The Civil Society Fund is an independent support facility funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and managed by CISU – Civil Society in Development. The guidelines for the Civil Society Fund are made by CISU in dialogue with CISU’s members and users and approved by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The purpose of the Civil Society Fund is to support the strengthening of civil societies to improve lives of people living in poverty  in the Global South.

The Civil Society Fund supports partnerships between civil society actors and movements  in the Global South  and Denmark. Global partnerships are valuable as they bring together actors with different capacities, perspectives, and allies that can collaborate and complement each other’s work for reaching common goals. Good partnerships are built on mutual trust and respect. 

The Civil Society Fund does not prioritise specific development issues over others but are guided by a human rights-based approach.

The Global South partners are closest to the problems and best situated to develop solutions. Therefore, the development and implementation of interventions funded by the Civil Society Fund must be led by the Global South partners, who must in turn be anchored in and accountable towards the communities wherein they work.  

The Danish partners typically contribute with experience, perspectives, and network, as well as access to decision makers and funds from institutional donors and private foundations in Denmark and Europe. Also, the Danish partners are strong allies and advocates for marginalised people in the Global South and can play an active role in cross-border solidarity work.

The partnerships must be meaningful and relevant to all partners involved and most importantly, the work done must be relevant for the communities benefitting hereof. This is ensured by giving local communities a voice to express needs and power in deciding the solutions addressing those needs.

Sustainability of the work supported by the Civil Society Fund is furthered if local communities are the principal change agents in interventions and if the Civil Society Fund is not the only contribution of resources. Communities and partners can contribute to the work themselves e.g. by hosting meetings in the community hall free of charge or supplementing agricultural inputs to a farming project with seeds gathered from local farmers. Thus, own contributions are more than money; it is manhours, voluntary work, venue hosting, food, and other things. All interventions supported by the Civil Society Fund are expected to include own contributions. However, it is only a requirement for larger grants to contribute with financial resources.

The Civil Society Fund supports a variety of work by organisations and movements; from short-term projects with a tight focus on a specific task, to longer development processes that require long-term strategies and flexibility to react to opportunities as they appear. The Civil Society Fund recognises that based upon context, priorities, experiences, and position different approaches and strategies can be applied to achieve sustainable change.

The Civil Society Fund is based on the following principles, which all grants must comply with. The assessment of compliance is based on the application. Additional resources related to the principles are available at www.cisu.dk.

Human Rights

Fundamental human rights must be respected, protected, and fulfilled. A human rights-based approach focuses on enabling people to demand their rights and holding duty-bearers accountable. The approach focuses on eliminating unequal power relations and unequal distribution of resources. The approach rests on four fundamental principles: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination, and Transparency (PANT).

Applicants must demonstrate how the intervention use a human rights-based approach to work with rights holders and/or duty bearers to promote the situation of the rights holders.

Do no harm

It is important to be aware of the effect that any involvement has on others, and as such it is necessary to analyse relations, consequences, and risks in the context in which an intervention takes place. Actors working with people living in poverty and marginalisation must be aware of the position or role they play in each context and acknowledge their own biases. The aim is to minimise any negative impact and increase the positive impact on the situation.

Applicants must demonstrate extensive knowledge of the context and understanding of how their involvement has consequences for the affected people. Also, applicants must demonstrate readiness to adjust an intervention if the context changes.

Poverty orientation

The Civil Society Fund supports work that directly or indirectly secure participation, interests, and rights of people living in poverty. Poverty has several dimensions and is not only about income but also personal security, access to resources such as education and jobs, health and access to land and water, and the possibility to influence decisionmakers. Many people are trapped in one or more forms of poverty in various ways, and various types of poverty often affect each other.

Applicants must demonstrate knowledge of the target groups and describe the form of poverty they face and how the intervention addresses this.

Sustainability

An intervention should not advance social justice at the expense of climate, environment, and nature. And vice versa; interventions that advance climate, environment, and nature may not impair the conditions of the people living in poverty and marginalisation.

Applicants must justify how the work done is sustainable – socially and environmentally.

The development triangle is a good tool to describe the different elements in a development intervention. The triangle illustrates the elements and the potential synergies between them.

All three elements are central to good development work but the balance between them can vary, depending on the context and the capacities and experiences in the partnership. It is not a requirement to include all elements in an intervention, but it must be explained why some elements are chosen over others to reach the goals.

·         Capacity building strengthen the capacity of partners, networks, platforms and/or target groups. Capacity can include strategic and organisational capacity, technical and thematical capacity to conduct projects and programmes, as well as networks and alliances with other actors. Capacity building is often a prerequisite for making sustainable change and can form the basis for engaging in advocacy.

·         Strategic deliveries can be tangible inputs such as goods and services, that strengthen or are necessary to better work with the two other elements of the triangle. Strategic deliveries can be necessary but will never in themselves create lasting and sustainable change.

·         Advocacy is the planned action to influence formal or informal decision-makers and the public to bring about lasting improvements for poor or marginalised groups. Civil society driven advocacy is based on the capacity of civil society and the knowledge gained form strategic service.  

The Civil Society Fund supports partnerships between civil society actors and movements in the Global South and Denmark. There are different requirements to the partners and there must be a clear division of roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the intervention. This division must be jointly agreed upon and clear to partners as well as the target groups of the intervention.

The Civil Society Fund accepts applications from popular, Danish organisations that meet the minimum requirements for support laid down by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark:

ü  The organisation needs to be private, and it must have legal domicile as well as activities in Denmark.

ü  The chairperson or most members of its governing body must be Danish citizens or foreigners with their permanent address in Denmark unless the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark grants an exemption.

ü  The organisation must have an approved set of statutes.

ü  The accounts of the organisation, including the annual accounts, must be subject to auditing.

ü  If the organisation applies for up to DKK 500,000, it must have a minimum of 25 paying contributors. If the organisation applies for more than DKK 500,000, it must have a minimum of 50 paying contributors. They may be members, volunteers in the association or other persons providing a financial contribution. The contributions must have been given in the current year or the latest financial year. There are no requirements to the size of the contribution. For umbrella organisations, at least one of its member organisations must satisfy the above requirement.

ü  If the organisation has existed for at least one year, it may apply for more than DKK 500,000. If the organisation has existed for less than one year, it may apply for a maximum of DKK 500,000.

Responsibility

·         The applicant organisation’s governing body must be able to take on full responsibility for the application and for any subsequent grant.

·         If several Danish organisations apply jointly, there must always be one lead organisation which holds the administrative and legal responsibility for the grant and contract with CISU. Only the lead organisation needs to live up to the above requirement.

·         If the lead organisation is an umbrella organisation, at least one of its member organisations must fulfil the above requirement.

More information about the governing body’s responsibility is available in the Grant Administration Guide available at www.cisu.dk.

They cannot apply:

·         The Civil Society Fund is unable to support interventions eligible for support from other funds funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark such as the Centre for Church-Based Development (CKU), the Danish Youth Council (DUF), Disabled People’s Organisations Denmark (DPOD), the Danish Refugee Council’s Diaspora Programme and the Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD).

·         The Civil Society Fund does not accept applications from organisations that have signed a strategic partnership agreement, fund agreement or similar agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.

·         The Civil Society Fund does not accept applications from foundations engaged in commercial activity, consulting firms, educational establishments or entities set up by law, including the so-called folk high schools (højskoler).

The Global South partner(s) must be based in the country where the activities will be implemented and will be responsible for implementing the local activities. It can be from any country on OECD/DAC’s list of ODA recipients (link to the list).

The Global South partner(s) must be capable of taking on the necessary administrative and financial responsibility of the grant as described in the Grant Administration Guide. If a partner is an informal organisation, e.g., a social movement, or is otherwise prevented from being able to receive and administer funds according to CISU’s requirements for financial management, another organisation – even one that does not belong to civil society or is based in a DAC country if this can be justified – may act as a link between the Danish organisation and the Global South partners. This other organisation must be able to administer the funds according to CISU’s requirements for financial management. This could be the case, for instance, in countries where civil society organisations in general or certain groups are subject to legislation that restricts their right to organise or their access to international funding or organisations that are forced to work underground.

GOBAL SOUTH PARTNERS MUST BE

•    Global South Partners MUST form part of civil society in the country and locality where activities will be implemented.
•    The partner’s management MUST be locally anchored. If the partner has a governing body, the chairperson, and the majority of members of its governing body must be citizens or foreigners with their permanent address in the country concerned. If managed differently, similar anchoring must be shown in the application.
•    If the Global South partners are locally based chapters of international civil society organisations, including those to which the Danish organisation is affiliated, the partners MUST be registered in the country concerned and have its own governing body as described above.
  

GLOBAL SOUTH PARTNERS CANNOT BE

•     Individuals and families.
•     The national government or political parties.
•     Public authorities or bodies.
•     Private businesses.
•     On the UN’s or EU’s list of terrorist organisations, which are continuously updated. The Danish organisation is responsible for checking this.
  

Interventions may include cooperation with other actors such as authorities, research institutes and educational establishments, or the private sector. They may play a part in, for example, activities, assignments, training, capacity building, and advocacy that have specific relevance to and advance the purpose of the Civil Society Fund and of an intervention.

For instance, interventions aimed at economic development may include relevant private businesses or social enterprises as actors as long as this does not conflict with the rules on state subsidies. Activities with public institutions may also feature in the intervention if they are included strategically to ensure the rights of target groups. Cooperation with research institutes and educational establishments can support the accumulation of knowledge and documentation for the purpose of supporting interventions and advocacy with evidence-based knowledge.

It is also possible to cooperate with authorities that are duty bearers and who are key to succeed with an intervention and bring about sustainable change. However, the purpose of the intervention must target civil society, and civil society must play a significant role in that cooperation.

The purpose of the Civil Society Fund is to strengthen civil societies. Strong, independent, and sustainable civil society actors in the Global South are central, and although the Fund supports long-lasting cooperation between the same partners partnerships must work towards the objective that all partners are able to be self-sustaining or secure additional funding from other sources.

If an intervention is an extension of previous cooperation it will be assessed based on the following:

•   I   It does not merely repeat a former intervention. A new intervention that is an extension of a former intervention must build on results and experiences and contain new desired changes, a new or adjusted strategy or a new or extended target group. 
•         Interventions that are an extension of a former intervention build on results and experiences from them. The expectations of learning, reflection, and positive changes are increasing with each extension.

Depending on the experience and capacity of the Danish organisation, partnerships can apply for the following grants.

To ensure sufficient experience among new applicants, the following grant ceilings apply to the Civil Society Fund:

-          A first-time applicant can apply for projects up to DKK 500,000.

-          To apply for projects and programmes of more than DKK 500,000, the applicant organisation must have completed at least one intervention with a grant of more than DKK 200,000 funded by CISU or a donor with similar reporting requirements to those of CISU and/or the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

o   This requirement is also fulfilled when the applicant organisation as part of a consortium has been responsible for at least DKK 200,000 of the total budget of a grant with similar reporting requirements as CISU’s and/or the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’. It is the applicant organisation that must prove to CISU that it has had budget responsibility of at least DKK 200,000 which includes implementation and narrative, financial reporting and auditing.

Organisational Grant Ceiling

Each organisation can obtain grants across the Project Support and Strategic Programme Support modalities for a maximum total amount of up to DKK 5 million per year. Organisations awarded a large programme can exceed the organisational grant ceiling. Grants for Funding Diversification and Capacity Analysis are not included in the organisational grant ceiling.

For other funds administered by CISU, it is determined in the guideline for this specific fund, whether grants from the fund is included in the grant ceiling of the Civil Society Fund.

Project support enables the strengthening of organisations and partnerships for the benefit of local communities in the Global South. The project modality can for example support organisations to:

• Ø  Build partnerships and/or
• Ø  Strengthen organisational capacities and/or
• Ø  Try out new approaches and/or
• Ø  Expand on impactful approaches and/or
• Ø  Foster popular engagement.

Projects are defined by a set of goals that can be realized within a specified timeframe. Project goals should be used to guide implementation and showing whether the approach is successful, or changes are required. Projects must contribute to improving the lives of people living in poverty and marginalisation in the communities wherein the project activities take place, as reflected in the purpose statement of the Civil Society Fund.

Organisations can apply for small projects up to DKK 150.000 or large projects up to DKK 700.000.

 Eligibility requirements and assessment criteria are different depending on the size of the project support applied for. See illustration below.

Each organisation can obtain grants across the Project Support and Strategic Programme Support modalities for a maximum total amount of up to DKK 5 million per year. Grants for Funding Diversification and Capacity Analysis are not included in the grant ceiling.

Each applicant is assessed using the below set of criteria. The assessment is also guided by three overall principles: 1) There is no rigid formula 2) adaptability of requirements, and 3) flexibility when working in fragile contexts.

There is no rigid formula means that there is always room for the assessment committee to look at the overall picture in terms of an integrated assessment of applications in view of the purpose of the fund.

Adaptability of requirements means that the larger the budget, the stricter the requirements regarding the capacity of the organisations involved and the desired changes of the intervention. There are also higher requirements for organisations that have longer experience and more grants from CISU and/or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark compared to organisations that have less experience and have received fewer grants.

Flexibility when working in fragile contexts means that the assessment of the interventions considers the context and risk analyses and the strategy and allow for greater flexibility in terms of cost types (e.g., for security measures or flexible funds) and balancing of the development triangle (e.g., a higher level of strategic services or less advocacy).

Applications will be scored individually but will compete for the amount allocated for each round of applications. If there is applied for more money than available, the applicants with the highest score will receive a grant. In case, more than one applicant shares the same score, the applicant with the smallest budget amount will be granted and so forth. This is to allow for more grants being given.

See section 4.4 for more details on the scoring system used.

Locally led development is at the centre of Strategic Programme Support. The funding modality provides strong partnerships with the possibility to engage with their target groups, strengthen civil society, and deliver on their strategy. It allows civil society organisations and movements to implement programmes based upon the strategic plans[1] of the Global South Partner(s), thus, ensuring relevance and decision-making power of local actors.

A programme is expected to have a programme strategy that brings together the array of expertise and strategies of all partners. The programme strategy should have a focus that can either be thematic, geographical, or sectoral. A programme makes it possible to work with a wider range of partners and enables dynamic learning across such a diversity of partners.

Working with locally led development and acknowledging the need for supporting processes of change beyond shorter project cycles, the strategic programme support provides the foundation to work in long-term partnerships. Partnerships can receive support for multiple programme periods[2].

Engaging in partnerships over multiple years the partners can engage in the work to create sustainable change – both in the local context and in Denmark, and to strengthen and diversify funding to further reinforce the predictability and stability of funding.

Long-term partnerships also provide strong environments for learning and development for the Danish partners and a solid foundation for them to build popular support and engagement in Denmark.

Strategic programme support is divided into three modalities defined by the size of the grant (small, medium, large). Each modality has a set of requirements and assessment criteria.

The Civil Society Fund does not fully finance strategic programmes and therefore own contributions are required. For strategic programmes above DKK 5 million, only financial contributions (such as funds raised in the Global South or Denmark and co-financing) can count as own contribution. Co-financing can be included if the Danish organisation has had a role in securing the funds or plays a role in the grant implementation (see information box).

The own contribution requirement increases with each new grant for the same programme, as it is expected that the partnership can secure funding to an increasing extent, thus reducing dependence on the Civil Society Fund.

As illustrated below, the required level of own contribution remains static for small programmes, but for medium and large programmes the level increases by each programme period.

The own contribution requirement must be completed by the end of a given grant period. If the requirement is not achieved, the maximum grant amount for the next grant given under Strategic Programme Support will be reduced by a value of double the amount ‘missing’ in own contribution.

Own contribution can be in the form of:

• ü  In-kind contributions, e.g. manhours (volunteer and paid), venue hosting.
• ü  Funds raised in the Global South or Denmark, e.g. donations, membership fees, grants.
• ü  Co-financing, e.g. grants from foundations or institutional donors supporting one or more partners in the partnership.

Each applicant is assessed using the below set of criteria. The assessment is also guided by three overall principles: 1) There is no rigid formula[1], 2) adaptability of requirements, and 3) flexibility when working in fragile contexts.

There is no rigid formula means that there is always room for the assessment committee to look at the overall picture in terms of an integrated assessment of applications in view of the purpose of the fund.

Adaptability of requirements means that the larger the budget, the stricter the requirements regarding the capacity of the organisations involved and the desired changes of the intervention. There are also higher requirements for organisations that have longer experience and more grants from CISU and/or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark compared to organisations that have less experience and have received fewer grants.

Flexibility when working in fragile contexts means that the assessment of the interventions considers the context and risk analyses and the strategy and allow for greater flexibility in terms of cost types (e.g., for security measures or flexible funds) and balancing of the development triangle (e.g., a higher level of strategic services or less advocacy).

The application process differs depending on the size of Strategic Programme support applied for, as described in the following section.

Small programmes

There are two deadlines for applying for small programmes each year - one in March and one in September. It is a one-step process, where applicants apply before the deadline (read more on how to apply under section 4). Applicants must use fixed formats for the narrative application, budget, and relevant appendices, which can be downloaded on www.cisu.dk.

Be aware that the Danish applicant can only submit two applications per calendar year – either two in one round or one in each of the two rounds. A re-submission also counts as an application.

Medium and large programmes

There is an application round every second year for medium and large programmes. The application process is divided in to three steps.  

Be aware that the Danish applicant can only submit one application per round for medium and large programmes. Further, Danish organisations with a large programme grant can only have one active programme grant at a time. Danish organisations with an open medium programme grant can only apply for small programme grants.

1. Step: Expression of Interest and Eligibility Check

If an applicant is interested in applying for a medium or large programme, the applicant must submit a short Expression of Interest (EoI) that describes the partnership and the budget size of the desired grant. CISU will check whether the applicant and the partnership fulfil the eligibility requirements. The check determines whether the applicant will proceed to the second step of the application process.

2. Step: Relevance and Capacity Assessment

The assessment of relevance and capacity will be based on the following elements:

1)      Track Record Documents on all partners.

2)      External capacity analysis of the Global South Partners based on Terms of Reference developed by CISU in dialogue with the partners.

3)      Capacity analysis/mapping of the Danish Partner, conducted by CISU staff.

4)      Short Concept Note describing the programme strategy.

The assessment committee will assess the relevance of a programme and whether the partners have the capacities to implement the programme with the use of criteria 1-4 (see sub criteria above):

1.       Capacity

2.       Locally led and equitable partnerships

3.       Relevance

4.       Strategy

The assessment will result in a conclusion being either that the program is relevant or not relevant. Only relevant programs will be invited to submit an application.

3. Step: Application submittal

Applicants will receive an invitation to apply by 1 May and will hand in their application by October 1. The application formats are available at www.cisu.dk.

All applications for medium or large programmes need to be finally approved by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Be aware: Organisations that have been awarded a programme and have unfinished projects under the Civil Society Fund must terminate the project grants and incorporate the corresponding activities into the programme as per the programme commencement date.

The applicants will be scored individually but will compete for a certain amount allocated for each round of applications. If there is applied for more money than available, the applicants with the highest score will receive a grant. In case, more than one applicant shares the same score, the applicant with the smallest budget amount will be granted and so forth. This is to allow for more grants being given.

See section 4.4 for more details on the scoring system used.

For long-term partnerships, a rejected application can result in significant insecurity for all partners involved and challenges to the continuation of the long-term strategic work of the partnership.

Whereas partnerships with a small programme can re-apply within a timeframe of 6 months, medium and large programmes can only re-apply every second year.

To address this potential funding gap, partnerships with medium and large programmes will apply for a continuation of their programme two years prior to the end date of the programme. In the case of rejection due to competition (e.i., the program is assessed to be relevant, and the application could have been funded if more money was available), the partnership is given two options:

1) the existing programme can be extended with one year (no additional funds), thus stretching the grant until the end of the next application process, or

2) the partnership is allowed to apply for small programmes in the last year of the programme in combination with project support. If awarded one or more small programmes, the partnership is also allowed to apply for a medium or large programme at the time of the next application process. If a medium- or large programme is awarded, the small programme(s) will be absorbed into the larger programme.

The purpose is to support users of the Civil Society Fund to diversify their fund base with two types of support:

1.       Co-funding can help partnerships obtain funding from other donors that require and/or favour applications with a co-financing element.

2.       Support for applications processes aid partnership with developing applications to new donors such as private companies, foundations, or institutional donors.

For both types of support, it is not possible to use the grants to apply for funding financed by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Requirements

Assessment criteria

Co-funding

Applications can be submitted at any time of the year, but not after the application has been submitted to the primary donor. If the primary donor’s application process contains a first stage of submitting a concept note, an application based on this concept note and a budget summary may be submitted.

Applications are processed as fast as possible and normally within four weeks. In case of a comprehensive application to the primary donor, the processing time can be extended for up to six weeks.

Applications for co-funding assessed worthy of support are awarded a grant commitment in advance, whereas the contract with CISU cannot be issued and the grant cannot be disbursed before the primary donor has given its final approval.

Support for application process

Applications for can be submitted at any time of the year. Applications are processed as fast as possible and normally within four weeks.

For both types of support, fixed application formats must be used, which can be downloaded at www.cisu.dk. The applications must be submitted via CISUs online grant management system Vores CISU, as described in section 4.2.

A capacity analysis targets Danish organisations that wants to get an external review of the organisation’s professional, organisational, and administrative capacity and its partnerships. A capacity analysis will contribute to valuable learning in terms of strategy, management, and capacity development.

The focus of a capacity analysis is one or several specific areas on which the organisation wishes to shed light to strengthen and further develop the organisation, such as:

•         The Danish organisation’s partnerships, including the number and nature of existing and planned partners or approaches to entering into new cooperation.

•         The Danish organisation’s strategic and thematic work with Global South partners.

•         The Danish organisation’s popular roots, internal decision-making processes, and work with information on global issues in Denmark.

•         Other needs that can support the further development of the organisation.

A capacity analysis can be initiated by three different actors, but it is always the Danish organisation who submit the application. The different actors are:  

1)      The Danish organisation can apply for a capacity assessment as part of a long-term strategy development or process of change.

2)      CISU’s Assessment Committee can recommend or make it a precondition that an organisation carry out a capacity analysis. That could be if the committee finds it necessary to obtain an assessment of the organisation’s capacity across the organisation’s interventions.

3)      CISU’s secretariat may, in connection with its advisory services, in response to a report, or because of a monitoring visit recommend a capacity analysis, which will then form part of the organisation’s track record and future applications from the organisation concerned. If CISU recommends or requires a capacity analysis, the specific recommendations/requirements must be listed in the application.

CISU receives applications on an ongoing basis and processes them as fast as possible, normally within four weeks.

If an organisation is awarded a capacity analysis grant, CISU will make a contract with the organisation as well as with the external consultant, who will conduct the analysis. One of CISU’s advisers and possibly a member of the Assessment Committee (if they have recommended the Capacity Assessment or have good advice) will cooperate with the grantee to draw up the Terms of Reference (ToR) that describe the focus and scope of the task. The ToR must be approved by CISU.

CISU pays all costs for the consultant and activities. An organisation in the process of a capacity analysis can still submit applications to the Civil Society Fund.

The consultant will prepare a draft report to be discussed with the organisation and one of CISU’s advisers.  Hereafter, the consultant writes the final report that must subsequently be approved by the an assessment consultant, one of CISU’s advisers and CISU’s management.

To follow up, the organisation must write a reply to the recommendations of the capacity analysis (management response), which must be approved by CISU. It is then the responsibility and duty of the organisation’s board of directors to follow up on the capacity analysis. It is recommended that the organisation use the learning and the recommendations of the capacity analysis in future applications to the Civil Society Fund.

The application for a capacity analysis is assessed based on two criteria:

1.       Civil society relevance. The organisation’s work generally contribute to the Civil Society Fund’s purpose and principles.

2.       Focus: The proposed specific areas to be analysed are based on a thorough analysis of needs, wishes, and opportunities for the organisation, its partnerships, and/or interventions.

Deadlines:

There are application deadlines for the Project and Strategic Programme support modalities. For project support, there are three deadlines a year to allow for more frequent and flexible opportunities to access funding.

There are no deadlines for funding diversification and capacity analysis, and these modalities can be applied for any time of the year until the budget set aside for these support modalities has been spent.

All applications are submitted via the online grant management system ‘Vores CISU’ (Our CISU) before the given deadline. The system will be open for applications two weeks prior to a deadline.  

For each modality, there are formats for the application and the budget, as well as any required annexes. See www. cisu.dk/en/funding/funding-materials/

CISU will initially screen applications to ensure that they live up to all formal requirements. The lists used for screening is available at www.cisu.dk. If an application does not meet all formal requirements, it will be administratively rejected.

When an application fulfils all formal requirements, it is forwarded to an assessment consultant and an assessment committee member. The consultant assesses each application up against the criteria set for the modality and recommend the application to approval or rejection for the assessment committee member. The assessment committee makes the final decision.

Each applicant will receive an assessment note, explaining the reasons for either approval or rejection. This note is useful to guide a potential re-application, as it provides comments on what is deemed critical and thus what can be improved.

Depending on the modality, the assessment will take a certain amount of time, which is shown in the table below.

All applications are scored using the LEADS scoring 1-5. The assessment committee gives a score to each criterion, which are weighted in terms of what is most important in terms of contributing to the purpose and principles of the Civil Society Fund.

The score is used to prioritise between approved applications when there is not enough money to grant all approved applications.

Transparency and openness in the administration. This means, among other things:

• ·         All assessment criteria and processes are explicit and available to all applicants.
• ·         All applicants receive a written response explaining the reasons for the approval or rejection.
• ·         All approved applications are publicly available (anonymity can be requested if reasoned).

Orderly administration applying the highest standards of administrative conduct (for instance, ensuring impartiality, making decisions on an informed basis, writing in an understandable manner, complying with deadlines and stating the reasons for decisions as detailed in the legal principles of CISU as set out in CISU’s Code of Conduct).

Clear separation between the advisory process/the advisers and the assessment process/assessment system. Accordingly, CISU’s advisers and the rest of CISU’s secretariat are not in any way involved in the process from the moment the application is submitted until the grant decision is made.

Every year, CISU’s Board determines, upon approval by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what share of the total Civil Society Fund will be allocated to the different types of support modalities.

CISU’s procedures for feedback and complaints are set out in CISU’s Code of Conduct. More information is available at www.cisu.dk/complaint

Dear CISU Team,

I am writing to provide inputs, opinions, and suggestions for the new guidelines for the Civil Society Fund. My feedback is based on dialogues with our partners, target groups, and other relevant stakeholders involved in our work.

1. Emphasizing Flexibility and Hands-on Procedures:
o Simplified Application Process: It is crucial to have a streamlined and less bureaucratic application process, especially for smaller organizations that might lack extensive administrative resources. Simplifying the application steps will encourage more participation and ensure that valuable initiatives are not deterred by complex procedures.
o Adaptive Grant Management: Incorporating flexible grant management procedures that allow for adjustments based on changing circumstances on the ground would greatly benefit implementing partners. This includes the ability to reallocate budget lines or modify project activities without excessive administrative hurdles.
o Real-time Support: Offering more hands-on support and guidance during both the application and implementation phases can enhance the effectiveness of projects. This might include dedicated support officers or a helpdesk that organizations can contact for immediate assistance.
o Reasonable Information Requests: Ensure that the information requested in the application form can be sensibly written in the space allocated. This prevents applicants from feeling overwhelmed by excessive details and focuses on concise, relevant information.

