions and formalising local demands into wider frameworks and projects. In the
second case, the network provides to members a set of specialised and qualified services, allowing for an
improvement of local actions; however actions carried out at a local level are identified and decided by local actors.
An even stronger attitude to support local initiatives characterises some organisations which work on “rights issues”,
such as Women in Networking, Genderlink and the Collectif Arc en Ciel: in these cases, the core action of
organisations is related to the strengthening of local actors. A main feature of these networks is permanence in time:
the relations among actors are not project based or occasional, rather they are based on sharing a common long term
agenda and perspective and on the fact that continuous monitoring/relationships are maintained through a variety of
means.
c) Engagement in policy and enhancing the recognition of rights
As in the case of PILS, some organisations are engaged in the provision of services, but are also able to maintain and
develop a main focus on policies. In such cases, service provision is not the “core” of the organisations, rather it is one
of the tools used to enhance the recognition of rights.
28
In order to maintain the focus on policy, organisations engage in: networking, supporting smaller organisations,
generating information and knowledge, promoting public communication and visibility of the considered issues in the
media, and engaging government (not providing services for government, but asking the government for public
services or for improved public services).
d) People’s participation in setting and implementing policies
Particularly when dealing with environmental management, the direct involvement of citizens in the setting and
implementation of policies is a requirement for policy effectiveness. Several organisations engaged in promoting the
protection of marine resources both in Mauritius and Rodrigues have some interesting practices. These practices have
been based on the engagement of stakeholders. For example, fishermen communities have been engaged in the
analysis of emerging problems and in the identification of possible solutions, as well as in the fostering of negotiation
and policy setting processes, involving on the one side local stakeholders and on the other government and legislative
bodies. In these processes, NGOs have largely played a facilitating role. In order to ensure the effectiveness of
people’s participation, NGOs did not directly play the role of “representatives” (this role remained with local actors).
To enhance the policy impact of actions, NGOs should also avoid assuming the role of “regulator” (this role should
remain with government).
e) Information and networking
Combining information and networking is the core of an initiative supported (and directly implemented) by the
Fondation Nouveau Regard du Groupe CIEL. The Foundation has set up a website for the exchange of information and
knowledge amongst CSOs on “social issues” (www.actogether.mu). While the use of the website is diffused amongst
Mauritius organisations, it has mostly been used to diffuse information on the foundation’s activities. Websites
without an active networking action and which do not attribute an active role to “users” risk becoming ineffective
information tools.
f) Integrating legal action and public information
The Chagos Refugees Group represents a particular and interesting case. This NGO has been integrating different
means for advocating the rights of people from Chagos: while some other organisations limited their actions to asking
government for benefits for specific groups of people (as the inhabitants of outer islands), the Chagos Refugees Group
integrates the use of public information and media, direct contacts with government, and legal action into their
advocacy efforts, not only to access benefits but also to realise the recognition of rights. A similar multi-faceted
approach can also be used with regards to other issues.
g) Social media
Social media – such as Facebook and Twitter - are assuming a greater role in the mobilisation of “social energies”.
However, they are scarcely used by structured CSOs. Amongst others, an exception in Mauritius is Azir Moris, which
uses social media both for diffusing and accessing information and as a tool for advocacy and for organising concrete
actions. Actions using social media require a well set strategy (in the case of Azir Moris, the strategy of remaining an
informal organisation), yet they tend to have little effectiveness if based on a “traditional” approach to information
and communication.
29
6. An Analytical view of Civil Society Organisations in Mauritius
6.1. First level organisations
At the “first level”, the study has identified a wide and diversified group of CSOs, including both many registered
associations (from sport clubs to women, elder and youth groups, to quasi-NGO and charitable associations, to
registered neighbourhood associations), and a large number of informal organisations, such as the so called
“forces vives”. Also at this level these are organisations that function within “network based NGOs” such as
Caritas (actually “network based” organisations work very much at a decentralised field level with local groups
and communities). Some groups at this level are also created in the framework of ministry activities (e.g. youth,
women, elders, agriculture, etc.). Finally, also included at this level are many “cooperative organisations” (such
as savings cooperatives).
A further group of organisations to be included in the first level are (informal) movements that are created for
defending communities and territorial areas from external interventions that can potentially damage the
communities themselves and their environment (e.g. infrastructure), or for asking for services. In a few cases,
they carry out defensive or advocacy functions through public manifestations, marches and activities; while in
most cases, they establish direct linkages with politicians and political parties.
First level organisations are normally characterised by being highly vulnerable to politics: it is easy for political
leaders and political parties to use grassroots groups as mechanisms for creating consensus (normally by
exchanging consensus with benefits, such as the provision of goods and services). This relationship with politics
can create a divide amongst local grassroots organisations: on the one side, “forces vives” and policy/advocacy
organisations focusing on giving voice to local needs/people tend to be considered as being politically biased; on
the other side, CSOs that don’t want to be considered as such tend to assume the shape and role of NGOs and
charity organisations focusing on service delivery, or that of “clubs” working under the umbrella of public
authorities.
The thematic foci of most first level organisations that submitted questionnaires for this study is in the areas of
social assistance and education. A relatively smaller percentage (about 27 %) is engaged in health and gender
related activities (in this case activities also often include training and information dissemination).
Thematic Focus
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A smaller number of first level organisations are involved in agriculture and food security activities. It is
interesting to note that the percentage of organisations involved in governance and policy activities is equal to 0,
and that of organisations engaged in environmental activities is also very low (under 5%). Clearly, organisations
tend to focus on the thematic areas for which resources exist. Also, organisations that are engaged in areas such
30
as governance and influence on policy making tend to maintain a low profile – not participating in meetings and
preferring to maintain informal organisational structures.
An analysis of the activities carried out by first level organisations reveals a stark finding.
Activities Conducted
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Service delivery is the most frequent type of action undertaken by first level organisations, followed by the
organisation of beneficiaries for accessing services provided by larger NGOs or by public bodies (including
subsidies and housing facilities provided by NEF). In a smaller but relevant percentage (30%), organisations are
engaged in some advocacy activities (mainly targeting the general public to sensitising people about specific
problems). A slightly smaller percentage (25%) participate in thematic councils, often established in connection
with public policies at national, district and local levels by different ministries (e.g. women’s council, youth
council, elders council etc.).
In addition, when asked to identify the outcomes of their actions, first level organisations overwhelmingly point
to access to services.
31
Outcomes of Actions
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Service access Satisfaction of
local needs
Change in
policies
Innovation in
services
Bridging
between
actors
Although the clear majority of first level organisations point to access to services as the impact of their actions
(and no organisations said that they were implementing policy related activities), one-third of organisations still
believe that their work results in policy-related outcomes. This percentage of organisations aiming at having
outputs related to local needs and problems is lower (and this is clearly an indicator of an ongoing
transformation from having primarily the identity of a first level “community organisation” to assuming the
identity of a “second level” NGO, mainly producing services for a public that is not the constituency of the
organisation itself) and even less organisations are dealing with innovation and with bridging function (i.e. the
function of establishing communication between the community and other external actors or among different
communities).
Funding Sources
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
member fee
Users fees
Private
Other
Almost all first level organisations collect fees from members (in fact, this is generally a basic requirement for all
associations). However, as in most cases membership fees do not represent adequate resources for the
sustenance of activities, most organisations are also supported by private companies. This also indicates that
many first level organisations assume the shape of an NGO in order to access external funding (e.g. CSR funds).
In many cases, organisations are also using other sources of funding, such as funds from ministries (grant-in-aid)
and local authorities. Despite the organisations’ overwhelming engagement in service delivery, only very few
32
organisations collect “users’ fees” (i.e. fees from their beneficiaries). As a result, services provided by first level
organisations are therefore almost completely dependent upon external from resources.
From an organisational perspective, first level organisations can appear to be relatively weak:
-
In many cases they lack a proper office and equipment. As such, they frequently use community centres or
other structures made available by other CSOs or NSAs, or by public authorities;
-
While most of these organisations– especially those that are registered – have a formalised structure
including an assembly, a board, a president and other institutional positions and functions, they tend to
depend heavily upon a leader or a small group of leaders (normally including the founder of the
organisation). Moreover, in most cases, such formal structures do not function properly.
-
The organisations do not have planning tools. Management is performed on a project basis, as well as on the
basis of arising opportunities. This implies, especially for quasi-NGO organisations, a kind of “intermittent
life”: the organisation ‘wakes up’ when an opportunity arises and ‘sleeps’ when there are no activities or
funds.
-
Many organisations base their activities on the mobilisation of volunteers (sometimes providing small
subsides to them). The presence of paid staff is not a frequent phenomenon and normally is diffused in
relation to projects (as a consequence, a high mobility exists for paid staff who “follow the money” and go
from organisation to organisation).
-
Due to the relative ease of registering an association, many first level CSOs – such as neighbourhood or
temple/church based groups - transform themselves into registered NGOs, accredited to the CSR
programme. By doing so, they increase their ability to directly access funds: they do not need to enter into
partnerships with larger CSOs or NGOs.
