Organisationens förfrågan om 24 miljoner Sidakronor

8/10/2019 Organisationens frfrgan om 24 miljoner Sidakronor

1/125


2/125

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................... 4

I. EURASIA PARTNERSHIP FOUNDATION ............................................. 5

WHY A LOCALFOUNDATION?...........................................................................6WHY A REGIONALFOUNDATION? ......................................................................7GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ..............................................................................9

II. TODAYS CHALLENGE IN GEORGIA .................................................11

THE ROLE OF NGOS IN CIVIL SOCIETY .............................................................12ADDRESSING ROOT PROBLEMS.......................................................................13

III. REGIONAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES .................................................15

IV. HOW WE WORK...........................................................................17

GRANTS MANAGEMENT:BUILDING LOCAL CAPACITY ..............................................17OPEN DOOR GRANTS:FLEXIBLE AND DEMAND DRIVEN ...........................................18TARGETED GRANTS:ADDRESSING PRIORITY NEEDS ..............................................18TRILATERAL GRANTS:REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT................................18THE GRANTS REVIEW PROCESS ......................................................................19OPERATING PROGRAMS ...............................................................................21SETTING PROGRAM PRIORITIES ......................................................................22STAFFING PATTERNS...................................................................................22THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL AND DCOFFICES ....................................................23

V. EFS CAPACITY: WHAT HAVE WE ACHIEVED IN 13 YEARS? ................24

VI. RELEVANCE.................................................................................31

CONFORMITY WITH SIDAS REGIONAL STRATEGY ..................................................31CONFORMITY WITH NATIONAL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS ............................................31IMPACT ON THE POOR,GENDER EQUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT .............................32

VII. SUSTAINABILITY AND RISK ANALYSIS............................................34

RISK AND UNCERTAINTY ..............................................................................34FUNDRAISING CAPACITY ..............................................................................36INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................39PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY ...........................................................................41

VIII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................42

IX. A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP: SIDA AND EPF....................................45


3/125

3

VIII. APPENDICES ...............................................................................47

SYNERGIES BETWEEN SIDA STRATEGY AND EPFACTIVITIES .....................................47SYNERGIES WITH GEORGIAN NATIONAL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS ................................54LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS.....................................................................55GEORGIA PROGRAMS:2008IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLANS ......................58

1. Participatory Civic Monitoring ........................................................582. Corporate Social Investment .........................................................613. Community Empowerment through Youth Initiatives .........................644. Economic Development Through Tourism ........................................745. Conflict Resolution and Tolerance Building .......................................786. European Integration....................................................................807. 2008 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections..................................818. Open Door Grants Program ...........................................................829. Cross Border Programs: ENP Civic Dialogue, Stage II........................83

BUDGET PROJECTIONS:2008-2010 ...............................................................86ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN..............................................................87ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS............................................................................92FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION PLAN ...............................................................96BOARD MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES.......................................................................99MORE TOP IMPACTS FROM GEORGIA .............................................................. 102EVALUATIONS ........................................................................................ 104

1. NGO Watchdog Initiative (Georgia 2004).................................... 1042. Business Associations in Georgia (2004)........................................ 1073. South Caucasus Cross Border Media Initiatives (2004) .................... 1094. Public Policy Research Institutions (2004)...................................... 111

5. Cross Border Cooperation Portfolio (Foundation wide, 2005) ............ 1136. Corporate Social Investment Initiative (Russia, 2005) ..................... 1157. Institutional Development Grants Cluster (EF-wide, 2006) ............... 1188. Business Education Programs (EF-wide, 2002) ............................... 123


4/125

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After 15 years of political independence and support for democratic developmentfrom international donors, civil society has still not achieved sustainability in Georgia.Why not? At least in part, it is because donor investments have not targeted the rootchallenges to achieving a vibrant civil society in a holistic and systematic way. These

challenges include a lack of diversified opinions and dialogue on public policy topics,a lack of reliable information and nuanced analysis of social processes, apathytowards civic engagement, limited local sources of support to sustain civic initiativesand a prevailing tone of conflict and mistrust across political boundaries.