2. Prioritizing Small Organizations:
o Grant Size Provisions: While the guidelines already allow for different sizes of grants, it's essential to prioritize funding for smaller organizations that often have the most direct impact on local communities but struggle to secure large-scale funding. Establishing a specific quota or ring-fenced funding for these organizations can ensure their continued participation and growth.
o Capacity Building: Small organizations often benefit from capacity-building initiatives. It would be beneficial if the guidelines could emphasize capacity-building support tailored specifically for smaller entities, including training in project management, financial administration, and strategic planning.
o Supporting Experimental Initiatives: Supporting smaller, experimental initiatives is crucial for paving new ways and fostering innovation. These initiatives can provide valuable insights and develop new approaches that can be scaled up if successful.
o Simplified Reporting Requirements: For smaller grants, simplifying the reporting requirements can alleviate the administrative burden on small organizations. This will allow them to focus more on implementation rather than extensive documentation.

3. Promoting Inclusivity and Local Leadership:
o Local Decision-Making: Ensuring that the Global South partners have a significant say in decision-making processes and project implementation is crucial. This aligns with the principles outlined in the guidelines and should be emphasized to enhance ownership and sustainability.
o Inclusivity in Partnerships: Encouraging partnerships that include a diverse range of local actors, including marginalized and underrepresented groups, will promote inclusivity and ensure that the interventions are holistic and representative of the communities they aim to serve.
o Engaging New and More Partners in Denmark: Supporting projects that involve new partners and more partners in Denmark can enhance collaboration, bring fresh perspectives, and leverage a broader range of expertise and resources. This will also strengthen the network of organizations committed to global development goals.

4. Feedback on Specific Sections:
o Section 3.1.4 (Assessment Criteria):
§ The assessment criteria should explicitly include points for organizational sustainability and impact on the local community. This will ensure that projects that demonstrate potential for long-term impact are given priority.
§ Clear Criteria Grid: Providing a clear criteria grid for sustainability and impact in the guidelines will help applicants understand the specific requirements and standards expected in their proposals. This grid should outline the key areas of focus and the metrics used to evaluate them, ensuring transparency and consistency in the assessment process.

5. Online Tool for Application Evaluation:
o Application Testing Tool: It would be highly productive to develop an online tool that allows applicants to test their applications against the evaluation criteria during the application process. This tool would provide immediate feedback on areas of strength and those needing improvement, helping applicants refine their submissions before finalizing them.
o Aligned Information Requests: Ensure that the information required by this tool is consistent with and not more than what is asked for in the application form. This alignment will prevent any unnecessary duplication of effort and streamline the application process.

In conclusion, these suggestions aim to enhance the accessibility, flexibility, and effectiveness of the Civil Society Fund, ensuring that it continues to support a wide range of organizations and initiatives that contribute to sustainable development.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. We look forward to seeing the final revised guidelines.

Best regards,
Henrik Haubro
AMIS. A More Inclusive Society

Spedalskhedsmissionen foreslår følgende formulering til 3.2.2 Requirements linje 339 under afsnittet om Eligibility: 

Minimum DKK 500,000 on average in the last 3 years in grants from CSP or from a donor with similar reporting requirements.

En solidarisk omfordeling, der fører til, at flere organisationer og dermed flere aktører får mulighed for at engagere sig konkrete i udviklingssamarbejder, vil efter CICEDs opfattelse også bidrage til at styrke det bredere engagement i og den folkelige opbakning til dansk udviklingssamarbejde. I det perspektiv understøtter omfordeling og flere aktører også indsatsen for en styrkelse af CISUs kernefortælling, jf. beslutning om indsatsområder på generalforsamlingen 2024.

Endelig anser vi i CICED afskaffelse af ’large programme/program-ordningen’ som led i styrkelse af sammenhængskraften i CISU. Gennem de senere år – i takt med øget pres på Civilsamfundspuljen (”når-krybben-er-tom-så-bides hestene”-fænomenet) – har vi noteret en tiltagende ’dem-og-os’

fortælling med små og mellemstore organisationer overfor programorganisationerne. En sådan debat- og arbejdskultur er ikke befordrende for det fælles træk for udvikling af CISU og vore deltagelse i det fremtidige udviklingssamarbejde.

København 1/8 2024

På vegne af CICEDs bestyrelse
Johnny Baltzersen, forperson

In English:

'project support', just as an expectation should also be formulated under this area that the initiative may/should reflect on 'the need for supporting processes beyond shorter project cycles', as it is precisely in this perspective that the contours of a strategy take shape.

In CICED's opinion, a solidarity-based redistribution that leads to more organizations and, thus, more actors having the opportunity to engage in development cooperation will also contribute to strengthening the broader commitment and popular support for Danish development cooperation. In this perspective, redistribution and more actors also support the efforts to enhance CISU's core narrative, cf. the decision on focus areas at the CISU general assembly 2024.

Finally, we at CICED consider the abolition of the 'large program/program scheme' to be part of strengthening the cohesion of CISU. In recent years, in line with increased pressure on the Civil Society Fund, we have noted an increasing 'them-and-us' narrative with small and medium-sized

organizations toward the program organizations. Such a culture of debate and work is not conducive to the joint development of CISU and our participation in future development cooperation.

Considering the growing pressures on the CSF and increasing rejections of project applications that are worth supporting, Crossing Borders hereby proposes the following measures:

1. Prioritise long term partnership between Danish and Global South partners. This is to acknowledge and encourage building on an already established good relationships, rather than processing applications as if the partners have never worked together before. Such measures will not only strengthen the partners, but also sustain the mutual trust and respect they have built along the way. It will also save resources and sustain the support to the local communities.

2. In line with new call for equal partnership and less patronizing, the grant committee, especially the grant consultants, should be composed of equal representation from both Denmark and the Global South. It is likely that members from the Global South have deeper knowledge and understanding of the local contexts, needs and priorities than their Danish colleagues.

3. In line with the above, ensure that evaluations of CISU as an organisation and its activities also involve partners from the Global South, so that there is not only upwards, inwards and outwards accountability but also downwards accountability. 

4. Ensure that the Assessment Committee Notes use a respectful and uniform tone towards the individual applications and with respect for the hard work put into preparing the applications by the Danish organisation and their partners in the Global South. 

Generelt er ALL (Arbejdsgruppen for Leg og Læring) glad for udkastet. Vi finder, at det giver muligheder for en række vigtige forbedringer.

I udkastet fremgår det klart, hvilke krav, der er til de CSOer, der kan søge. Det understreges, at der er et ønske om at fremme det engagerede civilsamfund.

Godtgørelser

1.      Budgetter bør i princippet ikke indeholde motivations- eller godtgørelsesydelser for almindelig deltagelse i aktiviteter. F.eks. at lærere, der skal på kursus, ikke skal kunne udbetales en godtgørelse for deltagelse (de får jo stadig deres normale løn). Det selvfølgelig under den forudsætning, at de ikke har udgifter af at deltage, da alle omkostninger (transport, fortæring, ophold mm.) betales af indsatsen.
I andre end ’udviklings’sammenhænge koster det jo at tage på kursus. F.eks. betaler arbejdsgiveren for sine ansatte. Hvorfor skal der så bindes betaling for deltagelse i halen på kurser finansieret af CSP?

I udkastet understreges det, at udgangspunktet skal være, at projektet er styret af modtagerne (den ikke danske partner) og dermed af lokale behov og af det lokale CS’s formulering af løsninger. Dvs. det før omtalte kursus, dermed er blevet til som resultat, af et lokalt ønske om det. Dermed implicit, at kurset ikke er blevet til for at løse lokale lommesmerter.
Man kunne tænke sig et eksempel med en forretningskvinde, der skal deltage i et kursus, men ikke kan, fordi hun så mister al indtægt i kursusperioden. I det tilfælde kunne man måske overveje en model med at deltidsansætte hende.
Disse forslag bør fremgå af tabellen under 3.1.3.

Dette punkt har været diskuteret i ALL-DK’s bestyrelse. Og der var ikke enighed om den skrappe linje. Det kan også virke umuligt, da vi ikke en gang selv kunne gennemføre det under et nyligt træningsophold i Tanzania. Trods det at var intentionen og at det har været gjort klart fra vores side, at den slags godtgørelser ikke var planlagt,

2.      En anden side er DSA under rejse. Ikke mindst for den danske partner. ALL har konsekvent brugt at betale kr. 200 i DSA per dag. De 200 kr. inkluderer betalingen af overnatninger, fortæring, tøjvask, telefon, internet, lokal transport til kortere afstande (f.eks. motorcykel o.lign.) og en smule lommepenge.
Indrømmet hoteller i storbyer kan være dyrere, men udgifterne udligner sig, så det under alle omstændigheder hænger sammen. UM’s takster for dagpenge er for høje, især når reglerne om mulig refusion af hoteller medtages. Det er sket, at der har været en smule underskud, så har vi selv spædet til.
DSA skal ikke bruges som skjult aflønning.

Vurderingskriterie 4 og 5

Til at hjælpe med at implementere afsnittet om godtgørelser bør vurderingskriterie 4 og 5 separeres. Og så skal kriterie 5 består af

5.1 Som det allerede står
5.2 Størrelsen af udbetalinger til motiverings/godtgørelsesydelser
5.3 Størrelsen af DSA

Fattigdomsaspektet

I ansøgninger bør der også inkluderes overvejelser over, hvordan den danske partner ser på egen fattigdom. Her tænker vi ikke mindst på vores egen opfattelse/ forståelse af og viden om levevilkår, miljø, politiske forhold mm. hos partneren.
Egen fattigdom og fattigdomsaspekter i modtagerlandet bør føre til kravet om, at ansøger har en hjemmedel (2. del af målsætningen, som MS havde for år tilbage ved frivilligudsendelser).  Dette passer fint med kravet til ansøger om at skulle være aktiv i Danmark.

Monitorering

Løn til monitorering skal slettes af det der er muligt at finansiere (tabel ml. linje 290 og 291). Selv store organisationer bør kunne mønstre frivillige til at gennemføre monitorering. Måske det kræver træning af dem, der rejser, som kunne finansieres i stedet med tilskud til løn. Det kunne også fremme engagementet i foreningerne. De store organisationer med programmer vil nok vånde sig en del, men hvis de vil bruge lønkroner på monitorering, må de skaffes andetsteds.

Maksimum for tildeling til nye organisationer

ALL indstiller, at nye organisationer ikke kan bevilges mere end kr. 200.000 første gang. Til gengæld bør der være midler til træning af medlemmer af de nye organisationer, som både skal kunne bruges i Danmark og hos partneren.

Proces til lokal formulering af løsninger

I udkastet lægges op til grundig involvering af partneren i syd i formulering af løsninger som udmøntes i en ansøgning. Det er godt. Men der burde være muligheder for at få midler til at støtte dette. Der var tidligere mulighed for støtte til en sådan forberedelsesproces. Det burde genindføres. Igen med de samme krav til DSA osv. som anført ovenfor.

Kære CICU

Vi har med glæde set, at der i det seneste udkast til CSP er ryddet op i flere af de, for os at se, meget problematiske planer som var indeholdt i tidligere versioner.

Vi glæder os således over, at programmodaliteten bevares. Vi glæder os også over, at frivilligt arbejde i de danske ngo´er anerkendes som egenfinansiering. Vi mener, tid trods for et nu bedre udkast, stadig, at arbejdet med CSP-justering, burde have været gennemført af eksterne konsulenter og med en reel inddragelse af CISU-organisationerne. Jeres arbejde mangler stadig en analyse af konsekvenser for de forskellige typer af organisationer, som en ny CSP-struktur vil have. Vi ser det som afgørende for en kvalificeret beslutning i bestyrelsen, at der også er udarbejdet konsekvensanalyser (for såvel de danske ngo´er og partnere i syd. Vi vil i nedenstående kommentere og komme med enkelte forslag.

1. Vandtætte skodder mellem bevillingssystem/eksterne konsulenter og CISU. Det har været et afgørende element hos CISU, at bevillingssystemet var 100% selvstændigt og at CISUs konsulenter udelukkende var organisationernes støtte. Vi oplever desværre, at CSP-udkastet nogle steder ser ud til at bryde med dette princip. Fx linje 414: ”Capacity analysis/mapping of the Danish Partner, conducted by CISU staff”. Vi er bekymrede for at CISU, for bla. at spare konsulenthonorar, nu begynder en farlig glidebane, der bl.a. vil ændre på vores forhold til CISUs ansatte.

2. I forslaget lægges op til, at man kan søge projekter eller programmer over 500.000 DKK når man har gennemført mindst 1 projekt med et budget på over 200.000 DKK. Vi mener at der bør stilles større krav til organisationer, som ønsker at vokse. Fx kunne man kræve at organisationen har gennemført mindst 3 mindre projekter.

3. I udkastet understreges sydpartnernes ejerskab – gældende for programmer. Vi mener dette krav må gælde samtlige projekter – og ikke kun programorganisationer.

4. CISUs ønske om at reducere i kompleksiteten og administrationen. Vi oplever ikke, at CSP sikrer en mindre kompleksitet eller reduceret administration.

5. Afsnit 3.2.8 kan med fordel formuleres klarere.

6. Ngo´ers opdeling. Vi mener CISU skal være opmærksom på faren for at organisationer deler sig op i ”selvstændige” enkeltorganisationer – for dermed at kunne søge endnu flere projekter.

Vh Niels Boe - AXIS 

Comments from Trianglen to the New Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund

Generally, we find that the draft guideline is a constructive response to the funding challenges.

We are in overall agreement with the presented changes and only have a few comments:
(127-131) The definition of sustainability needs to be better explained and elaborated.
(167-171) The mix of contributions and contributors may cause confusion. It should be clarified if a membership fee is regarded as a financial contribution.
(244-246) The structure is clear but principles of the distribution of overall funds between the different modalities are decisive for assessment of reasonableness (and solidarity).
(282) While we are in full agreement with the shift towards programmes, we recommend the Large Project funding maximum to be increased to DKK 1 million and thereby reduce the gap to the Small Programme alternative.
(307) Point 2.3: We fully appreciate and support the political intention in this point but we believe a reference to localisation/locally led development will be clearer and more conducive.
(339) Please refer to our comment above (244-246)
Trianglen, Charlottenlund, 27.08.2024 

Ændringsforslag og præciseringer til udkastet til en ny Civilsamfundspulje

27-08-2024

RESPONS:

A) Egenfinansieringskravet skal være solidarisk og bidrage til større uafhængighed af CISU-midler (linje 341-343)

Begrundelser:

A1. Kravet om egenfinansiering bør handle om at rejse yderligere midler (til formål inden for rammerne af fx CSP’ens retningslinjer) ud over den støtte, der søges om, og ikke – som foreslået i de nye retningslinjer – at en del af det samlede programbudget skal dækkes af egenfinansiering. Dette krav bør gælde for både programmer og projekter for solidarisk at frigive midler i CSP’en.

• Det vil gøre det muligt for medlemmerne at fundraise til enten andre aspekter af deres internationale engagementer eller en udvidelse af program/projektaktiviteter.
• Det vil samtidig gøre det muligt for medlemmerne at specialisere sig i forskellige typer af fundraising til en bred vifte af udviklingsformål. På denne måde kan der opbygges stærke fundraising-kapaciteter, og det vil give medlemmerne et bredere udviklingsengagement, som ikke kun fokuserer på ét programsamarbejde. Alt dette vil tilsammen bidrage til at gøre medlemmerne mere robuste og styrke innovationen.
• Det vil potentielt gøre CISU-medlemmerne bedre/stærkere og gradvist mere uafhængige af program- og projektmidler.

Kravet om samfinansiering fastholder medlemmerne i en ugunstig fundraising-spiral, hvor de skal skaffe midler til at realisere et givent programsamarbejde i stedet for at bruge programsamarbejdet som en løftestang, der kan frigive interne ressourcer til anden fundraising. Disse ressourcer kunne i stedet bidrage til organisationens vækst og større uafhængighed af CISU-midler.

Pointen med puljereformen er vel, at vi alle går ned i finansiering til fordel for større forudsigelighed, så vi kan frigøre interne ressourcer til fundraising og gradvist gøre os mere uafhængige af CISU?

2

A2. Det skal være muligt at medregne in kind-bidrag på tværs af programmer (boks side 15):

Ved at tillade in kind-bidrag som en del af egenfinansieringen fremmes solidaritet mellem organisationer på tværs af programmer. Dette bidrager til en mere inkluderende tilgang, hvor organisationer med begrænsede økonomiske ressourcer stadig kan bidrage med værdifulde ikke-monetære ressourcer som fx frivillig arbejdskraft. In kind-bidrag bidrager desuden til at styrke lokal forankring og bæredygtighed, da de ofte involverer lokale ressourcer og engagement. Dette er i tråd med Danidas mål om at sikre lokal deltagelse og ejerskab i udviklingsprojekter, hvilket kan føre til mere bæredygtige og langvarige resultater.

A3. Egenfinansieringskravet bør sænkes (linje 360-363):

Danida fremhæver vigtigheden af fleksibilitet og rimelighed i deres finansieringskriterier. Da større organisationer som SPA'er har betydeligt større omsætning end selv de største CISU-programmer, er det urimeligt at pålægge begge typer organisationer det samme egenfinansieringskrav på 20%. Det er heller ikke fair at programorganisationer skal konkurrere på samme fundraising-marked som de store SPA’er. Mindre organisationer har sværere ved at opfylde disse krav. Egenfinansieringskravet bør sænkes. Det vil bidrage til proportionalitet og rimelighed i puljekravene.

Følgende procenter foreslås:

• STEP 1: 2,5% (small or medium programmes/projects)
• STEP 2: 2,5% (small programmes/projects) & 5% (medium programmes/projects)
• STEP 3: 2,5% (small programmes/projects) & 7% (medium programmes/projects) & 10% (large programmes/projects)
• STEP 4 onwards: 5% (small programmes/projects) & 10% (medium programmes/projects) & 12% (large programmes/projects)

3

RESPONS:

A) De nye retningslinjer indebærer en uforholdsmæssigt hård straf for organisationer, der ikke lever op til kravet om egenfinansiering (linje 357-359)

Begrundelser:

Konsekvenserne ved manglende egenfinansiering rammer jo organisationerne selv og deres partnere, ikke CISU, hvis de ikke lykkes med deres arbejde med ressourcemobilisering.

Følgende sætning foreslås slettet:

"The own contribution requirement must be completed by the end of a given grant period. If the requirement is not achieved, the maximum grant amount for the next grant given under Strategic Programme Support will be reduced by a value of double the amount 'missing' in own contribution."

4

RESPONS:

A) Følgende formulering slettes (linje 233): “[…] partnerships must work towards the objective that all partners are able to be self-sustaining or secure additional funding from other sources”. Erstattes eventuelt med formuleringen: “[…] partnerships must strive for sustainable progressiveness within the partnership"

Begrundelser:

Muligheden for at opbygge selvstændighed hos lokale partnere både er kontekst- og partnerafhængigt. Sætningen kan læses, som om der en ”udløbsdato”. Det sætter en unødvendig begrænsning på CISUs bevillingshavere, der er hårdere end UM bruger i deres SPA-aftaler. Fortsat støtte fra CSP bør være afhængig af evalueringer, fælles udviklingsmål og højere krav jo længere CISU-finansiering.

Derudover er krav om, at partnerskaber skal arbejde frem mod at være ”self-sustaining or secure additional funding from other sources” et for snævert krav og for et for vagt kriterium (hvornår er man ”self-sustaining?).

5

RESPONS:

A) I afsnittet 3.2.7 ’Internal Competition’ bør:

Sætningen (linje 436-437): “If there is applied for more money than available, the applicants with the highest score will receive a grant”, erstattes med:

“Approval and continuation of a program in subsequent phases will be based on a professional assessment of results. If CISU anticipates a general decline in CSP funding, all programs will be reduced by a proportional percentage, with advance notice provided. And conversely, if CISU anticipates an increase in funds in the CSP, the program modality will be allocated additional funds accordingly."

Sætning (linje 437-438): “In case, more than one applicant shares the same score, the applicant with the smallest budget amount will be granted and so forth”, bør slettes.

Begrundelser:

A1) Skal en organisation allokere yderligere fundraising-ressourcer for at skaffe supplerende midler fra 'små programmer' og 'store projekter' på baggrund af et afslag, samtidig med at organisationen skal genansøge om et stort eller mellemstort program for at dække et funding gap, vil det trække unødvendigt store ressourcer fra organisationen, som mere effektivt kunne anvendes til programimplementering og anden fundraising, der skal styrke organisationen og gøre den mere robust. Derfor er en procentvis nedgang bedre end et afslag og giver mulighed for langsigtet planlægning og stabilitet.

CISU bør på forhånd kunne vurdere og allokere tilstrækkelige midler indenfor CSP’en til programmer, baseret på viden om eksisterende programbevillinger og viden om projektorganisationer, som gives grønt lys til at søge programmidler.

Hvorvidt et program godkendes, bør bero på en faglig vurdering/evaluering med fokus på resultater og progressivitet i programsamarbejdet.

Beslutninger om bevillingslofter bør derfor heller ikke fastsættes af skiftende bestyrelser, men af CISU’s sekretariat og bero på en oversigt over eksisterende og nye programbevillinger.

CISU bør generelt være interesseret i, at flere og flere organisationer arbejder langsigtet for at levere kvalitetsresultater og forandringer i det Globale Syd, samt for at mindske de administrative omkostninger. Ligesom CISU bør være interesseret i, at CSP’en understøtter stabilitet og forudsigelighed i programsamarbejderne – ikke det modsatte.

Denne logik vil også gøre retningslinjernes afsnit 3.2.8 ’Addressing funding gaps’ overflødig.

A2) Det er ikke fair at bedømme på budgetstørrelse, da udgifter forbundet med det internationale arbejde er kontekstbestemt, ligesom nationale udgifter varierer fra organisation til organisation afhængig af organisationstype.

6

RESPONS:

A) Vægtningen og programkriteriet om cost level (kriterie 9.1) lægger for stor vægt på ’målgruppestørrelse’ (side 17)

CISU bør tilføje, at kontekst også vægter, når omkostningsniveau vurderes.

Formuleringen kan lyde: "cost level in relation to the programme strategy, size of the target group and/or context is reasonable".

Begrundelser:

Denne tilføjelse af ordene "og/eller kontekst" er af hensyn til de organisationer, der arbejder i tyndtbefolkede områder med store kontekstuelle udfordringer. Disse organisationer vil aldrig "opnå" en lige så stor målgruppe, som organisationer, der for eksempel arbejder i byer eller landsbyer, hvor befolkningstætheden ofte er større og hvortil adgangen er nemmere. Det giver naturligt adgang til en stor målgruppe med relativt få midler investeret i fx transport.

Det får også betydning for ansøgerens redegørelse for ’budget cost effectiveness’, når man samtidig tager i betragtning, at der er forskel på forskellige landes købekraft både i forhold til niveau, services og produkter samt brændstof.

Det er ikke fair for de organisationer, som kæmper for nogle af de mest marginaliserede – dem, som bor isoleret og ofte overses af de lokale myndigheder, da investeringer i infrastruktur typisk ikke måler sig med det antal valgstemmer, det kan afføde. Og det er i disse egne, hvor der oftest er mest på spil for naturen, da fravær af NGO'er (og myndigheder) blandt andet muliggør miljøkriminalitet.

Opsummeret varierer udgift per målgruppeperson voldsomt afhængig af land og anden kontekst.

7

RESPONS:

A) Vægtningen af programkriteriet om bæredygtighed (kriterie 8) lægger for stor vægt på den finansielle del af bæredygtigheden i programmerne (side 17)

B) Der bør stilles samme krav til indtægts-diversificering på tværs af programmer med fokus på "planlægning" og ikke "dokumentation" (kriterie 8.1, side 17)

Begrundelser:

A) Der er sat lighedstegn mellem bæredygtighed og fundraising uden at nævne andre typer af bæredygtighed.

Vi opfordrer til, at CISU også lægger vægt på andre bæredygtighedsaspekter og vægter derefter.

Det kunne udover en økonomiske/finansiel bæredygtighedsdimension (som pt er den eneste dimension som vægtes i kriterierne) være en økologisk bæredygtighedsdimension, en social og kulturel bæredygtighedsdimension og en politisk og teknologisk bæredygtighedsdimension.

B) UM’s vurderingskriterie til SPA’erne omkring finansiel bæredygtighed lyder: “[…] approach to and track record of promoting an enabling environment for civil society in the global South primarily including… ii) appropriate measures for CSOs’ financial viability and sustainability”.

Det er en mindre hård formulering end at kræve, at fundingdiversifikation skal "dokumenteres". Dette bør slettes. I stedet bør der stilles samme krav til fundingdiversifikation på tværs af programmer med fokus på "planlægning" og ikke "dokumentation".

Derudover bør det i de nye CSP Guidelines fremgå samme formulering som i SPA Guidelines (side 25) afsnit 6.5 Own-Financing activities at: ”The own–financing activities are not to be reported on nor included in the budget or in the audited financial statement. Only upon request from the MFA the organisation should be able to provide information and documentation of own-financing activities”.

8

RESPONS:

A) Til sætningen (linje 412): ”External Capacity Analysis of Global Partners based on Terms of Reference developed by CISU in dialogue with the partners”, bør tilføjes ”and with the involvement of the Danish partner”.

Begrundelser:

Af respekt for den tillid, der er opbygget i de mange partnerskaber, som CISU støtter via de danske organisationer, og hensynet til principperne om transparens og deltagelse, bør danske organisationer inddrages i udviklingen af vilkår for ekstern kapacitetsvurdering af partnere i det globale syd.

9

RESPONS:

A) Generelt i forhold til diskussioner om max længde på program-samarbejde

Holdning til diskussionen:

Om en organisation får fortsat bevilling, bør bero på organisationens track record samt evaluering. Ikke på et antal år.

Hvis vi begynder at sætte begrænsninger på nogle organisationer, og deres fortsatte bevillinger, som gives under forudsætninger af, at de laver et godt stykke arbejde, og skaber relevante resultater, så er CISU i gang med at svække det fundament foreningen står på. Hvis dette krav ønskes, skal det også gælde for alle solidarisk.

10

RESPONS:

Generelt i forhold til tabellen "requirements” for projekter (SIDE 10)

Fornuftigt med max loft på 3 store og tre små projektansøgninger frem for mulighed for flere små og færre store projektansøgninger.

Begrundelser:

Der er større transaktionsomkostninger ved små projekter. De små projekter er også kortere. Det går imod hensigten med puljereformen – det langsigtede og den forudsigelige finansiering.

Høringssvar til nye retningslinjer for CSP

Høringssvar fra Global Aktion:

Hermed input fra Global Aktion til udkast til nye retningslinjer til Civilsamfundspuljen, CSP.

Oplægget fra CISUs bestyrelse fokuserer på, at der skal ske en “solidarisk omfordeling” af midlerne i CSP. Vi vil i al beskedenhed påpege, at hvis retningslinjerne bliver udformet som i udkastet, vil det have dramatiske konsekvenser for Global Aktion og vores partnere i Sydafrika, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Kenya, DR Congo, Lesotho, Malawi og Mauritius, samt andre partnere i de netværk vi støtter med midler fra CSP og klimapuljen. Grundlaget for de mange frivillige der er ansvarlige for projektarbejdet i Global Aktion og støttefunktionen i vores lille sekretariat vil forsvinde. Dermed vil CISU også miste den store viden og de mange erfaringer, der er opsamlet med 20 års partnerskaber med sociale bevægelser. Hvis udkastet bliver virkelighed, vil vi miste 70-80% af de projektmidler vi i dag ansøger og får bevilliget som enkeltprojekter fra CSP. De ansøgninger vi får bevilliget er i fri konkurrence med alle andre der sender en ansøgning ind. Når vi, eller andre, får bevilliget en projektansøgning, er det altså fordi at det er en god ansøgning, som lever op til kriterierne og bygger på et solidt partnerskab.

