REVIEW cum PRE-APPRAISAL s programme Decent work and ...EEA... · REVIEW cum PRE-APPRAISAL of FIC’s programme “Decent work and Labour Rights in East Africa (DWLR) 2014 - 2017."

REVIEW cum PRE-APPRAISAL

of FIC’s programme “Decent work and Labour Rights in East Africa (DWLR) 2014 - 2017."

CISU

Final Report

June 2016

i

List of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Brief context update related to the programme..................................................................................... 2 3. Follow up to capacity assessment 2013 ............................................................................................... 2 4. Assessment of plans and achieved results in Tanzania and Kenya........................................................ 3

4.1. Component 1: Trade unions in the two countries........................................................................... 4 4.2. Assessment and verification of results: Component 1 – Trade unions............................................ 4 4.3. Component 2: Youth Employment in the two countries ................................................................ 6 4.4. Verification of results of FIC’s support to Youth component 2 ..................................................... 7

5. Analysis of Main Issues ...................................................................................................................... 8 5.1. The relevance of the program to the target group and selected partners ......................................... 8 5.2. Assessment the appropriateness of the Programme strategy .......................................................... 8 5.4. Human Right Based Approach in the programme ........................................................................10 5.5. Assessment of partnership approach ............................................................................................10 5.6. Programme support for advocacy ................................................................................................11 5.7. Capacity development of partners’ performance ..........................................................................12 5.8. Assessment of cost-effectiveness in the programme.....................................................................12 5.9. Assess the programme’s organizational/financial sustainability....................................................14 5.10. Programme and financial management ......................................................................................16 5.11. Monitoring, reporting, learning and knowledge management .....................................................16 5.12. Review's conclusions.................................................................................................................17

6. Pre-appraisal of Next Programme Phase.............................................................................................18 6.1 Accommodating severe budget cuts..............................................................................................18 6.2 Possible Strategic Options ............................................................................................................18 6.3 Criteria's for prioritisation ............................................................................................................19 6.4 Poverty orientation .......................................................................................................................20 6.5 Others suggestions to the preparation of the next phase.................................................................21 6.6 Final remark.................................................................................................................................21

Annexes Annex A: Terms of Reference (ToR) Annex B: Review Team Field Visit Schedule Annex C: List of Persons Interviewed Annex D: Funding structure and % FIC funding Annex E: FIC's reporting and assessment of the planned 10 Outputs in LFA Annex F: FICs Preliminary ideas for the next Programme Phase.

ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations AYT Africa Youth Trust BDS Development Services BSED Business Skills Entrepreneur Development CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CBO Community-based organisation CISU Civil Society in Development COTU Organisation of Trade Unions - Kenya CSO Civil Society Organisation CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DAC Development Assistance Committee at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development) Danida Danish International Development Assistance DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) DKK Danish kroner DWU Dock Workers Union EAC East Africa Community EC European Commission FIC Forum for International Cooperation GNI Gross National Income HIV/AIDS Human Immune Virus/Acquired Immune Deficient Syndrome HRBA Human Rights Based Approach ILO International Labour Organizations ITF International Transport Federation KPA Kenya Port Authorities KMA Kenya Maritime Authorities KCGWU Kenya County Government Workers Union LFA Logical Framework Approach M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOYAS Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Kenya) NGO Non-governmental Organization NEC National Executive Committee NYC National Youth Council ODA Official Development Assistance OMT Open Mind Tanzania OSH Occupational Safety and Health RT Review Team SME Small and Medium Enterprises TAMICO Tanzania Mines, Energy, Construction and Allied Workers Union ToR Terms of Reference ToTs Training of Trainers TYVA Tanzania Youth Vision Association TMLC Tom Mboya Labour College YEIN Youth Empowerment Initiative Nairobi YEDF Youth Enterprise Development Fund YEIN Youth Employment Initiative of Nairobi YOA Youth of Africa UN United Nations

iii

Executive Summary Below is a summary of the chapters of the report. Recommendations are listed at the end of the Summary. 1. Introduction The Forum for International Cooperation (FIC, known in Danish as 'Fagligt Internationalt Center) is a Danish NGO, which has supported development activities in Kenya and Tanzania since1998. FIC’s programme “Decent work and Labour Rights in East Africa Programme (DWLRP)" is financed under CISU's programme funding modality with a total budget of DKK 18.0 million for the three-year implementation period (2014-2016).

As part of CISU’s standard procedures, the programme has to undergo a review, as well as a pre-appraisal for a possible next phase of the programme. Accordingly, this review assesses the current programme phase performance, results, constraints and lessons learned. The pre-appraisal of the proposed next programme phase, which is a subject of this review, takes into account the reduced funding available from CISU.

2. Brief context update related to the programme

The FIC programme is still found to be justified by its external context. Workers in Kenya and Tanzania are increasingly employed on a casual basis without job security, insurance benefits or social protection. As an example, the bonded warehouses in Kenya have become notorious for circumventing labour laws by outsourcing labour services to agents, who, in turn, engage poor labourers at minimal wages in poor working conditions.

High unemployment, especially among urban youth, is another feature of Kenyan and Tanzanian economies. Both governments have, in response, developed policies that are aimed at addressing the plight of young people. These policies, however, are weak with glaring omissions, and simply fall short of effectively addressing the challenges that young people face when seeking to join the labour market. In some instances, the necessary institutional and legal frameworks that govern and support the implementation of these policies are either inadequate or altogether absent.

3. Follow up to the capacity assessment 2013 The Review Team’s conclusion is that FIC and its partners have ensured good follow up to the seven recommendations issued by the capacity assessment in 2013.

4. Assessment of plans and results achieved in Tanzania and Kenya FIC’s planning and reporting have been going through a transition from being project-based to forming part of a programme agreement with CISU. As stated in FIC's 2nd year status report, the adjustment has caused some delay in implementation, resulting in a request for a no-cost extension of the programme until 31 March 2017.

As shown by the tables in Chapter 4, FICs reporting confirms the assessment of the Review Team, whose field visits verified FIC's reporting on progress and results within trade unions and youth organisations in Tanzania and Kenya since 2014.The most important results are highlighted below: Component 1: Trade unions in the two countries

- Enhanced membership and improved capacity of unions to negotiate and sign eight collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) around the port of Mombasa led to a salary increase of 15-17 % to members of the Dock Workers Union (DWU) and an 8-10% increase in the salaries laid down in CBAs negotiated by Kenya Shipping of Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union (KSCWWU).

- The capacity building activities, particularly in 2015, have improved the internal governance and performance of the trade union partners. Capacity building mainly took the form of training of

iv

national executive committees (NEC) of all unions and revision of their constitutions and strategic plans, including implementation plans and supporting budgets. Furthermore, FIC has supported all the unions in improving their financial and administrative structures and systems.

- The Dock Workers’ Union (DWU) showcases, in the view of the Review Team, an increase in capacity through its ten-year partnership with FIC, having become one of the strongest trade unions in Kenya. FIC now concentrates on the Seafarers’ Union (SUK) and KSCWWU, which have less capacity, as well as on organising poor workers at warehouses, whose working conditions are way below statutory standards.

- FIC has supported the development of a Training Curriculum for Trade Union Education and Labour Studies at the Tom Mboya Labour College in Kisumu, Kenya. The curriculum has now been piloted, starting with the training of shop stewards. The quality is promising.

- In 2015, FIC embarked on a new partnership with the national office of Tanzania Mines, Energy, Construction & Allied Workers Union (Tamico), which has resulted in revising the partner’s constitution and strategic plan, and in improving its financial management.

Component 2: Youth component in the two countries

- The progress in the youth component so far indicates that target milestones will be achieved in terms of number of young people trained and being employed. This includes training in business skills and entrepreneurship development (BSED), mentorship and linkages to financial service providers for business start-ups and expansions; and employability training, including internships and career guidance.

- 3992 youth have been trained and reports indicate that 976 of those trained are landing jobs or starting own businesses.

- Youth organisations are keen to collaborate with municipal and county authorities in Tanzania and Kenya respectively however, such cooperation remains weak and in most cases limited to sharing of facilities. The governments do not have any financing available to civil society organisations which in most cases they view as rivals (as opposed to those that complement their work).

- Advocacy activities in the programme have been delayed. The programme is yet to implement effective advocacy initiatives that will result in policy changes either nationally or within the focal cities.

- Despite linkages between the youth under the programme and financial services providers, the youth are barely accessing the requisite finance for business start up and expansion because of skewed policies.

5. Analysis of main issues

The Review Team observes that the programme implementation strategy has been adequately translated into practice in the two countries of cooperation. The programme also adheres well to the Danida Civil Society Policy.

It has been difficult to comply with the intention in the programme document: "to ensure that the synergy between programme partners and activities is created." The two components deal with different target groups: unemployed and out-of-school youth, on the one hand, and employed workers, on the other. FIC's partners are equally diverse, and have not been able to jointly address any issues or act in concert in implementing activities. In effect, there is hardly any synergy between the two programme components so far, and little is foreseen.

Most of the work of FIC incorporates elements of the Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) defined by Danida and the PANT principles: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination and Transparency. The HRBA approach is particularly strong in the trade union component, holding duty bearers to account for compliance with national labour laws and ratified ILO conventions. The youth component has far fewer references to HRBA. Neither the programme document nor FIC's second-year report to CISU make any mention of international conventions or national legislation in the two countries.

v

The Review Team has observed positive and respectful partnerships that are highly appreciated by the trade unions and youth partners. FIC’s partnership approach is characterized by openness, consultations, trust and mutual respect, which reflects an effort and culture taking shape over more than ten years of field experience in Eastern Africa. Mutual trust has been a key factor in the capacity development of the Dock Workers’ Union in Mombasa, allowing it to discuss sensitive internal issues. In this sense, it is disappointing that some trade union partners are failing to live up to the expectation to be transparent in their partnership with FIC in particular regarding their financial situation.

The partners have undertaken a number of advocacy activities in both Kenya and Tanzania, e.g. contributing to influencing the National Employment Authority Act in Kenya and the National Youth Policy in Tanzania. The programme partners also have good and frequent contacts with county and municipality officials in Kenya and Tanzania.