-
About 50 % of first level CSOs who submitted questionnaires are members of MACOSS (the official umbrella
of Mauritius NGOs). Becoming a member of MACOSS is considered by some as a way to access resources,
such as information and training; while others consider it a way to increase their legitimacy as an NGO (and
thus potentially easing their access to funds). According to MACOSS, about 2/3 of its approximately 300
member organisations have weak structures, with little or no activities.
-
Professional capacities of organisations, as well as their capacities in analysis, and project formulation and
management are normally low. In some cases this is due to the fact that organisations solve local problems
when they arise (e.g. as for a neighbourhood movement). In other cases, this is connected to the fact that
organisations are dependent upon external support/guidance (e.g. as for organisations linked to ministries),
or have been created as a way to support “needy people”. When organisations belong to larger networks
(e.g. Caritas or the networks for non-formal education and care of people with handicaps), their capacities
are strengthened – particularly in the area of service delivery - by the “umbrella organisation”. This
“umbrella organisation” also normally provides qualified professional support in the implementation of
activities.
-
Communication and access to information is another issue for organisations. Among those that submitted
questionnaires and participated in focus groups, communication is often pointed to as a main capacity
building need. These organisations commonly use the internet (about 50 % use the internet not only as a
way to access information, but also as a way to communicate, e.g. the use of social networking).
As a whole, first level organisations are characterised by a diffused process leading to the transformation of
grassroots organisations into NGOs (and thus, into second level organisations), providing services to “external
users”, rather than simply supporting their constituency. CBOs and “forces vives” often assume the shape of
NGOs and transform themselves into 2nd level organisations in order to gain ‘legitimacy’ and to access funds.
This phenomenon is supported by the fact that a large part of private sector funds (that always used to support
local initiatives) is now channelled through the CSR scheme, and therefore, is only awarded to “recognised”
NGOs that have been established for at least 2 years.
The danger is that the transformation of first level organisations into NGOs will produce a governance void at the
grassroots level: organisations that were originally created to mediate between citizens and public authorities
(e.g. most “forces vives”) are increasingly focusing on service provision while the “policy space” of mediation is
33
increasingly occupied by “communal” leaders who are often characterised by their strong linkages with political
groups/parties.
Moreover, the transformation of first level organisations into NGOs tends to reinforce the perception of
grassroots organisations as being beneficiaries rather than “actors” for policy debate and policy setting at a local
level; and organisations providing basic services and distributing benefits tend to lose the capacity to “represent”
people, provide information, and voice concerns (as they will be viewed as attempting to access more resources
for their own activities). They will also be viewed as lacking the ability to provide technical knowledge for
informing public decisions.
Rodrigues: village committees and grassroots associations
A main difference between Mauritius and Rodrigues is that in the latter, first level organisations are at least formally
recognised as governance actors. In Rodrigues, there are almost 100 village committees that are composed of
community representatives and representatives of local CSOs. Recently, the number of people in these committees that are voluntary bodies and not public local authorities – was increased to 17 so as to allow representation by local
organisations. Often, there are also several CSOs operating in small villages (however a feature of poorer communities
on the island is the lack of local CSOs).
Rodrigues village committees and first level organisations find a coordination space and a common voice under the
“umbrella” of the Rodrigues Council of Social Services (RCSS) – which also is registered as an association.
RCSS has also recently tried to represent NGOs, but this attempt was not supported by many NGOs that see
themselves as having a different nature and different interests from those of village committees and grassroots
organisations.
Grassroots organisations in Rodrigues are mainly characterised by low capacities and lack of access to resources. The
tendency of grassroots organisations in Rodrigues to transform themselves into NGOs is lower, probably in part due to
the islands’ relative lack of access to funds in the CSR scheme (a relatively low number of companies are based in
Rodrigues, actions undertaken in Rodrigues are not visible for the general public in Mauritius, and participating in the
CSR scheme is often considered to be too complicated for smaller firms).
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for first level organisations in the area of capacitybuilding can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills,
Information
-
The role of CSOs (local development, rights, services)
Civil society and political society
The analysis of local issues
The opportunities for supporting local development
Local governance
Institutional and
Organisational capacities
-
Autonomy
Leadership and governance in CBOs
Management of relationships with politics
Management of relationships with other NSAs
Visibility
Project identification
Mobilisation of people and volunteers
Needs related to context
-
Recognition as actors
Support mechanisms not requiring a transformation
Local governance mechanisms
6.2. Second level organisations
Second level organisations include NGOs, charities and other CSOs not being the direct emanation of a
“community” or in which a sharp distinction exists between the organisations’ members and the organisations’
“beneficiaries”. The differentiation of second level organisation is not as high as amongst first level organisations.
34
In fact, most organisations at this level are NGOs; and there are also increasing numbers of foundations as well
as a few non-profit companies (but both of which largely function as traditional NGOs).
Most second level organisations are engaged in service delivery: in some cases on a project basis, while in other
cases, managing permanent centres for service delivery (e.g. in the case of education and health centres,
shelters and rehabilitation centres etc.). A few organisations are involved in policy-related activities (mainly
through the provision of advice to ministries and government officers, and rarely through “public” advocacy
actions). An even smaller number of organisations are involved in research activities.
Despite the large number of organisations, very few play a key role in the CSO community. More specifically,
very few possess the following features: recognition as key actors and references by other organisations;
attitude to play a role in setting agendas for CSO community; engagement in generating and diffusing
information; engagement in supporting other CSOs (e.g. “forces vives” and CBOs); fostering platforms and other
collective bodies; and engagement in policy and governance areas. In some cases, CSOs which aim to play a key
role in the CSO community are treated as peripheral to the CSO community because of their lack of resources
(their lack of resources is a direct consequence of their choice not to involve themselves in service delivery.
Key organisations
Among CSOs playing a key role in Mauritius, the following can be named:
CARITAS and ANFEN (Adult non formal education Network), that play a key role in nationwide networks of local
organisations, offering them capacity building, support in project formulation and management, professional support
in the implementation of activities, and support in fundraising; however, policy activities are seldom carried out by
these organisations.
PILS, which partly to its role in channelling funds from the “Global Fund against HIV/AIDS” to CSOs in Mauritius,
supports other organisations in the same and related sectors with funds and capacity building. Importantly, it is also
consistently involved in carrying out policy actions aimed at engaging the government in service provision in the
sector.
CEDREFI (Centre for Documentation, Research and Training for the South West Indian Ocean), which supports small
CBOs and grassroots organisations, produces knowledge, and is engaged in the setting up of local governance and
local development initiatives. This organisation, however, has limited resources and often functions as a
consulting/research organisation. It is also an example of an organisation that is heavily dependent upon its leader.
WIN (Women in Networking), created on the basis of a network of women’s organisations, is an open organisation
with free membership (registered as a non-profit company, no membership fees are required). It carries out capacity
building and policy actions (through largely centred around women in politics).
Gender Link, a national chapter of a regional organisation, is involved in supporting the setting of local mechanisms
for identifying, implementing and monitoring actions focused on gender issues (e.g. political participation of women,
women’s voice, etc.).
Collectif Arc en Ciel, an organisation focusing on gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual (GLTB) rights, is engaged in the
provision of support, the strengthening of smaller groups and organisations, and in a wide set of advocacy and policy
activities.
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, though mainly engaged in the management of natural protected areas and research,
it is also engaged – though perhaps not consistently – in policy activities. Also, it does so without taking a public stand
on controversial issues; rather, it provides information both to government and other environmental organisations. It
also supports some smaller organisations.
In Rodrigues, key organisations are even fewer:
Carrefour, the organisation regrouping Catholic organisations, plays an important role in promoting reflection and
action on general policy issues (and in the past it has been a main actor in the debate over Rodrigues’ autonomy). It
also often provides support to other organisations.
Shoals, the main environmental organisation that specialises in the marine environment; Shoals is involved in
delivering services (such as the management of protected areas), in policy (fostering the adoption of specific policies
for protecting local environmental resources), and in the strengthening of local groups engaged in environmental
management.
35
Differences amongst second level organisations exist in the following areas:
-
Organisational dimension and capacities
In this area, at least two main groups can be identified: a) well established organisations, having a
professional staff, adequate access to resources, better capacities in service delivery; and b) organisations
focusing on service delivery, but mainly supporting needy communities through the provision of goods and
“voluntary work”. There are very few NGOs which can be classified in the first scenario (a). According to
MACOSS, there are not more than 50.
-
Sector engagement
In this area, at least two groups of organisations exist: a) organisations characterised by strong sector
specialisation, including well established organisations working on issues such as environment, gender,
health, or the provision of specialised care; and b) organisations working on the general issue of “poverty
alleviation”, often providing different kinds of services based on emerging opportunities or on demands
emerging in targeted communities.
-
Nature of organisations
While some organisations exist as a central group of people involved in providing services, carrying out
policy activities or supporting other organisations, a second group of organisations exists that is based on a
network of local organisations which are coordinated, guided and supported by a “mother” or “umbrella”
organisation.