Formålet med CSP

CSP skal understøtte en udvikling af faglig og professionel karakter. Menneskers liv kan være på spil, og derfor skal der sikres en høj kvalitet i projektarbejdet. Uanset hvem der er den danske ansøger, skal der være et klart udviklingsfokus. I Dansk Udviklingspolitik Strategi for 2021 til 2025 står der, at fundamentet for den danske udviklingsindsats bl.a., er at “forebygge og bekæmpe fattigdom og ulighed, konflikt og fordrivelse, irregulær migration og skrøbelighed. Vi vil sætte ind over for de grundlæggende årsager hertil. Og vi vil skabe håb og muligheder for mennesker, der har brug for det. [...] Vi vil engagere os massivt i klimatilpasning og arbejde for bedre natur, miljø og biodiversitet. Vi vil styrke modstandsdygtigheden over for klimaforandringerne med fokus på fattige og sårbare lande og mennesker. Vi vil reducere globale CO2-udledninger og fremme socialt retfærdig grøn omstilling. Og vi vil sikre, at øgede klimaambitioner i udviklingslandene og indfrielse af Parisaftalen går hånd i hånd med bæredygtig udvikling og vækst for verdens fattige.“

Formålet med CSP bør lægge sig op af ovenstående politisk vedtagne strategi for dansk udviklingsindsats. Som et næsten samlet folketing siger i citatet ovenfor, er der brug for at ændre de strukturelle årsager til fattigdom og ulighed. Det mener vi ikke står tydeligt nok i den foreslåede formålsbeskrivelse for CSP.

Vi, i Global Aktion, ønsker en bredere forståelse af rettigheder, som rækker ud over Verdenserklæringen for Menneskerettigheder. Der er ligeledes brug for kollektive rettigheder, såsom retten til uddannelse, basal sundhed, sikkerhed, mad osv.

Det stærke og lige partnerskab mellem den danske partner og syd-partneren skal ligeledes fremstå centralt i formålet. Da de strukturelle årsager til fattigdom ikke er skabt i det Global Syd, derfor har den danske partner et særligt ansvar for at engagere sig og støtte deres syd-partner. Skriv med andre ord det aktive partnerskab ind som en forudsætning for at opnå støtte.

Et svagt formuleret formål med CSP vil skabe uklarhed, når bevillingsudvalget skal vurdere den enkelte ansøgning. Med forslaget til formål for CSP åbner man en kattelem for humanitære projekter, der mangler langsigtede analyser og ikke sætter ind overfor de grundlæggende årsager til fattigdom og ulighed.

Vi ved alle, at de danske politikere ikke har ønsket at få større CISU med yderligere større bevillinger til CSP. Det vil derfor være klogt at være ambitiøs i en pulje med flere hundrede millioner, hvis man ønsker at ændre deres opfattelse.

Bevillinger på baggrund af faglighed og erfaring

Målet med puljereformen siges at være, at man ønsker en mere “solidarisk omfordeling” af puljens midler. Behovet for dette stiller vi os uforstående overfor, eftersom alle ansøgere og projektforslag i forvejen skal leve op til de samme kriterier og krav. Vi er ikke bekendte med, at der er sket en favorisering eller diskrimination af ansøgere eller projektforslag. Hvis de mindre medlemsorganisationer i CISU tror, at de vil vinde på de foreslåede retningslinjer, skal de bare se på kravet om egenfinansiering og de enormt lange processer, de skal igennem for at få penge.

I vores perspektiv, er den centrale udfordring for CSP ikke solidarisk omfordeling af midler, men simpelthen at der ikke er midler nok til at støtte alle støtteværdige projekter. Det har vi selv oplevet så sent som den sidste ansøgningsrunde. Men den foreslåede reform løser ikke problemet - den forskyder det blot ved at fjerne midler fra de medlemsorganisationer, som over mange år har opbygget stærke partnerskaber og erfaringer med at udvikle projekter, som lever op til de gældende krav og kriterier. Det vil have den konsekvens, at stærke, langvarige partnerskaber og reelt forandringsskabende og bæredygtige projekter vil blive noget nær umulige at få midler til. Det er, for os at se, fuldstændig i modstrid med formålet med den danske udviklingsindsats. Vi mener derfor man bør holde fast i, at CISUs midler bevilges på baggrund af faglige kriterier og ansøgers erfaring, ikke på baggrund af en ligelig fordeling af midler. Det betyder også, at armslængdeprincippet mellem CISU’s sekretariat og bevillingsudvalget skal fastholdes, og ikke erstattes af CISU ansatte.

Krav om egenfinansiering på op til 20% i programmer

I løbet af få år vil en stor del af CISUs medlemmer få en programordning, i håbet om at kunne vokse. Det er der kun penge til, hvis man enten finder yderligere midler til puljen, eller lader egenfinansieringen stige. Derfor har man i udkastet til nye retningslinjer opstillet et krav til egenfinansiering på op til 20 %. Dette vil kunne beløbe sig til mere end en million over en treårig periode. Frivilliges arbejde med partnerskaberne tæller, men det er virkelig mange frivilliges timer der skal samles ind for at nå de beløbsstørrelser, der skal samles ind i et program.

Kravet om egenfinansiering forskelsbehandler og fremmer projekter, der lettere kan finde støtte fra diverse fonde og private donorer. Kravet vil typisk give større danske organisationer med stor berøringsflade, som befolkningen i forvejen har kendskab til, en fordel. Desuden har religiøse og humanitære organisationer en klar fordel, da de typisk arbejder med børn og andre udsatte grupper og har et stort bagland der ved hvordan man samler penge ind. Alt imens de af os, der arbejder på at skabe socioøkonomiske forandringer, vil være langt mere udfordret i at finde midler til egenfinansiering. Vi har i Global Aktion de seneste år arbejdet fokuseret på at nå andre danske fonde, men indtil videre uden den store succes.

Kravet om egenfinansiering vil desuden betyde, at der kommer flere indsamlinger, og at vi kommer i direkte konkurrence med de helt store danske NGO'er. På samme måde vil presset på de danske fonde vokse betydeligt. At indsamle penge koster både tid og ressourcer, hvilket betyder at det igen er de store danske organisationer der har fordel. Mens presset bare vil vokse på vores frivillige aktivister.

Vi er dybt forundrede over at hverken bestyrelsen eller CISU's sekretariat har rakt ud til de næsten 300 medlemmer der er i CISU og engageret dem med henblik på at øge presset på beslutningstagerne så de i højere grad prioritere CSP.

Mere konkrete forslag og bemærkninger:

• På side 10 om, hvad der kan støttes. Man bør være mere præcis om, at det kun er strategiske services, der kan få støtte. Henvis til og brug projekttrekanten. På samme sted bør man tydeliggøre, at politiske partier og religiøs missionering ikke kan støttes.
• I matrixen på side 11 bør der ikke være fokus på resultater. Det ville være bedre at fokusere på, hvilke forandringer man ønsker at opnå og hvordan. Det passer også ind i, at alle nu skal udarbejde strategier for at opnå støtte.
• Umiddelbart ser det ud som, at man blander taktik og strategi sammen. En strategi er forlængelsen og den konkrete gennemførelsen af en taktik.
• Desuden bør det honoreres, hvis der samarbejdes med netværk eller alliancer af ligesindede CSO’er i syd.
• Bæredygtighedsbegrebet bør forstås i en bredere sammenhæng end kun økonomisk. For eksempel organisatorisk bæredygtig (evne til at administrere sin CSO på et bæredygtigt grundlag, at man vokser i medlemsbasen, mv.), demokratisk bæredygtighed (stærke demokratiske strukturer herunder valg af ledelse på et klart mandat, stærk aktiv medlemsinvolvering/aktivisme i organisation mv.) og resilient bæredygtighed (evnen til at modstå ydre pres fra klimaforandringer og undertrykkende regimer, stærke sikkerhedsstrukturer mv.).
• Side 14 om programordninger: De to mindre programordninger, med tilhørende krav om strategiudvikling og andet vil øge presset på de små og mellemstore danske CSOer. De helt små programmer giver kun ringe fleksibilitet og gør ikke nødvendigvis arbejdet lettere for små CSO’er. De tidsbegrænsninger der er på et program vil betyde, at når en dansk CSO og deres partnere endelig er i stand til at skabe virkelige forandringer, skal programmet udfases.
• Vi læser det som at man efter 6 til 10 år mister retten til et stort program. Hvad sker der med den pågældende danske partner og deres syd-partnere, når programmet udløber? Vi mener at der skal kunne genansøges med både nye og gamle partnere. Hvis der er et ønske om at skabe mere grundlæggende forandringer af strukturer, der skaber fattigdom og ulighed, tager det tid. Der er ikke noget quick fix.
• Det er uklart, hvad der sker, når man har haft et program i en årrække. Når programmet stopper, hvad sker der så? Det samme med de partnere, man samarbejder med. Er der, eller er der ikke, en tidsbegrænsning på et partnerskab?
• Hovedideen bag at lave puljen om til en programordning må være, at skabe mere langsigtede indsatser, hvor der sker en gradvis opbygning af partneren, så man kan opleve forandringer for målgruppen for indsatsen. Derfor giver tidsbegrænsninger ingen mening, hvis man ønsker at understøtte det lange seje træk. At sætte tidsbegrænsninger på programmer og partnerskaber er at bortkaste al udviklingsforskning og erfaring vi har med langsigtede udviklingsindsatser.
• Overgangsordning fra projektorganisation til programorganisation. Der bør være mulighed for at større enkeltprojekt CSO’er med mange bevillinger fra CSP og partnere kan indplaceres i et passende program af en størrelse der ikke afviger voldsomt fra hvad de har modtaget i bevillinger de sidste tre år. Disse organisationer skal selvfølgelig gennemgå den et år lange proces for at få et stort program. En mulig overgangsordning er efter vores opfattelse nødvendig. Hvis en overgangsordning ikke etableres, vil en gruppe medlemmer af CISU miste 70 til 80% af deres nuværende bevillinger.
• Vi vil gerne huske CISU på, at årsagen til at disse store projektorganisationer ikke har et program er at CISU midt i processen, og uden at informere dem der havde ansøgt om et program, ændrede retningslinjerne for hvordan størrelsen på et program skulle udregnes.
• Side 15 om egenfinansiering: Vi mener, at der er totalt urealistiske forventninger til, hvor meget det er muligt at samle ind i Danmark. Hvis bare det er 10% der skal indsamles i rede penge, er det i alt 30 millioner der skal indsamles af CISUs medlemsorganisationer årligt. Særligt de mindste medlemmer af CISU vil have svært ved at samle bare 5%.
• Det er godt at frivillige timer kan tælle med, men en uheldig udvikling at vores mange frivillige skal gøres op i penge. Det kan være med til at udvande, hvad det betyder at være frivillig i projektarbejdet. Det vil tilgodese de større humanitære medlemsorganisationer, som i forvejen har mange medlemmer, stor egenfinansiering og mange frivillige.
• Som alle ved, er finansiering til CSO’er i det Globale Syd under stort pres. Det betyder, at der er færre og færre penge at søge i det Globale Syd. Derfor er vores syd-partneres muligheder for at bidrage finansielt til egenfinansieringen ofte minimal.
• De store SPA’er (som Actionaid og Oxfam) har godt nok et krav om 20% egenfinansiering. Men der er kun et krav om at 5% egenfinansieringen kommer fra Danmark. De resterende penge til egenfinansiering (15%) kan komme fra internationale organisationer, som den danske SPA er en del af. Da ingen eller meget få af CISU's medlemmer er en del af en international organisation, er denne mulighed ikke til stede for CISU’s medlemmer.
• Vi anbefaler at der ikke er egenfinansiering. Men hvis en programorganisation kan finde egenfinansiering, at dette ikke trækkes fra programmet men lægges oveni dette.
• Det er tydeligt, at kravet om egenfinansiering ikke bygger på viden om de reelle muligheder, som små og mellemstore danske CSOer har for at indsamle penge i større målestok. Dem der har udarbejdet forslaget om egenfinansiering taler om imaginære penge, der ser godt ud i et regneark, men er stort set umulige at finde i den virkelige verden.
• Linje 265 side 15: Det bør også her fremhæves, at CSP ikke giver støtte til politiske partier og religiøse aktiviteter og missioner.
• Linje 378 side 16 om at arbejde i skrøbelige situationer: Det er vores klare indtryk at hele det afrikanske kontinent er skrøbeligt. Man bør derfor indarbejde den fleksibilitet der gives ved arbejdet i skrøbelige situationer i alle indsatser. Man bør i ansøgningsformatet fokusere på, hvordan syd-partneren bliver i stand til at arbejde i en kontekst hvor råderummet er under pres eller hurtigt mindskes.
• Side 22 linje 493: Dansk partner skal inddrages i en ToR-proces vedrørende eksterne kapacitetsanalyser af Dansk partner hvis denne også omfatter lokale syd-partnere. Det kan blive en meget bekostelig proces, med konsulenter på mange programansøgninger.
• Side 23 linje 556: Der bør de første tre år efter de nye retningslinjernes ikrafttræden, være en årlig deadline for ansøgninger til større programmer. Det vil være en fordel af få fordelt de mange programansøgningsprocesser, fremfor at de hober sig op til en deadline hvert andet år. Det vil betyde en stor belastning af bevillingssystemet, hvis de større programmer kun kan ansøge hvert andet år.

Høringssvar på de nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen (udkast)

Friluftsrådet er taknemligt for muligheden for at give høringssvar på udkastet til de nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen. I nærværende brev vil vi dele kommentar og forslag til forbedring af udkastet.

Udviklingsfaglig retning

Friluftsrådet savner, at de nye Civilsamfundspulje Retningslinjer anviser en tydelig udviklingsfaglig retning og formål, som inkluderer udviklingsfaglige tendenser, og som relaterer sig til CISUs strategi og formulerer civilsamfundets rolle i en foranderlig verden. En verden, som i dag er præget af tiltagende konflikter og klimaforandringer, der påvirker de mest udsatte menneskers levevilkår.

Retningslinjernes manglende formål svækker puljens relation til de globale udfordringer i syd, og derved betydningen af civilsamfundsorganisationers rolle ift. at forbedre de mest udsatte menneskers levevilkår i det globale syd. Derved slører retningslinjerne for de vigtige bidrag og resultater, de puljestøttede interventioner skal bidrage med.

De gældende Civilsamfundspulje Retningslinjer inkluderer de overordnede formål af puljen (Civilsamfundsformål, side 6). Disse formål bør opdateres og udbygges til den nuværende globale kontekst og konkretisere puljens udviklingspolitiske relevans og tilknytning til fx Danmarks Udviklingspolitisk Strategi, Fælles om Verden (2021-2025) og Verdensmålene.

Vurderingskriterier (Assessment Criteria) – Projekter (Linje 307)

• 2. Partnership: The Global South partner is the primary decision maker.

  Det er vigtigt, at retningslinjerne forklarer, hvad der forstås som primary decision maker. Ikke mindst ift. kontrakter og budgetansvar overfor CISU og Udenrigsministeriet. En klar ansvarsfordeling skal integreres i retningslinjerne.

• 2.4 The project strengthens the partners and/or the relationship between them.

  Det gælder kun for større projekter. I partnerskaber med mindre projektbudgetter vil det også være vigtigt, at ansøgningen sandsynliggør kapacitetsopbygning og styrkelse af partnerskabet.

• 3.4 Target group has been included in the process of designing of the project.

  Det gælder kun for større bevillinger. Inkludering af målgruppen er vigtigt for alle projekter, uanset budgetstørrelsen. Involvering har stor indflydelse på bæredygtighed og ejerskab. Det stritter også mod CISUs modsætning om øget local-led partnerships og involvering af målgruppen (se: https://cisu.dk/en/tools/search-through-tools/locally-led-partnerships/).

• 4. Expected Result:

  Vurderingskriterierne mangler fokus på resultater ift. den strategiske tilgang af interventionen. Kriteriet vurderer kun, om en aktivitet vil afføde et givet resultat, og ikke om den bagvedliggende strategi er plausibel. Dertil kommer, at aktiviteter kun leder til leverancer (outputs), men ikke til resultater (outcomes). Strategisk retning spiller en afgørende rolle om leverancerne (outputs) kan lede til de postulerede resultater (outcomes) af et givet projekt.

• 4.2 Jævnført ovenfor har strategi en for lille vægtning (10%)

  Det er vigtigt, at interventionen er bygget på en sammenhængende strategi, der leder til de ønskede resultater.

Egenfinansieringskrav (341 til 364) / Own contribution - Strategic Programme Grant

Overordnet lægger CISU et for højt og fordringsfuldt egenfinansieringskrav, som vil undergrave det gode arbejde CISUs programorganisationer har opbygget med støtte af danske skattekroner over de sidste år. CISU lægger op til at sanktionere bevillingshavere og deres samarbejdspartnere i en opfølgende fase med betydelig reducering af bevillinger, hvis eksterne fundraisings aktiviteter ikke er nået til det aftalte beløb.

I dag, hvor civilsamfundsorganisationer er i en hård konkurrence om færre og færre midler, er CISUs bevillingstilgang ikke støttende i at rejse flere midler, men vil tværtimod holde ansøgere og parterne i et stressende fundraising-jerngreb. Dette vil suge ressourcerne ud fra organisationerne og svække udviklingen af bæredygtige og succesfulde partnerskaber og netværker, som programbevillinger under den gamle modalitet havde et frirum til at etablere.

Det er Friluftsrådets overbevisning, at CISUs valgte tilgang vil svække videreførelsen af gode og succesrige programmer betydeligt i fremtiden. Samtidig med at det afskærer mellemstore og store bevillingshavere fra at være del af større netværker og udviklingsprogrammer i syd med betydning for udviklingsdagsorden. Disse programmer, som ikke er finansieret direkte af Udenrigsministeriet, er en ressource for CISUs faglige udvikling - en ressource, man med disse retningslinjer aktivt fravælger.

Friluftsrådet forslår, at egenfinansieringskrav ændres til:

• At egenfinansiering (som i de gældende retningslinjer) bør handle om at rejse midler udover CISU-bevillingen og ikke, som del af bevillingen. Det er en umulig opgave for organisationer at sikre omfattende egenfinansieringsmidler på forhånd, da man ikke kender alle muligheder, og fundingkonteksten kan ændre sig.
• At kravet om egenfinansiering bør gælde for både projekter og strategiske programmer, så begge modaliteter solidarisk bidrager med ekstra midler til arbejdet i syd, og begge type bevillingshavere gør sig mere uafhængige af CISU.
• At retningslinjerne bibeholder en fleksibel tilgang til egenfinansiering, som beskrevet i de nuværende retningslinjer for programmer. Og at kravene ikke er mere strikse end Udenrigsministeriets egenfinansieringskrav for Strategiske Partnere, som udgør organisationer med stor fundraising kapaciteter ift. personale og budget sammenlignet med CISUs programorganisationer.
• At krav til egenfinansiering ikke overgår 10% for mellemstore programmer (medium) og 15% for store programmer (large) af Programme Project Activities (PPA):

Forslag til ændring for egenfinansieringstrin ift. PPA

• Step 1: 5% (small programmer) / 5% (medium programmer)
• Step 2: 5% (small programmer) / 8% (medium programmer)
• Step 3: 5% (small programmer) / 10% (medium programmer)
• Maksimum 15% store programmer

Vurderingskriterier - Strategic Programme Support (linje 382)

CISUs programbevillinger baserer sig på en forandringsteoretisk tilgang. Den er fraværende i kriterierne og bør integreres igen. Tilgangen sikrer en local-led development af intervention, som involverer syd-partneren og sikrer, at aktiviteterne afspejler problemstillingerne i den lokale kontekst. Vurdering af results framework ift. strategien bør integreres, ligesom vurdering af dokumenterede resultater, som partnerne har leveret i tidligere faser.

Den monetære del (fundraising) har en for høj vægtning ift. strategien og de resultater, programmet skal levere. Det bør sænkes til gavn for højere vægtning af resultater og impact af programmet, som bør være kernen af programmet og CISU-bevillingen.

Sidst og ikke mindst har CISU valgt ikke at vurdere den strategiske relevans af programmet ift. styrkelse af civilsamfund og bidrag til Verdensmålene. Dette bør integreres i de endelige retningslinjer, da det udgør kernen af CISUs medlemsorganisationers virke og relevans. Især strategiske programmer bør levere på denne parameter.

Ansøgningsprocessen / Application Process (linje 411-415)

CISU lægger op til en ekstern kapacitetsanalyse, hvor Terms of Reference bliver udarbejdet uden involvering af den danske partner (CISU-medlemsorganisation). Da den danske partner understøtter partnerskabet med syd-partneren, er det uundgåeligt at involvere den danske partnerorganisation for at sikre transparens, deltagelse, respekt og tillid i analyseprocessen.

Intern Konkurrence / Internal competition (linje 435-438) – Strategic Programme Support

Friluftsrådet anser det for CISUs opgave at allokere et årligt minimumbudget til den strategiske programmodalitet (mellem og store programmer). Dermed sikrer CISU kontinuitet af arbejdet og undgår at tidligere investering i kapacitetsopbygning og aktiviteter undergraver programmets langsigtede effekter og går til spilde. At underfinansiere modaliteten fra et år til det andet har stor effekt på de resultater, modaliteten kan have ift. resultater, læring og videreudvikling.

På vegne af Friluftsrådet,

Carsten Brinkmeyer, 28. august 2024

Høringssvar fra DOF BirdLife Danmark på de nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen

København d. 28/08 2024

DOF BirdLife Danmark er glad for at denne vigtige høringsproces tages alvorligt af CISU’s sekretariat og vil med dette høringssvar bidrage til at de nye retningslinjer ikke modarbejder snusfornuft, kontinuitet, solidaritet og sammenhængskraft i mellem CISU’s medlemsorganisationer.

Generel kommentar

DOF BirdLife Danmark har en generel kommentar til en eventuel diskussion om den maksimale længde på et programsamarbejde: Om en organisation får forlænget sin programbevilling, bør bero på faglige (gerne eksterne) vurderinger og evalueringer samt ’track record’ i CISU - ikke på et bestemt antal år med en udløbsdato. Hvis man begynder at sætte begrænsninger på nogle organisationer, og deres fortsatte bevillinger, som gives under forudsætninger af, at de laver et godt stykke arbejde, og skaber relevante resultater, så er CISU i gang med at svække det saglige og faglige civilsamfundsgrundlag som foreningen står på. Hvis dette krav, mod forventning implementeres, bør det naturligvis gælde for alle typer af CSP-bevillinger solidarisk fra den organisation med den mindste CISU CSP-portefølje til den med den største!

Med direkte reference til linjenumrene i udkastet ’Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund - DRAFT’ dateret 21. juni 2024, er der nedenfor oplistet DOF BirdLife Danmarks forslag til og begrundelser for specifikke ændringer i udkastet.

• Linje 233-234:

  Forslag: Erstat sidste del af denne sætning med: “... partnerships must strive to become progressively more and more sustainable and secure increasingly more additional funding from other sources."

  Begrundelser: Den nuværende sætning kan læses som om der en ”udløbsdato”. Det sætter en unødvendig begrænsning på CISUs bevillingshavere, der er hårdere end i UM’s SPA-aftaler. Muligheden for at opbygge selvstændighed hos lokale partnere er meget kontekst- og partnerafhængig, og fortsat støtte fra CSP’en bør være afhængig af evalueringer, fælles udviklingsmål og højere krav jo længere CISU-finansiering.

• Linje 245-246 (oversigtsboksen på side 8):
  • Ansøgertype række to: Reducér antallet af både små og store projekter til max. 2 (i stedet for nu 3) -> Max total in grants/year 1.7 mio. kr. (i stedet for nu 2.55 mio. kr.)
  • Ansøgertype række tre: Reducér antallet af små projekter til 0 (i stedet for nu 2) og antallet af små programmer til 1 (i stedet for nu 2) -> Max total in grants/year 3.4 mio. kr. (i stedet for nu 5 mio. kr.)
  • Ansøgertype række fem: Reducér Max total in grants/year til 7.0 mio. kr. (i stedet for nu 8.5 mio. kr.)

  Begrundelser: Først og fremmest for at sikre flere midler til flere organisationer (reducere antallet af projekter og små programmer hver enkelt organisation kan have i sin portefølje + reducere det årlige max. i bevillinger/år/organisation) samt udjævne/mindske springet mellem de forskellige kategorier, så man sikrer at organisationer ikke låses i en bestemt kategori, men har større fleksibilitet.

• Linje 341-364:

  Forslag: Egenfinansieringskravet bør også gælde for kategorien ’Large project’.

  Begrundelse: Egenfinansieringskravet skal være mere solidarisk og bidrage til større uafhængighed af CISU-midler over en bredere kam samt ikke mindst på sigt medvirke til en større impact som rækker udover de CSP-støttede indsatser. Det er usolidarisk hvis det kun er programkategorierne der skal skaffe egenfinansiering.

• Linje 342-343:

  Forslag: Slet denne sætning (linje 342-343).

  Begrundelse: I tråd med tilgangen som UM har til de strategiske partnere (jvf. UMs guidelines til strategiske partnerskaber 2022-2025, hvor der om egenfinansiering står: “The organisation has committed (as part of the application for a Strategic Partnership) to ensure own-financing activities similar to those funded by the MFA through other sources of funding, corresponding to at least 20 pct. of the Strategic Partnership budget. Of these, an amount corresponding to minimum 5 pct. of the budget must be raised in Denmark by the organisation. The remaining 15 pct. co-financing may comprise of funding from other donors, including the strategic partner’s international alliance. The own–financing activities are not to be reported on nor included in the budget or in the audited financial statement.” bør CISU’s håndtering af samme emne flugte. Altså at ‘Own contribution’/egenfinansiering forbliver additiv og derfor udenfor det ansøgte og bevilgede CSP-budget.

• Linje 344-347:

  Forslag: Slet denne sætning (linje 344-347).

  Begrundelse: Denne sætning flugter ikke med den gode ’Own contribution box’, linje 342-353, som fint dækker hvad der bør og skal tælle med som egenfinansiering for CSP-kategorier.

• Linje 357-359:

  Forslag: Slet denne sætning (linje 357-359).

  Begrundelser: Det er unødvendigt og uhørt at indføre en uforholdsmæssigt hård straf, da konsekvenserne ved manglende egenfinansiering jo rammer organisationerne selv og ikke mindst deres partnere i syd. Den eventuelt manglende egenfinansiering influerer jo ikke på CSP’en/CISU eller CISU’s øvrige medlemsorganisationer.