However, the Review Team (RT) has observed insufficient advocacy at the individual partner level, at component level and programme level. Towards the end of 2015, partners have been trained in advocacy skills, which they have found highly useful. Partners explained to the Review team that they had been waiting for the so-called "Advocacy Strategy for Decent Work and Labour Rights in East Africa." (April 2016). In the view of the RT, this document comes across more as well-formulated guidelines than as an advocacy strategy. The consequence of this delay is that numerous opportunities have not been seized sufficiently, which weaker sustainability of programme results.

FIC has played an important role in providing capacity building to partners, and all partners refer to relevant, qualified and committed technical assistance in the two components as well as to the strengthening of their financial management systems and administrative procedures. FIC has also supported training and advisory related to recruitment, CBA negotiations and functioning of NEC (National Executive Committee).

The programme tends to use a “training approach” complemented by technical assistance. The Review Team finds that FIC could consider a comprehensive capacity development approach that targets individual organizations in a differential manner, set out in a Change Action Plan agreed with the board/management concerned, based on an updated organisational assessment. Generally, there is room for improvement in the undertaken capacity assessment reports, which also lack description of the change management methods required to implement their recommendations.

In spite of its poor financial status, Tom Mboya Labour College (TMLC) has been able to stay afloat financially without external funding, mainly because of use of its significant infrastructure that has been completed and paid for. The Review Team was not able to get access to financial information of the college. Nevertheless, the impression is that COTU has, over the years, drawn on revenues generated by the TMLC through running courses in business management and computers related studies.

As shown in a table in Chapter 5, only 51% of the total budget of DKK 5.5 million in 2015 was transferred to FIC partners for direct programme implementation activities in the two countries. This in itself reduces the cost-effectiveness of the programme, and is not a good point of departure for the severe budget cuts due to be implemented in the next phase. Consequently, finding ways to improve programmes cost-effectiveness is a vital challenge for the FIC. The Review Team proposes that FIC draw up and start implementing a plan to raise the cost effectiveness and sustainability (financial and organisational) of all partners and of FIC itself.

The general picture is that most partners are heavily dependent on FIC’s financial resources. Six out of nine partners are getting more than 38% of their operating budget from Denmark. This high dependency is of great concern, considering the 42% reduction in FIC’s budget for the coming programme phase. There is considerable need to improve most partners’ organisational and financial sustainability. The Review Team was impressed by the high level of volunteering observed among some of the Tanzania youth organisations, recommending that FIC further stimulate voluntary work among its partners.

In general, FIC has an effective setup and programme management. FIC has employed professional and committed staff. The impression is that FIC has satisfactory risk management, which takes advantage of

vi

in-depth understanding of the context in the two countries. FIC advisory assistance has translated into improvements in partners’ financial management, strategic plans, etc. The programme is managed in accordance with the required standards, rules and regulations set down by CISU and Danida.

The programme has cluster meetings within each component (in Dar es Salaam, in Mombasa, and in Kisumu), which bring partners together with key stakeholders and FIC staff. This has proven to be a good mechanism that is also appreciated by officials from municipalities, counties, Mombasa Port Authority and Ministry of Youth interviewed by the Review Team.

At the programme level, the results framework is fairly streamlined with clearly formulated indicators. Based on these, implementing partners have derived their own results frameworks, which are equally complete with indicators that guide the measurement of progress. However, some individual partners do not always report progress timely and according to commonly agreed indicators, thereby rendering the results measured vague, and the reports less than optimally useful for measuring the results and progress.

At programme level, the CISU reporting format has to certain extend limited the Review team in getting a consolidated overview of the results and achievements as well as capacity constraints among the partners. 6. Pre-appraisal of Next Programme Phase FIC’s second year progress report has provided about four pages that outline their preliminary ideas for the next phase of the programme. However, the ideas are sketchy and has not responded to the fundamental question: What operational efficiency and programmatic streamlining is FIC going to undertake on its current operations to accommodate the nearly 42% budget cut yet continue to deliver results and remaining true to its mission? Three possible strategic options could be considered by FIC that appear below in order of priority in the view of the consultant team:

a) Keep the two components, reduce the number of partners (based on criteria) and reduce budget to remaining partners.

b) Keep the two countries and drop one of the two components c) Drop one country and keep the two components

FIC needs to reduce the costs of running the whole programme (especially the Nairobi and Copenhagen offices of FIC), for which reason FIC is recommended to elaborate a Plan for improving the programme’s cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness that already can gradually initiated in the remaining part of the current programme phase. FIC needs to take strong decisions regarding prioritisation in the coming programme application. It is suggested that FIC based on consultations with their partners present a Concept Paper before the end of August 2016 that will receive comments (pre-appraised) from the consultant team. Review’s Main Conclusion: Overall, there is satisfactory progress of the FIC DWLR programme with the planned outputs and indicators largely being met. The Review Team found that significant results and achievements in relation to the work of trade unions and youth organisation have been attained in the Programme within the first two years. Among important results, programme partners are gradually entrenching internal good governance and improved accountability both to their members and target beneficiaries as their systems become strong and mature. Furthermore, the programme is equipping youth skills by which they are entering into the labour market better prepared and more confident and engaging more productively in community life. The programme has also affording workers stronger trade union organisations to advocate for their rights against exploitation by employers.

FIC is a capable and professional NGO with a well-focused programme in two priority sectors and countries. It has good insights into conditions on the ground, implementing a human rights-based approach (HRBA), capacity development, technical assistance and advisory services as well as committed staff in Nairobi and Copenhagen.

vii

The Review Team has observed positive and respectful partnerships that are highly appreciated by the trade unions and youth partners. FIC’s partnership approach is characterized by openness, trust and mutual respect.

Among the weaker elements in the first two years of the current programme are delays in implementing advocacy related activities, high dependency on FIC funding by most partners and challenges regarding the programme’s cost-effectiveness/efficiency.

Overall, Review Team concludes that FIC (in collaboration with partners in Tanzania and Kenya) has satisfactory ability to meet CISU and Danida’s requirements for a coming programme phase (from April 2017). A major challenge for FIC would be the streamlining of operations and accompanying rationalization of costs in the next phase of the programme in order to accommodate the 42% cut in budget.

List of recommendations: Below is listed the Review Team’s recommendations (gathered from the various chapters) for how to respond to the aforementioned findings and conclusions in this report.

Recommendation 1: FIC together with its partners needs to reflect on what is realistic regarding synergy between the two programme components as it formulates the application for the next programme phase.

Recommendation 2: FIC and its partners should be more explicit on how to apply a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA), e.g. within the youth component and regarding the dimensions of gender equality and non-discrimination.

Recommendation 3: The programme partners in Kenya and Tanzania should generally give higher priority to gaining influence, alliances building and networking towards the defined advocacy goals. Furthermore, FIC should strengthen each partner’s advocacy efforts based on tailor-made plans for undertaking advocacy and networking at local and national levels.

Recommendation 4: FIC and partners should update the organisational capacity assessments through facilitated self-assessments. Furthermore, it is recommended to strengthen the use of change management tools, e.g. Kotter's 8-step process to successful change, or others. Such capacity development should give priority to strengthening partner’s internal (downward) accountability, transparency towards constituency, membership and volunteers.

Recommendation 5: FIC should discontinue funding to Tom Mboya Labour College because the intended result – development of labour studies curriculum – has been achieved and the college is able to sustain itself financially.

Recommendation 6: In the remaining 10 months of the programme period FIC should to put high priority on the elaboration and implementation of a Plan for improvement of cost-efficiency, cost effectiveness and sustainability (financial and organisational) that address all partners and FIC.

Recommendation 7: FIC should encourage partners to diversify their resource mobilisation for financial sustainability, including domestic resources for reducing dependency on international funding. Furthermore, the youth organisations could be inspired from the ‘Popular Account Model’ used by Danish NGOs that counts number of members, efforts and activities undertaken by volunteers, etc.

Recommendation 8: The programme partners in Kenya and Tanzania should observe timely reporting based agreed results framework and indicators. In turn, FIC Nairobi should institute higher quality standards when reviewing partner progress reports before submission to FIC Denmark.

Recommendation 9: FIC should change from quarterly to half-yearly progress reports with a strong focus on results (including indicators), reflections and lesson learned. Future quarterly reports should focus on financial reporting only. Future reports should be presented and discussed

viii

in the respective partner organizations boards before submission to FIC. Partners should be trained in sound result measurement and reporting.

Recommendation 10: CISU should consider revising the format for annual reports for programme agreements that can improve the consolidation of results, progress and constraints as well as partners capacity for implementation.

Recommendation 11: In order to accommodate the 42% reduction in funding from CISU, FIC have its priorities right for the upcoming programme application. , It is recommended that based on consultations with their partners FIC should present a Concept Paper before the end of August 2016 that includes these elements:

- An analysis of the various options for the next phase programme, including the main criteria’s for addressing the 42% cut in budget.

- Proposed results framework with objectives, possible adjustments in implementation strategy, estimated rough budget, FIC staffing and scale of operations in proportion to available funding.

- A Process Action Plan for the activities leading to the start of possible next programme phase by 1st of April 2017.

- A Plan for improving the programmes cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness that already can gradually initiated in the remaining part of the current phase.

Recommendation 12: FIC should consider discontinuing partnership with Africa Youth Trust and instead identify a CSO partner with much more focus on constituency, membership and volunteers. The remaining part of the current phase can be used to establish a relationship with Youth Alive Kenya (YAK) as a possible new Kenyan partner on the youth component.

1

1. Introduction

Forum for International Cooperation (FIC) also called 'Fagligt Internationalt Center', is a Danish nongovernmental organisation (NGO). Since 1998, the international development activities of FIC in Kenya and Tanzania have changed from being focused primarily on port workers to the boarder work on labour market inclusion for disadvantaged groups, including youth. The overall mission of FIC is to strengthen the social, democratic and economic rights and opportunities of people through integration at the labour market in Denmark, Europe and East Africa.

In 2012, Dnet Consult carried out a capacity assessment of FIC on behalf of CISU. A follow-up capacity assessment took place in June 2013 with the specific aim of analysing FIC’s capacity to be part of a CISU-supported program agreement. A brief status over these key recommendations Appears in Chapter 3.