With 13 years of experience in grants and program management in the SouthCaucasus, Eurasia Foundation (EF) is uniquely positioned to take a long-term,systematic approach to addressing these challenges. Today, EFs Board of Trustees istaking the first step toward realizing this vision in the South Caucasus by adopting alocalization strategy for its offices in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, establishingthe Eu r a s i a P a r t n e r s h i p F o u n d a t i o n ( E P F) . As a network of locally registeredinstitutions linked together through shared programmatic and leadershipmechanisms, EPF will be more sustainablein the long term as it is able to diversifyfunding streams, and more responsive to local needsas it is governed by a singleBoard of Trustees with deep expertise and knowledge of the South Caucasus region.

Understanding that Sidas new development strategy for the South Caucasus focusessolely on Georgia, EF seeks a founding commitment from Sida in the establishmentof Eurasia Partnership Foundations operations in Georgia. It is a unique opportunityfor Sida to be in on the ground floor at the creation of a new and lasting institutionthat will serve the long-term needs of civil society development in this country. EFrespectfully asks for a commitment of USD 3 million or USD 1 million per yearover three years.Thirty-five percent of this contribution will be managed as a Sidaflagship Open Door Grants Program a pool of resources for initiatives that arehighly innovative or that respond to quickly emerging and critical needs in the

country. The remaining balance will be managed as core support for all of EPFsactivities in Georgia, including support for operational programs, program and grantsadministration and overhead costs.

EPFs mission is toequip people with the tools and vision that enable them to shapetheir own future, empowering them to effect change for social justice and economicprosperity. By inheriting the strong systems, procedures and expertise of EF officesin the South Caucasus, EPF will be fully operational as of January 1, 2008.

In the proposal that follows, we describe the structure and rationale of EPF in greaterdetail; outline the challenges facing civil society in Georgia today and offer fourprogram objectives to meet these challenges; describe the relevance of EPFs workto international and local development priorities; describe EPFs tools and capacity

for achieve its goals; provide a sustainability and risk analysis and a monitoring andevaluation plan. The extensive appendices provide further detail in support of thesemain topics.


5/125

5

I. EURASIA PARTNERSHIP FOUNDATION

Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF) will be made up of three locally registeredinstitutions in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia united by a regional office in Tbilisi.Each office will pursue a common mission and an integrated program strategy andwill share both governance and management structures to promote coordinated work

across borders. These three local institutions will be the legacy of Eurasia Foundation(EF) in the South Caucasus, inheriting EFs financial and management systems,programmatic expertise, institutional knowledge and mission: We equip people withthe tools and vision that enable them to shape their own future, empowering them to

effect change for social justice and economic prosperity.

In a phased transition process, EPF will take the place of and take over allprograms of Eurasia Foundation branch offices as of January 1, 2008. During thefirst three years following the registration of EPF, EFs Washington, DC office willmanage an annual grant to EPF (funds received through EFs Core III GrantAgreement with USAID) and continue to build the capacity of EPF, ensuring that corefunding is expended in an appropriate and transparent fashion. Into the future, EFwill continue to serve as a channeling mechanism for donors who can work only witha U.S. not-for-profit grant recipient. Other donor support will be channeled directly toEPF.

This regional network will have a functional reach well beyond the Caucasus, as itwill belong to a network of localized legacy foundations throughout the Eurasiaregion. EF legacy institutions have already been launched in Russia and Central Asia;EPF will be the third localized institution established by EF and its partners. Onemore foundation, serving Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, is also currently in theprocess of local registration and launch. This EF Affiliate Network will improve thequality of programs, increase exchanges among local and international institutionsthroughout the region and multiply the social return on financial investment made byparticipating donors.