• Linje 360-361:

  Forslag: Denne box med Own contribution trinene ændres til:

  • CSF Funding 100% throughout.
  • STEP 1: 2% (large projects, small and medium programmes)
  • STEP 2: 3% (large projects and small programmes) & 4% (medium programmes)
  • STEP 3: 4% (large projects and small programmes) & 6% (medium programmes) & 10% (large programmes)
  • STEP 4 onwards: 5% (large projects and small programmes) & 8% (medium programmes) & 12% (large programmes)

  Begrundelser: ‘Own contribution’/egenfinansiering bør stadig være et krav, men forblive additiv (som selv gælder for alle SPA’er) og mere solidarisk. Forslagene til justeringer af procentsatserne ovenfor er for at indføre stigende krav til alle solidarisk, men generelt noget lavere end foreslået og i særdeleshed ift. SPA’erne for at bevare en fornuftig proportionalitet og kravsafstemthed mellem trinene og niveauerne af støtteformerne samt ikke mindst for at holde fokus på implementering af de aktiviteter man opnår støtte til og ikke bruge uforholdsmæssigt mange ressourcer (især ansattes og frivilliges tid) på tvungen fundraising. Det vil under alle omstændigheder stadig gøre flere CISU-medlemmer stærkere og gradvist mere uafhængige af CSP-midler.

• Linje 382-383 (= box med programvægt, -kriterier osv., kriterie 8 side 17):

  Forslag: A) Udvid med og inkludér vægtning og kriterier for flere typer af bæredygtighed, f.eks. administrativt/organisatorisk, social/kulturel/etnisk, politisk, økologisk, klimamæssigt osv. B) Kriterium 8.1 for ’Large Programs’ erstattes med kriterium 8.1 for ’Medium programs’.

  Begrundelser: A) Der er i udkastet udelukkende nævnt og sat fokus på den økonomiske/finansielle bæredygtighedsdimension, som så yderligere under hver programtype (8.1 kriterierne) udelukkende indsnævres til ’Funding diversification’. Det er alt for enøjet. B) Der bør stilles samme krav til indtægts-diversificering på tværs af de tre programtyper med fokus på "planlægning" og ”ansøgninger” ikke "dokumentation" som det står nu. Det understøttes af UM’s noget blødere vurderingskriterie til SPA’erne omkring finansiel bæredygtighed: “… approach to and track record of promoting an enabling environment for civil society in the global South primarily including… ii) appropriate measures for CSOs’ financial viability and sustainability”.

• Linje 382-383 (= box med programvægt, -kriterier osv., kriterie 9 side 17):

  Forslag: Omformulér kriterium 9.1 til at lyde: ”9.1. The cost level in relation to the programme strategy, context and/or the size of the target group is reasonable."

  Begrundelser: Det er vigtigt at understrege og tage med i vurderingen at netop konteksten er af meget stor betydning, f.eks. meget store forskelle på landes købekraft både i forhold til niveau, services og produkter som f.eks. brændstof. Det får f.eks. også stor betydning for ansøgerens redegørelse for f.eks. ’cost effectiveness’. Ved bedømmelsen af målgruppestørrelse som der henvises til, skal der også tages højde for om man arbejder i f.eks. et slumkvarter i en storby (= oftest stor målgruppe og meget lav udgift per person i målgruppen) eller om man arbejder i et meget tyndt befolket langt fra større færdselsårer, hvor det modsatte vil gøre sig gældende. Sidstnævnte bør derfor ikke forfordeles/overses ved bedømmelsen af de programansøgninger, hvor der arbejdes med dem.

• Linje 436-438:

  Forslag: Slet disse sætninger.

  Begrundelser: Hvorvidt et program godkendes og får mulighed for at fortsætte fase efter fase men med varierende budget afhængig af intern konkurrence, bør udelukkende baseres på en faglig vurdering. Som hidtil, har CISU’s sekretariat været i stand til at vurdere og allokere tilstrækkelige midler indenfor CSP’en til programmer, baseret på eksisterende programbevillinger og pipeline af projektorganisationer, som forudses snart at søge programmidler. Forudser CISU, at der vil være et generelt fald i finansieringen af CSP’en, bør alle programmer reduceres med en solidarisk procentdel frem for at få afslag på at fortsætte et eksisterende programsamarbejde. CISU bør fortsat være interesseret i, at flere og flere organisationer arbejder langsigtet for at levere kvalitetsresultater og forandringer i det Globale Syd, samt for at mindske CISUs egne administrative omkostninger. Ligesom CISU bør være interesseret i, at CSP’en understøtter stabilitet og forudsigelighed i programsamarbejderne – og absolut ikke det modsatte. Vigtigt i denne forbindelse er det at understrege at beslutninger om bevillingslofter og fordelinger indenfor CSP’en IKKE bør fastsættes af skiftende bestyrelser, men af CISU’s sekretariat baseret på en nøgtern vurdering af eksisterende og potentielt nye programbevillinger.

• Linje 441-459 (= hele afsnit 3.2.8):

  Forslag: Slet hele dette afsnit.

  Begrundelse: Afsnittet bliver overflødigt med ovenstående begrundelser for sletningen af linje 436-438, idet et eksisterende program kun kan få reduceret sit budget gennem intern konkurrence og kun i helt ekstraordinære tilfælde blive helt afvist og dette udelukkende baseret på en grunding faglig vurdering. Ødelægges denne forudsigelighed i programsamarbejderne, vil det også ødelægge muligheden for at man evt. kan rykke op og blive SPA’er i UM.

Vi hilser reformen af Civilsamfundspuljen velkommen og er glade for, at CISU forsøger at adressere skævheder og øget pres. I dette høringssvar vil vi komme ind på fem områder:

Programmer og projekter

• Vi er glade for at programmerne kan vare længere og muligheden for små programmer, som vil give flere organisationer mulighed for at have programmer. Det er dog fortsat udfordrende at mange af midlerne er projektmidler, da det med disse midler er svært at skabe forandring, og det er meget krævende, især for mindre organisationer og deres partnere, at skrive projektansøgninger gang på gang.
• Vi sætter pris på, at der er opmærksomhed på den større risici, det indebærer for den danske organisation og partner, når man kun kan genansøge til medium og større programmer hvert andet år.

Konkurrence og skævhed

• Et max antal ansøgninger per organisation (inkl. afviste ansøgninger og genindsendelser) per år ser ud til at være hovedvirkemidlet til at reducere konkurrence. Vi frygter, at denne ordning i høj grad fortsat vil medføre, at de fleste CISU midler tilfalder de største organisationer, da de har flest ressourcer til at skrive ansøgninger.
• De store organisationer har en fordel, da CISUs ansøgningsformat er meget omfattende, og det kan være svært for de mindre at finde de nødvendige ressourcer til processen, inden nogle midler er kommet i hus. For at imødekomme denne skævhed kunne CISU udarbejde et mere simpelt ansøgningsformat, med krav om at indsende mere grundige beskrivelser, når midler er bevilliget.
• Vi frygter, at kravet om egenfinansiering vil favorisere de største organisationer (se punkt 4).

Formål

• Miljømæssig bæredygtighed burde være en del af det overordnede formål, da det er en hjørnesten i bæredygtig udvikling og ligeledes for at sikre do-no-harm princippet.

Egenfinansiering

• Kravet om egenfinansiering kan let skabe usikkerhed, både fordi man bliver afhængige af flere kilder, men især fordi disse kilder skal finansiere de samme aktiviteter, og det kan være svært at finde andre kilder, der vil det. Dette er især udfordrende for mindre organisationer, som typisk er afhængige af fondsstøtte og ikke har mange medlemsindtægter eller er på finansloven. Derfor mener vi, at det er positivt, at det også kan være in-kind bidrag, men det kan samtidig udelukke de allersvageste og dem med færrest ressourcer (fx de der ikke har egne lokaler og kun projektansatte).
• Straffen for ikke at møde kravet er streng og vil især ramme de mindste organisationer hårdest. Derfor mener vi, at straffen bør reduceres.
• Kravet favoriserer de største organisationer, som har flest ressourcer til at finde egen/medfinansiering og har flest ressourcer i forvejen at lægge i et program.

Vurderingskrav

• Vurderingskriterie 9.1. er uklart i forhold til målgruppestørrelse og medfører en snæver forståelse af omkostningseffektivitet. Det er svært (også i dag) at gennemskue, om man skal nå et bestemt antal mennesker/kr. Konteksten varierer meget mellem organisationer og lande og gør det meget svært at sammenligne på tværs. Samtidig er der stor forskel på aktiviteter, og mennesker nået/kr vægtes ofte højere end at nå en mindre målgruppe mere dybdegående og forandringsskabende.
• Vi savner i de nuværende som de foreslåede vurderingskrav fokus på, hvad bæredygtig udvikling er (og ikke er) og en mere konkret udmøntning af, hvad der støttes, og hvad der ikke støttes. Vi savner også at CISU viser, hvordan faglighed inden for udvikling og miljømæssig bæredygtighed sikres og midler ikke ender med at gå til skadelige aktiviteter. Med skadelige aktiviteter mener vi for eksempel falske klimaløsninger, se fx dette link. Vurderingskrav kunne bygge på en række spørgsmål som disse: dette link.

Høringssvar fra Faglig Dag for CSP-bevillingssystemet i CISU d. 26/8 2024

På baggrund af diskussioner på Faglig Dag for CSP-bevillingssystemet og bestyrelsens puljegruppe er der lavet nedenstående høringssvar.

Om vurderingskriterier generelt

• Fordel hvis flest mulige kriterier er mere eller mindre direkte forbundet til spørgsmål i ansøgningsskemaet.
• I programstøtteform skal vurderingskriterier differentieres (3.2.4). Større programmer bør eksempelvis foretage en kontekstanalyse og TOC – eller tilsvarende kausalitetskæder. Gør det umuligt at lave en kravsafstemt vurdering. For projekter er der en differentiering – hvorfor gør vi ikke også det for programmer?
• I programkriterier mangler kontekstanalyse. Kan evt. indgå i en differentiering af kriterier for små, mellem og store programmer.
• Generelt vurderes små projekter på for mange områder. Vigtigst at de vurderes på relevans – strategi – budget. Fx 4.4. skulle kun være for store projekter.
• Ud med udviklingstrekanten for de helt små projekter – her er en aktivitetsbeskrivelse vigtig (det samme som strategi).
• Behov for færre, ikke flere vurderingskriterier.
• Ny rækkefølge af vurderingskriterierne:
  1. Relevans + kontekst
  2. Målgruppe
  3. Forventede resultater + Strategi (og beskrivelse af projektet)
  4. Partnerskabet og partnernes kapacitet
  5. Omkostningseffektivitet
• Krav til programmer bør gradueres mellem de tre programstørrelser, så ordlyden skærpes for hvert enkelt kriterium.
• Krav om læring bør også være et krav for store projekter (fokus på resultater – det håndfaste! Og en plausibel forandringsteori).
• Indikatorer bør tilføjes for store projekter. Angiv måltal for dine forventede resultater.
• Vurderingskriterier skal i størst mulig grad linkes direkte til ansøgningsskemaet. Fx svært for programkriterie 4.3.

Specifikke vurderingskriterier

• Begge Relevanskriteriet (1.1 for projekter og 3 for programmer): kan overvejes at gøres til et bestået/ikke-bestået kriterium. Eller i det mindste vægtes højere end 20%. Overvej at indføre det og så kan man evaluere efter første år. Det at projektet er relevant ift. lokale behov er vigtigt at vægte 30%.
• Begge Vurdering af partnerkapacitet skal fortsat vurderes ift. CSP formål (i relevans).
• Begge Kriterie 2.3 for projekt og 2.2 for program: uhensigtsmæssigt at sydpartneren er ’the primary decision maker’ da hovedansvaret ligger hos den danske organisation.
• Begge kriterie 4.4 projekt og 8.2 program: Ændr ordet exitstrategi til ’udfasningsplan’. Eller måske mere en (måske langsigtet) beskrivelse af udvikling af partnerskabet.
• Projekt Tema 4: Ordet ’Strategi’ bør tilføjes, så det hedder Strategi and expected results.
• Projekt Kriterium 4.1 inspiration til en klarere tekst: Beskriv de aktiviteter du planlægger som leder frem til de ønskede resultater.
• Projekt kriterie 4.2 er allerede beskrevet i afsnit 4.1. Forslag til omformulering 4.2 - hvad har I lært af tidligere indsatser, og hvordan inddrages de konkret i det nye projekt?
• Projekt kriterie 4.4 ud (vi har for mange kriterier – bæredygtighed ikke realistisk i et projekt med kort tidshorisont).
• Program kriterie 2.1 er del af kriterie 1.1.
• Program Overlap mellem 2.1 og 4.3.
• Program Vurderingskriterie 2.2 lyder mere som princip (dækkes det af 2.3?) - hvordan vurderes det? Eller skal der være progression i de forskellige faser – og/eller for small, medium og large. Hvad ligger der i ‘the’ - også når de ikke har underskrevet kontrakt med CISU? Hvad betyder det at være primary decision maker?
• Program ”Tema” 4 (approach and learning) kan overvejes at vægte højere end 35% - måske 50%.
• Program Kriterie 4.1 - mangler en udfoldelse af programdesign. Hvordan bidrager partnere til en samlet programstrategi, når vi samtidig har fokus på partnernes egne strategier (locally led development)? Det skal vurderes, hvordan partnernes individuelle strategi samlet bidrager til en samlet programstrategi (også del af synergi som bør skrives ind). Skelnen mellem produkt og proces. Processen beskrives hvordan den er locally led, som resulterer til et produkt, nemlig en samlet programstrategi. Både proces og produkt skal beskrives og vurderes. Derved kan kriterie 4.3 slettes.
• Program Kriterium 4.2: Det skal vises at man har skabt resultater i tidligere interventioner. Kan formuleres skarpere, så man skal vise ”hvad der virker og hvorfor og hvordan man så bruger det fremadrettet”. Og det skal vægtes tungere.
• Program Kriterium 4.2 bør vægte højere end 4.3.
• Program kriterie 4.4 er del af kriterie 3.1 og kan derved udgå.
• Program Vurderingskriterie 8 om bæredygtighed kan overvejes at have en bredere tilgang til bæredygtighed og også indbefatte klima, institutionel og social bæredygtighed.
• Program kontekstanalyse mangler.
• Program vurderes ikke om der er synergi. Det bør fortsat være et vurderingskriterie. Det er til dels berørt i 4.1 men der mangler også at tage højde for synergi i selve indsatsen.
• Begge Hvilket system etableres for at vurdere egenfinansiering som vurderingskriterie? Eksempelvis frivilligtimer volontører - hvordan foretages opgørelse? Vi skal fortsat bruge princippet om at penge skal kunne revideres.

Beløbsgrænser

• 150.000 kr. er for lidt til små indsatser. Gerne op på 200.000 kr. igen.
• Store projekter hæves til 1 mio. kr. – til gengæld kan man kun søge 2 årligt.

Præsentation og opsætning af teksten

• Støtteformerne skal skilles ad – det er mere brugervenligt for ansøgerne at læse.
• Overvej at lave en pixi-guide med meget grafik (som DUF) der kan give en kort intro til typerne. Derefter kan man så læse ned i de fulde retningslinjer.

Principper

• Paradoks mellem principper og vurderingskriterier – nogle principper er inkluderet i vurderingskriterierne – andre er ikke. Hvor vægter de? Og er de lige relevante for alle støtteformer?
• Uddybe nogle principper. Inkludere gender og diversity. Skal skrives ud.
• Do-no harm kunne inkludere kollektive menneskerettigheder.

Øvrigt

• Det kan overvejes at undtage de små projekter for konkurrenceudsættelse og dermed scoring.
• Hvor er gender?
• Hvad ligger der i civilsamfundsstyrkelse?
• Centrale begreber i retningslinjerne som fx locally led development og udviklingstrekanten må gerne uddybes (fx på hjemmeside i two-pager/temapapir eller lignende).
• Man kunne overveje at have færre modaliteter.
• Lad jer gerne inspirere af de nuværende vurderingskriterier.
• Generelt i intro: Hvad mener CISU at styrke lokalsamfundene betyder? Kvantitet/kvalitet/typer/andet? Evt beskrive negationen....
• Overvej om flere puljer skal tælle (fuldt eller delvist) med i bevillingsloftet, da det vil kunne sikre flere penge til uddeling til det brede.
• Svært at se at udkastet er en forenkling.
• Udviklingstrekanten: lav hjælpespørgsmål omkring strategiske services, hvor ansøger skal forklare hvordan en service understøtter de andre hjørner af trekanten.
• Virker uhensigtsmæssigt at programmer skal søge i deres tredje år. Det giver dem kun mulighed for at vise resultater for de to første år af en fireårig periode (eller for de første fire år af en seksårig periode).

Eligibility criteria:

• Adgangen til at søge program er kompleks. Kunne slette adgangskriterierne til small programme.
• Previous experience from the context and cooperation with at least two of the partners fint for medium og large – men ikke for small programme. Skal vurderes ifm. første step – expression of interest.

Tekstnære forslag

• Linje 58 (og evt. andre steder): Er den en tanke bag at skrive societies i plural? Eller undlad.
• Linje 136-139: bør være krav at inkludere alle tre ben i udviklingstrekanten (dog ikke et krav til de små projekter).
• Linje 145: Strategic deliveries: Forbedre forklaringen/definitionen specielt fordi det er en omdefinering, som så bør være klar eventuelt med eksempler, eventuelt med henvisning til det bredere metodeforklaringsdokument.
• Linje 242: Det skal tydeliggøres, hvad der menes med tabellen. At det er maks antal årligt – tilføjes teksten i linje 245.
• Linje 307: Projekt vurderingskriterium 2.3. At partner er ”the primary decision maker” i partnerskabet. Hvordan beskrives/tjekkes dette? Bliver det bare en sludder for en sladder? Skulle det hellere frames som at rollerne er ”justified” og at lokalpartner har et væsentligt ”say”? (Bemærkning: gælder det alt? – hellere – det skal være equal partnership med klar rollefordeling. Den danske organisation har også en added value).
• Linje 307: Projekt vurderingskriterium 5.2. Tilføje ”provide relevant non-financial or financial contributions”.
• Linje 324: Uklart Tematisk geografisk sektorielt. Evt: Der skal være en klar strategisk sammenhæng mellem programmets initiativer.
• Linje 339: Under large programme – der behøver ikke at stå ”within the partnership”.
• Linje 414: 3 Capacity assessment with the purpose of strengthening the partner: who in CISU conducts the Danish partner assessment?
• Linje 616: Lots of reflections on what it implies. New era for large program organisations.

Kommentarer til CSP-retningslinjer

i høring til 30. august 2024

Respons på høringsudgaven af de nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen dateret 21-06-2024

Vi i Støtteforeningen til selvhjælp i Uganda takker for muligheden for at tilkendegive vor holdning til ovennævnte forslag til nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen.

Til forskel fra de fleste andre organisationer, der har afgivet høringssvar, repræsenterer vi en mindre forening, der har haft tre projektbevillinger fra Civilsamfundspuljen på i alt ca. 2.800.000 kr. i årene 2016-2023, hvor budgettet for det seneste projekt (2020-2023) var ca. 2.000.000 kr.

Ifølge oplægget til nye retningslinjer reduceres loftet for støtteformen projekter til blot 700.000 kr., altså væsentlig mindre end i den nuværende CSP, hvor det er 4.500.000 kr. En anden støtteform er programmer, hvor små programmer er relevante for en organisation som vor, der har haft et mangeårigt samarbejde med en lokal partner. Her er beløbsgrænsen 4.000.000 kr. og varigheden 3-5 år. Vi tilslutter os princippet i den mere generelle og strategiske støtte, som et program indebærer, frem for projektbevillinger.

I den forbindelse har vi bidt mærke i én ting, som vi kunne tænke os at få modificeret (eller belyst bedre): Det kræves (som det f.eks. fremgår af skemaet på side 8 og afsnit 3.2.2 på side 14), at man skal have modtaget over 500.000 kr. i støtte i gennemsnit i de seneste tre år for at være berettiget til at søge om små programmer. Det er et stort spring i kravene i forhold til de organisationer, der kun kan søge om projekter (hvor der blot kræves et forudgående projekt over 200.000 kr.).

Kravet til at kunne søge om et lille program synes temmelig vanskeligt at opnå for ansøgere, der tidligere kun har haft projekter og endnu ingen programmer. Det virker alt for svært at blive førstegangsansøger om et program og risikerer altså at udelukke andre end de allerede etablerede (meget store) organisationer fra denne støtteform, som vel netop er en af grundstenene i reformeringen af puljen.

Rigtig mange organisationer har pga. de utilstrækkelige ressourcer i Civilsamfundspuljen fået afslag på støtteværdige projekter i de seneste år og har dermed ikke haft mulighed for at leve op til kravet om at have modtaget over 500.000 kr. i støtte i gennemsnit om året. Denne problematik forstærkes desuden, når/hvis projektstørrelsen nedsættes fra maks. 4.500.000 kr. til 700.000 kr. Man skal så f.eks. opnå bevilling til hele tre samtidige treårige projekter på 500.000-700.000 kr. for at komme i betragtning som førstegangsansøger om et program. Det er ikke ret realistisk for mange mindre organisationer, og det vil indebære et langt større ansøgningsarbejde i forhold til at kunne ”nøjes” med at have en enkelt større projektbevilling (f.eks. ét treårigt projekt på 1.500.000-2.000.000 kr.).

For vort eget vedkommende har vi som nævnt i indledningen haft et projekt med støtte på ca. 2.000.000 kr. i årene 2020-2023. Varigheden var 36 måneder, men disse var fordelt over fire kalenderår. Vi har ikke fået støtte i 2024, fordi vi har været tilbageholdende med at søge om nyt projekt i indeværende år, hvor Civilsamfundspuljen har været presset på midler og stod over for en reformering. Ved en ansøgning til puljen efter de nye retningslinjer i 2025 vil vi jo så strengt taget ikke have modtaget gennemsnitlig støtte over 500.000 kr. i de seneste tre år (2022-2024) og lever dermed ikke op til kravet for at søge om et lille program. Dette synes jo ikke hensigtsmæssigt.

Der nævnes en overgangsordning (i noten (linje 340) på side 14), men det fremgår ikke, om denne vil imødekomme udfordringer som den påpegede. På baggrund af ovenstående foreslår vi, at kravet for at kunne søge om et lille program modificeres til, at man skal have modtaget over 500.000 kr. i støtte i gennemsnit i tre af de seneste fem år.

Vi håber, at der vil blive set velvilligt på dette ændringsforslag.

Odense, 29-08-2024

Sanne Kronholm Jensen, CISU-kontaktperson

Mikkel Juul Larsen, bestyrelsesformand – på vegne af Støtteforeningen til selvhjælp i Uganda

Introduction

We, the four partners (Ghana Developing Communities Association, Youth Empowerment for Life-Ghana, School for Life and Changing Lives in Innovative Partnerships), of Ghana Venskab thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the CSP reform and the development of new guidelines. We appreciate to be able to take part in the process as partners from the Global South, but it has also been difficult to understand what is going on and how we can take part from a distance.

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the process was in two different directions from the onset. From the user meetings in February/March 2024, it appeared that the purpose of the reform was to improve the conditions for working in strong partnerships and strengthen the role of the partners in the Global South. A shift in the CSP was announced towards more long-term strategic interventions, as well more flexibility and thereby agency and leadership of local partners. A very laudable purpose. As the process has progressed, it seems that the process is in fact more about Danish organizations, and it is unclear how it aims to strengthen local leadership.

Need to unfold the concept of local leadership

We are pleased to notice that local leadership and locally lead development have become increasingly important concepts in CISU documents including the draft CSF guidelines. However, it is not clear to us how CISU views local leadership and how it should manifest, apart from the reference to the DAC paper and its definition of locally lead development. What is the underlying analysis of the concept of local leadership in a CISU context, and what kind of systems and behaviors is that CISU wants to encourage? And how will CISU work with the concept of local leadership in a practical way? This will be necessary to discuss and qualify, if we are to progress in this area. It will also be necessary for the grant assessment system, as it will be part of the assessment criteria and scoring system.

We would also be interested in CISU’s analysis of the present situation among users of the CSF in terms of local leadership. Where are the strengths and weaknesses and what can be done? Seen from our perspective, the opportunity to exercise local leadership is one of the things that we appreciate most about working with our Danish partner and CISU financed programs and projects. GV has over the years become our development ally supporting us to develop and grow through continuous interest and support from staff as wells as volunteers and members. The program modality provides great opportunities for alignment with our own strategies and for our organizational development. In fact, it is often more beneficial for us to work with GV than with local grant facilities, as they over time tend to compete with us for funds and become more interested in their own organizational survival.

We would suggest that part of the analysis becomes part of the unfolding of the concept of local leadership. Who are they local leaders and who has the power to define their best interests and needs? How can CISU navigate in this?

CSF reform process creates uncertainty

The reform process seems rushed, yet also drawn out at the same time. Everything had to happen very fast, leaving little time for in-depth research and consultation, but there are still no answers to how the transition will unfold. We trust that our Danish partner, Ghana Venskab, would provide the answers of what they could, and we are surprised that to be left in this situation of uncertainty. Having worked with Danish partners and Danida grants for a long time, we have come to expect more.

In 2023, both staff and voluntary board members from Denmark and Ghana dedicated significant time and resources to designing the new program (Empowerment for Life Program), which officially commenced on January 1, 2024. As partners responsible for implementing this program, we have spent the past seven months establishing our presence in new regions and districts, setting up offices, recruiting, and enhancing the capacities of our staff to adapt to these new areas. These investments made in the first seven months are intended to support a four-year program. Despite the considerable effort and resources invested, the outcomes of this endeavor remain uncertain.

If the proposed guideline is implemented from January 2025, transitioning current projects and programs prematurely could undermine the investments made, motivation and weaken the capacity of we (Partners in the Global South). The guidelines, as presented, do not provide favorable options for existing programs, though the transitioning process is still unknown and expected to kickoff January 2025. This potential consequence seems contrary to the intention behind the initial February/March online meeting.

The abrupt nature of this transition raises significant concerns, particularly regarding the sustainability of the gains we have made thus far. It is crucial to recognize that our efforts in the Global South are not just projects, they are commitments to local communities that rely on these interventions for their development and well-being. A premature end to the program could disrupt the lives and livelihoods of those we serve, potentially reversing the progress we have collectively worked so hard to achieve.

We recommend that CISU, in the transitioning process, at a minimum, allow GV to complete this current phase, providing the Global South Partners with sufficient time to fully understand and adapt to the new guidelines. Halting or transitioning the current program prematurely would not only contradict the concept of localization but also risk damaging the credibility, goodwill, and integrity of the Global South Partners.

The proposed guidelines, as they currently stand, seem overly harsh and detrimental to organizations managing large programs especially we the four Global South Organizations and our Danish Partner (GV). If this guideline negatively impacts Danish organizations currently executing projects/programs such as GV, it will have even more severe repercussions for their Global South Partners. Finally, we urge that the grievances and concerns of the four Global South Partners be given serious consideration.

Osman Abdel-Rahman, Executive Director, Ghanaian Developing Communities Association

Vera Jawol Magan, director, Youth Empowerment for Life - Ghana

Wedad Sayibu, director, School for Life

Lukman Yussif, director, Changing Lives in Innovative Partnerships

Amnesty International Feedback to CISU Guidelines

Line 69–78 + 105-106: Roles in the partnerships

While it is admirable that CISU has a strong focus on eliminating unequal power relations and ensure leadership by Global South partners, it is important to ensure that the partnership model actively challenges the reproduction of pre-existing colonial North/South relations between the partners. There might be a risk, even with the existing principles, that some interpretations may still lead to a Global North dominance over decision making in partnerships, particularly when the necessary expertise and capacity are readily available for the Global South partner. We suggest that CISU remain open to considering different partnership models, acknowledging that the role of the Global North partner may vary depending on the capacity of the Global South partners.