In 2013, and following the capacity assessment, CISU approved FIC’s application for a programme with partners in Kenya and Tanzania with the title: “Decent work and Labour Rights in East Africa Programme (DWLRP).” The three-year programme (2014-2016) is funded as part of the CISU programme funding modality, where FIC is working with partners in Tanzania and Kenya with a total budget of DKK 18,0 million for the three-year period. As part of CISU standard procedures, the programme has to undergo a review and a pre-appraisal for a possible next phase of the programme. Hence, the purpose of the review cum pre-appraisal, as expressed in the terms of reference (ToR) in Annex A is twofold:

• Assess the current programme phase performance and identify and qualify lessons learned (those mentioned in the Programme Status report year 2 as well as those identified during the review itself).

• Pre-appraise the proposed new programme phase outline/elements and provide recommendations on changes required in order to improve or change future strategies and activities, taking into account the reduced funding available from CISU.”

The Review was conducted by two consultants: Hans Peter Dejgaard (INKA Consult, Denmark) and Kitakaya Loisa (Kenya). The combination of a South and North based consultant afforded the review team the advantage of having analysing the programme from a broader spectrum. The review included a field trip to FIC partners in Tanzania and Kenya between 18 and 27 April 2016. The visit enabled meeting partners and other stakeholders as well as having a good dialogue with Copenhagen and Nairobi based FIC staff that travelled with the review team.

The team applied a methodology based on four phases: i) Desk study and interviews in Nairobi and Kisumu; ii) field mission to Dar es Salaam, Mombasa, Nairobi and Kisumu; iii) a debriefing with FIC staff in the last day in Kisumu; iv) and elaboration of the report.

The main report includes the following chapters: 1) Introduction, 2) context update, 3) follow-up to 2013 review, 4) progress in FIC’s programme, 5) analysis of main issues and 6) pre-appraisal of next programme phase. The report’s recommendations are listed in the Summary.

In the annexes, Terms of Reference can be found in Annex A. The field visit schedule appears in annex B and a list of interviewees appears in annex C. The partners’ percentage funding from FIC is included in annex D and in Annex E can be found FIC's two years status for the planned 10 outputs (LFA). Finally, annex F contains FICs preliminary ideas for the next programme phase.

The two consultants would like to thank all individuals and organisations interviewed for their valuable contributions. The views expressed in this report reflect the opinions of the consultant team, and not necessarily those of FIC or CISU.

2

2. Brief context update related to the programme Recent economic development in East Africa has been characterised by investment in the transport infrastructure including ports and roads. With increasing urbanisation in the region, the property market in large cities, has been on an upward swing. Use of subcontracting (a form of labour brokerage) is widespread in the construction industry where Chinese companies hold a significant share of the contracts. Workers are employed on a casual basis without job security, insurance benefits and no social protection. Where labour unions have weighed in on the rights of workers their agitation has been met with frustrations by both the government and private sector players. In Tanzania, labour unions have not been successful in recruiting many workers as members before it can agitate for better terms for them. The bonded warehouses in Kenya have become notorious in circumventing labour laws by outsourcing labour services to small private companies and or individuals who in turn engage poor labourers at minimal wages in deplorable working conditions in contradiction to international law, to which Kenya is a signatory.

High unemployment especially among youth in the larger cities is another feature of Kenyan and Tanzanian economies. In response, both governments have developed policies aimed at addressing the plight of youth. These policies, however, are weak with glaring omission and simply fall short in addressing effectively the challenges that youth face when seeking to join the labour market. In some instances, the necessary institutional and legal frameworks that govern and support the implementation of these policies are either inadequate or altogether absent.

Both Kenya and Tanzania have moved in to create the affirmative action funds including the Youth Enterprise Development Fund. The Fund is primarily meant to be a source of business capital for youth keen on starting own businesses. In Kenya, 30% of all government tenders are reserved for marginalised groups – persons with disabilities, women and youth. However, partners in the programme are yet to work to ensure that youth receive the support they need before they can optimise on these opportunities. So far, youth are finding it challenging to access these opportunities in the two countries, and hence finding themselves crowded out of the labour market or surviving at the fringes of the informal economy.

To counter the above trends, the DWLR programme works in partnership with four labour unions KSCWWU, DWU and Seafarers Union (in Kenya) and TAMICO (in Tanzania) supports workers to seek out ways of instituting fair labour and decent work practices within the sector. The support to these organisations aims at transforming them into strong, credible and sustainable organisations that provide for the most appropriate platforms for workers to mobilise, organise and articulate their voices effectively for improvement of their working conditions. In addition, the programme works with youth civil society organisations in the two countries to support employability skills acquisition among youth as well as entrepreneurship skills development and policy influencing through advocacy.

3. Follow up to capacity assessment 2013 The Review Team was tasked to assess how the recommendations from the capacity assessments conducted in 2013 have been implemented by FIC. Below is a brief overview of follow-up to the seven recommendations in the DNET capacity assessment report from 2013.

Recommendation 1. FIC should over the next six months, develop its project handbook further with particular emphasis on developing and documenting its financial and administrative systems as well as its approach to capacity development, approach to partnerships and joint learning systems.

Review team comment: FIC has developed its project handbook, including description of procedures for its financial and administrative systems. This has been shared with all partners and been used as part of the capacity building of partner organisations. Furthermore, FIC has developed a manual with financial guidelines for partners. The manual was presented and discussed at the partner meeting in 2015.

Recommendation 2. FIC should continue to work on involving members and its organisational hinterland more in its international activities.

3

Review team comment: FIC has involved the Danish FIC Youth Network in the communication activities, and two representatives from the programme were invited to Denmark, where they interacted with Danish trade unions and high school pupils, discussing the programme. They also took part in a youth seminar in Aalborg, where working conditions and youth employment were discussed and solutions identified.

Recommendation 3. FIC should develop and adjust its draft concept note, ‘Fair employment and labour rights in East Africa’, by defining less ambitious objectives, making the programme open to changes arising from demands/wishes from partners and from joint learning – especially as a result of critical evaluation of the experiences of applying the model being developed by FIC and AYT.

Review team comment: FIC has informed the team that the final objectives and indicators set out in the programme application were based on the agreements made with partners and the partners confirmed the same. The indicators were further revised during the programme meeting in Morogoro, as part of the revision of the LFA for making them more realistic targets. The revised indicators were submitted to CISU with the annual report for 2014, and were approved.

Recommendation 4. FIC and AYT should make a thorough evaluation referring explicitly to the DAC criteria of the model developed with AYT by the end of this year.

Review team comment: The evaluation of AYT has taken place and has been shared with the Review Team.

Recommendations 5, 6 and 7:

5) The CSF (CISU) should support FIC’s development of an East African programme on the basis of an adjusted Concept Note and provide funds for a Joint Finalization Workshop.

6) FIC should turn the Joint Finalisation Workshop into a space that is open for reflection and for expression of new ideas and wishes – and not just a means of ‘Finalisation’. (see no. 3 above)

7) CISU should consider how the formulation of a programme approach can become a truly joint exercise, thus ensuring joint ownership.

Review team comment: All the above three recommendations were applied in the formulation of the programme application. The partners interviewed by the Review Team confirmed having participated in preparation and finalisation of the 2014-2016 programme application to CISU.

The Review Team’s conclusion is that FIC and partners have ensured good follow up action to the capacity assessment from 2013 by implementing all the recommendations.

4. Assessment of plans and achieved results in Tanzania and Kenya This chapter describes the results and achievements of FIC-supported activities within trade unions and youth organisations in Tanzania and Kenya since the start of the programme in 2014, which the Review team has verified during field visits and interviews carried out in the two countries. For each of the two components, the description of the achievements is followed by the verification of a result matrix based on progress reports, Logical Frameworks (LFs) and interviews made during the field visits.

The Review team has observed how FIC’s planning and reporting have been going through a transition with two different modalities: Project approach and programme agreement with CISU. It took the first months of 2014 to get the programme started and new partners on board. Thus, all the administrative systems had to be harmonized and the M&E system – including a revision of the LFA – was developed during the first year. As stated in FIC's 2nd year status report, these factors altogether have contributed to some delays in the implementation and consequently request for a no-cost extension of the program until 31 March 2017.

4

4.1. Component 1: Trade unions in the two countries The most significant results was seen in Kenya, which has focused on enhancement of membership and improved capacity of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements (CBA) with the public and private companies in and around the port of Mombasa. Because of this, 8 CBAs has been signed in the period, which according to FIC report led to a salary increase of 15-17 % in the CBAs negotiated by Dock Workers Union (DWU) and a salary increase of 8-10 % in the CBAs negotiated by Kenya Shipping of Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union (KSCWWU).

Baseline surveys were conducted in both Mombasa and Dar Es Salaam that contain valuable information about the sector, although some were not concrete enough to provide adequate baseline data for measuring the progress in this component. FIC's second year report did not utilize the baseline data to benchmark progress at that point in time.

The capacity building activities of the trade unions, particularly in 2015, have achieved an improvement of internal governance and performance of the trade unions partners. Capacity building mainly took the form of training of national executive committees (NEC) of all unions and revision of their constitutions, strategic plans, including implementation plan and supporting budgets. Furthermore, FIC has supported all the unions to improve their financial and administrational structures and systems.

The Dock Workers Union (DWU) is in the view of the Review team a showcase in having increased their capacity through their ten years partnership with FIC to become among the strongest trade unions in Kenya. FIC's decision to include two other trade unions in the programme, the Seafarers union (SUK) and the Kenya Shipping Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union (KSCWWU) seems well justified in being organisations with low capacity, and particular in relation to warehouses targeting poor workers with extremely poor working conditions. FIC reports mentions the awareness activities among approximately 1300 non-unionized workers within the warehouses and among potential members of SUK, which has lead to 1200 new young members.

FIC has supported the development of Training Curriculum for Trade Union Education and Labour Studies at Tom Mboya Labour College in Kisumu, Kenya. The curriculum has since been piloted starting with training of shop stewards. The quality is promising. This support from FIC has been an important contribution to this labour college, the only of its kind in the provision of labour studies in Eastern Africa. In addition, to labour studies and different from its name, the college offers courses in business management, accounting, computer and information technology to complement its revenues.

In 2015, FIC started a new and relevant partnership with the national office of Tanzania Mines, Energy, Construction & Allied Workers Union (Tamico). The focus has been on training the national leadership, which included reviewing Tamico' constitution, the current strategic plan and knowledge on how to recruit workers and sensitising workers on the benefits of joining a union. Furthermore, efforts have been undertaken to improve the financial management and the leadership now wants to invest (with own resources) in a software system for electronic receiving of member fees.