In addition to these areas of differentiation that characterise “mainstream” NGOs, there are also emerging
phenomena that require discussion:
a) Faith based organisations: though not a recent phenomenon, these organisations are often characterised as
having complete autonomy from usual funding sources; also, they sometimes do not participate in the
general NGO/CSO community.
b) “Informal NGOs” or “Invisible CSOs”: these are groups of people often characterised as having adequate
capacities, and that refuse to register, access funding, or to engage themselves in projects/service delivery.
These organisations are largely engaged in contributing “policy advice” and information, and they often
target decision makers (e.g. Democracy Watch), or support movements and policy actions - often through
the use of web-based social networks (e.g. Azir Moris).
The following dynamics within second level organisations have emerged:
An almost exclusive focus on service
delivery with little attention to results
Engagement in service delivery is seldom focused on the achievement of defined results or on the production of
change. More often, it is related to an approach based on the centrality of activities: second level CSOs tend to
focus their attention on the activities that they carry out and on the “beneficiaries” they target. This is not
altogether surprising given the fact that in the framework of CSR and NEF, the implementation of activities and
the distribution of “benefits” to target groups are funded.
Moreover, while many CSOs provide services to beneficiaries in a permanent and consistent manner, they can
only access funds for “projects”. Therefore, they often suffer from irregular funding and a high turnover of staff.
Many other organisations provide services as “projects” without giving consideration to the consistency of their
actions. In both cases, mechanisms for assuring sustainability from both technical and financial perspectives are
seldom defined and seldom implemented.
Finally, there were only a few cases of CSOs introducing innovations in service delivery. And only in a minor
number of cases CSOs aimed at transferring their services (or other actions) to public authorities to carry out. On
very few occasions CSOs participated in the development or functioning of “local governance systems”,
monitoring services, or policy implementation. In service delivery, most organisations find a comfortable
position: they access funds, gain social acknowledgement, and keep themselves away from “sensitive” or conflict
36
situations and actions (e.g. the defence of the interests or rights of a group of actors, or against the interests of
other actors).
The near exclusive focus of CSOs on service delivery appears to be linked to a limited understanding of the role
of civil society as a policy actor. This view is shared both by public authorities and political parties (that actually
often consider the only possible policy engagement to be that of supporting political actors; and who therefore
consider “policy engaged” CSOs as potentially supporting opposition parties), and by the CSOs themselves (that
in most cases identify their role as that of “charities”, mitigating the difficult conditions of “less lucky” people16).
As seen in previous chapters, also the participation of CSOs in existing “policy forums” and councils is currently
not effective as a way to informing policies, as CSOs are just participating as service providers (and are selected
by the organisations organising the meetings and managing the councils just because of their “collaboration” in
delivering services).
Proliferation of NGOs working on poverty alleviation
Particularly after the institution of CSR, there has been a prolific rise in NGO creation. A large number of new
organisations have registered themselves with the “Registrar of Associations” and the NEF as service providers.
Moreover, organisations have been “jumping on the bandwagon” – re-focusing (but also in many cases just reframing) their activities in the wide and ill-defined framework of poverty alleviation. In many cases, new
organisations have been actually “moulded to CSR guidelines”. However, despite the growth of poverty
alleviation CSOs, there has been little impact upon levels or conditions of poverty. This is in part due to the fact
that most of these CSOs focus upon activities and services to be provided rather than the production of change
in local realities.
Competition
A consequence of exclusively focusing on service delivery and of the proliferation of NGOs is the prevalence of
competitive relations between NGOs. While occasional cooperation can emerge based on opportunities
(including the pressure of external actors such as donors and private foundations) or specific needs, and some
preferential relationships can emerge between organisations, structured cooperation and especially the sharing
of knowledge, experiences and practices are very weak.
The focus on service delivery and the little attention given to innovation and change outcomes related to
services actually make cooperation less relevant than the attempt to achieve and maintain a competitive
advantageous position for most organisations. Moreover, competitive advantage is rarely linked to the capacity
of services to generate change (as monitoring and especially evaluation are not a common practice), but much
more to (personal) linkages and to “access to beneficiaries”. While issues such as transparency and
accountability may be spoken about, they are mainly considered from an administrative point of view and do
not appear to be important elements for accessing resources.
Also, the technical quality of project design does not seem to play an important role in competition. Particularly
within the framework of CSR funds, the capacity to establish relationships with companies and NEF officials is a
key element.
The fear of policy engagement
A further phenomenon related to competition and funding dynamics is a general tendency to avoid assuming
public positions that can be considered to be linked to “politics”; and thus, there is a prevailing fear of engaging
in clear terms with public policy on many issues. With relation to the struggle against poverty, while many
actions are carried out to mitigate poverty, most CSOs do not have clear policies aimed at eliminating root
causes of poverty and the “structures” – i.e. the permanent or chronic factors - that generate poverty. With
16
A common model amongst CSOs is that of groups of people belonging to middle and upper classes, mobilising for the
improvement of conditions of the poor. The poor are often only identified by these people because they live in the same
neighbourhood or because of occasional contacts. Another common stereotype is that of the creation of NGOs and Foundations as
a “way for nice ladies to keep themselves occupied”.
37
regards to the use of resources, a strong public debate has recently emerged on the production of energy: while
some environmental NGOs engaged in the production of information and technical knowledge and offered such
knowledge to decision makers, no key environmental organisation assumed a position on the debate17.
Policy engagement seems to be easier on issues that are not too sensitive from a political point of view or on
which consensus exists – at least formally – amongst political parties and communal groups (i.e. on gender or
corruption). However, only a very small group of organisations play a clear policy role in these policy areas.
Some words and issues are to a certain extent unpronounceable or ‘hidden’. One, paradoxically, is the word
“rights”: there is no organisation that clearly works on human rights, and the word “rights” is mainly used in
relation to specific “underprivileged groups” (e.g. people with handicaps). A group of organisations that may be
an exception to this are those working on HIV/Aids, gender, and GLBT issues. There are a few organisations
which focus their actions on the protection of citizens’ rights; although these appear to be based more on the
presence of a single leader than on the existence of a collective body. Furthermore, organisations that mobilise
to fight for citizens’ rights are often found in the already mentioned group of “invisible organisations” and
“informal NGOs”.
Not feeling valorised and the emergence of a professional issue
While second level CSOs play mainly a subsidiary role to that of public authorities, i.e. delivering services in
instances where public authorities are not (e.g. services to special groups of people and assistance to the poor),
and despite a large amount of resources channelled through second level CSOs, these organisations tend not to
feel valorised.
On the other hand, public authorities commonly complain about the quality and professionalism of the work of
CSOs. While public authorities expect CSOs to play a more “professional” role in service delivery, they continue
to fund CSOs in such a way that they are forced to continue to rely on volunteers, and only engage professional
staff on a project or part-time basis.
Therefore, there is a need to identify sustainable ways to increase professional work and professionalism in
second level organisations. Also, there is a need to take CSOs’ capacity-building needs seriously: while a few
organisations have adequate capacity in project identification, formulation and implementation most do not.
Experiences with providing support for project formulation and implementation - such as in DCP and GEF-SGP need to be scaled up.
Dependency upon leaders
A general feature of CSOs, including some of the well established ones, is a strong dependency upon leaders and
founders. While most organisations seem to have a formal institutional structure - that is, working according to
statutes (e.g. concerning elections of directors and presidents) - in reality, most of them seem to rely on a small
group of persons, or even one person, for their strategic decision-making and daily operation.
“One-man shows” are a common feature amongst organisations – and particularly amongst those created many
years ago. While some of these organisations attempt to address the issue of leadership change (for instance,
DCP funded a CEDREFI project which focused exactly on this issue), the problem remains.
Dependency upon leaders influences the sustainability of organisations in the long term, their capacity to evolve
in an external world, and their capacity to assume a more professional role. Related to this point is the finding
that many organisations’ leaders are people who are aged, retired from work in the public or private sector,
housewives, charismatic people looking for visibility and potentially an entry point into politics, foreigners living
in Mauritius, and/or educated people with personal ties to the particular issue on which the organisation focuses.
Certain aspects of the profile of leaders of organisations can serve as obstacles to the ability of organisations to
become more ‘professional’ in their work.
17
However, public positions have been assumed by some organisations, mainly linked to communal and political linkages.
38
Specific obstacles include: the unclear role of leaders and of governance mechanisms in organisations (that also
affects their transparency and accountability, particularly in front of their constituencies); the difficult
recognition of new emerging leaders by old ones (which often results in the creation of new NGOs); the difficult
access to professionals who could potentially assume operational leadership roles, and establish a strategic
vision for organisations (due to a lack of adequately trained persons as well as to a lack of funds to pay them);
and the increasing difficulty of involving young people as volunteers (especially if these are educated people
who can find other opportunities in the paid labour market).
Dependency in agenda setting
Most second level organisations do not have organisational plans which extend beyond a 12 month period. Plans
that do exist largely consist of the translation of projects into a yearly programme of activities. Moreover,
organisational goals and final outcomes are often defined in terms of “activities” rather than as related to the
achievement of a result.