Line 186 forward: They cannot apply

AIDK suggests that CISU clarify the guidelines regarding situations where the Civil Society Fund does not accept applications from organisations that have signed a strategic partnership agreement, fund agreement or similar with the MFA of Denmark. Specifically, does this restriction apply to any funding agreement with the MFA? For instance, if an organisation receives funding from the MFA for a project like “Børnenes U-landskalender”, would this exclude the organisation from applying for further funds from CISU?

Line 243 forward: Types of support

AIDK suggests that CISU consider simplifying the guidelines by focusing primarily on the grant ceiling. The section is rather complex compared to the current guidelines. Organisations should be given the flexibility to decide how to combine their applications, whether for projects, programmes, or both, and the number of applications they submit (maybe up to a certain limit). This approach would offer greater flexibility and make the guidelines more easily understandable.

The guidelines give the impression that existing programme partners are favoured, partly because they can exceed the grant ceiling, while other partners face a rather long timeframe for accessing large programmes. For example, it would require two medium programme periods to be able to apply for large programmes and get an opportunity to increase annual funding. Existing programme partners do not face competition in this context. We suggest that CISU consider shortening this requirement to one medium programme period. As we read the requirements, applying for large programmes will only be possible after completing two medium program periods (Line 339, requirements for large programme: “Having been granted two Medium programmes in the partnership within the past 10 years.”; Line 400: “Danish organisations with an open medium programme grant can only apply for small programme grants”).

If we interpret the guidelines correctly, the two-year gap between application windows further delays potential perspectives of becoming a large programme partner, which could lead to funding gaps and associated challenges. Please clarify whether it is correctly understood that a medium programme needs to be completed before an organisation can start the application process for a large programme.

3.1.2. Requirements (project support)

The guidelines specify that previous cooperation within the partnership is required for large projects (up to 700,000 DKK), while no such requirement exists for small projects up to 150,000 DKK. This limits new partnerships to a maximum of 150,000 DKK, which seems rather low, also comparing to previous guidelines. We suggest raising the threshold to 500,000 DKK, aligning it with the requirement that projects below 500,000 DKK do not require previous project experience. Specifically, we propose modifying the guidelines to state: “Previous cooperation in the partnership applying for support is required for projects above 500,000 DKK”.

3.1.3. What can be supported

The guidelines indicate that activities (e.g. training) only benefitting an individual/a few individuals cannot be supported. However, when working with marginalised and remote communities, cost may be higher per beneficiary, though the impact may be significant. In line with the “leave no one behind” principle, we recommend considering the remoteness of target groups and the associated complexities when assessing budgets.

For instance, when working with marginalised indigenous communities in remote areas, the different contexts in which the target groups and populations find themselves, most of them in conditions of high vulnerability, may require different strategies with a higher cost per beneficiary due to increased logistics and travel costs. Proposals should be measured based on their expected impact (quality) rather than just the number of people reached (quantity).

3.2.3 Own contribution, lines 344-347

Guidelines state that “for strategic programmes above DKK 5 million, only financial contributions (such as funds raised in the Global South or Denmark and co-financing) can count as own contribution”. Could CISU please clarify whether the DKK 5 million are annual or total amounts?

Line 400

The guidelines indicate that “Danish organisations with an open medium programme grant can only apply for small programme grants”. It is suggested that CISU clarify the process by which organisations with medium programmes can transition to applying for large programmes, as this process appears unclear in the guidelines. Please refer to previous comment related to types of support, line 243 forward.

3.3.1. Purpose (funding diversification)

The guidelines specify that it is not possible to use the grants to apply for funding financed by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Could CISU please clarify whether this restriction includes sub-grants, e.g. the New Democracy Fund, which is ultimately financed by the Danish MFA? Please also refer to previous comment to line 186 forward.

3.2 Strategic programme support

We suggest providing more details on the process of becoming a programme partner, including whether current programme related formats and criteria will remain the same and, if not, when they will be updated. In addition, we suggest clarifying in the guidelines when the documentation which will be used for step 2, relevance and capacity assessment (line 409), are to be submitted to CISU (for instance, the concept note describing the programme strategy).

4.1 Deadlines

The guidelines state that there are two yearly deadlines for project support and three for small programmes. Could CISU please clarify whether the yearly budget for each modality is evenly distributed across the different funding rounds, or if there is a risk that funds may be exhausted by the end of the year or the last application deadlines due to a first-come, first-served approach?

DRAFT GUIDELINES CSF REFORM, Comments from Ghana Venskab

Basically, the GV board, secretariat and partners find that there is no clear direction for the reform process, and the purpose of it is unclear. This makes it difficult for all stakeholders to assess whether it will achieve its purpose, especially since CISU has not presented an analysis of the expected implications. Further, several areas of the guidelines give rise to many questions and are open to interpretation. It therefore seems to be unfinished business to an extent that it requires quite a lot of work still.

On this background, GV recommends that external consultants should be invited to play a role in the continued process to ensure that this very comprehensive reform will support the vision of CISU and represent the interests of all members. This will take time, so we would recommend that the reform process is paused. Despite these concerns, we will take this opportunity to comment on the present draft version of the guidelines as an input to the continued process.

GV started a new 4-year programme 1st January 2024 with our four Ghanaian partners. The consultation response from GV focus on our overall view of the reform process as well as comments relating to specific parts of the guidelines (with reference to lines). Further, we have added our recommendations for the guidelines and the continued process. Finally, we have inserted short and more specific comments, primarily referring to formulations and understanding.

CSF reform process

In GV we have been used to seeing our programme and partnerships as an asset and contribution to the mission and vision of CISU and Danish development cooperation in general. This has been validated by the application processes and reviews that we have been through over the years, the last one in 2023. With the CSF reform process the mood has shifted and it seems that we – and the other programme organizations - are now viewed more as a liability. Apart from being depressing, it is difficult to understand.

In the first draft from CISU, at the beginning of the CSF reform process, it was stated that: ‘The future CSF will allow for more support to long-term, strategic work, by moving away from the largely project-based modalities that are prevalent today. We will ensure greater flexibility and increased agency and leadership of the local partners’. We agree with the intention to move in the direction of more long-term strategic work. Partners in the Global South often need development allies more than they need additional projects, and a programme modality (the existing or the proposed) is a good framework to move in that direction.

However, when we read the draft guidelines, it seems that this intention has been completely overshadowed by other concerns and interests. Now it seems to have become mainly a pie-sharing exercise with main focus on the Danish organizations rather than what makes sense in the Global South, and the impact of our work seems to have less weight in the assessment criteria. It is difficult to see how that connects to the agenda of locally led development. Furthermore, it is not clear at this stage when and how the reform will be implemented and whether CISU intends to comply with on-going agreements. This has created considerable uncertainty both in Denmark and among our partners in the Global South.

Background for grant size of more than 5 million DKK

We would like to clarify the history behind programmes with a grant size of more than 5 million DKK per year, as this does not seem to be well known. GV has implemented projects and programmes with Danida funding since 1986, but only with funding from CISUs CSF since 2018. This transition was agreed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), since the Ministry was restructuring the frame modality into strategic partnerships. GV together with Verdens Skove and Vedvarende Energi transitioned from frame modality to the CSF, and in that process our grants were also transferred to the CSF. This was based on an agreement that GV and the other former frame organizations would not be disadvantaged by the transition and maintain their grant size. In short, the three mentioned organizations brought with them an additional 32 million DKK a year, which would not otherwise have been in the CSF.

When Verdens Skove became a Strategic Partner with the MFA in 2022, the organization left behind the 15 million DKK in CSF that was their annual grant size at the time. The programme organizations in CISU did not get access to these resources, it benefitted other users of the CSF. So, in fact the mentioned organizations have not put pressure on the CSF, but rather added to it. The approval of the draft guidelines would put the remaining former framework organizations in a very difficult position only 6 years after we transitioned to the CSF with the promise from MFA and CISU that we would be able to continue operating at the same level as before, provided of course that our interventions remained at a corresponding level of relevance and quality.

Gap between the CSF and Strategic Partnerships

If the draft guidelines come into force, there will be a huge gap between the CSF (max. grant 6.8 million DKK) and the Strategic Partnerships administered by the MFA (min.grant 15 million DKK). It will be impossible for organizations to grow and bridge that gap, even if they have a proven track record as well as the required policies and systems to implement larger interventions, and there will only be small or large organizations left. If the MFA decides to raise the minimum grant for Strategic Partners to for example 25 million DKK, as has been suggested, the gap will become even larger.

Types of support and presentation of grant size (lines 243-246, matrix)

We find the presentation of grant size as including own contribution quite problematic for various reasons:

• It seems pointless apart from disguising the full extent of the cut downs. Large programmes are presented as having a max. total in grant per year of 8.5 million DKK, but can CISU decide about grants that it is not granting? Or even call it a grant, when the max. CISU grant per year is in fact 6.8 million without own contribution at step 4, where the own contribution requirement is 20%?
• It is not meaningful to design a programme for 8.5 million of which 1.7 million is own contribution, as if we are able to determine years in advance, which resources we will attract in own financing. This is not how things work on the ground, especially not for small and medium-sized organizations. That would imply a level of control over the policies of other donors and private foundations that neither the Danish applicants nor the partners in the Global South have. Donors often change their priorities and make demanding application processes with tight deadlines. This will be even less meaningful with the new guidelines, as the application process has been moved forward one year and we would have to apply in the third year of a programme phase, rather than the fourth year as is the case now. Clearly, the own contribution must be in line with the strategic direction and objectives of the programme, but it is an unreasonable demand that the programme design (developed at least 18 months before the start of implementation) incorporates the own contribution.
• It conflicts with the principles of local leadership, as partners in the Global South would be less flexible in going after the grant opportunities that make sense to them.
• The integration of own financing into medium and large programmes will be difficult to manage and administer for CISU and the organizations. In that way, it goes against the CISU strategic priority of administrative simplification.
• The proposal means that there would be higher demands to CISU organizations than to MFA Strategic Partners, who are not required to integrate their own financing into their programmes.

Own contribution (Covered in lines 341-363 and various other parts of the draft)

It is interesting to note that the requirement for own financing was 20% (15+5%) when GV received our first programme grant from CISU in 2018. It was since lowered to 15% (12,5+2,5%) in 2020, with a more flexible division in 2023 (Grants above 7 mio. DKK: min. 7,5%+min.2,5%, combined minimum 15%), presumably acknowledging that it is very steep requirement for most CISU organizations. Nevertheless, the draft guidelines return to the 20% requirement for large programmes.

In contrast, the demand for own financing for organizations with a portfolio up to 5 million DKK seems low. The requirement is fixed at 5% and this can be in kind in the form of e.g. volunteer manhours. We are surprised that it is even worth the effort to have this requirement, presumably all users of the Civil Society Fund can live up to that requirement at a minimum. Obviously, it will also be cumbersome and time-consuming for both the applying organizations as well as CISU to document and follow up on the documentation of non-financial contributions. In that way, it seems like a symbolic gesture and a step away from the simplification agenda without adding much value. However, if the CSF acknowledges in kind own contributions for some organizations with a grant below a certain threshold, it is difficult to understand why it does not apply to all organizations. Why can organizations with a large programme not count own contribution in kind? Are our voluntary manhours not considered valuable or relevant? That seems like a devaluation of our volunteers, who contribute to our work in numerous ways. In short, we think that in kind own contributions should be recognized for all organizations or not at all.

Calculation and documentation of own contribution

The draft presents own contribution as X percent (depending on type of grant) of the total grant from CISU. The requirement for own contribution is not new for CISU organizations with programme grants, but the required percent has previously been calculated as X percent of Programme and Project Activities (PPA) instead of total grant. If the proposed calculation of own contribution is accepted it would mean that there are higher demands to CISU organizations than to the MFA Strategic Partners, whose own contribution continues to be determined by a percentage of PPA instead of the total grant. It has previously been a principle in CISU not to go beyond the requirements of the MFA, and we hope it will remain this way. Especially considering that the Strategic Partners are generally large organizations with well-known brands and dedicated fundraising departments, among other advantages.

It is not clear from the guidelines how we are expected to document the own contribution in the form of financial resources. We would urge that the present way of doing it is maintained, meaning that other financial contributions are recorded in a note in the annual account and not mixed with the programme grant. The way it is done presently is also aligned with the MFA procedures in relation to the Strategic Partners. The draft states that the own contribution requirement must be completed by the end of a given grant period (lines 354-356). We expect that it would be acceptable to live up to the requirement over the full programme period, even if some years may go below or beyond the requirement. This flexibility would enable us to adapt to the workflow of the partners and the fluctuating income from other donors. If so, this should be specified.

Assessment criteria, programme support (line 382-383, matrix), comments to overall criteria

• 3. Relevance: It is mentioned that the ‘programme contributes to the purpose and principles of the CSF’, but the larger national and global context is missing (E.g. MFA policies, SDGs).
• 4-7. Approach and learning: Several key tools and approaches important for designing, implementing and evaluating a programme are not mentioned, e.g. a coherent Theory of Change and intervention logic. This makes the assessment criteria less specific than the current assessment criteria. It would fit e.g. under purpose, strategic programme support (lines 323-326). Is it deliberate to not mention these key tools and approaches?
• 8-9. Financial inputs and sustainability: The assessment criteria focus only on financial sustainability. There is no mention of climate or environmental sustainability in the assessment criteria, despite the weight of climate issues in Danish development policies. We suggest including the concept of Value for Money as a thorough analysis of cost that includes strategic choices ensuring quality of work.
• 10. Popular engagement: Popular engagement is assessed separately rather than as part of capacity and programmatic approach (as in current assessment criteria), which gives a clearer focus on the importance of this criterion.

Assessment criteria for programme support (line 382-383, matrix), comments to sub-criteria

• 4.4 The programme strategy contributes to structural changes at the relevant societal level: We are surprised that results and impact are not mentioned here or elsewhere. Is that deliberate?
• 5.2. The target group(s) have been included in the process of designing the programme: Target groups should be included as far as possible, but is it a realistic and practical requirement to involve all the intended target groups in the process of designing a programme? This would be very cumbersome for the programme partners, as well as the target groups, and could create false expectations and disappointments, if a programme is not approved. This can also be a potential threat to the ‘Do no harm’- principle (line 110). We would suggest that it could also depend on an assessment of the partners in the Global South and whether they are legitimate membership-based organizations with strong local presence and experience. If so, it would be fair to assume that they have extensive interactions with local communities and hence a qualified idea of relevant interventions. This would of course have to be backed up by interactions with the target groups during the application process as well as after when the programme document is fleshed out and implementation is planned.
• 6.1 The learning goals are relevant in relation to the programme strategy & 6.2. The framework for monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) is suitable for documenting the expected changes of the programme: Delivering and documenting results is an integrated part of MEL instead of capacity and programmatic approach as in current assessment criteria, which makes good sense. Generally, the draft guidelines seem to focus less on the capacity and ability of the applying organizations to deliver and document results (criterion 6 in the existing guidelines for programmes).
• 8.1. Funding diversification: This is the only part of the matrix, where the criterions differ for small, medium and large programmes. For large programmes the requirement is that funding diversification must be documented through realized funds from other donors – does this mean at the time of assessment? – Which takes place around 15 months before the programme even starts! In the real world that is rarely possible. If this interpretation is incorrect then the wording needs to be adjusted. For all size programmes, it is mainly realistic to present plans for and experience with funding diversification due to the time span from application to actual programme implementation.
• 8.2 The exit strateg(ies) provide a realistic plan for partners to sustain their work beyond funding from the Civil Society Fund’: In this section, sustainability has become solely an issue of having exit strategies. Why would you necessarily have exit strategies in all applications, regardless of whether an organization has a relatively new programme? Further, it is a more rigid requirement than the text on p.8 (lines 233-234) where it is stated that ‘partnerships must work towards the objective that all partners are able to be self-sustaining or secure additional funding from other sources’. We are onboard with the overall thinking behind the requirement to secure funding from other sources, but we also need to be realistic. Danish organizations apply for funds, because that is the modus operandi of not-for-profit non-governmental organizations. It is highly unlikely that many Danish organizations, including CISU, or our partners in the Global South will be self-sustaining in the sense of not getting grants from anywhere.

Internal competition (lines 309-313+434-439)

Internal competition as described in the draft guidelines is very radical, yet not very detailed. From the description it is difficult to imagine how it will work, and it gives rise to a lot of questions that CISU should be able to answer and openly present. For example, what is the underlying analysis and expected implications of the reform? Does it put less pressure on the CSF? How many more applicants will receive a grant and approximately when? How many current recipients will it affect and how? Will it provide additional work for CISU to administer more smaller grants than fewer larger grants? Is an upper limit for larger applications the best way to achieve "less pressure" on the CSF? Or is it primarily a redistribution from larger to smaller grant recipients? Does it provide a better outcome for partners and citizens of the Global South?

Implications of internal competition as proposed

Under the current programme guidelines, scoring from assessment of the application can only reduce or add up to a maximum of 20 percent of the grant. In the draft guidelines it is all or nothing. In case two applications get the same score, the applicant with the highest budget will get nothing. This is problematic in several ways. In effect it will be a very risky gamble to apply for a large grant, because you will run a relatively high risk of ending out with nothing. Not because the application is not relevant and strong, but because someone with a small budget gets the same score. It is difficult not to get the impression that it is designed to squeeze out organizations with a large programme. Further, we would like to question whether a score on a small or medium grant represents the same as a score on a large programme and hence is directly comparable. This would be in conflict with the principle of Adaptability of requirements meaning that the larger the budget, the stricter the requirements regarding the capacity of the organizations involved and the desired changes of the intervention.

It should also be considered that the aim to allow for more grants (as indicated in lines 313 and 438, for example) may lead to organizations applying for shorter interventions and hence lower budgets. In other words, a strategically more consistent and cohesive intervention may be replaced by a string of short-term interventions, which carries a risk of affecting learning, sustainability and impact.

Self-administration of funds (lines 609-610)

Given our experiences with the on-going CSF reform process, we are very concerned about the sentence: ‘Every year, CISUs board determines, upon approval by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what share of the total Civil Society Fund will be allocated to the different types of support modalities’. If the CISU board is also supposed to decide on whether other CISU funds are included in the grant ceiling, it leaves a small group of people as gatekeepers. Organizations become deadlocked in terms of finding alternative funding in Denmark, even if they can design and implement relevant interventions. Seen from that perspective it is undesirable that CISU is managing almost all funds accessible to small and medium sized organizations.

Generally, the self-administration of funds practiced in CISU has shown itself to be problematic. The role of the CISU board should be to strategically guide CISU having the best interest of ALL members in mind. CISU has - naturally – developed over the years and the CSF has expanded. We recommend that the administrative and technical system is adapted to be in line with this development. Grant allocation management is a very technical area, and it would be unwise if the board has an unlimited mandate to make changes every year. This is in area where CISU’s management should play a greater role based on their overview of commitments and knowledge of technical considerations.

Recommendations

1. The purpose of the CSF reform should be clearer, otherwise it is difficult to assess whether it achieves its purpose.
2. CISU should present the analysis that the reform is based on including an analysis of the expected implications. Otherwise, it will be difficult to assess whether it will live up to its purpose.
3. The requirements for own contribution and the presentation of grant size (incl. own contribution) needs a reality check. In this context it would be useful to revisit, define and reconsider the aim towards ‘self-sustaining’ civil society partnerships.
4. CISU should scrutinize the requirements for Strategic Programme Support to ensure focus on quality programme design, results and impact, as well as a broadened assessment of sustainability.
5. CISU should reconsider the proposed mechanism for internal competition and its implications. We would also recommend that this area is reviewed by an external consultant.
6. CISU should present a plan for the transition to the new guidelines, as soon as possible. If not, it will affect on-going activities and undermine the trust of our partners.
7. The CISU system of self-administration of funds should be adjusted in line with the expansion of the CSF and the increasing complexity of grant allocation management.

We hope that our concerns and points raised above contribute to a constructive process in further developing the guidelines to provide the best possible framework for continued cooperation with our Global South partners.

On behalf of the GV Board, Lene Marie Andreasen

Specific comments and questions:

• Lines 90-92: Suggest being specific here. On page 15 (lines 344-347) it is specified that this only affects large programmes and not large grants.
• Line 154: It is confusing that the text states that there are different requirements to the partners without explaining: What are the differences in relation to which partners?
• Line 155: “This division must be jointly agreed upon and clear to all partners as well as the target group of the intervention”: What does this mean exactly? And is it realistic to involve target group at this level?
• Line 205: Consider adding link to grant admin guide.
• Lines 213-214: Is it checking or controlling? And finally, consider linking to the UN/EU list.
• Lines 220-221: In the text on involvement of private businesses it would be clearer to refer to ‘distortion of competition’ rather than ‘the rules on state subsidies’.
• Line 268: 3.1 (project support) starts here, but all sub-headings are the same as for strategic programme support 3.2. If either “project” or “programme” is added to subheadings, it will guide the reading.
• Line 285: Is it correct that there are no requirements up to 500.000 DKK and equally no requirements for up to 700.000 DKK?
• Line 288: Consider using the word “types” instead of “modalities” as the CSP is also described as a modality. Same goes for lines 335-336: We would suggest that Strategic Programme Support is a type not a modality of which there are three sub-types (small, medium and large).
• Lines 300-302: It must be clear what the graduation is - otherwise, it is very abstract and difficult to understand and use. Does it refer to the steps described later?
• Lines 339-340 (matrix): It is mentioned that small programmes can be 3-5 years and medium + large programmes can be 4-6 years; however, it is not explained what this implies: Is it a decision that the applicant makes?
• Line 342: Dividing box after the different modalities (grant types) would make it easier to get overview.
• Line 357: Is it yearly or whole phase? This is difficult to understand.
• Line 359: The explanation of consequences if own contribution is not fulfilled is described in a way that is difficult to understand.
• Lines 362-363: Who decides on what level a large programme starts?
• Foot note 9, page 15: The grant must be amount granted from MFA, and not the partners own contribution (See also general comments on own contribution).
• Lines, 382-383 (matrix), specific questions for sub-criteria:
• 2.1: How will this be assessed?
• 2.4: Seems self-evident, so is this part of criteria necessary?
• 3.1: ‘The programme addresses locally identified needs, concerns and expertise’. The sentence could be phrased: ‘The programme addresses locally identified needs and concerns based on the combined expertise of the partners’. The expertise of partners in the Global South is central, but hopefully all the partners have something to offer.
• 7.1. ‘The programme considers likely risks in the contexts’…we would suggest adding ‘and possible mitigating measures’.
• 7.2: Consider adding “and inform the Danish partner”.
• Lines 388-390: Why do small programmes have to apply before the deadline? Is it to have an idea of how much is being applied for?
• Line 413: That’s all partners, we assume.
• Line 442: Consider adding “challenges” to the word “insecurity”.
• Lines 460-546: In the current version without layout, it can be a challenge to keep track of what kind of modality (type) of grant, the section refers to. The two sections are “difficult to place and categorize”, so to speak. Moving from project and program to grants to a) co finding and b) capacity analysis, we suggest to visually mark the sections, so it becomes clear that these are not connected to either project or program support.
• Lines 493-546: In relation to capacity analysis, it is not clear what the purpose is and what the consequences are of a capacity analysis, if not in relation to an application under development. There is a need to explain this.
• Line 508: If CISU bodies decide that a capacity analysis is necessary, then is it still the Danish organization who officially apply (and using resources on writing an application)?
• Line 520: Why is Global South partner not mentioned as an actor here? With the focus on local leadership, it seems relevant, but we are not sure if it’s the case, as the purpose and consequences are not clear to us.
• Line 521: Who assess applications and make the decision on a capacity analysis is necessary?
• Line 524: Should the section 3.4.3 “Conducting a capacity analysis” be a part of these guidelines? It seems very detailed and maybe better suited elsewhere.
• Line 557: Illustration of a yearly cycle is confusing as some applications are every 2nd year. If developing an illustration that gives a good overview, then consider placing it earlier in the guidelines to help reading of different deadlines and grant modalities /types.
• Line 597: Please add where available – CISU website and link.
• Line 599: Is it the full application that is available or a short description and grant size (as on current CISU www)?

Mission Afrika and Promission have the following suggestion for changes for clarification. The current formulation leaves some uncertainties in terms of which grants that are referred to, for eligibility for programme support. This should not only be CISU grants but also include grants from other donors with similar requirements. Section Types of Support: Linje 245 Has received more than DKK 500,000 on average in grants in the last 3 years from CISU or donors with similar requirements Has received more than DKK 3 mio. on average in grants in the last 4 years from CISU or donors with similar requirements The same for section 3.2.2 Requirement (line 339). This is to ensure that members that have grants from other organisations and are no longer eligible to receive project support from CISU due to the changed maximum support (i.e. CKU members), can be eligible for programme support (both small and medium) from CISU based on their experience from project support from other donors.

DIBs høringssvar til det nye udkast til retningslinjer for CSPen

Vi anerkender det stigende pres, der er på CISUs fondsmidler og særligt Civilsamfundspuljen. Derfor har vi også været meget spændte på, hvad reformen af CSPens retningslinjer ville bringe med sig. Vi har læst og nærlæst udkastet til de nye retningslinjer, analyseret og diskuteret dem internt, med vores partnere i Syd og andre danske organisationer i vores netværk.

Generelt er vi meget positive over, at der lægges op til et øget fokus på strategiarbejdet i partnerskaberne, at give mere ansvar og lederskab til Sydpartnerne, samt at få mere stabilitet i bevillingerne. Til det nuværende høringsudkast for de nye CSP retningslinjer har vi både generelle kommentarer, anbefalinger og en masse opklarende spørgsmål til udkastet, som vi opfordrer CISU til at tage højde for i den endelige gennemarbejdning af retningslinjerne, så der er absolut klarhed over, hvad de egentlig betyder for os og vores partnere.

En reform af retningslinjerne for CSPen rækker langt ud, og specifikt har det en enorm betydning både for os i Danmark og for vores nuværende partnere og målgrupper i Bolivia, Nepal, Filippinerne, Tanzania og Ghana, samt for vores partnere i Indien, Sri Lanka og Bangladesh, som vi ikke har et aktivt projekt med, men som venter på, at vi har mulighed for at søge midler igen.

Formålet med CSPen står svagt

Vi savner, at udkastet for de nye retningslinjer lægger større vægt på det, som er hovedformålet med udviklingsbistanden jævnfør den danske udviklingspolitiske strategi for 2021-2025 - at forebygge og bekæmpe ulighed og fattigdom, forebygge konflikt, skrøbelighed, fordrivelse og irregulær migration og øge modstandsdygtigheden over for klimaforandringerne.

Som formålet er beskrevet i udkastet i retningslinjerne, så har det en kort formålsparagraf (57-59): “The purpose of the Civil Society Fund is to support the strengthening of civil societies to improve lives of people living in poverty in the Global South.” Dernæst nævnes partnerskaber, Sydpartnerne og lidt om lokaliseringsdagsordenen, som også har været et tema for reformen, den danske partners rolle (som er beskrevet ret afgrænset), noget om bæredygtighed, der hovedsageligt handler om finansiel uafhængighed af CISU, samt det nævnes at CSPen støtter forskelligartede indsatser.

Det er derfor rigtig svært at læse sig frem til, hvad det egentlig er, puljen lægger vægt på og har som formål, udover at partnerne i Syd skal have en større rolle, og at der er behov for egenfinansiering for at få midler. Vi mener, at det foreslåede formål for CSPen står svagere sammenlignet med de nuværende retningslinjer, og det vil give langt svære arbejdsbetingelser for os, vores partnere i Syd, bevillingsudvalget mm. at navigere i dette format.