In conclusion, FIC’s prioritisation of capacity building of the trade unions has been well justified and it has registered particular improvements in the partners’ strategic plans, internal governance and financial management with much advisory support from the FIC Nairobi office. Considerable organisational capacity improvements are evident on the part of DWU in Mombasa and to certain degree Tamico in Dar es Salaam, while much still needs to be done in relation to KSCWWU and SUK capacity development. In next section can be seen the achievements and results structured according to LFA.

4.2. Assessment and verification of results: Component 1 – Trade unions

The table below presents the most important results from 2014-2015 in Component 1 reported by FIC and the verification and assessment carried out by the Review team based on documents and field visits. This is based on the Logframe table in annex A in FIC's second year report to CISU. The review team has added a column of its comments.

5

The table below also compares the review team's rating with FIC's self-assessment of progress towards the planned outputs that feature in FICs revised LFA (approved in by CISU). The ratings is done on a scale from 1 to 5 that express the level of progress as at 31 December 2015 compared with the planned outputs and indicators.

Planned results 2014-2015 for verification/assessment Planned Outputs FIC’s own status of results

(per March 2016) Review team’s assessment and verification of results

1.1. Target group and partners have increased capacity to address workers’ rights and health and safety issues for improved working conditions including non-discrimination policies.

On-track (rating: 3) • In Mombasa: 26 Shop stewards enhanced their skills in industrial relations, dispute resolutions, labour rights and occupational health and safety and environment. • 23 trained participants (SUK, DWU) have enhanced their understanding of Maritime Labour Convention. • 1272 workers in Mombasa has been trained in basic labour rights (in 2014) in the Seafarers union (SUK) and Kenya Shipping of Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union (KSCWWU).

Partially on-track (rating: 3) • The Review Team has found significant achievements in the Dock Workers Union (DWU) capacity to address workers’ rights and health and safety issues. • SUK and KSCWWU have their challenges being weak organisations with low capacity. The government support to maritime sector has been limited making it difficult for SUK activities.

1.2: Unions have increased their capacity to recruit members and negotiate for CBAs, which lead to better employment conditions at work places.

On-track (rating: 3) • Kenya Shipping of Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union (KSCWWU): 10 companies have signed recognition agreements and out of those 7 have signed CBAs implying salary 8-10% increment between 8 and 10 %. • DWU: Signed CBA on behalf of Kenya Ferry Workers branch in 2015, which included 17% salary increment. Furthermore, all the 70 casual labourers had their terms converted to permanent and pensionable. • The Seafarers union (SUK) increased their membership with more than 100% by the end of 2014 with the number of young members being 1000. • The KSCWWU increased membership with more than 200 young members by end of 2014. • A strategy for organizing and recruitment for KSCWWU and SUK developed and in place in 2014.

On-track (rating: 3) • The visited trade union leaders and FIC have provided detailed information to the Review team about the achievements with CBAs and increase in salaries. There are however a number of CBAs under KSCWWU that are not being enforced by employers. • Dock Workers Union (DWU) is a showcase in having increased their capacity through ten years partnership with FIC. • The Seafarers union (SUK) and KSCWWU have increased membership, however it also reflect a very low point of departure. A continuation of FIC support is well justified.

1.3: Increased capacity and efficiency of trade unions in advocacy and lobbying for decent working conditions.

Partially on-track (rating: 2) - A joint programme advocacy strategy has been developed with all partners. It suffered from delays, but partners have been trained and developed activity plans to carry out in 2016. - A joint Advocacy action plan in place for Mombasa partners (DWU, KSCWWU, KUDHEIA, SUK) and for Tamico. - Training in advocacy has been conducted to 32 union officials from 4 trade unions in Mombasa in December 2015. They agreed on action plan on making advocacy during 2016 on 'Casualization and poor working conditions.' The same issue was prioritised by 20 Union officials in TAMICO that also was trained in December 2015.

Partially on-track (rating: 2) Review team finds it a setback that little (if any) concrete advocacy activities were carried out (under the programme). The review team finds the two-year wait before having a joint programme advocacy strategy unjustifiable. - Good training courses in advocacy has been conducted in Mombasa and Tamico. Hopefully, they will be able to undertake agreed advocacy activities to counter 'Casualization of labour and poor working conditions.'

1.4: Improved organisational, financial and administrational procedures in the Trade Unions leading to efficient management of the organisations

On-track (rating: 3) - Strategic plan for all the four unions involved in the programme (KSCWWU, DWU, SUK, TAMICO and TMLC) have been reviewed and in place together with monitoring plans and proposed budgets. - Financial improvement plan carried out with the trade unions in the programme (TAMICO, DWU, SUK, KSCWWU). • The financial manuals for SUK and KSCWWU are currently being implemented. Through capacity building KSCWWU and SUK have improved in: a) Compliance to statutory requirements b) Supporting documents available, all unions have improved in record keeping, disciplined in signing of

On-track (rating: 4) This is the strongest implemented output within component 1. All visited trade union partners expressed their satisfaction with the progress with updated strategic plans and improvements in their financial management. The advisory from FIC Nairobi is highly appreciated.

6

cheque and to carry out payrolls on a monthly basis. c) There has been improved level of involvement of key officials and Board in matters relating to the accounts.

1.5: Established governance and structures is leading to internal transparency and accountability in trade unions involved in the program.

On-track (rating: 3) • Open and transparent decisions are made in regular board meetings by SUK leadership which has observably improved transparency and communication • New constitution for DWU- with youth representation in NEC - ratified in October 2014. • New constitution with improved democratic governance for SUK ratified and in place in July 2014. • New constitution for KSWWU with improved member participation in democratic process ratified and in place in December 2014.

On-track (rating: 3) The Review team have observed good participation and positive improvements in trade unions updated constitution that include increased participation of youth and women representatives. The changes provides better conditions for improving transparency and accountability, however the leadership's political will in this direction is still limited.

1.6: Tom Mboya Labour College (TMLC) curriculum is relevant to current union leadership skill needs in Kenya.

On-track (rating: 3) • Curriculum is revised based on the training needs assessment of trade union leadership and members. • 8 Courses developed for Rank and files, Branch officials, Shop stewards, National officials, Industrial Relations Officials, Union Educators, Union Organizers. • Course for Shop-stewards piloted with 35 shop-stewards from 21 different unions in Kenya in December 2015 • Strategy to promote courses and improved relationship with trade unions developed in a two days workshop attended by Stakeholders and curriculum experts in January 2016.

On-track (rating: 4) The FIC support in 2015 has in a very positive way responded to the past depressed performance of the core labour related courses. The good curriculum development has good potentials to grow the college in labour related training in Kenya and in the region.

1.7 Organisational capacity of Tom Mboya Labour College to manage capacity building of trade union leadership is enhanced.

On-track (rating: 3) • Strategic plan in place and being implemented. Monitoring plan in place during 2015 • Reviewed labour courses in line with the needs of the trade unions, course and TMLC promotion Strategy. • Legal status in place with the renewed college licence • College Board confirmed.

On-track (rating: 3) The Review team finds important progress during 2015 with strategic plan, monitoring plan and improved financial management. However, strategic plan lacks indicators and the financial expectation in the plan seems unrealistic (and financial transparency is low).

4.3. Component 2: Youth Employment in the two countries Activities under the youth component of the programme (Component 2) included training in business skills and entrepreneurship development (BSED), mentorship and linkages to financial service providers for business start up and expansion; and employability training including, internships and career guidance. The progress so far indicates that target milestones will be achieved in terms of number of youth trained and landing jobs. 589 of the trained youth have been able to start their own small and microenterprises, and 387 have been employed. Although there are youth that have landed jobs in the formal sector they were not easily accessible because employers did not allow them time off work to meet the review team. The training adopts a flexible hours mode and only a given number of hours per week for three months to allow beneficiaries to attend to their other activities and attend the training conveniently. The topics covered under this training include: types of businesses, marketing, business planning, SWOT Analysis, data collection, business ideas, business research, cash flow projection. There are differences in cohorts. Schools dropouts are more into business while college graduates are inclined toward labour market or employability training.

After starting own businesses and becoming financially independent, you are having an increased sense of self-esteem. Young women with businesses are increasingly taking charge of decision making in their lives and reducing dependence on their spouses. This is leading to integrating themselves more with other community activities and programmes, better understanding and less tension among family members. Besides employing themselves, the youth are employing others (creating jobs) in their communities. The youth also feel a greater sense of acceptance by the communities, where they are no longer viewed with scorn, suspicion and even fear.

7

When youth in a particular community start their own businesses, it becomes an inspiration to their peers within the same community who might have not started any businesses yet. They become “home-grown models.” In the end, there is quality utilization of time among youth and programme beneficiaries.

The mentorship provided under the programme takes place in the course of BSED training and not beyond. While such mentoring is relevant, the duration is too short and since it occurs before some of the beneficiaries get to start their small and micro enterprises, they relate to such a service from a rather abstract and theoretical viewpoint. In some instances, BSED trainers without practical business experience carry out the mentoring again reducing the exercise to a mere theoretical simulation. Although the programme facilitates linkages by bringing beneficiary youth into contact with financial services providers, the youth are not necessarily accessing funding from these agencies – both private and government – because of the terms of the loans. Unfortunately, the programme has not yet been able to do anything to address the policy gaps that hinder youth access to business finance.

4.4. Verification of results of FIC’s support to Youth component 2

Planned results 2014-2015 for verification/assessment; Youth Component Planned Outputs FIC’s own status of results (per

March 2016) Review team’s assessment and verification of results

Output 2.1. Youth have increased skills in business start-up and expansion and search for employment

On track (rating 3) • Implementation of the internship

strategies and especially building synergy with companies, small businesses and other stakeholders with internship and placement services.

• Ensure regular refresher courses for

TOTs on delivery as well as integrating feedback from the beneficiaries to improve course content

On track: (rating 3) • It is not clear what value for results

measurement is derived from information meetings.

• The training has been of good quality and some of the BSED trainers are running their own businesses meaning they are conversant with practice as well.

• What is regarded as mentoring is too short to be real mentoring and the benefits are limited.