EF is a recognized leader in the field of grants and program administration. TheFoundation was created in 1992 with bipartisan support from the U.S. government toprovide funding for development at the grassroots level in the countries of theformer Soviet Union. Since 1992, EF has administered more than 8,400 grants,disbursed more than 450 loans, and dedicated over $360 million to programs in the12 successor states of the Soviet Union and beyond. Since its inception, EF hasmanaged more than $60 million on behalf of corporations, private foundations,European governments and individual philanthropists, complementing a substantialbase of core funding it receives from the U.S. government.

EF operates with the belief that societies function best when people takeresponsibility for their own civic and economic prosperity. EFs programs equip

citizens to define and achieve outcomes of enduring benefit to themselves and theircommunities. We employ a demand-driven approach, which allows civil societyactors to determine the issues that are of importance to their communities and todevelop interventions that will be effective in addressing identified needs - a criticalfactor in a vibrant democracy.


6/125

6

WHY A LOCAL FOUNDATION?

Civic and economic prosperity in the Caucasus region is not yet self-sustaining,despite many promising changes in recent years. After 13 years supportinggrassroots civic organizations and investing in human capital, EF is seeking toconsolidate its past achievements and to make a long term commitment to achieving

its goals by establishing this legacy institution in the South Caucasus.

Through localization, EPF will refocus on its mission to be more locally-driven and totarget resources where civil society needs them most. EF is already knownthroughout the region as an organization built on citizen initiative and locally-setagendas. In a recent CRRC1household survey, EF had higher name recognition thanany other international assistance agency in the region, with the exception of theUnited Nations. The official localization of EFs legacy institutions is, to some degree,a legal rather than substantive question.

Several key factors influence the decision to localize: cost and program efficiency,revenue diversification, and institutional profile.

Co s t a n d p r o g r am e f f i ci e n c y A localized foundation will have a simpler and ultimately less costlyadministrative and governance structure when it is independent of US-basedheadquarters, resulting in cost savings for donors and greater efficiency ofresource management. For example, EPF will become a grantee of the EurasiaFoundations U.S. headquarters and will be able to solicit and manage fundswithout levying the mandatory negotiated indirect cost rate it is currentlysubject to. Staffing structures will be more flexible as they shift to project-based contracts and a larger proportion of locally-sourced hiring regardless ofemployee nationality. Governance structure will include mostly locally-resident trustees, reducing direct costs of international communications andtransportation.

R e v e n u e d i v e r s i f ic a t i o n Localization will enable EPF to seek sponsorship and collaborate directly withdonors and partners who currently are not able to work with EurasiaFoundation. In particular, EU and other multilateral donors who seek to investdevelopment resources through local partners will be accessible to EPFfollowing full localization. Local corporations and individual philanthropists willalso find attractive the idea of partnership with a locally-registeredfoundation.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o f i le Unquestionably, there will be a continuing need for an independent, non-political grant making and operating foundation serving civil society needs in

the South Caucasus for the foreseeable future. EF is uniquely positioned totransform its organizational know-how and experience into lastinginstitutions serving these nations and their future needs. EF has beenperceived as a local foundation and has been operating for over a decade as ade facto local institution in each country where it works. Full registrationunder local legislation will bring the legal status of the institution in line with

1CRRC is the Caucasus Research Resource Centers. For more information, see the AppendixE.


7/125

7

existing perceptions. EFs American parentage will decrease in significance,leaving behind a locally led and managed mandate, supported by a trulyinternational coalition of donor agencies and advisors. The formation of EPFwill build on the brand recognition and positive image that EF has built overthe past decade and a half.

WHY A REGI ONAL FOUNDATION?