Vi undrer os over, at der er et behov for at ændre på formålet med CSPen, særligt, når det ikke er det, der er blevet kommunikeret ud som årsagerne til reformen. Formålet står egentlig meget fint beskrevet i de nuværende retningslinjer for CSPen (side 6) eller i den Dansk Udviklingspolitik Strategi for 2021 til 2025 (side 7), så der kan man jo søge inspiration.

Udover at vi synes det mangler i beskrivelsen af formålet med puljen, så skinner det også igennem i selve udkastet til retningslinjerne, at god og langsigtet udvikling desværre ikke er det vigtigste formål med Civilsamfundspuljen. Det gælder f.eks. når beløbsgrænsen for små og “store” projekter er sat ned til henholdsvis 150.000 kr og 700.000 kr. (tabel start ved linje 285), der sættes begrænsning på, hvor mange ansøgninger, der må søges om året (tabel start ved linje 285); det er projektet/programmet med laveste budget, der får midlerne ved pointlighed (linje 312-313 og 437-438); nye projekter, som implementeres i forlængelse af tidligere, forventes at levere bedre resultater, selvom målgruppen eller stedet for implementering er nye (linje 240-241).

De sidste to punkter er også gældende under de nuværende retningslinjer, og vi savner generelt en erkendelse af, at udviklingsarbejde er tids- og ressourcekrævende, og ønsker man at skabe forandring og langvarig effekt, så kræver det et langt sejt træk. Hvis man med Civilsamfundspuljen har et ønske om at skabe forandring på et strukturelt plan for at mindske fattigdom og ulighed, så må formålet være at skabe de bedste betingelser for at danske organisationer i samarbejde med Sydpartnere kan få dette til at ske. Vi har set, at dette har haft en stor indflydelse på, hvordan organisationer strategisk går til værks for at få deres ansøgninger igennem eller for at nå bevillingsloftet, i stedet for kun at se på, hvad der er behov for lokalt. Og det gælder også os.

Men vi vil gerne slå et slag for, at vi hæver barren og sætter realistiske krav og forventninger til, hvad der kan lade sig gøre for de midler, der er til rådighed i den kontekst, vi arbejder i. Vi synes, det sender et uheldigt signal til omverdenen og lægger et unødigt pres på vores Sydpartnere. At udvikle for ambitiøse projekter med for stramme budgetter er ikke gavnligt for det arbejde vi og partnerne forsøger på bedste vis at gennemføre i Syd. Og det er ikke gavnligt for vores partneres trivsel, at vi bliver ved med at sætte dem i en position, hvor de skal løbe hurtigere og arbejde hårdere for færre midler. Udfordringerne lokalt bliver jo ikke mindre, bare fordi beløbsrammen, der kan søges, reduceres.

Derudover er afsnittet med bæredygtighed (fra linje 127) beskrevet noget uklart, og vores partnere savner, at afsnittet uddybes og gerne med forklaring på, hvornår CISU anser, at balancen for social bæredygtighed/miljømæssig bæredygtighed tipper.

Øget usikkerhed og ustabilitet

Et af de positive aspekter, da vi først hørte om reformen, var muligheden for at mindre organisationer også kunne få en større forudsigelighed og stabilitet gennem en 'programmodalitet', som traditionelt ligger i ordet program, og med fokus på Syd-partnerens strategi. Noget som også vores partnere var meget positive overfor. Selv med en mindre bevilling beløbsmæssigt ville det være at foretrække, da vi ville kunne spare tid på ansøgningsprocesser, administration, afrapportering, osv. Tid ville så kunne frigives til implementering, fortalervirksomhed, styrkelse af partnerskabet/partnere og diversificering af fundingmuligheder. Det ville medføre større stabilitet og bæredygtighed i projekterne og partnerskaberne.

Dog er det meget svært at se i det nuværende udkast, om det reelt vil blive sådan med de nye retningslinjer. Generelt så efterlyser vi og vores partnere større klarhed over, hvad forskellen er på de foreslåede projekt- og program-modaliteter. Der er brug for en tydeligere beskrivelse i retningslinjerne af de to modaliteter og ligeledes adgang til ansøgningsformaterne, så det bliver lettere for os og vores partnere at forholde os til, hvad det vil kræve af os at have enten et projekt eller program hos CISU.

Vi har været bekymret for, at organisationer med flere partnere i forskellige lande, og som arbejder inden for forskellige sektorer, vil blive klemt i de nye retningslinjer. Det ser ud til, at der - heldigvis - stadig er mulighed for at arbejde med flere partnere i forskellige lande, men umiddelbart under mere rigide rammer.

For den fremlagte projekt-modalitet er vores bekymring

• At midlerne man kan søge er for små - og særligt for de små projekter op til 150.000 kr. - til man reelt kan lave et projekt. Beløbsgrænsen på 200.000 kr. var fint til for-undersøgelser, opsamling af viden, events, kortvarig eller punktuel styrkelse af partnere/partnerskabet etc. Men et reelt mini-projekt var allerede svært for 200.000 kr., og vil blive endnu sværere nu. Vurderingskriterierne til små projektansøgninger er tilmed ret urealistiske med det givne budget, der kan søges (skema fra linje 307, punkt 4.4). At snakke om “bæredygtige forbedringer” og “exitstrategier” for projekter/bevillinger under 150.000 kr. synes ude af proportioner.
• Loftet på, hvor mange ansøgninger, der kan sendes ind om året, samt at afviste ansøgninger tæller som et ansøgningsforsøg, vil være en stor hæmsko for særligt de små- og mellemstore organisationer. Særligt hårdt vil det gå ud over organisationer med a) flere partnere i Syd, b) organisationer med mindre erfaring i at skrive ansøgninger, c) organisationer med frivillige, kompetente ildsjæle, som sammen med vores partnere ønsker at udvikle et projekt og skrive en ansøgning til Civilsamfundspuljen. Det fjerner den fleksibilitet, vi har brug for i koordineringen af ansøgninger med vores partnere i Syd og hæmmer muligheder for justering af vores arbejde og planlægning.
• Der vil opstå situationer, hvor et afslag på en ansøgning vil betyde, at den "næste i rækken" af vores partnere, som skulle søge om bevilling sammen med os, må vente til året efter, selvom den danske organisation ikke har nået bevillingsloftet. Dette kan ske, hvis en genansøgning prioriteres frem for en ny ansøgning. Og selvom det ikke sker, er det stadig potentiel lang tid at vente på en genansøgning, hvis der stadig er plads i henhold til organisationens bevillingsloftet. Forudsigeligheden og planlægningen i partnerskabet/-erne vil derfor være yderst påvirket af denne begrænsning.
• Organisationerne vil blive mindre risikovillige, åbne for at tage chancer og dermed hæmmes innovative løsninger og afsøgning af nye metoder og områder. Dette både i forhold til projekters scope, at mindre stærke partnere vil blive klemt og endda fravalgt, ligesom ansvaret for at skrive ansøgninger i høj grad vil blive på den danske organisation - og sandsynligvis hos de mest erfarne personer og ikke nye ansatte/unge frivillige ildsjæle - for at forsøge at højne sandsynligheden for en godkendelse. Man øger samtidig risikoen for, at det vil være den danske organisation, der sætter rammerne for hvilke (typer) projekter, der prioriteres, frem for at bero på Sydpartnerens strategi. Alt dette vil modarbejde lokaliseringsdagsordenen.

For den fremlagte program-modalitet, har vi ligeledes nogle bekymringer, samt en del uafklarede spørgsmål.

Det er svært at læse ud fra retningslinjerne, hvad en program-modalitet præcist indebærer. Der står i fodnoten på side 12: "The strategic plan can take different forms, e.g. vision/mission statement, strategy, organisational plans among other things. Essentially it states the goals of the organization/movement and the work to achieve these." Det lyder i sig selv forholdsvis simpelt, men når man læser nærmere under afsnittet omkring ansøgningsprocessen, så bliver det for det første ikke uddybet nærmere for små programmer (fra linje 388-393), og for mellem og store programmer, så bliver det nævnt at være 1 ud af fire kriterier (linje 416-421), partnerskabet skal vurderes på.

Fordelene ved at overgå til en programmodalitet for særligt de mindre og mellemstor organisation er ikke beskrevet i dybden, og flere af vores partnere har specifikt udtrykt bekymring for, at fleksibiliteten forsvinder ved denne modalitet. Beløbsmæssigt så svarer det foreslåede lille program til et mellem/stort projekt for maks 4.5 mio. kr. under de nuværende retningslinjer, men med de begrænsninger på, hvor mange ansøgninger man må sende ind for både projekter og programmer, som der lægges op til, så virker det umiddelbart som en større begrænsning end før.

Det er uklart for os, hvordan det foreslåede bevillingsloft på 5 mio. kr. pr. år regnes ud (linje 261-264 og skemaet side 14); er det et samlet beløb for et program/projekt man søger om året, som det er gældende nu, eller om det er den årlige bevilling (f.eks. 0,8 - 1,3 mio kr. for et lille program) man regner med? Eftersom den samlede sum for mellem programmer overstiger 5 mio. kr., så antager vi, at det er den årlige bevilling man regner ud, så det derfor også er muligt at have mere end et mindre program. Men vi er usikre på, om det skal forstås sådan.

I linie 246 står der “* A Danish organisation can only hold one active medium or large programme at a time.”, men der er ikke sådan en udspecificering for de små programmer. Skal det forstås således, at de små programmer kan bevilges hvert år, blot man holder sig til maks 2 (eller 3?) programmer indenfor de økonomiske rammer for 5 mio. kr. for det pågældende år, man søger? Man skal ikke regne eksisterende programmer fra forrige år med i sit bevillingsloft?

Det er også uklart, hvor mange ansøgninger man må sende ind som organisation. Forvirringen opstår, når man læser i skemaet på side 14, nederste kolonne,: “Yes, but only small programmes up to organisational grant ceiling. However, maximum 3 applications for small programmes per year.” Sætningen: “However, maximum 3 applications for small programmes per year”, bliver modsagt i linje 392 - 393: “Be aware that the Danish applicant can only submit two applications per calendar year – either two in one round or one in each of the two rounds. A re-submission also counts as an application.” Så hvad er det korrekte antal ansøgninger og bevillinger, en organisation kan sende ind/have per år?

Anbefaling

Vi anbefaler at fjerne loftet over antallet af ansøgninger og gen-ansøgninger, der kan sendes ind om året. Så længe organisationen holder sig under bevillingsloftet, bør det være muligt at sende mere end max tre ansøgninger ind om året for henholdsvis små og store projekter. Dette skal gøre sig gældende både for projekter og for de små programmer.

Vi anbefaler generelt at beløbene til projekterne sættes op, både for små og store projekter. Hvis det ikke er muligt, så bør kravet sættes ned til, hvad der skal leveres ift. Vurderingskriterierne, og særligt for de små projekter. Vi anbefaler, at det står skrevet helt tydeligt i retningslinjerne, hvordan bevillingsloftet regnes ud.

Egenfinansiering

"All interventions supported by the Civil Society Fund are expected to include own contributions. However, it is only a requirement for larger grants to contribute with financial resources". (linje 91-92).

Kravet om egenfinansiering efterlader også en meget stor udfordring og usikkerhed hos os og vores partnere. Først og fremmest, så er det uklart, hvad der anses som værende “larger grants”. Vurderes et projekt over 150.000 DKK for en stor bevilling? I vurderingskriterierne gives der point for eget bidrag for projekter op til 700.000 kr. (nederste kolonne i skemaet på side 12). Men vi antager dog at kravet om egenfinansiering går på program-modaliteterne. Det er ligeledes uklart, hvordan man vil regne egenfinansieringen ud, og hvad vi kan tælle med som egenfinansiering. Vi kan ikke ud fra udkastet læse, om midler fra andre af CISUs puljer, Globalt Fokus, GLOBUS, Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen, m.v. kan regnes med, samt hvordan det skal afrapporteres, og om kravet også gælder partnerne. Men usikkerheden bunder hovedsageligt i, at vi er reelt bekymret for, at et krav om egenfinansiering vil betyde enden på vores organisation indenfor en overskuelig årrække.

Det er et voldsomt krav at pålægge organisationerne, at deres egenfinansiering pludselig går fra 0- 5 %, 10% og helt op til 15- 20% for store programmer og vi mener også det er urealistisk højt krav at stille til organisationerne. Måske lyder 5% ikke af meget, men lad os lige regne på kravene for egenfinansiering for et lille program. Vi regner med den længste programperiode muligt, da vi antager at større stabilitet er at foretrække for bevillingshaveren:

Ansøgt beløb i alt Varighed af program Samlet EF Årlig EF

• 0.8 million kr per år 5 år 5% = 200.000 kr 40.000 kr.
• 1.3 million kr per år 5 år 5% = 325.000 kr 65.000 kr.

Som vi læser retningslinjerne, så må man gerne søge små programmer hvert år, uafhængigt af, hvor mange man har i forvejen, bare man holder sig inden for bevillingsloftet for ansøgningsåret (skema side 339). Det vil sige, at hvis du har f.eks. tre små programmer på samme tid - hvilket ikke er urealistisk for en organisation med flere partnere i forskellige lande, og fordi det lader til, at CISU gerne vil have flere over på den lille program modalitet - så vil din årlige egenfinansiering ligge mellem 120.000 kr. og 195.000 kr over fem år - og endnu højere skulle du have en kortere programperiode. Det er virkelig mange penge/frivillige timer/lokaler, der skal indgå i det regnskab.

Hvor skal pengene komme fra? Vi har i flere år ledt med lys og lygte efter andre finansieringsmuligheder - både hos virksomheder, fonde, nationale og internationale donorer - men uden held. Vi tænker ikke, vi er de eneste med de udfordringer. Og opgaven bliver ikke lettere af, at vi alle sammen skal ud og finde penge de samme steder. Som plaster på såret, så er det muligt for de små programmer (og ikke de to andre program-modaliteter) at tælle eget bidrag med som egenfinansiering. Det er bestemt at foretrække end 100% finansielle inputs, men frivillighed er heller ikke gratis i tid og ressourcer. Frivillige skal hverves, engageres, opkapaciteres, understøttes og fastholdes. Samtidig er frivillighed som begreb i konstant bevægelse, og betyder noget forskelligt alt efter hvem du spørger. Det stiller store krav til os som organisationer, at vi kan imødekomme de frivillige, deres ønsker og krav for deres frivillighed. En fleksibilitet som måske ikke altid stemmer overens med ønsket om at lave langsigtet bæredygtig udvikling.

Desuden vil vi også gerne problematisere, at frivilliges tid skal gøres op i kroner og øre. Det er både en uhensigtsmæssig tendens som kan være med til at kvæle engagementet, samt et ekstra administrationskrav, der pålægges os som organisationer og de frivillige.

Vi frygter, at en fastholdelse af kravet vil betyde, at CISUs pulje bliver for en særlig gruppe af organisationer - dem med mange frivillige, mange medlemmer, dem som allerede har adgang til andre fonde og indsamlinger og/eller arbejder med dagsordner, som har stor bevågenhed - og at det vil gå ud over mangfoldigheden i civilsamfundet og CISUs medlemmer.

Oveni kravet om egenfinansiering er også de andre justeringer (bevillingsloftet, loft over antallet af ansøgninger, der må sendes ind), som øger forventningerne og kravet til, hvad der skal leveres, men nu blot med færre ressourcer tilgængelig. Det føles som en dobbelt straf, da det er de færreste som får alle projekter godkendt i første forsøg alligevel. Hele snakken om at skabe et stabilt grundlag for udviklingsarbejdet klinger hult.

I linje 330 - 333 står der: “Engaging in partnerships over multiple years the partners can engage in the work to create sustainable change – both in the local context and in Denmark, and to strengthen and diversify funding to further reinforce the predictability and stability of funding.” Vi nødt til at gøre opmærksom på, at den stabilitet, der nævnes og koblingen til at diversificere midler, ikke er noget partnerne eller de danske organisationer har haft særlig gode muligheder for at opnå under CISUs nuværende projektstøtteform. Vi har brugt mange ressourcer på at søge projekter, genansøge, implementere, monitorere, afrapportere, og søge nye projekter, at der ikke har været luft eller overskud eller ressourcer til at kigge særlig langt og længe efter andre funding muligheder. Vi er hoppet fra tue til tue. Derfor er kravet om 5% egenfinansiering allerede i første runde for de små programmer et stort og hårdt krav.

Anbefaling

Vi foreslår, at kravet om egenfinansiering helt fjernes. Skulle der blive et krav om egenfinansiering alligevel, så vil vi opfordre til, at kravet til egenfinansiering selvfølgelig er væsentlig lavere, end hvad DANIDAs SPA partnere oplever af krav, og at der er en overgangsperiode, hvor organisationerne får mulighed for at justere sig ind gradvis. Det er dog fortrøstningsfuldt, at in-kind bidrag må tælle med for de små programmer, og med tanke på, hvor svært det er at skaffe egenfinansering og frivillige, så bør det også være muligt for medium og store programmer at tælle in-kind bidrag med, eventuelt med en grænse på, hvor meget kan være in-kind bidrag.

Vi vil også opfordre til at kravet sættes ned til 2 - 2,5 % for små programmer, 5 % for medium programmer og maks 10% for store programmer og at det desuden ikke skal gå til at understøtte programmet specifikt, men som yderligere midler til understøttede arbejde på CSP’en.

Sidst men ikke mindst vil vi gerne appellere til at forenklingsdagsordenen ikke glemmes helt i denne proces, og dokumenteringen af en egenfinansiering ikke må lægge yderligere krav på og bureaukrati over bevillingshaverne.

Opklarende spørgsmål til egenfinansiering

Skemaet linje 360 er ikke helt lige til at forstå. Først i step 1, hvor det først efter lang tid gik op for os, at farven var både grøn og gul. Dernæst forstår vi ikke springet for egenfinansieringen mellem programmerne: først 5% - 10% - 12% - 15%. Hvad er logikken i, at det så ikke hver gang stiger med den samme sats? Og med udregningen på side 6 i vores høringssvar in mente, så er der tale om store spring beløbsmæssigt, som vil være en udfordring for organisationerne. Det er ligeledes uvist, om kravet stiger yderligere efter de 15 % og 20%, når man er nået til step 4 (skema fra linje 360), eller om det reelt betyder, der er en udløbsdato på ens muligheder for at søge yderligere midler hos CISU?

Deadlines for ansøgninger

Vi ser gerne, at deadlines for alle projektansøgningerne indføres, som udkastet lægger op til. Det er et nødvendigt redskab til at sikre forudsigeligheden, og at midlerne til projekterne ikke slipper op før tid, og en masse organisationers arbejde med ansøgningerne går til spilde.

Bestyrelsens beføjelser

Linje 608 - 610: “Every year, CISU’s Board determines, upon approval by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what share of the total Civil Society Fund will be allocated to the different types of support modalities.” Da bestyrelsen i CISU består af skiftende repræsentanter for medlemsorganisationerne, er det svært at forestille sig, at bestyrelsesmedlemmerne kan forblive objektive i denne beslutningsproces, særligt når der er et stigende pres på fondene og adgangen til midler. Desuden vil muligheden for at lave årlige ændringer også skabe stor usikkerhed for alle, og valg til bestyrelsen på den årlige generalforsamling i CISU vil gå op i hat og briller. Derfor opfordrer vi på det kraftigste til, at denne beslutning ligger hos CISUs sekretariat, som også har den nødvendige viden og kompetencer til at kunne træffe sådanne beslutninger.

Fejl, mangler og forslag til forbedringer

• Der er lidt uoverensstemmelser i skemaet på side 8 og den nedenstående tekst omkring førstegangsansøgere.
• Linje 251 “A first-time applicant can apply for projects up to DKK 500,000.”
• Linje 252 - 254 “To apply for projects and programmes of more than DKK 500,000, the applicant organisation must have completed at least one intervention with a grant of more than DKK 200,000 funded by CISU or a donor with similar reporting requirements to those of CISU and/or the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

I skemaet står der, at man kun kan søge små projekter som førstegangsansøgere. Her er loftet 150.000 kr.

• 1) Hvorfor står der, at man kan søge op til 500.000 kr., hvis det ikke er korrekt?
• 2) Hvordan skal man kunne gå over 500.000 kr., hvis man skal have haft et projekt større end 200.000 kr - men stadig kun kan søge små projekter til maks 150.000 kr?

Linje 290: Vores partnere efterspørger en lidt mere tydelig definition på, hvad major constructions er. Generelt er det meget svært at læse retningslinjerne og danne sig et overblik. Tabellerne på side 8, 9-10 og 14 - hvis de bibeholdes - bør gøres mere læsevenlige. Man kan med fordel samle dem lidt mere, så man undgår at skulle bladre frem og tilbage hele tiden. Man kunne også overveje at dele retningslinjerne op i to, så der bliver en mere enkelt skrevet version for de organisationer, som udelukkende går efter projektmodaliteten.

Sidst vil vi gerne lufte vores uforståenhed over, hvorfor så gennemgribende en reform er nødvendig, hvis det blot handler om at få spredt de tilgængelige midler ud. At lave en solidarisk omfordeling, så alle nuværende projektorganisationer ville få et bevillingsloft på 5 mio. kr. om året, og programmerne fik en tilsvarende procentvis reduktion, ville have medført en mindre ressourcekrævende process og mindre splittelse blandt CISUs medlemmer.

På vegne af DIBs bestyrelse,

Michael Jes Vogt

Formand

Medunderskrivere - Ghana Youth Guide og ALTERPLAN. Resten af vores partnere har vi drøftet udkastet med og fået inputs fra, men de nåede ikke at tilkendegive deres interesse i at være medunderskriver på det endelige dokument før deadline.

Comments from IAS-DK to the Draft Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund

IAS-DK would like to thank CISU for a well formulated, well thought and well-structured draft of the new guidelines for the CSF Fund. We have discussed the draft in our teams and agree with the overall purpose and principles of the CSF. In addition, we kindly invite CISU to consider our comments to the draft:

Line 187 ff: CKU and CISU have differences in guidelines, and often members of CKU, DUF, DPOD, DPID has a disadvantage to members with only CISU membership. We therefore suggest the following added to line 191: When access to funds, their terms, conditions, and requirements differ from CISU, members have the right to on their own to decide whether to approach CISU or alternate organization for funding for similar modalities.

Line 200 ff.: The Global South partners may include other national or local CSO’s as co-implementing partners to the main CSO-partner.

Line 244-245: It would be good to clarify that prior grant only covers grants from the CSF – not from other funds administered by CISU. Consider decreasing the max. total for a large program from 8.5 Mio. DKK per year to somewhere above 5 Mio. DKK per year (ex. 7 Mio. DKK per year / 28 Mio. DKK in total). This will make room for more funding of projects.

Line 246: Gaps in funding should be avoided due to reasons of impact, momentum, retention of staff with South partners and Danish member-organizations. We therefore suggest to add to line 246: A transition process from a medium to a large programme will planned by CISU, so programme holders does not have funding gaps in the transition.

Line 321: The further development, implementation and organization of the strategic plans of the Global South partners can be part of a programme application.

Line 344 ff.: Own contribution for strategic programmes above 5 Mio. DKK may also include in-kind contributions in the Global South or in Denmark (converted into an estimated amount). Not sure if co-financing can include grants from other Danish donors.

Line 360: Consider relating the own contributions to the grant modality instead of using “steps”. Decrease the requirement of own contribution and use a more simple scale (ex. 5 % for projects and 10 % for programmes – still, the actual own contribution will increase alongside the total budget).

Line 382 ff.: Consider replacing MEL with MEAL. Switch the weighting of sub-criteria 8.1 and 8.2 to 20 % for 8.1 and 30 % for 8.2.

Line 396: The application round must be once a year for medium and large programmes.

Line 398: It must be possible to apply for both a medium programme and a small programme per round (two applications).

Line 401 ff.: The steps are too long lasting. The Relevance and Capacity assessment must come right after CISU’s check of the expression of interest. The eventual invitation to apply must come not later than in the end of March – (end of) May is too close to the summer vacations in Denmark.

Line 409 ff.: Step 2 should not apply to existing programme organisations applying for a new phase of an on-going programme. They have already been subject to a capacity assessment and their track record, achievements etc. are already addressed and documented in the Final Report/Mid-term Review/yearly consultations with CISU regarding the previous phase.

Line 444: The challenges regarding funding gaps due to having to re-apply for a medium or large programme will be relieved, if the application round for medium and large programmes is once a year instead of only every second year and the on-going programme can be extended with one year (with no additional funds).

Line 446: To have to apply for a continuation of an on-going programme two years prior to the end date of the program is too early.

Line 450: Extending with one year does not seem to stretch the grant to the end of the next application process, if you can only reapply every second year.

Line 452: Option 2 will be complicated.

Line 460 ff.: The flexibility and short case processing time of submitting an application for funding diversification is very much appreciated. It is understood that it can be submitted regardless of whether you have an on-going programme or not. It is also interpreted that a planned application for funding diversification can be part of the funding diversification plan in the application for a programme.

Thank you very much for inviting us to comment on the draft guidelines for the CSF. We hope that our comments will be considered by CISU, and you are most welcome to contact IAS-DK for clarifications and/or to reply to our comments.

Yours sincerely,

IAS-DK

International Børnesolidaritet Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund (CSP)

As indicated in former consultation responses, International Børnesolidaritet strongly supports the increased orientation towards locally led development and acknowledges the need for the Danish civil society organizations in CISU to find solutions to a situation where an increasing number of collaborations worthy of support do not obtain it. In this response, we will focus on the concrete content of the Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund (CSP), consultation version 21-06-2024.

Introduction

We see a need to clarify the following:

• Box, page 3, Definition of locally led: Clarify that the term “local” does not necessarily mean at community level, but instead refers to the actors originating from the geographic locations where development work is being done, whether they are operating within or across community, sub-national, or national levels. (cf. Conducive Space, link)
• Section 1.1 (purpose) and 1.2 (principles): It is recommendable to not only refer to the CSP being guided by a human rights-based approach (HRBA) but also incorporate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the core principle of leaving no one behind, as these represent the commitment of all stakeholders to eradicate poverty, terminate exclusion and discrimination, as well as reduce inequalities.

Strategic Programme Support

We are happy to see that the programme continues as a modality, as the prolonged, flexible cooperation between multiple partners makes it possible to create a joint effort that supports real, sustainable, and measurable changes. We find it very positive that more civil society collaborations will have access to this modality and hope CISU will be able to raise additional funds to meet the qualified applications.

Section 3.2.3: Own Contribution, Page 15

We interpret that there will be a progressive implementation of the percentage indicated, i.e., that it will be in the final year of a 4-year phase that the full amount of own contribution is demanded. We find it positive that programme organizations have time to find alternative funding solutions. We urge that the CSP does not put forward even tougher requirements than required by the SPA organizations. Instead, reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality must be applied in the requirements to be met by programme organizations.

Criteria for a Programme

We see a need to clarify the following sections:

• Criteria 2, page 16, pkt. 2.3: It is positive that in the criteria of partnership there is an emphasis on that it is locally led. We suggest that there is a reformulation of the criteria: "Global South partner is the primary decision maker in the partnership." What does this actually mean? Supposedly it is in line with the distribution of responsibilities agreed upon by all the partners involved in the programme? And what about the co-creating and joint decision-making spaces between all partners. Is that included in a formulation like this?
• Criteria 8, page 17: Sustainability should be understood broader than financial sustainability, including organizational and democratic sustainability.