• 2,112 have been trained in BSED. Of these 520 have started their own small businesses and employed another 69 of those that attended training with them.

• 1,880 youth have received employability skills training. Of these 365 have landed internships and 387 have landed employment.

Output 2.2: Functional and sustainable youth advocacy platforms

Partially on track (rating: 2) • Need to strengthen alliance building with

other stakeholders for advocacy purposes

Partially on track (rating: 2) • Advocacy not been focus from FIC

the first 2 years (partners are networking outside the project)

• The programme has pushed advocacy to the back banner.

Output 2.3: Enhanced capacity of 6 implementing partners and relevant local and county government staff for smooth implementation and sustainability of program activities

• On track (rating: 3) • Continuous relationship building and

maintenance with government and other stakeholders

• Support in development of youth employment policies e.g. in Mombasa County.

• On track (rating: 3) • Partners are at different organisational

levels. • AYT has strong organisational

capacity but has not matched it with diversified fundraising strategies and has weak governance in terms of the constituency they report to.

• Partners in Tanzania are involving volunteers in their operations and gradually diversifying their resource mobilisation.

8

5. Analysis of Main Issues

5.1. The relevance of the program to the target group and selected partners FIC has been working in East Africa for over ten years initially focused on rights of port workers in Kenya and Tanzania. Over the period, FIC came to understand the local context and built relationships locally. FIC then sought to build on the successes of this period by expanding its portfolio to embrace decent work and labour rights programme bringing in more unions and working with youth organisations. Further, FIC moved away from the initial project approach where interventions were conducted in isolation to a programme approach, which incorporates advocacy. FIC’s presence in the region via its office in Nairobi provided the necessary proximity to local implementing partners and continued internalisation of the issues emerging locally.

In the two programme countries, the youth remain vulnerable to unemployment and often do not have sufficient resources to pursue wealth creation opportunities. The numbers of youth joining the job market annually is ever increasing with the urban cities in the region receiving most of the job seekers. Unemployment rates are estimated to approximately 40%1 and 40%2 in Tanzania and Kenya respectively. Majority of those unemployed are young people. Without stable livelihoods, young people suffer from extreme poverty and social exclusion, often resulting in negative outcomes such as loss of self-esteem, risky sex, drug abuse, and crime. Although young people are increasingly demanding for space to participate in decision-making processes and community life as a whole, their participation remains low. The youth can be classified into priority categories: youth with disability, street youth, and youth infected with Aids, female youth, and unemployed youth and out of school youth. The last two cohorts form an important justification for the FIC programmes youth component. The formal and informal sectors in both Kenya and Tanzania are characterised by working conditions in which the freedom, equity, security and human dignity of workers are compromised sometimes in blatant contravention of the law. Often this results from workers’ inability to mobilise and organise through effective labour unions platforms. Similarly, government departments charged with oversight roles are unable to enforce compliance to the relevant laws because of inadequate resources. In between poorly organised employees on the one hand and inadequate enforcement of labour standards by governments on the other, are economic operators who are ever bend on trampling decent work and labour rights if only to make higher profits. The workers suffer. This is more pronounced in labour intensive sectors that employ low skilled (usually unschooled) labourers. The programme is aligned to the ILO conventions on basic labour rights ratified in the two countries, national labour legislation and in line with Kenyan3 and Tanzanian4 policy priorities as articulated in the National Youth Policies of 2007. Such alignment eases of implementation within existing national sectoral frameworks and provides a good justification for the FIC programme.

5.2. Assessment the appropriateness of the Programme strategy The programmes implementation strategy is described from page 23 in the approved programme document that describes how the two components will work to achieve the set objectives. The Review team observes that the strategy in an adequate way has been translated into practise. The programme also relates well to the Danida Civil Society Policy.

Being young and unemployed can lead to a higher likelihood of long-term negative effects later life such as lower pay, higher unemployment, reduced life chances, an increase in the risk of poverty, resentment and

1 http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/kenya/kenya_economy.html 2 http://ieconomics.com/kenya-unemployment-rate 3 Ministry of Youth Affairs Kenya National Youth Policy Sessional Paper No. 3 of July 2007 4 The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Labour Employment and Youth Development. National Youth Development Policy, 2007.

9

social exclusion among other challenges. When the potent power of youth is managed poorly, it can result in destructive outcomes including attendant social tensions and at the extreme end, even political turmoil. Through training, internship and career guidance, the programme enhances the employability skills of the youth thereby increasing their chances of being absorbed in the formal labour market. Out-of-school youth are targeted with business skills and entrepreneurship training, mentorship and linkages with providers of capital for business start up and expansion with the expectation that they will be able to start their own businesses within the informal sector which is proving to be a major employer in the two countries.

However, unscrupulous employers tend to take advantage of the desperation arising out of high unemployment subjecting workers to poor working conditions and the violation of the rights of the workers. The scenario warrants supports for workers to enable them form strong labour unions typified by strong systems, internal democracy, accountability and transparency. Such labour unions should be able to stand against manipulation by employers while advocating for job security, fair remuneration and legally acceptable terms and conditions of service for their members.

By targeting unemployed youth with practical skills relevant to the labour market and workers with skills to organise and mobilise and organisational development, the programme has adopted an effective strategy for both target groups and the partner local institutions through which the target groups are reached. From a technical and design viewpoint, the DWLR programme is therefore an appropriate and fitting attempt by FIC at addressing some of the major challenges that has social, economic and political implications in Tanzania and Kenya.

A key planned activity for the successful implementation of the strategy was advocacy in order to effect policy changes. However, the Review team (RT) has observed Advocacy activities have been few and far in between at individual partner level, at component level and programme level. Advocacy related activities came in a little late during the period under review. Limited advocacy activities means that changes accruing from the programme may not be anchored on supporting (and therefore sustainable) policy framework. Furthermore, advocacy is requisite to cast policies in a more favourable way for the preferment of the target youth and workers.

5.3. Assessment of the synergy in the programme

The programme document has emphasised that an "important role of FIC is to ensure that the synergy between programme partners and activities is created." This has proved to be more difficult in practice than expected by FIC. Neither the daily work nor the annual program seminar have been able to produce significant synergy between the two components.

Although the whole programme is on decent work and labour rights, the two components deal with different target groups: unemployed and out of school youth on one hand and employed workers on the other. FIC's partners are equally different. Under the youth component, are small civil society organizations dependent largely on donor funding supplemented by limited resources generated internally. Partners in the trade unions component are labour unions whose funding comes from member contributions. Youth organizations target persons aged between 15 and 35 years. Labour unions are interested in persons of legal working age with wage-paying employment and who need to keep their jobs while enjoying decent and legally acceptable working conditions.

During the past year when the programme has been under implementation, the partners in the two components have not been able address jointly any issues or act in concert in implementing activities despite constant reminding that as partners in the same programme they should strive to carry out common activities together. In effect, there is little synergy between the two programme components so far. The scenario is unlikely to change in the future. What is clear is the complementary nature between the components as they both address different stages within the job market value chain.

Some youth organisations told the Review team that they are reluctant be associated with trade unions in the fear that should the latter get into a collision course with employers, the youth organisations will be implicated thereby resulting in a backlash from employers (and/or government). For example, civil society has often suffered assault from governments whenever it has been critical of government. In 2015, the

10

employer summarily dismissed the whole leadership of the DWU in Mombasa after the latter led workers on a strike.

Recommendation 1: FIC together with its partners needs to reflect on what is realistic regarding synergy between the two programme components as it formulates the application for the next programme phase.

5.4. Human Right Based Approach in the programme Most of the work of FIC incorporates elements of the Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) that is a priority in Danida's civil society policy (2012) with the PANT principles: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination and Transparency. The HRBA approach is particularly strong in the trade union component with support for rights holders’ negotiation with duty bearers, holding the latter to account for compliance with national labour laws and ratified ILO conventions. The FIC programme has supported the training of many shop stewards, union leaders and active members in labour market legislation and conventions.

In comparison, the youth component has far fewer references to HRBA, except for minimal engagements with County government and municipal authorities, as well as being part of national processes on policy influencing. Neither the programme document, nor FIC's second-year report to CISU make any mention of specific international conventions and national policies in the two countries, based on which advocacy efforts should be hinged through a HRBA.

• Participation: This issue has been thoroughly addressed with significant numbers of participants at information meetings, training sessions, involvement of youth and trade union activists etc.

• Accountability and transparency: FIC has played an important role regarding improvements of its partners’ financial management systems as well as by revising strategic plans and constitutions. It remains a challenge to get trade union leaders to focus more on transparency and downward accountability to their members.

• Non-discrimination: The Review team met many empowered women when visiting partner organisations. Recent changes in trade union constitutions have resulted in women, youth and in some cases also people with disability obtaining representation on trade union boards (e.g. of NEC). Although this clearly demonstrates good attempts at inclusion and balanced representation, it is not clear with mainstreaming of these factors in the policy documents of these organisations. It is not as clear what the FIC programme’s gender approach is.

Recommendation 2: FIC and its partners should be more explicit on how to apply a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA), e.g. within the youth component and regarding the dimensions of gender equality and non-discrimination.

5.5. Assessment of partnership approach FIC describes its partnership approach in the programme document in this way: "Generally the cooperation between partners is based on mutual trust. The cooperation from both sides must be made in an accountable and transparent way. The South partner must be able to conduct the administrational tasks implied by the program in an accountable and transparent manner. When new partnerships are entered an organisational assessment is made to confirm this or indicate areas in which the partner’s capacity has to be strengthened." FIC's Handbook is annexed to each of the partner agreements, which delegate day-to-day management responsibility for the Danish support. The handbook sets out the requirements with regard to the planning and implementation of projects/programmes. The Review Team has observed positive and respectful partnerships that are highly appreciated by the trade unions and youth partners. FIC’s partnership approach is characterized by openness, trust and mutual respect, which reflects an effort and culture taking shape over more than ten years of field experience in Eastern Africa. As an example, the partnership since 2006 with the Docs workers has massively increased the latter’s capacity, making it one of the most active trade unions in Kenya today. Mutual trust has been a key factor in the capacity development of this trade union in Mombasa.