In addition to these two issues, there are further factors which lead to a dependence of CSOs upon other actors
for setting their agendas: as discussed previously, second level CSOs commonly focus on service provision, and
actors such as government bodies and private foundations also largely view CSOs as service providers; and there
is an unclear view of the role of civil society despite the increased availability of financial resources (particularly
through CSR).
Agendas of most second level CSOs (with the exception of a handful of organisations) is based on emerging
opportunities and on the agendas defined by national, private and international donors. This is clearly the case
for most NGOs that work on “non-poverty issues”: they often transform themselves into poverty alleviation
groups, or they write poverty alleviation project proposals in order to tap funds and to increase their
compatibility with NEF/CSR, DCP, and other donors’ agendas.
Financial dependency
The focus on service delivery, dependency in agenda setting, and lack of professional capacities often leads
organisation into a condition of financial dependency. While almost all organisations can access more than one
funding opportunity (such as donations, funds from public authorities, CSR, international agencies), many of
these funding opportunities have recently been gathered under a single umbrella - the NEF and the “NGO policy”.
As such, organisations essentially become dependent upon one single funding source (even if it is composed of
funds from different sources).
Putting the different funding opportunities under one umbrella produces a risk of limiting access to funds as well
as increasing the tendency of CSOs to remain in a dependent situation(since they must engage with only one
framework agenda to access funds).
Attempts made by organisations to carry out income production activities for reducing their financial
dependency (in coherence with the provisions of the National NGO policy) do not seem to have produced
relevant amounts of resources for sustaining CSO development. In some cases, organisations that had set up
“supporting clubs” (e.g. clubs not directly participating to organisation life and decision making, but supporting it
through the subscription to newsletter, the payment of small fees, the maintaining of a permanent relation with
the organisation itself18) were forced to close these clubs, since their management was more expensive that the
resources they were generating. In many cases, CSOs are forced to sell promotional goods at cost price in order
to sell them at all. In addition, the fees collected from users of services seldom pay for the cost of the service
itself (otherwise people would use private services), and they never pay for the cost of the design, management
and development of services or the operational costs of CSOs.
18
This is a modality for increasing public support to organisations that is very frequently used by organisations all over
the world. In some cases the creation of supporting clubs represents both a tool for awareness raising and
campaigning and a tool for fund raising. In Mauritius, the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation has been testing this
approach.
39
Knowledge and innovation
In many cases, second level CSOs produce innovation at a local level, by introducing new services and by using
new approaches. However, only in few cases has innovation been introduced in an organisation and shared with
other CSOs (only in the cases of the key organisations mentioned previously); and innovation by CSOs is
transferred to government and public bodies even less frequently. There are several different reasons for this
situation. The first is the fact that in most cases, innovation and knowledge production has been based on
occasional emerging opportunities, and only in a very limited number of cases (and in only a few sectors) is it the
result of a deliberate action or effort by a CSO. The second is competition: even if the quality of projects is
seldom the main reason for obtaining funds, second level organisations are often unwilling to share knowledge
with others who may use it to compete with them for funds. The third is the lack of spaces in which information
and knowledge sharing can take place: focusing on services means that few resources are spent by organisations
to access/diffuse information that is not directly linked to services. However, some spaces aimed at facilitating
the sharing and development of knowledge were set up by (and following the agenda of) some private
foundations.
A space for knowledge and innovation, as well as for coordination and policy making, can be represented by
third level organisations, as will be described in following paragraphs; however, such spaces are still very weak.
Also, when they are not set up by external actors (donors, foundations, government), they are often perceived
as limiting the autonomy of second level CSOs.
An additional element that influences innovation and knowledge generation and sharing in CSOs is that of
international linkages and networking. The few CSOs with permanent international linkages (e.g. some of those
working on environment, gender, HIV/AIDs, GLTB issues, as well as some working on “sustainable development”)
are also the ones more engaged in innovation processes.
Universities and CSOs
Universities often represent an important resource for innovation in CSO practices and approach. Except for a few
cases of collaboration, mainly in the environmental sector, the development of approaches for inclusion and
rehabilitation of people with disabilities and the training of “social workers”, a permanent cooperation and exchange
of resources between CSOs and universities seems to be lacking in the context of Mauritius.
The tendency amongst academics to avoid engagement on sensitive issues and causes (potentially implying the
emergence of conflicts) is a potential reason for the lack of a structured relation and dialogue between universities
and CSOs. Recognising the legitimacy of a space for civil society as a policy actor can potentially lead to the
development of stronger relationships between CSOs and universities.
Sector
As previously discussed, the aspect of sector was assumed to be irrelevant to the policy role of civil society.
However, this cannot be assumed in the context of second level CSOs in Mauritius. The engagement of CSOs in
certain sectors seems to be an important factor in the assumption of roles other than that of service providers.
Organisations that focus on issues related to social and cultural change (such as the recognition of new emerging
actors and the elimination of long standing discriminatory cultural patterns) are the ones in which the
engagement in service provision is more frequently accompanied by an engagement in policy dialogue and
policy change (including through public advocacy actions).
Key organisations: the PILS Model – what makes them different?
Certain factors seem to influence the ability of CSOs to play a key role. An organisation that is widely recognised as
playing a key role, despite its relatively recent foundation, is PILS. In the case of PILS the following factors are
apparent:
-
they have access to international organisations and funding, which gives them greater exposure to ideas; makes
them less dependent on the state, and thus, enables them to do more advocacy; and provides them the force of
international support and backing when facing government;
40
-
they have the ability to pay professional F/T staff;
-
they have adequate resources and capacity to take smaller NGOs under their wing;
-
they combine service delivery and advocacy in their actions and activities;
-
they are able to build the capacities of other NGOs
-
they are funding other NGOs through special funds (i.e. Global Fund).
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for second level organisations in the area of
capacity-building can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information
-
The roles of CSOs (civil society and political society)
Development, social change and charitable activities
Projects for development: objectives and results/theory of change
Specific sector knowledge
Local governance
Institutional and Organisational
capacities
-
Leadership change and governance
Professionalism and full time staff
Planning and Agenda setting
Connecting policy, service provision and development
Knowledge and innovation
Supporting other actors
Needs related to context
-
Recognition as actors: right based action vs. party politics
Recognition of first level CSOs
Cooperation vs. competition
Understanding third level functions
6.3. Third level organisations
Third level CSOs include sector and geographic umbrella organisations and coordination bodies. This group of
organisations is extremely weak in Mauritius. While occasional cooperation and coordination occurs amongst
second level CSOs, there are only limited instance of networking (both at first and second levels), such as the
“Regional Youth Network” and the “Collectif Urgence Toxida”.
Examining the third level organisations, it is possible to identify:
-
A group of relatively “traditional” or older actors, that are not properly CSOs but which have been
functioning as a mechanism for government bodies to engage CSOs. These include the sector councils
created by different ministries (e.g. National Youth Council, National Elders Council, National Women
Council etc.) as well as some coordination bodies or federations among service providers (e.g. Mental Health
Federation, NCRD). However, because of the dominance of government and public authorities, these actors
cannot play a role in fostering CSOs to produce autonomous agendas or positions; they provide only a
limited space for knowledge sharing. Moreover, because of the way that most of them are structured (i.e.
with a dominant presence of government and the fact that only selected CSOs are represented within them,
and mainly through individual representatives who are chosen as resource persons by government or who
are elected as “representatives” but who are not really accountable to CSOs), these spaces can seldom
function as “policy dialogue spaces”.
-
A new group of emerging actors, including private foundations supported platforms (e.g. health platforms
and the web-based “actogether.mu”). These platforms – largely comprising service delivery CSOs – were
created in order to coordinate service delivery and to promote information and knowledge sharing and
capacity building. The leadership role in these networks however is still mainly played by private foundations.
The possibility for these networks to play a more advanced role as civil society platforms – as spaces for
policy dialogue and places in which to define civil society positions on policy relevant issues – mainly
depends upon the capacity of CSOs themselves to assume a proactive role, as well as on the possibility of
41
decreasing the dependency of the platforms themselves upon funds and leadership offered by private
foundations.
-
A group of new emerging actors, comprising informal coordination and movements, mainly created on the
basis of emerging needs and opportunities such as the mobilisation of people against government (and
private sector) actions (e.g. CT Power debate, Ferney Valley, Wind farm, fishermen in La Balise); as well as in
a few cases, based on individual initiatives of CSO leaders (e.g. environmental platforms). The main issues
concerning these platforms are their discontinuous functioning, and the fact that they often engage in
“boundary spaces” in which political parties also often play a role (thus spaces in which avoiding
instrumental use of civil society is a major issue).
-
A group of emerging platforms for policy and for strengthening capacities, mainly with a sector focus on
environment, gender, AIDS and GLBT, as well as on poverty (e.g. Movement pour l’eradication de la
pauvreté) and child rights. The organisations that are mostly engaged in these platforms are those that are
involved in processes and development areas related to social and cultural change, that tend to be
permanent, and that play an important role both in the sharing of knowledge and in promoting policy action.