Section 3.2.6: Application Process, Page 18

To ensure that it becomes a real strengthening of local agency and leadership with increased flexibility, and that we as Danish civil society can actively contribute to and implement the 'shifting the power' agenda, we wish to bring attention to the following concerns:

• It is unclear how the programmes, which are supposed to apply for a new phase in 2025, are situated. Are the organizations supposed to follow the application process described, which in reality is intended to give programmes a year to adjust if they are not granted a programme? We see this as going against the intentions of sustainability. We underscore the need to create a bridging mechanism for those who may not obtain the funding.
• We worry that a rushed process - where a potential first deadline is the 1st of January 2025 - will undermine the good intentions of ensuring a co-creating process based on the principles of shifting the power. The guidelines of the programme cannot be finished before the guidelines of the Civil Society Fund (CSP) are, and if we do not know the framework before the last minute, effectively it bears the risk of centralizing instead of democratizing decision making.
• We recognize there is an intention to make some administrative processes easier, acknowledging that these take many resources from both the applicant and CISU. However, it seems to us that the application process has become even heavier, and that deadlines have been pushed forward to the beginning of the process.

Section 3.2.7: Internal Competition, Page 19

With the redesign of the CSP, more organizations will be given the opportunity to become a programme. We welcome this, as we believe many organizations and collaborations will benefit from more stable and flexible funding. However, we also find it important to consider the following:

• Lines 436-437: “If there is applied for more money than available, the applicants with the highest score will receive a grant” should be replaced with, as suggested by Aktion Amazonas: "Approval and continuation of a programme in subsequent phases will be based on a professional assessment of results. If CISU anticipates a general decline in CSP funding, all programmes will be reduced by a proportional percentage, with advance notice provided. Conversely, if CISU anticipates an increase in funds in the CSP, the programme modality will be allocated additional funds accordingly."
• Lines 437-438: “In case more than one applicant shares the same score, the applicant with the smallest budget amount will be granted and so forth” is recommended to be deleted in accordance with the justification stated by Aktion Amazonas.
• It is not clear in the guidelines if the medium-size and large programmes are in direct competition with one another. We recommend a minimum allocation for medium and large programmes respectively. This may also be fairer for the smaller organizations, as medium and large programmes that are not granted a programme will most likely instead apply for project funds, thus increasing the competition for these funds.

Section 2.1: Requirements for the Danish Partner Organization

Lines 168-175: We agree that the CSP must support a broad, diverse civil society. However, we also find that it is only fair to ask of the Danish civil society what we ask of those in the Global South; that there is popular support, engagement, and legitimacy in the Danish Civil Society implementing projects and programmes financed by Danish public funds (this can be defined in many ways, from the number of volunteers to paying supporters). Overall, we find that the minimum requirements in terms of number of members for Danish organizations applying for up to or more than 500,000 DKK is unambitious and not in line with the objectives of the CSP.

As civil society organizations, we have to look critically at ourselves in terms of our legitimacy and popular support. It would only be fair – recalling there are no requirements for the size of the contribution made by the members - to require a minimum of 50 active supporters for applications up to 500,000 DKK, and at least 200 members for medium and large programme applications. Having said that, we strongly support that social movements and/or younger organizations can also access funds in their support for civil societies in the Global South. A solution could be to flexibilize the demands by, for example, demanding either a minimum of 50 paying contributors or activists putting in hours or having crowdfunding or otherwise collected an amount that will be matched by an equal amount by CISU (with the limit of 499,999 DKK).

In relation to “younger” organizations, a solution could be that more experienced organizations host or otherwise accompany them in the beginning. This could help both the younger organization gain knowledge and learn from the experience; it could inspire the “older” organization; and it would create relations between bigger and smaller member-organizations, which in total can create a stronger Danish civil society.

GAME's Feedback on the Draft Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund (CSP)

At GAME, we appreciate the opportunity to give input to the new guidelines for the Civil Society Fund. Along with 20 other organisations, we have developed a common response to the guidelines and look forward to seeing reflections of that in the new version of the guidelines. Nevertheless, we would like to highlight a few additional points that we think should also be adjusted:

Eligibility for Project and Program Support

For the project support (line 245), CISU is using the following wording regarding eligibility: "The applicant has completed at least one CISU grant above DKK 200,000 or carried out a similar intervention with reporting requirements corresponding to those of CISU and/or the MFA."

As a principle, we believe that funding from CISU and/or the MFA should also be applicable when it comes to the eligibility for applying to programs and their respective sizes. Seen from our perspective, it does not make sense that organizations who are implementing grants for above 5 million DKK a year from MFA following DANIDA aid management guidelines would not be eligible to apply for medium programs with CISU, who are managing MFA funds.

We suggest revising the eligibility criteria to ensure that organizations with substantial experience managing larger MFA grants are not excluded from applying for medium-sized programs under CISU. This will align the eligibility requirements across different funding sources and reflect the experience and capacity of the applicant organizations.

Consultation Response August 2024

From:

1. 100% for the Children
2. Action Child Aid/Aktion Børnehjælp
3. Alternatives to Separation (ATOS)
4. Danish Ecovillage Network / Landsforeningen for Økosamfund (LØS)
5. Danish-Vietnamese Association/Dansk Vietnamesisk Forening (DAVIFO)
6. Early Care International
7. Engineers without Borders/Ingeniører Uden Grænser
8. GAME
9. Heritage International
10. IGF Danmark
11. Kvindernes U-Lands Udvalg (KULU)
12. Mi Cuerpo/Min Krop
13. MiMundo
14. Periamma
15. Permaculture Denmark
16. SDG World
17. Seniors without Borders/Seniorer Uden Grænser
18. Skoleliv i Nepal
19. Spor Media
20. Ubumi Prisons Initiative Denmark
21. Ulandsforeningen Svalerne

Some of the above organisations have taken the time to reach out and discuss the draft guidelines with their partners, others have not. Of all the partners contacted, all have decided to be co-signatories:

1. Mi Cuerpo/Min Krop Colombia
2. Mi Cuerpo-Min Krop México
3. Ubumi Prisons Initiative Zambia

Introduction

We would like to first take the opportunity to commend CISU for attempting to find a balanced solution to the difficult situation of the under-financing of the Civil Society Fund. The group agrees with the justifications provided by CISU in terms of a reform, especially when it comes to re-allocation of funds based on the principles of solidarity, as well as the wish to create more long-term programmes creating a foundation for increased sustainability, predictability and quality in the work. This is commendable. In this way, we support:

• The guidelines continue to rest on principles of Poverty Orientation, Human Rights, and Do-No-Harm and principles of Sustainability
• The possibility of applying for longer programs (timewise)
• Splitting up the earlier larger program modality into three
• The increased demands for self-financing or co-financing especially for larger programs (p 341 pp, 360 pp, 460 pp and 477 pp) and the allocated percentages
• The Shortlisting modality (Expression of Interest for Medium and Larger Programs)

Grant Sizes, Deadlines, Finances and Cap on Applications

• We recommend lowering the large program grant ceiling to a maximum grant of annually 5 million for all organisations based on the principles of solidarity, which CISU wishes this reform to rest on. We recognise that there are currently a few organisations who have historically received very large grants. Our recommendation is that they get 2 years to adjust their portfolio downwards and/or to seek out alternative funding for their work. Under the circumstances, it is regrettably not possible to continue support with such large grants especially looking at the wish for re-allocation on principles of solidarity.
• It is essential that the expected co-financing for medium and larger programs is kept at what the guidelines propose, which is actual monetary contributions. Only small programs may take in-kind contributions into account. Equally, it is essential that medium and larger programs now must compete for funds, rather than having their grants more or less automatically renewed.
• Importantly, the cap on the number of project and small program applications of 3 per year (243 pp., 285 pp.) should be removed or the number increased. There is now a grant ceiling of 5 million, which is already a reduction. We suggest all organisations navigate within that ceiling and decide for themselves how they would like their project/program portfolio to be composed. Here, we encourage that CISU considers how to allocate funds for especially the categories of large projects and small programs, which are the ones hardest hit by the rejections due to lack of funds (339 pp.), whilst it is also the category which most often need more longer-term sustainability.
• Importantly, a rejected application should not count the same as an awarded application. We strongly advise that this is deleted.
• In the new guidelines CISU proposes to move away from the current situation, where organisations can apply at any time during the year. In recent years however, the fund modality has had to close early due to lack of funds. CISU proposes to address this with 3 annual deadlines, but this will mean that organisations are now competing against each other (earlier they would get the grant if they qualified) and a scoring system will have to be implemented. The process becomes longer and heavier, meaning that fast responses to a given situation become more difficult, and we will now get a new situation with rejections due to lack of funds, again prolonging the process. If deadlines must be introduced, we encourage that organisations can apply 4 times a year, so that organisations can at least get clarity relatively quickly.
• The planned for self-financing of 5% for smaller programs includes volunteer work. We suggest volunteer work, as well as salaries in general should refer to for instance Rates for Technical Assistance (TA) by Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Localisation and Partnerships

We wish to draw attention to CISU’s own principles outlined in the Thematic Paper on Partnerships, which states: ‘CISU views partnership as cooperation between two or more civil society organisations, which, having negotiated a shared foundation, enable each other to carry out activities and develop each other’s competencies and strengths. Accordingly, the objective of a partnership is both to implement interventions together and to develop each other organisationally and workwise’ (p. 1).

The localisation agenda is already very strong in the work that CISU members and their partners conduct, and it seems that in for instance section 1.1 and in the assessment criteria matrices starting in sentence 307 and 382 (with the sentence ‘2.2 The Global South partner(s) is the primary decision maker in the partnership’) seem to move away from principles of equality and mutual respect, which are critical to almost any successful collaborative effort. The proposed guidelines seem to devaluate and undermine the role of the Danish partner, not only in terms of decision making but also in terms of the role of the Danish partner during implementation. As seen in CISU’s own words in the quote above the intention should be to develop each other, as well the work. It is the complementarity that makes a positive difference. Here, both the South partner and the Danish partner bring something of value to the table. It is often in the shape of technical assistance (in terms of know-how within a specific field, be it climate, human rights, engineering skills, research capacity or other), which builds the capacity of the local partners and target groups. It is exactly the co-creation of knowledge and solutions, which can move agendas and support solutions, which are relevant to local needs.

CISU signs a contract with the Danish partner, and thus assigns formal responsibility for implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and financial oversight and liability to the Danish partner, while it now (in the matrix) grants the Global South the primary decision authority, which seems contradictory in terms, and does not only seem unfair but also creates unacceptable terms for the Danish partner and consequently cause imbalance that undermines the partnership's effectiveness.

• We therefore strongly suggest a rephrasing of section 1.1. and 2.2. to include principles of mutual respect, diversity, co-creation of knowledge and solutions, as well as principles of equality, all of course with the end goal of projects and programmes suited to local challenges and needs.
• Further, the abovementioned sentence in the assessment criteria matrix (global south partner is primary decision maker) should be deleted or changed to speak to the relationship between the Danish and the Global South partner(s) or the strengthening of the partners and partnership. We suggest the following formulation: Instead of primary decision maker in 2.2.; The Global South partner is an equal decision maker.

More Specific Comments

• The guidelines are difficult to read and understand.
• It is unclear how organisations can grow in CISU between the different categories. We recommend a clearer stepwise explanation on how to get from for instance small to medium program.
• We also encourage that CISU considers how to support proposals with more than one Danish partner (working then with most likely two or more Global South partners). The more we work together, the higher impact. This however needs to be supported financially and administratively as well and we encourage CISU to consider how this could be done.
• We equally encourage that CISU considers how to incorporate partnerships between Danish civil society organizations and cross-sectoral private-public sectors in models and criteria.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide consultation responses. We look forward to seeing the final version of the guidelines and continue our collaboration.

With kind regards,

The Network of Small and Medium-sized Civil Society Organizations and partners

Kære CISU,

Tak for udkastet til de nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen. Vi vil først og fremmest gerne rose den nye opdeling af modaliteter under Civilsamfundspuljen. Særligt er vi glade for, at I tog ideen om en ny programmodalitet med forskellige niveauer til jer. Den understøtter langt bedre organisationer som vores, der arbejder på en programlignende måde med udviklingsinterventioner i forlængelse og videreudvikling af hinanden over en længere årrække. Den nye programmodalitet giver derfor bedre mening i måden, udviklingsarbejdet udtænkes, og gør det hurtigere for organisationer som vores at kunne komme ind i en programmodalitet, som indtil nu har taget en del år at kvalificere os til.

Som det fremgår i de nye retningslinjer, ser ansøgningsprocessen til medium- og stort program dog ikke ud til at være gjort ’slankere’, som det oprindeligt blev meldt ud ved høringsmøderne tidligere på året. Processen fremstår fortsat lige ressourcekrævende for organisationerne. Det bekymrer os, at man efter at have gennemgået denne lange proces kan få afvist sin ansøgning med begrundelsen ’manglende midler’. På grund af den lange og krævende ansøgningsproces opfordrer vi kraftigt CISU til ikke at slippe flere organisationer gennem til ansøgningens sidste runde, end der er midler til. Ydermere bør der fastlægges et årligt minimumsbeløb allokeret til programmerne, som bestyrelsen ikke kan gå under. Med det nuværende udkast til retningslinjerne vil der formodentlig komme langt flere programmer grundet det lave ansøgningsloft på projekter (som er nedsat fra 4,5 mio. kroner til 700.000 kroner).

For os fremstår det ikke klart, hvilket årligt beløb man vil modtage som fx medium-programorganisation. Om det er et budget, man selv fastsætter inden for loftet, eller om det er en sats, der er givet på forhånd ud fra antal modtagne bevillinger de forudgående finansielle år.

Det fremgår, at det nu bliver bevillinger fra de forudgående fire og ikke tre finansielle år, som kvalificerer organisationen til at søge et medium-program. Det bliver udfordrende at leve op til kravene over en fireårig periode med den store konkurrence og pres, der er på midlerne i Civilsamfundspuljen. Alternativt skal CISU åbne op for, at administrationen af andre større fondsbevillinger fra eksempelvis private fonde kan tælle med. Det vil i øvrigt også understøtte CISUs ønske om, at medlemsorganisationerne skal diversificere deres funding og dermed gøre sig mindre afhængige af CISU.

Det vil være kritisk for os, hvis kravet om de gennemsnitlige 3 mio. kroner bevilgede midler over de fire forudgående finansielle år (frem for tre år) allerede indføres pr 1. januar 2025. Vi (og sikkert andre organisationer) vil ikke kunne nå at tilpasse os de nye krav med så kort varsel. En blidere indfasning kunne derfor passende tænkes ind i: "There will be a transition period moving from the current Civil Society Fund to the new Civil Society Fund, including a structure for current partnerships and programmes so they do not have to start building their qualifying portfolio from scratch.” Der mangler desuden at blive præsenteret en konkret plan for denne indfasning.

Vi er positive overfor, at naturalier såsom løn- og frivilligtimer nu også kan tælle med som egenfinansiering. Det er dog ikke tydeligt i afsnit 3.2.3, om man kan medtælle naturalier som bevilget program på under 5 mio. kroner årligt eller på under 5 mio. kroner for hele programperioden.

Til sidst vil vi gerne foreslå, at det bør være et krav, at bevillingskonsulenterne og bevillingsudvalget i scoringen af ansøgningerne redegør for, hvorfor den højeste score i givet fald ikke er tildelt, således organisationerne har bedre forudsætninger for at forbedre sin ansøgning til en eventuel ny ansøgningsrunde.

Med venlig hilsen,

Tandsundhed Uden Grænser

Høringssvar VedvarendeEnergi - Puljereform af Civilsamfundspuljen

Nærværende høringssvar er svar på høringsudgaven af ”Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund” som blev annonceret i høring 27. juni frem til 30 august 2024. Den samlede respons omhandler endvidere ”Notat vedr. processen bag reformen af Civilsamfundspuljen”, som høringssvaret skal ses i sammenhæng med.

Høringssvaret fokuserer på ét generelt princip og tre mere specifikke, som bør følges. [se note]

Generelle kommentarer:

Dokumentet bør gennemgås således at der ikke stilles større krav til organisationer i CISU end til SPA organisationer. (eksempler fremføres nedenfor, men er givetvis ikke udtømmende)

A) Kravsafstemthed vs princip med ligebehandling:

• Linje 369-71: “The assessment is also guided by three overall principles: 1) There is no rigid formula, 2) adaptability of requirements, and 3) flexibility when working in fragile contexts.”
• Linje 374-78: Adaptability of requirements means that the larger the budget, the stricter the requirements regarding the capacity of the organisations involved and the desired changes of the intervention. There are also higher requirements for organisations that have longer experience and more grants from CISU and/or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark compared to organisations that have less experience and have received fewer grants.

Det fremgår af CISUs Adfærdskodeks afsnit 4.1, at "CISUs bestyrelse har derfor besluttet, at vi skal indrette os som om vi var omfattet af Offentlighedsloven og Forvaltningsloven, og at vi følger principperne for god forvaltningsskik.”

Princippet om kravsafstemthed står i modsætning til det forvaltningsretlige princip om ligebehandling af potentielle tilskudsmodtagere, ligesom det bliver uklart hvordan organisationens erfaringer indgår i vurderingen. Det følger endvidere af Økonomistyrelsens Vejledning om Effektiv Puljeforvaltning side 21, at en tilskudsmyndighed kan foretage “en prioritering mellem de indkomne ansøgninger eller fastsætter tilskuddets andel af de samlede projektudgifter mv. Under alle omstændigheder vil det være god forvaltningsskik og medvirke til at skabe gennemsigtighed, at det ud fra nogle operationelle tildelingskriterier kan dokumenteres over for tilskudsansøgerne, på hvilket grundlag prioriteringen er foretaget. Dette vil være med til at sikre ligebehandling af de potentielle tilskudsmodtagere.”

Det er altså god forvaltningsskik at skabe gennemsigtighed i vurderingsgrundlag mhp. at sikre ligebehandling af modtagere. Princippet om kravsafstemthed synes, jf. ovenstående, ikke at leve op til god forvaltningsskik. Det bemærkes, at Udenrigsministeriet Strategiske Partnerskaber Aftaler ikke er underlagt princippet om kravsafstemthed. Her bliver alle organisationer behandlet ud fra de samme kriterier og parametre i udvælgelsen af de nye strategiske partnerskaber, uanset at spændet mellem de store bevillinger og de mindre bevillinger er ganske stort.

Delkonklusion

Princippet om kravsafstemthed er i modstrid med både egne og forvaltningsretlige principper og bør udgå. Der mangler endvidere en redegørelse for, hvorfor det i første omgang er medtaget.

B) Øget krav til egenfinansiering

Med udspillet lægges der op til, at mellem og store programmer skal have en øget egenfinansiering. Vi mener, at det er kritisabelt af flere grunde. Som vi forstår, er en af hensigterne bag de øgede krav at tilskynde til en mindre afhængighed af CISU-midler. Vi mener, at det bygger på en falsk præmis om, at der er midler andre steder at søge. CISU har en monopollignende rolle i Danmark i forhold til finansiering af udviklingsprojekter for mindre og mellemstore civilsamfundsorganisationer.

Der foreligger ingen saglig og faglig begrundelse for at egenfinansieringskravet for de store programmer skal stige til 20%. Ifølge bilag 2.1c side 6 til bestyrelsesmøde juni 2024, fremgår det, at det var sekretariatets oplæg, at beløbet skulle være max 15%: ”…Hvis man tager egenfinansieringen med (som er 12-15% i seneste forslag og bestyrelsen ønsker det skærpet måske op til 20% som er kravet til SPA)...” Det fremgår heraf, at bestyrelsen ønsker at skærpet kravet. Dette ønske fremstår ubegrundet i de dokumenter, vi har haft adgang til, og et ønske kan ikke i sig selv kunne udgøre et sagligt grundlag for fastlæggelse af tildelings- og prioriteringskriterier i en pulje med offentlige midler.

Delkonklusion

Vi mener ikke, at der faglig belæg for hverken at differentiere eller øge egenfinansieringskravet. Vi mener, at der bør være et lige proportionelt krav mellem programstørrelse og egenfinansiering. Dvs. at %-satsen skal være ens for alle. Andet strider imod forvaltningsretlige principper. Vi mener samtidig, at det er på et usagligt grundlag og mod videre viden om skævvridning, at de store programmer i CISU underlægges de samme krav som SPA’erne.

C) Reducering af loftet for Programmer

I den nuværende CSP er loftet for programbevillinger de facto sat til 15 mio. Organisationer, der ønsker større bevillinger, er berettiget til at søge om et Strategisk Partnerskab hos UM. Med den nuværende forslag lægges der op til at den højeste programbevillig fra CISU er 6,8 mio. kr. (loft på 8,5 mio. hvorfra der trækkes 20% egenfinansiering). Dette er yderst problematisk, da det vil fastlåse organisationer således de kun kan være enten hos CISU eller UM. Der vil hverken være en naturlig affyringsrampe for at blive SPA eller en landingsbane hos CISU for organisationer med SPA-finansiering. For at blive SPA er der et krav om, at man har en årlig international omsætning over 15 mio. Det betyder, at de eneste organisationer, der vil have mulighed for at dække spændet fra 6,8 mio. til 15 mio. med ikke CISU-midler, er store internationale organisationer eller større danske indsamlingsorganisationer. Ingen af CISUs nuværende programorganisationer lever op til de krav.

Delkonklusion

De samlede konsekvenser af ændringsforslaget er, at der kommer en mindre sammenhæng og fleksibilitet i den samlede modalitet for den danske udviklingsbistand til civilsamfundet. Det kan hverken være i CISUs, UMs eller de danske politikers interesse og ultimativt ikke for målgrupperne og partnerne i Syd.

Note: Dette fokus vælges grundet den korte tid til at behandle de indkommende høringssvar. Endelig udgave af puljereformen skal ifølge tidsplanen fra CISU behandles af bestyrelsen på bestyrelsesmøde 13. september. Det betyder at sekretariatet har en uge til at behandle, vurdere og indarbejde høringssvarene, inden de omsættes til en endelig udgave for bestyrelsen.

Response by the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights to CISU’s “Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund – DRAFT”

Conclusion:

The Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights welcomes this revision of the Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund and is committed to working collaboratively with CISU and other stakeholders to address the below highlighted concerns and clarify any potential misunderstandings on our part. We believe that with careful consideration and dialogue, it is possible to create an inclusive and effective funding framework that supports diverse organizations across different regions and scales of operation.

Key Points of Concern:

Lines 213–214 (Table) – Requirement for Partners to be Registered in the Country Concerned:

While we acknowledge the legal rationale behind requiring partners to be registered in the countries concerned, we are deeply concerned about the implications this has in countries where government authorities severely restrict the operational space for NGOs, particularly those in oppositional roles. Recent developments, such as the adoption of foreign agents laws in regions like Georgia and Azerbaijan could significantly hinder the scope of potential partnerships under this requirement. Many of our potential partners are human rights defenders with longstanding international cooperation records. However, they have been forced to relinquish their official registration to continue their critical work, often funded by international donations. This places them in a precarious position – forced to choose between compliance with registration requirements, which could lead to the forced termination of their organization, persecution of key stakeholders, and ultimately, imprisonment, or forgoing registration, which technically renders their operations illegal and excludes them from CISU funding and other international funding opportunities. The DHC strongly urges CISU, along with NDF and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to engage in discussions on how to support such human rights defenders in ways that are safe for the partners.

Lines 290–291 (Table) – Exclusion of Emergency Aid or Humanitarian Interventions from Funding:

We seek clarification on the rationale behind excluding “emergency aid or humanitarian interventions” from funding. In many cases, such interventions are crucial for stabilizing regions affected by conflict, war, or natural disasters, which in turn supports long-term development goals. Our partners in Ukraine confirm the critical nature of these interventions.

Lines 339–340 (Table) – Maximum Grant Size for Strategic Program Support:

While we appreciate the inclusion of in-kind contributions in the calculation of own contributions, we are concerned that the maximum grant sizes for strategic program support, particularly for large-scale programs, are set so high. This could potentially deplete the available funds, leaving insufficient resources for smaller-scale projects that are crucial for building capacity within small and medium-sized NGOs, both in Denmark and locally. One way to tackle this could be by implementing a quota system assigning a fixed annual minimum percentage of funds to minor organizations and initiatives, another a clear and fair strategy outlining how much of the total yearly funding may go to strategic program support, particularly for large-scale programs. Such policy should be made transparent to all member organizations to ensure an equitable distribution of resources that supports a broad range of projects, particularly those with significant capacity-building potential.

* We are open to further discussions on these matters and look forward to your feedback.

Kind regards,

Asbjørn Storgaard, Chair of board

On behalf of the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights

Høringssvar fra Save the Orangutan Foundation på puljereform af Civilsamfundspuljen 2024

Save the Orangutan Foundation hilser det velkomment at CISU sætter de nye retningslinjer i høring. Vi forstår behovet for en omstrukturering af de nuværende retningslinjer grundet presset på CSP, men opfordrer til, at denne omstrukturering sker med anerkendelse af at bæredygtige forandringsprocesser kræver langsigtede indsatser.

Vi anser de nuværende retningslinjer, med deres fokus på kapacitetsopbygning og mulighed for at søge projektbevillinger til såvel små som større indsatser, som aldeles vigtige for at muliggøre nye partnerskaber og erfaringsopbygning, der kan bidrage til opbygning af stærke civilsamfundsaktører i det Globale Syd. Altimens programmodaliteten sikrer bedre stabilitet og muliggør planlægning af langsigtede indsatser. Denne stabilitet bidrager desuden til bedre muligheder for fastholdelse af erfarne medarbejdere i det Globale Syd såvel som i de danske CSOer. Mens vigtige resultater og erfaringer kan opnås med kortere varende indsatser, kræver bæredygtige forandringer tid, ikke mindst når der er tale om arbejdet med at sikre bedre rettigheder for lokalbefolkningen og arbejde med fortalervirksomhed generelt.

Vi anser det derfor som vigtigt, at CSP fastholder muligheden for, at CSOer kan opnå bevillinger der støtter længerevarende programfaser, samt ikke sætter loft over antallet af programfaser der kan søges støtte til.

I det nuværende oplæg til ændringer af retningslinjerne er konsekvenserne for de forskellige typer af støttemuligheder for CISU’s medlemmer ikke tydelige, og vi opfordrer derfor til en uvildig konsekvensanalyse heraf.

Vedr. 3.2.3 Own contribution

Oplægget fordrer efter vores mening ikke uafhængighed af programmidler, hvis kravet om medfinansiering ikke omfatter de ressourcer (tid og penge) det kræver at sikre medfinansieringen. Det bør være valgfrit for programmet, hvordan medfinansiering skal prioriteres.

Vi læser ud af oplægget, at ressourcer anvendt til fundraising forsat ikke kan inkluderes i kravet til medfinansiering. Dette gør det sværere at opbygge den nødvendige kapacitet indenfor fundraising til at sikre uafhængighed af programmidler på sigt. Vi opfordrer derfor til, at det muliggøres at inkludere ressourcer anvendt til fundraising i de samlede krav om medfinansiering.

Linjerne 357, 358 og 359 er uklare og kræver præcisering om bevillingsperioden betragtes som hele programperioden eller den årlige bevillingsperiode.