11

The more recent partners (who joined in during this ongoing programme period) also praise their partnership with FIC, which has enhanced their ownership and allowed them to discuss more sensitive internal issues. In this sense, it is disappointing that some trade union partners are failing to live up to the expectation to be transparent in their partnership with FIC and their constituencies regarding their financial situation. The team discussed this issue at several meetings, including with the Board of Tom Mboya Labour College, asking them why their new strategic plan has a funding deficit of 238 million Kenyan shillings out of total budget of 283 million (equivalent to 84%). This gives the impression that they have some other sources of finance not accounted for. FIC has become more aware of the need to intensify its contacts with the boards of partners, leaning on them to take on greater responsibility for implementation.

5.6. Programme support for advocacy Advocacy is present in two out of the ten planned LFA outputs in the programme document, so FIC has given priority to strengthening advocacy among trade unions and youth partner organisations. Accordingly, the partners have undertaken a number of important advocacy activities, including the following:

• In both Kenya and Tanzania, lobbying activities have been carried out in the youth component, e.g. AYT operating through the Parliamentary Initiative Network to lobby for the National Employment Authority Act, which concerns the issue of internships, but this has been outside the auspices of the programme. This legislative initiative received presidential assent in March 2016.

• In Tanzania, TYVA has carried out lobbying to influence the National Youth Policy in cooperation with OMT and YOA. The policy was adopted and enacted as legislation in late 2015. The partners have also been lobbying local governments on youth issues.

• The Mombasa trade union partners and TAMICO in Tanzania recently began to work on one common advocacy issues to ensure that labour laws are respected, especially in relation to the rights of casual workers.

• The Seafarers’ Union of Kenya started implementing their ‘Go To Sea’ campaign in 2014 with the aim of increasing opportunities for its members in training and employment. The union managed to secure training and update seafarer books for 200 of its members under the sponsorship of the Kenya Maritime Authority.

The programme partners have good and frequent contacts with county officials in Mombasa tasked with developing youth employment policies. All partners acknowledge that increased cooperation is needed with local authorities in both Kenya and Tanzania.

Towards the end of 2015, partners have been trained in advocacy skills, which they have found highly useful. Partners explained to the Review team that they had been waiting for the so-called "Advocacy Strategy for Decent Work and Labour Rights in East Africa." (April 2016). This programme-based strategy was drawn up by a consultant. In the view of the RT, this document comes across more as well-formulated set of guidelines than as an advocacy strategy (45 pages of the 57 pages present guidelines). While its annexes identify a number of advocacy issues within each component and each country, few, if any, of these action plans have been implemented by respective partners so far.

Although advocacy activities have been undertaken, as described above, the Review Team (RT) has observed insufficient advocacy at the individual partner level, at component level and programme level. Consequently, in the course of the first two years, there has not been an adequate balance between the three elements in the “the triangle” of Danida civil society policy (i.e. between service delivery, capacity development and advocacy).

The consequence of this delay is that numerous opportunities have not been seized sufficiently (e.g. lobbying for government policy on seafarers, the critical situation of warehouse workers’ rights, influencing municipalities and counties to increase support for the youth, etc.). Limited and or delayed advocacy activities mean that the changes that would have been occasioned in policy areas are delayed

12

with the likely effect of weaker sustainability of programme results. In conclusion, although promising advocacy activities have been undertaken, FIC has performed below expectations in supporting partners’ exertion of influence at local and national levels.

Recommendation 3: The programme partners in Kenya and Tanzania should generally give higher priority to gaining influence, alliances building and networking towards the defined advocacy goals. Furthermore, FIC should strengthen each partner’s advocacy efforts based on tailor-made plans for undertaking advocacy and networking at local and national levels.

5.7. Capacity development of partners’ performance FIC has played an important role in providing capacity building to partners, which has resulted in a number of improvements as described in the results table in Chapter 4. According to interviews conducted by the RT, FIC has been particularly successful in providing advice and mentoring to strengthen partners’ financial management systems and administrative procedures. FIC emphasizes closer engagement with partners’ accountants and practically guides them on proper accounting practices and financial reporting.

During the first two years of the programme, FIC has focused on capacity building of the trade unions, helping to meet their needs for well-organized strategies for recruitment, CBA negotiations, systems and structures under the NEC (National Executive Committee). Important training activities have been carried out, e.g. training of sub committees of all unions involved in the work of the NEC. All partners also refer to relevant, qualified and committed technical assistance in the two components. This has contributed to forging relations characterised by trust. There is also widespread appreciation of the advisory assistance in the field of financial management provided by FIC Nairobi.

Chapter 2 of FIC's handbook describes methods for capacity building. It is mentioned that new partners should always undergo an organizational capacity assessment to inform capacity-building activities. To this end, FIC has in some cases used the ID/OS concept, and in other cases the PACT Organizational Capacity Assessment tool, modifying it to suit trade unions and youth organizations. The Review Team has looked at assessments undertaken 2-3 years ago of the three unions in Mombasa and Africa Youth Trust (AYT) and the Dar es Salaam based youth organizations. The assessment of Africa Youth Trust (AYT) reports, "AYT has clearly identified constituencies", and does not mention that it is only accountable to 3-4 persons on its Board, who are appointed by the founder and not elected by anybody.

Generally, there is room for improvement of capacity assessment reports, which are mostly presented as tables of completed questionnaires, and found wanting in terms of analyses and summing up of key conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore, the assessment reports lack description of the change management methods required to implement their recommendations.

The Review Team replies with a clear "yes" to the ToR’s question of whether different contexts in Kenya and Tanzania require different approaches with regard to training, advocacy or information meetings. The programme tends to use a “training approach” complemented by technical assistance. The Review Team finds that FIC could consider a comprehensive capacity development approach that targets individual organizations in a differential manner, set out in a Change Action Plan agreed with the board/management concerned, based on an updated organisational assessment.

Recommendation 4: FIC and partners should update the organisational capacity assessments through facilitated self-assessments. Furthermore, it is recommended to strengthen the use of change management tools, e.g. Kotter's 8-step process to successful change, or others. Such capacity development should give priority to strengthening partner’s internal (downward) accountability, transparency towards constituency, membership and volunteers.

5.8. Assessment of cost-effectiveness in the programme 5.8.1. Financial sustainability of the Tom Mboya Labour College

When the programme was approved in CISU’s Grant Committee in 2013, a recommendation was given to include in the Review an analysis of the financial sustainability of the Tom Mboya Labour College. In spite of its poor financial status, Tom Mboya Labour College (TMLC) has been able to stay afloat

13

financially without external funding even though such survival caused a mission drift to offering hospitality services at the expense of the core mandate of providing training in labour studies. For the better part of the college’s existence, all revenue generated has rarely been invested back in the college in significant amounts. The Review team was not able at the meeting with the TMLC board to get access to financial information, nevertheless the impression is that COTU during the years has made constant drawings from the revenues generated from TMLC through its main activities in offering courses in business management and computers.

While it is COTU’s right to make drawings from the college it owns, for the investment to be sustained, the drawings of revenue would need to be kept at a minimum in the short term. Consequently, the longer-term financial sustainability of the college would be guaranteed since the college already has significant infrastructure that is developed and paid for. What the college needs at this time is a commitment to its core mandate and an orientation to its strategic priorities. With proper and visionary management the TMLC should be able to generate the necessary income, both now and in the future.

Recommendation 5: FIC should discontinue funding to Tom Mboya Labour College because the intended result – development of labour studies curriculum – has been achieved and the college is able to sustain itself financially. 5.8.2. Budget and FIC’ cost effectiveness

In the table below can be seen the distribution of main expenditures regarding CISU that FIC had in their 2015.

DKK 2014 amount in

DKK 2014 in %

2015 amount in DKK

2015 in %

FIC København 1.333.538 43% 1.225.436 21% FIC Nairobi 562.070 18% 1.294.543 22% Transfer to partners 989.684 32% 3.011.410 51% Danida 7% adm. 201.970 7% 387.197 7%

Total 3.087.262 100% 5.531.389 100%

It shows that account 51% of the 5,53 million DKK total budget in 2015 was transferred to FIC partners in the two countries. This is a relatively low allocation percentage to direct programme implementation activities. The remaining 46% is spent on the monitoring, advisory from the Nairobi and Copenhagen offices that have allowed for a close follow-up and contact to all the partners in the two components.5

Only half of the total budget canalised to FIC partners for direct implementation is itself reducing cost-effectiveness of the programme. This is not a favourable point of departure taking into account the severe reduction in the next phase budget, as some costs are fixed and more difficult to cut with reduced activity budget. Accordingly, finding ways to improve the programme’s cost-effectiveness is a challenge that the Review team started discussing with FIC team during the debriefing meeting in Kisumu.

There is a need to increase the level of advocacy with the objective of influencing public policies and allocation of resources by governments and other stakeholders for more lasting effects and increase cost-effectiveness of the programme. Similarly, the partners should entrench their working with government Ministries, departments and agencies with a view to scaling up of the programme.

5 The budget is structured in such a way that certain partner activities are covered by the FIC Nairobi budget line, e.g. the annual partner meetings, training on the annual partner meeting in 2015 and consultancy on the development of the M&E manual, was paid over the FIC office.

14

Replication of models in the fashion done by the Tanzanian CSOs of the programming work of AYT in Kenya represents a good transfer of experiences in work with youth unemployment that should be encouraged with appropriate adjustments to such models according to context.

FIC is in a privileged situation compared with the Danish framework organisations that had to put into effect the severe cuts already from January 2016. It is therefore important that FIC approach cost rationalisation in the best possible way as the Danida budget cuts first enter into force from 1st April 2017 (next phase). It becomes imperative for FIC to elaborate a plan for how to improve cost-efficiency, cost effectiveness and sustainability of the programme in the remaining part of the current phase.

Recommendation 6: In the remaining 10 months of the programme period FIC should to put high priority on the elaboration and implementation of a Plan for improvement of cost-efficiency, cost effectiveness and sustainability (financial and organisational) that address all partners and FIC.

5.9. Assess the programme’s organizational/financial sustainability The Review team calculated the level of dependency that the partners have on the Danish funding by analysing the partners revenues by sources and amounts. This was possible thanks to the FIC accountant in Nairobi who requested all partners to share their total annual budget. Appearing in the table below is the 2015 budget of the programme by partners and the proportion of those budgets that is from FIC funding. In annex D can be found more details that also include figures for 2012 and 2016.