However they are often weak from both the point of view of organisational capacities and in terms of
resources (these networks are mostly based on the efforts and resources of participating organisations
which are unsustainable in the long-term).
Rodrigues: networking for policy and reflection
In Rodrigues, a main platform of CSOs exists in addition to the RCSS platform. This is Carrefour. Originally created as a
place for coordination and reflection among Catholic organisations, it has transitioned into a broader public space for
reflection on policy and development issues. While Carrefour is not very active through sector groups, it is still
recognised as a key place for networking and for policy dialogue.
After analysing the data collected, the following main needs for third level organisations in the area of capacitybuilding can be identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information
-
Networking
Policy and advocacy roles of civil society
Understanding third level functions
Institutional and
Organisational capacities
-
Resource management and fundraising
Knowledge management
Planning for medium and long term
Policy as a way to improve service provision
Supporting vs. Leadership
Managing “politics”
Needs related to context
-
Recognition by 2nd level actors
Recognition as a “policy actor”: rights-based action vs. party politics
International networking
Looking for invisible actors
6.4. Fourth level organisations
Fourth level CSOs consist of “general” platforms or umbrella organisations. Normally these organisations aim to
making the voice of CSOs louder at a national level, and they focus on general issues (e.g. constitutional
processes, the legal framework for CSOs, relationships with donors, etc.). In Mauritius it is possible to identify
one only permanent organisation at this level: MACOSS (the Mauritius Council of Social Services).
Other general coalitions have been created in the past, but mainly for discussing specific issues. An example is
the so called “Collective des ONGs” which included at one time about 40 NGOs (including some key ones such as
Caritas). The Collective was set up to discuss CSR regulations, which many CSOs felt were defined without
effective consultation of the CSO sector. However, the collective has not assumed a permanent structure.
42
MACOSS was created in 1965 and then enacted by a legislative act in 1970. The government supports MACOSS
with funds and technical assistance. Currently about 350 organisations are registered as members of MACOSS (in
2012 there was a growth of about 20 organisations), including both well established CSOs and smaller and more
fragile associations (including those at grassroots levels).
MACOSS consists of the following main bodies:
-
The Executive Committee, composed of 26 individual representatives elected by member organisations and
organised into 6 thematic commissions. The individuals that sit in MACOSS are not considered direct
representatives of their original CSOs because they are elected by all organisations, and thus, they are
viewed as representing all member organisations. This model closely follows a mechanism that is more
typical of representative democracies than of “traditional” CSO platforms. In most CSO platforms, a
president or a coordinator may exist, but individual organisations are directly represented or directly
participate in the platform.
-
The Permanent Secretariat, including the Secretary of the Council (who has been in this position for many
years) and other secretariat personnel (who are paid by the Ministry of Social Security). The Secretary of the
council has an important function: he represents the main operational arm of the Council itself.
-
The President of the Council, who is elected for a fixed term, and who cannot be elected for more than one
consecutive term. However, it has been a common occurrence for Presidents to be re-elected several times,
though not consecutively. The length of the term has also undergone some change over the years.
According to its constitutive act, MACOSS’ main function is “to promote social and community development and
voluntary action through national non-governmental organisations (NGOs)”; and its objectives are to:
(i) stimulate and promote economic, social and cultural activities for the advancement of the community;
(ii) assist in the planning and to co-ordinate the activities of member organisations;
(iii) organise or join in organising workshops, seminars, conferences and training courses for voluntary social
workers, personnel of voluntary, non-governmental organisations and professionals to development
in particular;
(iv) co-ordinate the activities of NGOs in emergency and natural disaster activities and programmes;
(v) collect, diffuse and share information pertaining to adult education; and
(vi) strengthen their organisational and managerial capabilities.
Clearly, this is a list of activities rather than objectives to be achieved. As such, MACOSS focuses largely on the
implementation of activities, which potentially places them in competition with member organisations.
Because they are provided funds by the government, many organisations refer to MACOSS as a “governmental
platform”. Organisations also commonly refer to MACOSS’ Executive Committee as a ‘club’ in which the same
group of people continues to maintain power.
Given the fact that MACOSS’ members only represent a fraction of the total number of CSOs accredited to the
NEF/CSR, the legitimacy of MACOSS as a representative body for all Mauritian CSOs is called into question by
some large, well-established organisations. For smaller organisations, MACOSS is considered to be a mere
service provider: it largely carries out training and capacity building activities, provides information and
legitimacy; and enables members to carry out public funding campaigns without asking for special permission
from the government. Many organisations consider MACOSS to be irrelevant, because its activities (e.g. training,
seminars, etc.) are not pertinent to their needs and operation.
Another issue is MACOSS’ lack of a well defined agenda: besides its general goal to strengthen the NGO sector,
MACOSS is engaged on a variety of issues; however it is unable to express a point of view that is autonomous
from that of the government. Moreover, the themes and issues considered in the activities of MACOSS are not
clearly linked to its general goal. For instance, they recently carried out a study on “violence in the schools”
following a similar study carried out by the National Social and Economic Council: this activity does not
contribute to their goal of “promoting” CSOs or the NGO sector.
43
MACOSS is largely functioning as a vehicle for transmitting “messages” from the government to CSOs (and
particularly NGOs), rather than the contrary: MACOSS has not enabled the creation of a space for “bottom up”
communication; and this has been one critical factor which led a group of CSOs (including some large key
organisations), to create and engage themselves in the “Collective des ONGs” already discussed.
By opening the Executive Committee to member organisations, allowing organisations to participate in
discussions on policy issues and on the agenda of the Council, and fostering the direct participation of member
organisations rather that requiring them to be represented by “elected members” of the Executive Committee
are actions that could contribute to MACOSS’ ability to regain a certain degree of legitimacy.
Another way for MACOSS to start to rebuild the trust of organisations is by no longer engaging in the
implementation of projects and activities.
Finally, MACOSS needs to focus and clarify its agenda, establishing a set of a few core issues to be considered
and leaving all other issues to member organisations and existing/emerging networks.
After analysing the data collected, the following capacity-building needs of fourth-level organisations can be
identified:
Knowledge, Skills, Information
-
Networking
Policy and advocacy roles of civil society
Understanding fourth level functions
Managing “politics” and the relations with government
Institutional and
Organisational capacities
-
-
Agenda setting
Recognition of member organisations as actors, and allowing direct
representation
Exploring ways to allow representation of CSOs without using the
models of “representative democracy”
Increasing transparency and accountability towards CSOs
Knowledge management
Assuming supporting functions vs. Leadership
-
Autonomy from donors and the government
Recognition by 2nd level actors and by networks
Opening to new actors (e.g. CSOs that are not NGOs)
-
Needs related to context
44
7. Strategic and operational recommendations
This study also provides some key operational recommendations. These recommendations are primarily relevant
for those actors playing a role in supporting civil society development. However, the recommendations are also
relevant for CSOs themselves, in order to launch a debate over the role and functions that they can play.
The Decentralised Cooperation Programme (DCP) may assume a leadership role in transforming the following
recommendations into concrete actions.
These recommendations are meant to be a starting point to foster debate amongst stakeholders; and it is hoped
that this debate will result in a “roadmap” for the development of CSOs in Mauritius. Thus, it is the stakeholders
themselves who can directly play a role in taking many of these ideas forward.
7.1. Supporting CSOs in Mauritius
Support given to CSOs in Mauritius should aim at reinforcing CSOs’ capacities so as to be able to actively and
effectively contribute to development policies – not relegating their role to that of “grassroots” or even lowlevel or cheap service providers. While accountability and quality of actions of CSOs are important issues here, it
is impossible to improve and reinforce their capacities unless they are first recognised as “autonomous actors”.
As such, it is important to strengthen their autonomy, both in participating to policy setting and in the delivery,
monitoring and quality improvement of public services.
a) Recognising the governance role of Civil Society, and avoiding an “opportunistic” approach to CSOs
-
Recognising the governance role of CSOs: CSOs can enter in instances when state and “political society”
or “mechanic solidarities”19 may potentially generate conflicts or client patron relationships.
-
Recognising the governance potential in service delivery: CSOs can be involved with service delivery that
aims to produce social and economic change.
-
Recognising the legitimacy of “politics” out of the realm of political institutions: CSOs can create
effective spaces for exercising governance functions and policy dialogue, out of the realm of the public
administration (and without interference by public actors); and in doing so, they are not required to
transform themselves into political parties. “Policy forums” and the establishment of mechanisms for
monitoring specific public policies in which CSOs have free access and are not “selected” by the
government can be a step towards the recognition of CSOs political role.
-
CSOs can work to establish CS policy agendas, and work to avoid the fragmentation in the CS sector. An
important area towards establishing CS policy agendas is the engagement of CSOs and CSO networks in
a reflection on CS role, avoiding the adoption of cooptation approach and allowing CSOs to free access
to councils, without a preventive selection.