Finansieringsgraderne bør nedsættes, og der bør være rimelighed mellem krav og organisationsstørrelse. Dokumentationskrav bør ikke være strengere for programorganisationer end de større Strategiske Partnerskaber.

Vedr. 3.2.5 Assessment criteria

s.17 i tabellen – Financial and programme sustainability

Vedr. 8.1 Funding diversification is documented through realized funds from other donors.

Det er ikke klart om der her refereres til organisationens generelle portefølje eller om der henvises til krav om at have sikret dokumentation for medfinansiering til programimplementeringen allerede ved ansøgningen.

Vedr. 3.2.5 Assessment criteria

s.17 i tabellen – Cost level 9

Vi anbefaler, at kriteriet omformuleres og evt. inkluderer flere bæredygtighedskriterier. Vurderingskriteriet fokuserer på målgruppestørrelse og vurderer omkostningsniveau ift. programstrategi og målgruppestørrelse.

Vægtning af målgruppestørrelse er ikke nødvendigvis retvisende for bæredygtighed og impact. Et eksempel er arbejdet med skovbevarelse og oprindelige folk i tyndt befolkede områder. Her muliggør store afstande og arealstørrelser ikke kvantitativt store målgrupper. Dette selvom interventioner, set fra et socialt, klima- og miljømæssigt perspektiv, kan vægtes højt ift. bæredygtighed. Et fokus på målgruppe størrelse risikerer efter vores mening at fordre en skævvridning i fordelingen af CISU’s midler imod indsatser i tætbefolkede områder.

Kommentarer til CISU’s udkast til nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen

Kære Alle

Vi værdsætter muligheden for skriftlig kommentering og takker sekretariatet for en god og saglig dialog i forbindelse med den første høringsrunde. Vi håber og forventer, at sekretariatet på baggrund af de indkomne kommentarer og ikke mindst under skyldig hensyntagen til en udviklingsfaglig vurdering med fokus på resultater, udvikling og forandring i det globale syd, som vi finder indtil nu, har været nærmest fraværende i debatten, vil færdiggøre retningslinjerne.

I nedenstående vil vi først kommentere på nogle specifikke områder, som vi finder bør revideres inden færdiggørelse. Og herefter kort ”diskutere” nogle af de overordnede principper, som vi mener burde ligge til grund for den endelige revision.

Udvalgte nedslagspunkter

Egenfinansiering (3.2.3. Own contribution, s. 15)

Vi er helt indforstået med en form for egenfinansiering, men de nuværende krav er alt for høje. Det vil være en betydelig udfordring for mange og risikerer ligefrem at underminere visse eksisterende programmer. Vi foreslår helt konkret 4, 6, 8 og 10% for mellem programmer og 10 og 12% for store programmer. Vi synes på ingen måde, at det vil være fair at nogle CISU programmer skal op på niveau med SPA organisationer og deres 20% takster (som jo så ovenikøbet udregnes anderledes lempeligt). Vi er bekendt med at de største programmer allerede i dag her et egenfinansieringskrav på 15%, men eftersom dette ligger udover programmet og ikke indgår i programbudgettet er dette krav meget mere lempeligt end det foreslåede. Derfor foreslå vi at sænke satsen en smule for disse.

Scorings kriterier (3.2.5. Assessment criteria, s. 16-17)

Fokus på resultater og synergier er helt fraværende i scoringskriterierne. Det finder vi meget bizart. I vores verden burde opnåede resultater og synergier eller manglen på samme vægte højt. Derudover er der flere af de nuværende kriterier, som må være yderst vanskelige for bevillingskonsulenter at vurdere, herunder 5.2.

Samarbejde gennem netværk og alliancer bør honoreres i både scoringskriterierne for projekter og programmer eftersom sådanne samarbejder ofte er mere komplekse, men samtidig rummer potentiale for at opnå synergier, samt nå en bredere målgruppe og flere aktører.

Ansøgningsproces (3.2.6. Application process, s. 18-19)

Vi bør have fokus på, at de nye retningslinjer sikrer en bedre og mere smidig ansøgningsproces, det føler vi os ikke overbeviste om, at de nye retningslinjer gør i nævneværdig grad. Simplificeringsdagsordenen er i hvert fald fraværende.

Vi vil gerne fremhæve en enkelt passage, som vi syntes bør ændres. “External capacity analysis of the Global South Partners based on terms of Reference developed by CISU in dialogue with the partners.” (linje 412-13)

CISU bør ikke udarbejde en ToR udenom den danske ansøger. Vi mener desuden, at en eventuel analyse også bør fokusere på resultater og progression hos partneren/partnerne. Eftersom vi arbejder med kapacitetsopbygning, må det vigtigste være progressionen i partnerens kapacitet, så man ikke bliver tilskyndet til kun at arbejde med stærke partnere.

Intern konkurrence (3.2.7. Internal competition, s. 19)

Vi noterer os med bekymring, at CISU (jf. bilag 2.1.b. fra bestyrelsesmødet d. 16. juni) kun finder, at der fremadrettet bliver plads til 4 store og 9 mellem programmer. I dag er vi allerede 15 programorganisationer, og vi må alt andet lige formode, at der vil komme flere til, skulle det nuværende udkast til retningslinjer ikke blive ændret radikalt. Vi synes, at det er ekstremt vigtigt, at man indtænker det formodede antal fremtidige programorganisationer i allokeringen. Hvis vores udregninger er korrekte, så vil programorganisationerne i det nuværende udkast gå fra samlet ca. 73 mio. kr. til 67 mio. kr. Hvis der i tilgift hertil må forventes yderligere konkurrence om de midler (jf. nedenstående paragraf), nærmer vi os en decideret nedslagtning af programorganisationerne og det er vel trods alt ikke tanken/formålet. “The applicants will be scored individually but will compete for a certain amount allocated for each round of applications. If there is applied for more money than available, the applicants with the highest score will receive a grant.” (linje 435-37). Vi vælger at tro, at flere organisationer gerne går en smule ned i bevilling mod økonomisk stabilitet og muligheden for at tænke langsigtet, men budgetnedgangen skal selvsagt være indenfor rimelighedens grænser. En direkte konsekvens, hvis ikke programallokeringen bliver holdt på et anstændigt niveau, vil jo være at projektorganisationerne skal konkurrere om projektmidlerne med nuværende programorganisationer, og det er jo ikke nødvendigvis voldsomt attraktivt for de mindre projektorganisationer.

Vi har i øvrigt svært ved at gennemskue CISUs udregninger i forhold til antallet af fremtidige store programmer. Med udgangspunkt i det nuværende forslag til retningslinjer, så har vi svært ved at se, at der skulle kunne blive mere end 3 store programmer (de ”gamle” programmer med en portefølje over 5 mio. kr.) indenfor en længere årrække, men det er en mindre væsentlig detalje. Slutteligt i dette afsnit vil vi lige tillade os at henlede opmærksomheden på, at der i det eksisterende set-up er flere projektorganisationer som samlet modtager større bevillinger end f.eks. os, som er en af de mindste programorganisationer. Der er derfor ikke nogen automatisk ”Robin-Hood” effekt i at flytte midler fra programpuljen og sende den til projektpuljen.

Principper

Kravsafstemthed/progression, fair konkurrence og simplificering bør i vores optik være blandt de centrale omdrejningspunkter for en revision. Kravsafstemthed og fair konkurrence er til en vis grad adresseret, men simplificering er ikke et udtryk man kan bruge om udkastet - tværtimod. Det synes vi er ærgerligt. Tror vi står os klogt i at kigge nøje på, hvor det kan simplificeres og hvornår sekretariatet eller konsulenter skal indover. Administration koster penge, og der findes jo kun en kasse af tage disse midler fra, nemlig CSP.

Hvis en ny og lille organisationer bliver helt skræmt af indledningsvis at skulle læse 26 siders retningslinjer, så forstår vi dem godt. Man kunne overveje at lave en pixi udgave på ganske få sider om denne modalitet, og så slette alt omhandlende ”small projects” i retningslinjerne.

Vi har endnu ikke noget helt konkret forslag til præcist hvordan, men vi finder som udgangspunkt, at organisationer som modtager betydelige midler fra andre puljer, skal sættes ned i CSP beløb med en vis procentdel (naturligvis ingenlunde kr. for kr. - da incitamentet for at søge så fjernes, men måske med 1/3 eller ½ af det modtagne beløb (og naturligvis kun midlertidigt - mens den anden bevilling er gældende), så der frigives midler fra CSP. Midlerne skulle så gå til enten projektpuljen eller programpuljen alt afhængigt af, hvor ansøgeren ”havde hjemme”. Vil være kollegialt, idet ikke alle organisationer har samme mulighed for at søge andre puljer.

Vi står naturligvis til rådighed, skulle i ønske dele af ovenstående uddybet.

Med venlig hilsen

Stefan Islandi
Director of Development

T +45 35 25 75 31
E islandi@cancer.dk

Viva Denmark (VD) Response to the Suggested New Guidelines for the Civil Society Fund

VD seeks clarification on the new guidelines regarding the transition from the old guidelines to the new ones, particularly concerning the level at which one can enter the new categorization of small, medium, and large projects. VD recommends that this should be based on the current/old program agreement’s budget framework, which already was based on a track record of project portfolio.

We suggest a specific alteration/addition to section 3.2.2 (line 339) in the Eligibility to large programs:

”Having been granted two Medium programmes or a large programme in the partnership within the past 10 years."

AIDS-Fondet’s input to hearing process on new Civil Society Fund guidelines

AIDS-Fondet, 29th of August 2024

Overall reflections:

Overall, AIDS-Fondet supports that Civil Society Fund maintains a focus on people living in poverty, partnerships, civil society, local leadership and the guiding principles of human rights, poverty orientation, do no harm and sustainability. AIDS-fondet is also happy that CISU remains open for a variety of organizations of different sizes and capacities and maintains both project and programme funding. However, AIDS-Fondet also finds that the guidelines consistently favor smaller project-oriented applicants on the expense of programme applicants and invest them with the most flexibility, trust and resources without evidencing that this is the most effective way to reduce poverty and strengthen civil society. We also note that existing programme partnerships with larger grants will be heavily affected by the new guidelines. We also find that the introduction of more applicants and competition within the programme modalities if carried through must be combined with a simplification of the process itself, to minimize waste of resource investments from CISU, Danish applicants and partners in the Global South. We also believe that assessment criteria must include an assessment of track-record of the ability to deliver results.

AIDS-Fondet’s specific inputs to guidelines:

1.1 Principles

Lines 56-131: AIDS-Fondet is very supportive of the guiding principles of human rights, poverty orientation, do no harm and sustainability.

Recommendations: CISU should consider adding “nothing about us without us” as a guiding principle to assure that beneficiaries are always including in project development and implementation.

Sustainability – lines 127-131 could be rephased. “A sustainable approach to implementing interventions should be holistic, focusing on solutions that balance the needs of people, the environment, and the economy. This ensures long-term positive outcomes without compromising the well-being of any one aspect”

2.2.1. The Global South partner(s)

Lines 210-13: AIDS-Fondet is very happy that CISU acknowledges and provides the opportunity to collaborate with partners that are not necessarily legally registered due to eg. civic space restrictions.

3. Types of Support

Line 245 & box: AIDS-Fondet supports that Civil Society Fund is open for a variety of organisations of different sizes and capacities. However, AIDS-Fondet also finds that the guidelines encourage smaller project-oriented applicants on the expense of programme applicants and invest them with the most flexibility, trust and resources. We fail to see the rationale behind applicants that have only had funding up to 500,000 kr. can receive grants up to 5,000,000 dkr. per year without own-contribution conditions while applicants with funding up to 3,000,000 dkr. per year can only receive grants up to 5,000,000 dkr. incl. own contribution.

Line 245 & table: AF supports that there has been put a maximum # of application pr. Danish organization pr. year for small and large projects and small programmes, as this resonates with the sustainability agenda and strengthening of local partners, as it encourages the partnerships to reflect strategically long-term.

Recommendation: Applicants who can apply for small and large projects and small programmes up to 5,000,000 should have received more than 1,500,000 per year, or the grant ceiling should be reduced to 3,500,000 per year.

3.2.1 Purpose (strategic programme support)

Lines 318-336: AF is happy to see that CISU still highlights the need for a modality that support long-term partnerships and programmes, going beyond a shorter project-cycle. Additionally, it is appreciated that this modality focuses on learning and knowledge-sharing across diverse partners and gives the opportunity to strengthen the organizational capacity of both Global South and Danish partners, and thereby providing room for building sustainable organizations and interventions.

3.2.2 Requirements (strategic programme support)

Line 339 & Table: AF supports the increase of the programme period up to 6 years for medium and large programmes and up to 5 years for small programmes.

3.2.3. Own contributions

Line 360: It is a huge increase in own-contribution requirements for medium and large size programmes up to 20%, especially since some of the current programme organisations see their grant ceiling reduced by 50% if the new guidelines come into force. AIDS-Fondet does not support that own contribution requirement increases with each new grant for medium and large size programmes compared to small size programmes. The requirements of own contributions to small programmes compared to projects also favors project funding compared to programme funding.

Recommendations: AIDS-Fondet recommends the following own-contribution maximum percentages as fixed percentages that does not increase with new programme phases but only relates to the size of the grant.

• Small programme: 5%
• Medium programme: 10%
• Large programme: 15%

AIDS-Fondet also recommends that small programmes and large projects are met with identical own-contribution requirements.

Lines 344-347: AIDS-Fondet finds it in just and irrational that small and medium sized programmes below 5,000,000 can include in-kind contributions in own-contributions, while strategic programmes above DKK 5 million, can only include financial contributions (such as funds raised in the Global South or Denmark and co-financing) as own contribution. Again, the guidelines clearly favor project and small programme applicants without evidencing that these types of projects and programmers are better in reducing poverty and building a strong civil society in the global south.

Recommendations: In-kind contributions should be valid across all programme modalities.

Lines 357-359: According to the new guidelines, the own contribution requirement must be completed by the end of a given grant period. If the requirement is not achieved, the maximum grant amount for the next grant given under Strategic Programme Support will be reduced by a value of double the amount ‘missing’ in own contribution. AIDS-Fondet finds that the guidelines again discourage programme applicants and punish them with extremely high own-contribution requirements and devaluation of expertise and capacity.

Recommendations: If CISU wish to punish organisations for not meeting own-contributions requirements, the reduction in the next grant should be equal to the “missing” own-contribution amount, not doubled.

3.2.5. Assessment criteria

Line 374-378 & Table: AIDS-Fondet finds the principle of adaptability of requirements untransparent. It is unclear how this principle is used in practices and specific criteria for how adaptability is defined and implemented, should be developed. Since there are higher requirements for organisations with the most experience and organisations that have previous funding from CISU and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, AIDS-Fondet finds that the assessment criteria should also include assessment of the partnerships’ track-record of delivering lasting results and sustainable development.

Recommendations: The principle of adaptability of requirements should be more clearly defined and specified how it is implemented. The assessment criteria should include assessment of previous results. The assessment criteria could benefit from having a more elaborate and specific description of the different criteria, such as the previous one from September 2022.

3.2.6. Application process (programmes)

The existing programme application process is complicated, time and resource consuming for both CISU, the Danish applicant and partner organisations in the Global South. Although it is not described in detail, it seems that this complicated process is maintained in the new guidelines while opening for more applicants, introducing more competition and uncertainty related to available funding. Furthermore, application rounds for medium and large programmes are only every second year, whereto there are more rounds every year for project support and small programmes.

Recommendations: CISU should collaborate with organisations on simplifying the application process to minimize the time and resources invested by CISU, the Danish applicant and the global south partners. For medium and large programmes, application rounds should be every year.

4. Application and assessment

4.1. Deadline

Line 556: Box. AIDS-Fondet notes that applicants for project support can apply three times a year; applicants for small programmes can apply twice a year; applicants for medium and large programmes can apply every second year. By only having application rounds every second year, gives great insecurity for both the Danish and global south partner, if applications are rejected or if there is lack of available funds, even with the proposed solution in section 3.2.8.

Recommendations: Applicants for medium and large programmes should be able to apply annually.

4.6. Budget commitments

AIDS-Fondet finds it concerning that the CISU Board determines the funding allocation key between the different types of support modalities on an annual basis.

Recommendations: CISU should determine the allocation key between modalities for at least a five-year period to minimize uncertainty. For transparency and accountability, The CISU secretariat should propose the allocation key to the board to avoid that board members who represent applicants promote own organizational interests.

LGBT+ Danmark Høringssvar

LGBT+ Danmark er generelt positive over for det foreliggende udkast til reform af civilsamfundspuljen og er enig i behovet for reform. Vi ønsker dog at se en forsimpling af reglerne og mere fleksibilitet mht. sammensætningen af projekter, små og mellemstore programmer, med et loft på 5 millioner årligt for alle.

Særligt ønsker vi at adgangen til at søge projektstøtte ikke afskæres for medlemsorganisationer som har modtaget mere end 3 millioner kroner årligt i gennemsnit de sidste fire år. Projektstøtte kan fungere som et væsentligt supplement til programstøtte, da det giver mulighed for at eksperimentere med nye partnerskaber og interventionsformer.

Vi vil desuden foreslå, at kravet om tidligere samarbejde mellem partnerorganisationer for projekter over 150.000 kr. ophæves.

Med venlig hilsen

LGBT+ Danmark

Høringssvar fra Preferred by Nature

Aarhus, 30.8.2024

Kære CISU,

Tak for at dele jeres udkast til nye retningslinjer for Civilsamfundspuljen. Nedenfor finder I vores kommentarer til udkastet.

Linje 168-173: Vi foreslår at uddybe beskrivelsen af krav til medlemsbidrag, så det er tydeligt, om kravet går på antallet af medlemmer, eller antallet af medlemsbidrag. Kan én person for eksempel betale to separate bidrag indenfor det samme år, og dermed tælle dobbelt? Og hvilken periode dækker ‘latest financial year’, hvis organisationens finansielle år er det samme som kalendaråret?

Linje 282: For at udligne det store skel, som findes mellem ‘large project support’ og ‘small program’, foreslår vi at hæve støtten under ‘large projects’ til maksimum 1 million kroner. Vi foreslår desuden at gøre det tydeligt, hvor længe projekterne forventes at løbe, fra et minimum til et maksimum.

Linje 339: Vi forudser, at det kan være svært at vokse fra small programme til medium og large programmes, pga. det store skel i bevillingernes størrelse. Vi foreslår derfor, at small programmes gøres fleksible og tilgængelige for flere ansøgere.

På vegne af Preferred by Nature,

Helene Zakariasen

I Kolektiva bakker vi op en reform af civilsamfundspuljen, der giver mulighed for kortere vej til programmodaliteter. Vi har dog følgende kommentarer, der primært handler om beløbsgrænser og kravene for at søge de forskellige typer af projekter og programmer.

1. Linje 245 – Skema

I skemaet mangler muligheden for, at man rykke sig fra små til store projekter. Muligheden fremgår af skemaet linje 285. I det hele taget, virker beløbsgrænserne ikke logiske. At man kan søge op til 150.000 kr. i første omgang, men ikke kan søge videre, før man har haft projekter over 200.000 gør det svært at bevæge sig fra kun at kunne søge små projekter til at kunne søge større projekter.

Samtidig virker det lidt arbitrært med beløbsgrænser på 150.000, 200.000, 500.000 og 700.000 kr. med forskellige krav. Hvad er det, der gør, at der er markant ændrede krav, når man søger 700.000 end 500.000. Reelt er der umiddelbart tale om tre forskellige typer projekter med grænser på 150.000, 500.000 og 700.000 – men hvor det er uklart, hvad forskellene er. Fx kræver det ikke projekterfaring at søge for under 500.000 kr – men man det er obligatorisk med tidligere samarbejde i partnerskabet, hvilket umiddelbart er selvmodsigende.

Vi foreslår derfor mere logisk sammenhæng mellem de forskellige beløbsgrænser, og at man anskueliggør, hvordan man evt. vil kunne udvikle sig fra ny organisation til programorganisation, for det er svært at gennemskue på nuværende tidspunkt.

2. Generelt om Programmodaliteten

Vi synes, det virker som en god idé med en differentieret programmodalitet, men vi kan godt være bekymrede for, om det kan betyde, at der relativt hurtigt er så mange programorganisationer, at det reelt blokerer for flere, da det låser midler i flere år frem. Det er umiddelbart svært at gennemskue, hvordan man vil sikre, at der er midler til rådighed til nye programmer hvert år, hvis dette da er målsætningen.

We appreciate the efforts of CISU to continuously assess and ensure that its civil society funding mechanisms provide the most enabling conditions for civil society support possible. We would however like to raise an issue of concern and possible further improvement of CISUs relevance in the world as it looks today.

It is becoming increasingly important to support civil society movements that work trans-locally on addressing development and peacebuilding issues that can only be addressed through global engagement. In the grant application guidelines it is mentioned that "Danish partners are strong allies and advocates for marginalised people in the Global South and can play an active role in cross-border solidarity work."

However, it is further noted that "the Global South partner(s) must be based in the country where the activities will be implemented and will be responsible for implementing the local activities."

In order to stay in line with current needs and trends in addressing the challenges of our times, it is important that Danish civil society organisations can engage with, and be supported by CISU in engaging with, Global South based networks, alliances, and movements working 'cross-border' and trans-locally in addressing the causes of major development and peacebuilding challenges such as inequity as well as furthering global solidarity and equity within global spaces and infrastructures for collaboration on such issues.

Ingeniører Uden Grænsers høringssvar til CISUs nye retningslinjer for civilsamfundspuljen

Grundlæggende hilser IUG en reformering af civilsamfundspuljen velkommen og vi er enige i den forudgående analyse og det formulerede grundlag for behovet for en reformering. Vi velkommer en reform der lægger vægt på at sikre øget forudsigelighed og strategiske samarbejder.

Konkret har vi følgende kommentarer og opfordringer i relation til det videre arbejde med formulering af retningslinjer:

Sektion 1:

Ud fra de eksempler der bliver givet i sektion 1 fremstår DK-partners rolle snævert defineret indenfor en ramme af udelukkende fortalervirksomhed, økonomisk og politisk støtte. Der mangler i afsnittet fokus på partnerskabernes gensidighed og alsidighed. Det er vores erfaring at den danske partners rolle og bidrag ind i et givent partnerskab kan se meget forskellig ud alt efter det konkrete projekt eller samarbejde. Afsnittet, og retningslinjerne i det hele taget, bør derfor i højere grad fokuserer på anerkendelsen af den store alsidighed der ligger i hvad CISUs medlemsorganisationer og deres frivillige også kan bidrage med ind i partnerskabet f.eks. når det kommer til at komplimenterer partner i Syd med f.eks. fagspecifik, metodisk eller teknisk viden og konkrete ressourcer, som kan være svært tilgængelige lokalt - særligt i de fattigste lande - og som derigennem kan bidrage signifikant til det overordnede formål for civilsamfundspuljen i form af et styrket civilsamfund og bedre forhold for mennesker der lever i fattigdom.

Konkret kunne ovenstående udmøntes i afsnittet ved at omskrive afsnittet så det indeholder et afsnit om det gode partnerskab fremfor at fokuserer på hver enkelt parts konkrete rolle og bidrag separat.

Sektion 2:

Sektion 2.1 They cannot apply: Vi værdsætter beslutningen om at begrænse, hvem der kan ansøge midler fra CISU, f.eks. når det kommer til politiske partier eller religiøse organisationer som har andre særskilte muligheder for at søge midler. Dette vil skabe grundlag for et stærkere fælles udgangspunkt, fortælling og retning for CISUs medlemmer og deres arbejde. Vi stiller os dog stærkt skeptiske omkring formuleringen af punkt 2 (linje 193-194) da sidste del af formuleringen lægger op til potentielt at umuliggøre f.eks. samarbejder med UM gennem lokale ambassader samt andre strategiske samarbejder der ligger udenfor civilsamfundspuljens formål f.eks. fagtekniske rådgivningsopgaver eller lignende. Vi forestiller os ikke dette er intentionen med formuleringen og vil derfor foreslå at man begrænser sig til en formulering der at forholde sig konkret til SPAerne.

Sektion 3:

Denne sektion er uoverskuelig i sin strukturer og helhed. Informationer og tal er spredt ud over afsnittene og der mangler umiddelbart også konsistens på tværs af informationerne. Kompleksitetsgraden fremstår derfor unødvendigt høj. Der mangler et mere samlet overblik f.eks. i form af en fuldsides illustration af en trappe eller lignende, hvor informationer og tal samles.

Egenfinansiering:

Vi anerkender behovet for egenfinansiering, men mener at det er vigtigt, at der er fleksibilitet i kravene til egenfinansiering, også i de større programmer. For eksempel bør frivilliges store indsats og værdiskabelse ind i et partnerskab f.eks. i form af pro bono konsulenttimer og lignende fortsat kunne belønnes og altså kunne indgå som en del af egenfinansieringen, også i mellem og større programmer. Dette er med til at sikre at indsatserne fra den danske partners side reelt fortsat er rodfæstet og forankret i værdier så som solidaritet og frivillighed i det danske civilsamfund, og dermed er man med til at cementerer det særlige ved denne form for partnerskaber.

Støtte til ansøgninger:

Vægtningen i de nye retningslinjer på lokal ledelse og co-design harmonerer ikke med den manglende mulighed for at allokerer midler til forarbejde, forstudier og udvikling af deltagerorienterede designprocesser i forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af ansøgninger til civilsamfundspuljen. Også den nye projektguide fra CISU indeholder gode værktøjer til analyse- og designfasen. Uden mulighed for reelt at allokerer ressourcer til disse processer vil det øgede fokus og krav om lokalt lederskab dog fortsætte med at være svært at implementerer og sikre i praksis. Hvorfor ikke udvide modaliteten for support for application process til også at være for CISU’s egnen pulje som en måde at understrege vigtigheden af dette arbejde? Alternativt vil det være godt med komplimenterende materiale der eksemplificerer hvordan man - indenfor rammerne af et CISU finansieret samarbejde – kan arbejde aktivt med budgettering af elementer som kan støtte op omkring denne agenda og vigtige process.

3.3.4 Assesment criteria til co-funding:

Vi vil kraftigt opfordre til at udvide kriterierne for denne modalitet, så man også kan søge co-funding f.eks. til at deltage i et initiativ hvor hoveddonor ikke nødvendigvis har civilsamfundspuljens formål som deres hovedfokus, men hvor man med co-funding fra CISU vil kunne argumentere for at man herigennem netop vil kunne sikre og bidrage til at et styrket civilsamfund, og øget fokus på at bekæmpelse af fattigdom vil kunne blive prioriteret som et stærkt delelement ind i projektet.

Særligt vil dette f.eks. være relevant set i lyset af en forøget investeringsvillighed fra andre aktører så som private virksomheder og fonde, hvor man med udvidede kriterier for denne modalitet vil kunne fordre at magtbalancen i sådanne samarbejder, bliver balanceret ved at styrke lokale civilsamfundsaktørers position og adgang til forhandlingsrum og beslutningstagere i sådanne initiativer.

En udvidelse af kriterierne vil gøre modaliteten mere fleksibel og sikre dens relevans for flere af CISUs medlemmer hvilket vil kunne aflaste andre modaliteter indenfor civilsamfundspuljen og sikre større diversificering af funding. I sidste enden vil det også sikre et bredere civilsamfundsengagement.

IUG ser frem til at deltage i det videre arbejde og dialogen omkring udarbejdelse af retningslinjerne.