The general picture is that most partners are heavily dependent on FIC funding (see table below). Six out of nine partners are getting more than 38% from Denmark. This high dependency is an issue of concern considering the 42% reduction on FIC budget in the coming programme phase (will be further discussed in next chapter with pre-appraisal). There are only two exceptions – the Dockworkers Union and Tom Mboya Labour College that only receive 3-4% of their total budget from FIC.

Partner Total budget in 2015 in

US$

FIC support in 2015 in

US$

Dependency level

on FIC funding (%)

Seafarers SUK 14.669 12.304 84% KSCWWU 21.234 20.377 96% Dockworkers 507.274 14.663 3% Tom Mboya college 815.007 30.557 4% AYT youth 307.033 140.576 46% Tamico mining 704.856 150.494 21% Youth of Africa 59.368 24.803 42% Open Mind Tanzania 37.314 24.803 66% Tanzania Youth Vision Association 65.852 24.803 38%

Partners in the FIC programme are in different levels of financial sustainability. In general, it is a minimum that the partners so far have been able to mobilise financial resources from public institutions in the two countries. The Review team met with Ministry of Youth and municipalities in Tanzania and with the country administration in Mombasa, Kenya. Unfortunately, in both countries, there are no prospects of government availing funding to civil society organisation beyond availing venues for meetings and related programme activities. No examples on receiving financial support from government for their operations were reported by partners.

Partners in the youth component have forged linkages with other institutions. In Kenya, AYT’s collaboration with the Nairobi County government through the One Stop Youth Centre, gives activities under the youth component the requisite institutional support beyond the life of the programme. Partners in Tanzania are collaborating with the Don Bosco Centre, which allows youths trained under the programme to access its facilities at no cost. The partnership between the programme and the TMLC enables the

15

college continue with its mandate while trade unions in the region will be able to receive quality training on labour matters.

The financial sustainability of the partners differs. Youth organisations in Tanzania are diversifying their resource bases. OMT leads in this regards and it is now able to finance up to 30% of its annual budget from own resources that are mobilised mainly through operation of a microfinance scheme. YOA and TYVA follow suit but their resource mobilisation strategies remain young and weak. Despite its relatively strong technical and organisational capacity, AYT in Kenya has not demonstrated keenness to implement its resource mobilisation strategy beyond traditional proposal writing to donors.

Two of the labour unions in the programme – Dockworkers’ Union in Kenya and TAMICO in Tanzania – are financially stable and the organisational systems especially of the DWU are maturing to a strong sustainability level. However, the main challenge with these organisations is not financial but rather the willingness of the leaders to prioritise needs of the unions and apply the financial resources based on those priorities. The unions are generally very cooperative in instituting changes that consolidate the leadership’s hold of financial resources and they are doing it successfully. Yet, there is no demonstration of commensurate commitment to values such as transparency and accountability in matters financial.

Two unions in Kenya, the KSCWWU and the SUK are very weak both organisationally and financially. For SUK the main explanation is Kenya' governments lack of priority to seafarers sector hence challenges in organising within the sector, while in the KSCWWU with a potential for up to 50.000 workers in the sector with some of the most exploited and poor workers in the country. The leaderships of the these two union have often only primary schools education. KSCWWU is riddled with leadership challenges, powerful labour brokers, and shrewd employers, and weak enforcement by government.”

Common for FIC partners is a high degree of volunteer work in both the trade unions and youth organisations, which indicate an important level of organisational sustainability. Probably most FIC partners would survive without international funding in the long term, which sets the them apart from many in the NGO sector. The Review team was impressed by the level of volunteerism observed in Tanzania Youth Vision Association that indicate interesting potentials that FIC is recommended to further stimulate among its partners.

The Review team asked FICs partners about membership and level of volunteers. Below has been established a table with number of members and income from annual subscriptions:

Members and subscriptions for FIC partners

PARTNER Annual Subscription

(USD) Members TAMICO 565.070 10595 DWU 475.248 5200 SFU 2.376 100 KSCWU 990 500 YOUTH FOR AFRICA Tanzania 921 630 Tanzania Youth Vision Association (TYVA) 117 55 OPENMIND TANZANIA 158 32 Africa Youth Trust Kenya 0 0 Note: Africa Youth Trust (Kenya) is registered as a Trust without membership

Particular the youth organisation in Tanzania was interesting in hearing about the so-called 'Popular Account method', which can be used for strengthen the popular foundation both in recipient countries and in Denmark. The method combines quantitative criteria, such as the number of paying members, extent of voluntary work and amount of funds raised, with more qualitative aspects, such as the ability to involve citizens and inform the public. This makes it possible to measure and monitored targets agreed in the organisation’s annual general meeting/board about increased levels of membership and volunteers.

16

Recommendation 7: FIC should encourage partners to diversify their resource mobilisation for financial sustainability, including domestic resources for reducing dependency on international funding. Furthermore, the youth organisations could be inspired from the ‘Popular Account Model’ used by Danish NGOs that counts number of members, efforts and activities undertaken by volunteers, etc.

5.10. Programme and financial management FIC generally has a well function programme management and setup, where division of roles between Copenhagen and Nairobi offices are clear. FIC has employed professional and committed staff at both levels. The programme is managed in accordance with the required standards and rules and regulations set down by CISU and Danida. Financial management of the programme is undertaken well in Copenhagen and the Nairobi office is providing good support to the partners within this field. FIC also has elaborate financial guidelines. CISU visited most FIC partners in the two countries in January 2016, where Mango’s financial health check was conducted on some partners. Only in one case was raised concern regarding Tamico's financial management (e.g. bank reconciliations not yet made), which soon after was brought into order. The general impression is that FIC has a satisfactory handling of risk management, which take advantage of in-depth understanding of the context in the two countries. The programme has two annual cluster meetings within each components (in Dar, in Mombasa, in Kisumu) that bring the partners with key stakeholders and FIC staff together. This has proven to be a good mechanism that also is appreciated by officials from municipalities, country, Mombasa port authority and ministry of youth interviewed by the Review team. It works well for discussion progress in the programme and arrangement for joint consultation between partners and stakeholders. Complementary to this, FIC could consider formalising annual meetings with each partner, which could formalise decision making with FIC. In such meetings, members of the partner’s board and management should participate. In the program application, a cluster structure was envisaged with a lead partner for each of the two clusters in Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. The Review team found it well justified that FIC decided to change this during 2014 into direct contact between each partner and FIC Nairobi. Regarding Mombasa, the Review team finds the need for the continuation in the next phase of the well-functioning advisor to the weak unions.

5.11. Monitoring, reporting and learning The FIC programme uses a combination of conventional indicators in its logical framework and progress markers to measure results. At programme level, the results framework is fairly streamlined with clearly formulated indicators. Based on these implementing partners have derived their own results frameworks equally complete with indicators that guide progress in performance.

However, some partners at individual level are not always reporting progress according to commonly agreed indicators thereby rendering the results achieved vague and the reports less than optimally useful for guiding implementation. For example, the reports of TYVA and YOA are weak partly because they do not follow on the set indicators. Similarly, the progress reports of the TMLC are not based on indicators and the strategic plan of TMLC has glaring quality gaps without indicators (only means of verification) that do not allow for effective monitoring during implementation. FIC Nairobi office currently receives quarterly and annual progress reports from partners. However, the quality of reports from some partners is pointing to capacity gaps in reporting and monitoring, where they could learn from the good reports from OMT. The Nairobi based staff has been offering advisory in report writing, but this is yet to be reflected in reaching an adequate quality of the reports and avoid delayed in submissions. FIC advisory has translated into improvements in partners financial monitoring; however, financial reporting of some partners is still relatively weak. The FIC programme finance officer based in Nairobi has been providing quality control and capacity building support through training and mentoring to all the partners.

17

Recommendation 8: The programme partners in Kenya and Tanzania should observe timely reporting based agreed results framework and indicators. In turn, FIC Nairobi should institute higher quality standards when reviewing partner progress reports before submission to FIC Denmark.

It is suggested to start the 1/2 year interval with partner reports covering January - June 2016, which also can be an opportunity for partners to improve their narrative and financial reporting to FIC.

Recommendation 9: FIC should change from quarterly to half-yearly progress reports with a strong focus on results (including indicators), reflections and lesson learned. Future quarterly reports should focus on financial reporting only. Future reports should be presented and discussed in the respective partner organizations boards before submission to FIC. Partners should be trained in sound result measurement and reporting.

At programme level, the Review team observed limitations in the CISU format for annual status report for getting a consolidated overview of the results and achievements as well as capacity constraints among the partners. The current format has focus on learning and a tendency to repeat information. It was necessary to go down to find information in the partners reporting to FIC.

Recommendation 10: CISU should consider revising the format for annual reports for programme agreements that can improve the consolidation of results, progress and constraints as well as partners capacity for implementation.

In addition, the programme has employed progress markers (derived from Outcome Mapping) and informed by the fact that the programme focus is behavioural and attitudinal change among youth and trade union members and leaders. The partners have attended one training event on Outcome Mapping organised by FIC, nevertheless, the partners’ progress reports are silent on progress markers and related aspects of Outcome Mapping. This is indicative of partners that have not internalised the use of Outcome Mapping.

FIC is suggested to consider, with which partners it is realistic to achieve the capacity to use outcome mapping to reporting.

It is important that FIC insists on independent annual financial audits among the partners. As noted earlier, there has been inadequate transparency demonstrated by trade unions in relation to their finances. Although the total collections might be known, the use of such finances is normally obscure.

5.12. Review's main conclusion Overall, there is satisfactory progress of the FIC DWLR programme with the planned outputs and indicators largely being met. The Review Team found that significant results and achievements in relation to the work of trade unions and youth organisation have been attained in the Programme within the first two years. Among important results, programme partners are gradually entrenching internal good governance and improved accountability both to their members and target beneficiaries as their systems become strong and mature. Furthermore, the programme is equipping youth skills by which they are entering into the labour market better prepared and more confident and engaging more productively in community life. The programme has also affording workers stronger trade union organisations to advocate for their rights against exploitation by employers.

FIC is a capable and professional NGO with a well-focused programme in two priority sectors and countries. It has good insights into conditions on the ground, implementing a human rights-based approach (HRBA), capacity development, technical assistance and advisory services as well as committed staff in Nairobi and Copenhagen.