-
Recognising CS as a realm for voluntary collective actions, both formal and informal: there is no need to
transfer to civil society the mechanisms of a “political society” and representative democracy;
specifically, rather than co-option or election, CS spaces should be open to any bodies or persons willing
to actively participate.
-
Providing support to CSOs to actively participate in policy dialogue spaces (this can include in many
cases the provision of support to travel in and out of the country to participate to international policy
dialogue activities and to international CSO networks and coalitions).
b) Recognising Civil Society at grassroots level, and avoiding the transformation of CBOs into something else
-
Increasing the visibility of first level CSOs, and recognising their legitimacy.
-
Supporting CBOs’ actions.
19
The term “mechanic solidarities” indicates solidarity relationships that are mainly linked to the fact that the involved
actors are tied by family, ethnic or other kinds of linkages that are not related to the will of an individual but to his/her
origins.
45
-
Supporting volunteerism at a grassroots level (i.e. providing means and facilities for people to volunteer
out of their own interest, as for instance for setting up mechanisms for monitoring the work of public
services, for carrying out activities aimed at defining local development agendas, for implementing
actions aimed at strengthening “local identity” or collaboration among local actors, for improving the
functioning of existing services by introducing “innovations” or by supporting service providers); this
also imply to not support “volunteerism” as a way for providing services, substituting those that should
be provided by professionals (as a fact using volunteers for service delivery is often a shortcut for
providing cheaper services and has as an important implication the fact that capacities are not built in a
durable way at local level).
-
Avoiding an “opportunistic” and utilitarian approach to CBOs (such as the distribution of benefits to
people) – or in other words, avoiding the engagement of CSOs not because of the role they can play as
actors and partners, but because it is easier and less demanding to contract them for carrying out
activities or because transferring resources to CSOs can produce “local consensus”.
-
Not asking CBOs to become NGOs in order to play an active role in local development or in “self-help”
activities (including supporting access to funds for un-registered organisations).
-
Supporting initiatives based on “structured local demand” (that is demand that has been already
“consolidated” and “formalised” in the framework of decision making processes carried out at
community level, rather than simply expressed by isolated individuals or households) and avoiding both
the “informal consultation” carried out by CSO whit their closer local partners” and the “informal
consultation” of NGOs or “assistance CBOs” as a way to build up projects and programmes.
-
Supporting NGO actions that support CBO initiatives (e.g. through sub-grants).
c) Reinforcing Civil Society as a vehicle of innovation, and avoiding an approach based on the use of CSOs as
a tool and as an implementing agency for plans set by other actors
-
Recognising the “innovation role of CSOs” and avoiding to reduce their service delivery role (CSOs can
do what the state is unable to do, but after a period of time, they should transfer this role and these
capacities to other actors).
-
Promoting “innovation” through CSOs by: funding innovative actions; supporting international linkages;
and supporting the adoption of new approaches, new kinds of activities, new territories (e.g. pilot
projects rather than services).
-
Avoiding the use of CSOs to provide services that can be provided by the state (or even by private
providers under state control and guidance).
-
Supporting the engagement of key organisations in training and capacity building for other NGOs and
CSOs, particularly when “innovation” focused.
-
Supporting “knowledge management” activities within individual organisations, through “platforms”
and through “key organisations”.
d) Qualifying and improving CSOs’ actions
-
Avoiding the use of an “assistance” approach and fostering a shift towards a “change approach”
(including social change, cultural change, economic change and political change). This will require also
giving support to “socio-cultural activities” when they can generate change.
-
Shifting from a generic approach to poverty to actions aimed at reducing the “structures” of poverty.
One way to do this is by targeting resources or not funding activities that can be funded in other ways
(e.g. poverty alleviation activities are already targeted by CSR funds).
-
Improving project design and supporting the adoption of results-based rather than action based
approaches (including the introduction of “theory of change” approaches and the fostering of analytic
capacities in NGOs).
-
Innovation and qualification of “capacity building” actions (and scaling up of “good practices”), as well
as avoiding a “training based” approach to capacity building.
-
Avoiding “project funding” for service delivery and developing long-term funding mechanisms to
support service delivery.
46
-
Supporting professionalisation by budgeting resources for the hiring of qualified people, and reducing
the use of “volunteers” in NGOs (although volunteers can still play a role in “boards” and in nontechnical capacities in organisations).
e) Vertical and horizontal integration/structuration
-
Supporting existing networks and platforms, avoiding the building of new “structures” from scratch, and
making the most of available opportunities (including the “key CSOs” that already play coordination or
support roles).
-
Supporting platforms functions (i.e. agenda setting, coordination, communication, support to the
advocacy action of single organisations, promoting collective engagement on advocacy).
-
Avoiding the use of platforms and umbrella organisations for service delivery (including training and
capacity building).
-
Supporting the adoption of mechanisms for organisation-based participation in platforms and networks
(i.e. avoiding the election of individuals, even in “top functions”). There is no need for a president in a
platform; rather what is required is a secretary that is loyal to the ones paying him/her, i.e. platform
members.
-
Supporting the reduction of “central” functions and staff of platforms/umbrella organisations and
simplifying governance structures: a transfer of competences from “central” platforms (such as MACOSS)
to sector or geographic based platforms, and then opening the platforms to new actors, is needed.
-
Supporting actions aimed at focusing the agendas of platforms and umbrella organisations while
avoiding a dispersion of themes.
-
Supporting “central” platforms (such as MACOSS) to focus on a few core issues for civil society, leaving
the rest to sector platforms or single organisations.
-
Supporting the reduction (and eventually the elimination) of the presence of government and
donor/private sector representatives within the structures aimed at “representing” civil society.
7.2. Supporting CSOs in Rodrigues
There is a need to reinforce the capacity of CSOs in Rodrigues to play an active role in the definition and
implementation of new policies for the development of the Island. This requires not only the recognition of civil
society actors as actors who can inform public authorities of the needs and demands of people, but also as
actors who – at different levels and in different ways – can assume a leading role in local development. To this
aim, it is critical that CSOs in Rodrigues can access resources.
a) Reinforcement of cooperation structures and platforms
-
Avoiding the creation of new “structures” from scratch, and making the most of available opportunities.
-
Supporting the key functions of platforms.
-
Avoiding the use of platforms for service delivery (including training).
-
Supporting the recognition of differences in roles and functions of CSOs: VCs,CBOs, NGOs, and support
organisations.
-
Funding projects based on partnerships and supporting cooperation.
-
Supporting agenda setting and long term planning at an organisation level as a way to
reduce competition over resources.
b) Overcoming the political divides
-
Supporting CSOs to promote concrete local development actions involving the national assembly and
local ”political” majority and minority groups, as well as Mauritian government ministries and the
Rodrigues Commission.
-
Supporting CSOs to formulate local development plans engaging all stakeholders (including political
parties and private sector).
47
-
Supporting the introduction of strategic planning approaches to local development.
c) Innovation
-
Supporting innovative actions by CSOs for local development.
-
Supporting the adoption of a “results based approach” rather than an “activity based” one by CSOs.
-
Supporting CSOs in the exploration of new mechanisms for managing “social services”.
-
Avoiding the use of CSOs for mere “service delivery”.
-
Supporting innovation within organisations: engagement in new actions, testing of new approaches,
institutional change, long term planning, etc.
d) Internationalisation and access to knowledge
-
Supporting existing international linkages of Rodrigues CSOs.
-
Supporting projects involving partnerships with international NGOs.
-
Supporting projects involving partnerships with Mauritian NGOs (but not the “intervention”
of Mauritian NGOs in Rodrigues which would generally add little value and have little relevance).
7.3. Operationalising recommendations
In order to facilitate the planning of activities related to the operationalisation of recommendations, a chart
which details recommendations made according to a time frame, targets, and options for action, is provided
below.
Mauritius
a) Short term (12/24 months)
Recommendations
Recognising the governance
role of CSOs: CSOs can enter
in instances when state and
“political society” or
“mechanic solidarities”20 may
potentially generate conflicts
or client patron relationships
Recognising the governance
potential in service delivery
Targets
CSOs are recognised as
legitimate actors in
governance and
concretely play a
governance role
Possible actions
Supporting projects that focus on local governance
and that are based on partnerships between CSOs
and LAs to manage local and public resources
Social and economic
changes at local level
Focalising support on projects based on the
identification of changes that can be obtained
through service/activities
Introducing “theory of change” in the requirement
for accessing funding
Supporting capacity building on theory of change
approach
Supporting the setting up of local councils and local
forums that are independent from government and
that focus on setting up and monitoring policies
Supporting CSOs in projects focusing on monitoring
public services and policies and mobilising actions
that promote the accountability of public officers
and government at local levels
Supporting actions aimed at defining CS agendas, at
national and local levels (including CS conferences
and the work of local/sector networks)
Supporting actions aimed at creating/strengthening
policy dialogue initiatives at local and national levels
Recognising the legitimacy of
“politics” out of the realm of
political institutions
Policies defined with
active participation of
CSOs at different levels
Promoting CSO involvement
in establishing CS agenda
An autonomous CS agenda
that shadows the
government CS policy
CS participation in local,
national and international
Providing support to CSOs to
actively participate in policy
20
See Note 19.
48
Recommendations
dialogue spaces
Targets
policy dialogue is
increased
Possible actions
Increasing the visibility of first
level CSOs
CBOs play an active role in
project formulation
Supporting volunteerism at a
grassroots level
Volunteerism is increased
at grassroots level
Avoiding an “opportunistic”
and utilitarian approach to
CBOs
CBOs are involved only
when their involvement is
relevant for local
governance
Not asking CBOs to become
NGOs
CBOs’ access to funds and
to capacity building
activities
Projects targeting
communities, following
local demands and
decision making
Innovation is introduced
by CSOs in service delivery
Supporting initiatives based
on “structured local demand”
Recognising the “innovation
role of CSOs”
Supporting the engagement
of key organisations in
training and capacity building
for other NGOs and CSOs
Avoiding the use of an
“assistance” approach
Improving project design and
supporting the adoption of
results-based rather than
action based approaches
Supporting
professionalization
CSOs collaborate in
organisational
development
Poverty is reduced and not
only mitigated by CSO
projects
NGOs are able to use
“result based approach”
NGOs’ access to qualified
professionals
49
Supporting the participation of Mauritian CSOs in
international and regional policy dialogue initiatives
Including in open calls, requirements related to the
structured engagement of CBOs in the formulation
of proposals
Supporting projects focusing on the strengthening of
local grassroots organisations and on their
engagement in areas other than “service delivery”
Avoid giving support to projects that do not involve
CBOs in decision making and that only provide CBOs
with a role in distributing benefits (including the
selection of beneficiaries) and in
supporting/managing service delivery
Including, in CfP, the possibility of proposing projects
involving sub-granting to CBOs for local governance
activities
Including, in CfP, the requirement of presenting the
modalities and results of structured dialogue actions
carried out at local level for the identification and
formulation of the projects
Only funding services when projects are focusing on
the introduction of innovation
Requiring projects to generate information and
knowledge and to formalise this information through
the use of traditional or innovative media (i.e.
reports, video, websites, etc.
Funding activities aimed at formalising and making
visible the innovations introduced by CSOs in public
services
Funding activities for sharing the knowledge among
CSOs, and between CSOs and other actors (e.g.
through sector networks)
Including among admissible actions in CfP, capacity
building and institutional building projects carried
out through partnerships among CSOs
Avoiding “self-development” actions that do not
include a transfer of knowledge, capacities,
resources among different CSOs
Not allowing “training activities” and “workshops” to
be funded if there is no operational follow up nor
well defined concrete results
Requiring the definition of “theory of changes” in
projects involving institutional capacity building
Requiring the definition of “theory of changes” and
of well defined targets for funding projects
concerning poverty
Targeting key NGOs through training and capacity
building (including follow up and TA activities) on
“theory of Change” and other result–based
approaches
Requiring NGOs to present CVs of key experts in
their projects and to include resources for paying
professionals in project budgets
Recommendations
Supporting existing networks
and platforms
Mid-term (24 / 40 months)
Recommendations
Recognising CS as a realm for
voluntary collective actions,
both formal and informal
Increasing the visibility of first
level CSOs, and recognising
their legitimacy
Recognising the “innovation
role of CSOs”
Targets
Networks and platforms
access to resources
Possible actions
Including in CfP the funding to existing platforms and
networks, even if they are informal, through the
establishment of temporary agreements between
well established key NGOs and other network
partners
Including in CfP the funding of networking and
“platform functions” (i.e. agenda setting,
coordination, communication, support to the
advocacy action of single organisations, promoting
collective engagement on advocacy) also through
projects led by a single organisation
Not funding training and capacity building activities
directly implemented by “legally established”
platforms and networks
Targets
Modalities of functioning
of councils (particularly
MACOSS) are reformed
CBOs and other first level
organisation roles are
recognised by NGOs and
government
CSOs are recognised by
public actors and private
sector as bearers of
innovation
Possible actions
Supporting a reform of MACOSS and other councils,
which promotes a shift from “election of
representatives” to free and voluntary participation
Supporting research and mapping focusing on
actions of CBOs and first level organisations
Supporting
professionalization
NGOs projects are carried
out according to
international standards
Improving project design and
supporting the adoption of
results-based rather than
action based approaches
Avoiding “project funding” for
service delivery and
developing long-term funding
mechanisms to support
service delivery
NGOs are extensively
using result-based
approaches
Funding opportunities for
supporting service delivery
by CSOs exist, through the
combination of public and
private funding
50
Supporting research and mapping on innovations by
CSOs at a sector level
Supporting the development of projects funded by
public agencies based on the partnership between
NGOs and public services providers, focusing on
innovation
Supporting actions for reforming budget setting and
project selection criteria of government bodies, so to
allow NGOs to propose higher quality projects and to
use professional workers
Supporting actions for improving project and policy
formulation capacities in government bodies, so that
they will appreciate the adoption of result-based
approach by their partners
Supporting the formulation of local development
plans, through the engagement of LA, decentralised
government bodies, CSOs and the private sector, for
identifying and coordinating the provision of services
at local levels, and for integrating different funding
sources
Supporting actions for reforming governmental
funding mechanisms so that different “funding lines”
and mechanisms are developed for supporting
services delivered by CSOs and for supporting
governance and innovation.
Supporting “service oriented” NGOs in the
establishment of long term partnerships and
agreements with private enterprises, so as to secure
permanent “private funding” for services funded
through CSR
Carrying out (research, training, strategic planning)
activities targeting the private sector and main CSR
Supporting the strengthening
of existing central platforms
Central platforms are
recognised as a legitimate
platform by CSO
community
actors, for promoting the structuration of main
private funding sources according to different
“lines”: for supporting governance, innovation, and
services
Providing indirect support to reforms in MACOSS
and the strengthening of other general platforms, by
supporting initiatives and activities of reflection on
the role of CSOs
In Rodrigues
The specific recommendations made for Rodrigues can be expected to have a short term implementation: they
can be integrated within the next calls for proposals and the next set of activities carried out by the DCP.
51
Annexes
Annex 1 – Documentary references
ACIM - Consumer Association of Mauritius - Association des Consommateurs de I'lle Maurice,
(http://www.consumersinternational.org/)
Act together (http://www.actogether.mu/)
Azir Moris (http://www.azirmoris.com/)
Bapoo-Dundoo, P., The GEF Small Grant Program – Mauritius & Rodrigues, UNDP
Boswell, R. 2006. Le Malaise Creole-Ethnic Identity in Mauritius. Berghahn Books. ( 101-162)
Boswell, R., 1996, In the Politics of the Rainbow: Creoles and Civil Society in Mauritius, University of Cape
Town, South Africa.
CEDREFI, Aims Civil Society Platform, From Sustainable Island Living to Sustainable Development: Time for Action
CEDREFI, Les defis de la participation, Programme Conjoint du CEDREFI – Fondation Friedrich Ebert
(www.fes.de/cotonou/downloads/fesdownloads/userguides/RAPPORTPARTICIP%20ATIONMAURITIUS.EN.PDF)
Century Welfare Association, Brochure
Chiroro, B 2005, Engendering Democracy Through the Ballot Box in the Mauritius 2005 Elections, EISA Occasional
Paper 37
Decentralised Cooperation Programme (http://www.gov.mu/portal/sites/ncb/dcp/index.html)
Deloitte, 2008, Review of Corporate Social Responsibility policies and actions in Mauritius and Rodrigues,
Domingue, P.R., 2008, Final Report on Legislative Proposals for a New Legal and Regulatory Framework for NGOs
in Mauritius, SNSM Project, May.
Ecosud (http://www.ecosud.mu)
EU Delegation Mauritius (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/mauritius/index_en.htm)
FANRPAN, 2012, Current and Emerging Youth Policies and Initiatives with a Special focus on Links to Agriculture.
Mauritius Case Study Draft Report, April
Financing agreement between the EC and the Republic of Mauritius, Capacity Building Programme to Enhance
NSA Fight against Poverty, MAS/002/04, EDF IX, Agreement N° 9342/MAS
GEF SGP Mauritius grantee presents marine conservation efforts at the International Coral Reef Symposium in
Australia
(http://www.thegef.org/gef/news/gef-sgp-mauritius-grantee-presents-marine-conservation-effortsinternational-coral-reef-symposi)
Gill, G., 2012, Poverty and Exclusion in an Ethnically-Plural Society: A Mauritius Case Study, Lambert Academic
Publishing.
Government of the Republic of Mauritius - Ministry of Social Security, Non Governmental Organisations
(http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/ssnssite/menuitem.2972221e862db90e8f77861084d521ca/)
http://www.ecosud.mu
http://www.nef.mu/csr
http://www.nef.mu/organisation.php
IFAD, Mauritius: eradicating rural poverty in paradise
(http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/voice/tags/mauritius/socialexclusion)
Kasenally, R., 2010, “Mauritian civil society is not sufficiently bounded” in LE XP RE SS.M U, 17/12/
Kasenally, R., 2009, "Chapter 8: Mauritius" In Denis Kadima and Susan Booysen (eds) Compendium of Elections in
Southern Africa 1989-2009: 20 Years of Multiparty Democracy, EISA, Johannesburg, 285.