The Review Team has observed positive and respectful partnerships that are highly appreciated by the trade unions and youth partners. FIC’s partnership approach is characterized by openness, trust and mutual respect.

18

Among the weaker elements in the first two years of the current programme are delays in implementing advocacy related activities, high dependency on FIC funding by most partners and challenges regarding the programme’s cost-effectiveness/efficiency.

Overall, Review Team concludes that FIC (in collaboration with partners in Tanzania and Kenya) has satisfactory ability to meet CISU and Danida’s requirements for a coming programme phase (from April 2017). A major challenge for FIC would be the streamlining of operations and accompanying rationalization of costs in the next phase of the programme in order to accommodate the 42% cut in budget.

6. Pre-appraisal of Next Programme Phase This chapter contains the team’s assessment of FIC’s preliminary ideas for the next three years phase of the programme planned to start from the 1st of April 2017.

6.1 Accommodating severe budget cuts FIC’s second year’s progress report has provided about four pages that outline their preliminary ideas for the next phase of the programme (see annex F). However, the ideas are sketchy without an elaborate concept paper, a factor that has limited the pre-appraisal itself. The four pages show two significant limitations: • FIC has not presented any preliminary suggestion of a results framework – objectives, key

performance indicators - and possible adjustments in the implementation strategy for the coming phase, thereby making it rather difficult to pre-appraise.

• FIC' preliminary ideas has not included any considerations about how to tackle the precarious situation

presented by reduced funding in which FIC will have to make a cut of approximately 42% of its future budget. This huge cut is explained by a decision in the Board of CISU that after the severe Danida cuts will allocate maximum 10,5 million for three years compared with current maximum 18,0 million DKK. It is an important consideration that should be clearly addressed in future phase.

Therefore, the consultant team do not find the necessary base yet presented from FIC for making a pre-appraisal at this stage. Instead is in this chapter suggested that FIC elaborates their conception of the next phase and share the concept.

6.2 Possible Strategic Options In planning for the next phase application, it is fundamental how FIC will respond to this question: What operational efficiency and programmatic streamlining is FIC going to undertake on its current operations to accommodate the nearly 42% budget cut yet continue to deliver results and remaining true to its mission? How could FIC adjust its current programme operations in tandem with the nearly 42% cut in its annual budget? This implies the need to for strong prioritisation of the activities and partnerships. Three possible strategic options could be considered by FIC appear below in order of priority in the view of the consultant team:

a) Keep the two components, reduce the number of partners (based on criteria) and reduce budget to remaining partners. Under this option, there are partners who already do not need any funding from FIC. These form prime candidates to be dropped. In reducing budgets to partners, criteria should include efforts by partners to diversify their own resource base. Furthermore, the budget analysis (in section 5.9) showed partners’ high dependency on FIC financial resources (six out of nine partners are getting more than 38% from Denmark). This situation makes it a bit easier for FIC to reduce its financial allocations to partners. Nevertheless, it

19

is also necessary for FIC to reduce the number of implementing partners and also find other areas for meaningful time/cost savings for staff and the programme as a whole.

b) Keep the two countries and drop one of the two components Dropping a component will be a radical measure considering the pertinent needs that each component strives to address. Both components are well justified in the context with the gained experiences and established partnerships. It is also an advantage working in two countries to reduce the political risk within the programme. However, it might be needed to take this option if FIC not is able to sufficiently to increase cost efficiency/effectiveness (in the above option a). The consultant team considers this as less desirable than option a).

c) Drop one country and keep the two components The consultant team consider this as least desirable. There are several advantages in working with the same component in two countries and not only one country. This can assure FIC's professional capacity more intensive within one component.

Independent of the selection of one of the options indicated above, FIC needs to reduce the costs of running the whole programme (especially the Nairobi and Copenhagen offices of FIC). As shown in section 5.8. on the programme’s cost-effectiveness, only a little more than half of the total budget is channelled to partners, for which reason there is obviously a need for reducing the costs of FIC. One way of doing so is by having advisory closer to the partners such as the cluster coordinator in Mombasa. The finance officer in Nairobi remains a necessary function for accountability and separation of programme and accounting responsibilities. Cost rationalisation could be considered on the programme positions at both Nairobi and Copenhagen. Recommendation 11: In order to accommodate the 42% reduction in funding from CISU, FIC have its priorities right for the upcoming programme application. It is recommended that based on consultations with their partners FIC should present a Concept Paper before the end of August 2016 that includes these elements:

- An analysis of the various options for the next phase programme, including the main criteria’s for addressing the 42% cut in budget.

- Proposed results framework with objectives, possible adjustments in implementation strategy, estimated rough budget, FIC staffing and scale of operations in proportion to available funding.

- A Process Action Plan for the activities leading to the start of possible next programme phase by 1st of April 2017.

- A Plan for improving the programmes cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness that already can gradually initiated in the remaining part of the current phase.

These deliverables will receive comments (pre-appraised) from the consultant team, so FIC can present it at their regional partner meeting at the end of July 2016.

6.3 Criteria's for prioritisation FIC is well aware of the need to carry out a satisfactory consultation process with the partners as it also was done in the preparation of the current programme in 2013.

FIC and the Review team discussed the following preliminary criteria’s - that includes the added value of and to a partner - for prioritising next phase’s financial resources:

• Partners are working with a right based approach and the primary target group of the partners are poor and marginalised in urban areas;

• Partner commitment to implement organisational changes, including efforts for strengthen financial and organisational sustainability, increasing of own incomes, increased membership, stimulate the engagement of volunteers and members;

20

• Partner involvement of beneficiaries, including commitment to increase legitimacy, internal governance, accountability and transparency towards members and constituency (e.g. transparency in salary and allowance payments and general application of resources especially among unions);

• Priorities and capacity are in line with programme focal areas, as well as the value brought into the programme by the partner;

• Organisational commitment to innovation, creativity and to embracing change; • Higher priority is needed for advocacy and a human rights-based approach in FIC partnerships

(as explained in chapter 4); • The development and use of an adequate gender strategy in relation to the programme.

Based on what has been explained in last chapter 4, the following suggestions from the consultants team to FIC:

• FIC should end funding the Tom Mboya Labour College (see analysis in section 5.8) and the Dockworkers after ten years successful partnership with the latter.

• FIC should cease funding Africa Youth Trust (AYT) out of next phase, as they with a self-

appointed Board of Trustee of three members do not comply with the above criteria's for prioritising partners for the next phase. Such Trustee is in conflict with the practice promoted in Danida’ Civil Society Policy (2012) at page 21: “Promote capacity development processes that include building legitimacy, constituency and internal democracy and accountability in organisations and movements.” Further, despite its obvious organisational capacity, AYT has not demonstrated keenness to leverage the same strength in domestic resource mobilisation. AYT is a strong organization focused on its mandate and has fairly mature organizational systems. It has internalized the BSED model for training youth as well as the employability skills training. The staff is very conversant with the model that they have been working on for a while now. The success of AYT's work is corroborated by the replication of its model by partner CSOs in Tanzania. The model is working.

• An interesting alternative to Africa Youth Trust is a new partnership with Youth Alive Kenya

(YAK)6. FIC will already in the remaining period of the current programme get experiences with them based on recently signed MoU. It has a very interesting bottom-up structure with about 79 groups grassroots in 11 counties (youth, women, community groups) that with minimum 10 in each group have more than one thousands active volunteers and grassroots.

YAK is already active with branches in Kisumu and Mombasa. Their governance structure has been developed in partnership with the National Council of Swedish Youth Organizations (LSU) and has also partnerships with Forum Syd, The Norwegian Children and Youth Council (LNU) and Oxfam.

Recommendation 12: FIC should consider discontinuing partnership with Africa Youth Trust and instead identify a CSO partner with much more focus on constituency, membership and volunteers. The remaining part of the current phase can be used to establish a relationship with Youth Alive Kenya (YAK) as a possible new Kenyan partner on the youth component.

6.4 Poverty orientation The consultant team suggests that FIC should focus more on poverty reduction in the selection of areas to support in Kisumu, Dar and Mombasa, as well expressed to the team regarding the youth organisations work by the CEO for the County's department of youth, gender, culture and sports. The Review team also saw poor warehouses workers with extreme bad working conditions with well justified reasons for a continuation of support. 6 http://youthalivekenya.org/about-us/partnerships

21

The review team suggests that FIC in the next phase is going to deal with unemployed and out of school youth and workers who are marginalised and needing support in order to stand up for their labour rights and sustainable livelihoods. The review team has established that these groups are needy. Many youth wallow in poverty and lack sustainable livelihoods opportunities. Their dignity is demeaned as they remain dependent on parents for survival even in adult life. Workers in the informal sector as subjected to poor working conditions by employers and employers abuse subcontracting.

6.5 Others suggestions to the preparation of the next phase FIC is in the planning of next programme phase expected to take into considerations the findings and recommendations from the review part (chapters 4 and 5). Here the consultant team will only mention the following:

• Synergy: Based on the current programme review findings, while there is no synergy between the two programme components, the programme design overall is coherent, producing results and responds to the needs of the target groups. FIC could use the current programme design as a basis for the next phase.

• It is important to prioritise advocacy in FIC partnerships. • A topic to address in the coming application to CISU is the question about an adequate gender

equality strategy in relation to the programme. • There is a need to update capacity assessments of the partners for the coming phase, improve

methods for change management, organisational and financial sustainability and accountability as well as improving the partners monitoring/reporting and learning (with use of indicators and concrete baseline data).

6.6 Final remark The above pre-appraisal is based on very limited information that at this point does not mirror the full implications of anticipated budgetary cuts.

In conclusion, FIC have with their well-developed partnerships in Tanzania and Kenya considerable experience and capacity to implement a next phase of the current programme. Overall, Review Team concludes that FIC (in collaboration with partners in Tanzania and Kenya) has satisfactory ability to meet CISU and Danida’s requirements for a coming programme phase (from April 2017). A major challenge for FIC would be the streamlining of operations and accompanying rationalization of costs in the next phase of the programme in order to accommodate the 42% cut in budget.

Documents

REVIEW cum PRE-APPRAISAL s programme Decent work and ...EEA... · REVIEW cum PRE-APPRAISAL of FIC’s programme “Decent work and Labour Rights in East Africa (DWLR) 2014 - 2017."