52
LIST OF NGOs - National Empowerment Foundation (www.nef.mu/csr/documents/List_of_Approved_NGOs.doc )
MACOSS, Civil Society Index Report on Mauritius
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org/application/)
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS (webpage)
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS, Annual report 2012
Mauritius Council of Social Service – MACOSS, Directory of Social Actors, July 2009
Mauritius NGOs Forum, 2009
Mauritius Wildlife Foundation, Ile aux Aigrettes
MCB Forward Foundation (http://www.mcbgroup.com/en/group/community/forward-foundation)
Ministry of Finance and Economic Empowerment Central Statistics Office, 2009, Poverty Analysis, 2006/07
(December)
National Empowerment Foundation (http://www.nef.mu/)
National Empowerment Foundation (http://www.nef.mu/csr)
National Empowerment Foundation NGO list (http://www.nef.mu/organisation.php )
Nexus Commonwealth Network, Mauritius: National NGOs & Civil Society
(http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/civil-society/africa/mauritius/national_ngos__civil_society
NGO Policy Paper, Ministry of Social Security
Non-State Actors Unit (webpage)
Shoals Rodrigues (http://www.shoalsrodrigues.net/)
Transtec – Equinocio, 2006, Formulation of An Innovation Policy Roadmap for the Republic of Mauritius.
Challenges and Issues, September
UNDP Mauritius / Seychelles (http://airhost.ca/~unintnet/)
UNDP, 2012, Social Inclusion and Empowerment, project document
UNDP, Strengthening of the NGO Sector in Mauritius, project document, 2005-2007
World Bank, Mauritius: Country Brief (http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mauritius)
World Bank, Mauritius: Country Economic Memorandum: Sharpening the Competitive Edge
(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20204568~menuPK
:435735~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html)
53
Annex 2 – Persons and organisations met (in depth interviews)
J. Chellum
Sandra Athalie
Roodrasen Neewoor
Ramdhony Harrydev
Raji Sobrun
Alain Bertrand
Patricia Adèle-Fèlicité
Marie Paule Prudence
Rita Venkatasawmy
P. Chellapermal
Edley Jaymangal
Ahud Fouad Uteene
Sheik Said Nisa
Ismael Deensah
Moomeesa Hossen Mamode
Louis Olivier Bancoult
Serge Clair
Delphine Bouic
Daniel Wong
Marie Rose de Lima Edouard
Jean Noel Samoisy
S. Gopal
R. Chuttoo
Jane Ragoo
Joel Violette
Sandrasagarren Naidu
Madev Balloo
Eric Vanhalewyn
Michael Atchia
Franchette Gaspard Pierre Louis
R. Balloo
Delphine Bouic
Mrs. Mungra
Pamela Bapoo-Dundoo
Loga Virahsawmy
J. Hookoomsing
Jacques Jonathan Ravat
Laval Soopramanien
Mary Joyce Ravina
Ram Nookadee
J. Cavalot
Monique Dinan
Vikash Tatayah
Juliette François-Assonne
Faeeza Ibrahimsah
Sophie Desvaux de Marigny
J. Mohamadally Mownah
Dr S. Kaleeah
Francoise Botte Noyan
Upesh Gunesh
ACIM – Association des Consommateurs de l’Ile Maurice
ANFEN – Adolescent Non Formal Education Network
Arya Sabha Mauritius
Arya Sabha Mauritius
Arya Sabha Mauritius
Azir Moris
CARITAS
Carrefour – Rodrigues
CEDEM – Centre d’Education et de Développement pour les Enfants
Mauriciens
CEDREFI
Centre de Solidarité pour une Nouvelle Vie
Century Welfare Association
Century Welfare Association
Century Welfare Association
Century Welfare Association
Chagos Refugees Group
Chief Commissioner – Rodrigues
Foundation Nouveau Regard (CSR)
Collectif Arc en Ciel
Commissioner for Youth - Rodrigues Regional Assembly
CRAC - Centre Alcoologie – Rodrigues
CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) Unit
CTSP – Confederation des travailleurs du Secteur Privé
CTSP – Confederation des travailleurs du Secteur Privé
DCP
Decentralised Cooperation Programme
Delegation of European Union
Delegation of European Union
Democracy Watch
Deputy Chief Commissioner - Rodrigues Regional Assembly
Diabetes Parent Support Group – DPSG
Fondation Nouveau Regard
Foyer Trochetia – Center for Elderly Person with Severe Disabilities
GEF Small Grants Programme
Gender Links – Media Watch
HSBC CSR
ICJM – Institut Cardinal Jean Margéot
Les Amis d’Agalega
Les petites saveurs de Rodrigues
MACOSS
MAM – Mouvement d’Aide à la Maternité
MAM – Mouvement d’Aide à la Maternité
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation
MCB Forward Foundation
MCCI – Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Medine Horizon Foundation (CSR)
Ministry of Finance & Economic Development
Ministry of Gender Equality
National Children Council
National Economic and Social Council (NESC)
54
Radhakrishna Sadien
Yogandranath Antoo (Sanjay)
Sanjiv Gopall
Krishna Athal
Mr. Bappoo
B. Boyramboli
D. Pentiah
Nicolas Ritter
H. Hookoom
W. Edouard / Maxwell Andre
Audrey d’Hotman de Villiers
Prof Vinesh Y Hookoomsing
Dr N. Joonas
A. Bissoonauthsing
Amédée Dabeecharun
Ambal Jeanne
Saajida Dauhoo
Prakash N. Chadee
Rajen Bablee
Lina So
Magda Verdickt
Paul Mercier
Patrick Yvon
H. Toofail
Anthony Enrico
Jane Valls
National Economic and Social Council (NESC)
National Empowerment Foundation
National Empowerment Foundation
National Youth Council of Mauritius
Pamplemousses Youth Centre
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Social Integration and Economic
Empowerment
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity and
Reform Institution
PILS
Registar of Associations
Rodrigues Council of Social Services
Rogers CSR
Society for the Welfare of the Deaf
Society for the Welfare of the Deaf
Society for the Welfare of the Deaf
SOS Children’s Villages
SOS Femmes
SOS Poverty
St John Ambulance
Transparency Mauritius
Transparency Mauritius
UNDP
UNDP – NSA Unit
Union Syndicale des Employees de Presse
University of Mauritius Student Union
Voluntary Blood Donors Association
Women in Networking
55
Annex 3 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings - Rodrigues
Rosemary Betancourt
A. Roussety
Rozanne Milazar Azie
Jocelyne Speville
Speville Hortense Vanessa
Samoisy Elisabeth
Dundee Alex
Casimir Esmeralda
Felicité J. Grajille
Marie Jeanne Hypolite
Casimir Christophe
Ste Marie Naikene
Sylvestre Labour
Raffin As Jovani
Margaret Hypolite
Association des Ecoles Maternelles de Rodrigues
Association Tourisme Reunies
Centre Carrefour – Regroupement des femmes
Dynamic Texile
Rodrigues Entreprendre au Feminin
Lutte & Espoir
Rodrigues Entreprendre au Feminin
Rodrigues Blood Voluntary Donors
Rodrigues Environmentally Friendly Group
Rodrigues Regional Women Committee
Rodrigues Regional Youth Council
Rodrigues Student Needs Association
Village Committee of Pointe d’Herbe
Shoals Rodrigues
Women Garment Making Association
56
Annex 4 – Organisations participating in focus group meetings – Mauritius
Marie Josée Baudot
Arlyne Tadebois
Dany Sam
Nassemah Toofail
Chantal Louise
I. Sundhoo
Dana Chengan
Milene Abdool Kader
Kheswar Beharry-Panray
Maan Saam
Yany Gaiqui-Lamarque
Vinay Narrainen
Pauline Bonieux
Marinette Sanfoonen
Melissa Rayeroux
Sandrine Lo Hun
Shasi Desai
Angela Maton
Silvie Marie
Raj Jatoo
Bluette Nubbo
Rutnabhooshite Pucmooa
Parvez Tauforally
V. Gokool
Grivon Gerard
Ferhat Ismahan
Martine Lassemillante
Joelle Langworthy
J.Hurreram
ANPPCAN
APEIM
APRIM
Association d’hebergement pour les personnes inadaptées
Association Surinam Centre d’Ecoute
Byron College UNESCO Club
EDYCS
Elles C Nous
EPCO
Falcon Citizen League
Groupe Elan
Holy Welfare Association
Kinoueté
La Maison Coeur Ecoute de Barkly
Le Pont du Tamarinier
Le Pont du Tamarinier
Link to Life
Magic Fingers Association
Mahebourg Espoir
Maison Familiale Rurale du Nord
MAM
Mauritius Alliance of Women
Mauritius Red Cross Society
National Women Council
Nou Nouveau Base
SAFIRE
T1 Diams
Ti Rayons Soleil
United Skills Workers Cooperative
57