The Georgia office of Eurasia Partnership Foundation will be one member in anetwork of three local foundations in the South Caucasus that are guided by a singleset of regional programming priorities, a single Board of Trustees, and onePresidents office (based in Tbilisi) that serves all three local offices. The regionalapproach maintains programmatic standards and harmony and contributes neededresources and attention o regional stability. The Georgia office will shareresponsibility with its counterparts in Armenia and Azerbaijan for designing andimplementing cross border programs, which are central to EF/EPFs belief thatbuilding linkages across political borders reduces the chances for violent conflict.

Maintaining effective partnerships and building strong democratic institutions in this

fragile region is not easy: conflict rather than cooperation is the prevailing tenor ofrelations in the greater Caucasus. Yet the geographic proximity of Armenia,Azerbaijan and Georgia requires cooperation, communication and trust if enduringeconomic growth is to take off.

Owing to their shared political legacy, these three countries face a number of similarchallenges to democratic reform. Better governance and accountability, civicengagement, entrepreneurship and fiscal transparency are just a few of these sharedneeds. These nations can benefit from cooperative work on solving commonproblems, as EFs cross border programming has demonstrated.

The development and prosperity of people in the South Caucasus (and among

neighboring countries) are strongly and directly affected by the unresolved conflicts.Change will never proceed with vigor until greater dialogue, tolerance andunderstanding are achieved. At the core of EPFs approach will be the belief thatcross border linkages, both across individuals and institutions, are essential to thepeaceful, long-term resolution of conflicts in the region. Regional programmingpromotes dialogue, increased understanding of varied points of view, and buildsconfidence around shared interests an important synergy for finding commonground in a post-conflict context.

Given the high tensions in the region both across borders of Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia, Turkey and Russia, and within Georgias own borders it may seemcounter-intuitive to focus so heavily on regional and cross border programming.There will be political hurdles and economic challenges for years, if not decades, to

come. So the question remains, is this focus on regionality ultimately foolhardy orvisionary?

In the absence of high-level political solutions to the conflicts in this region,continued dialogue and constructive citizen-level interchange is critical. Just as it wasimportant during the Cold War for dialogue at the citizen level to proceed betweenthe US and the Soviet Union, so it is critical for the common people of these threeneighboring Caucasus nations to continue rebuilding personal and professionallinkages. Without ongoing citizen level dialogue, political isolation can lead to nearly


8/125

8

insurmountable cultural hostility among populations, making implementation of apolitical compromise much more difficult.

Maintaining an emphasis on the upside potential of continued dialogue focusing onstrengthening citizen-level ties and enabling shared solutions to shared challenges is part of EFs program portfolio and integral to the future of the local foundation

network. Trilateral work is also the only way to bring together Armenian andAzerbaijani counterparts without a third neutral player, governments andfrequently misinformed citizens simply refuse to participate at the bilateral level.

The time is also ripe for achieving lasting results through cross border work.Diverging political trajectories over the past two decades have tended to push thesethree nations apart, but as each country looks toward Europe for greater political,social and economic integration, regional cooperation will be a necessity. Eachcountry has adopted a European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) action plan, whichestablishes a framework and political incentives for cooperation in a way that has notpreviously existed. With commitments made publicly by each government toimplement the ENP Action Plans, cross border work can leverage these commitmentsto build institutional linkages across the three countries.

EF has taken the ENP Action Plans as guiding frameworks for the development ofregional programming. For example, specific legislative changes are needed in eachcountry to promote the readiness for closer structural integration and compliance toEU standards; the particulars of how to approach these changes differ from nation tonation. Targeted grants and programs in each country can provide the necessarytechnical assistance to promote policy reforms, and lessons learned from theprocessof promoting change can easily be shared across borders, to the benefit of allparticipants. EFs networked grant making and operating programs link like-mindedreformers from different communities, build regional trust among colleagues,promote regional recognition of shared goals, and increase the efficiency of reformefforts in the region as a whole.

One important result of EFs trilateral work is its success in stimulating regionalcooperation through positive incentives. We observe a clear chase the leaderphenomenon when civic activists in one country have achieved progress prior totheir colleagues in a neighboring country, there is keen interest in learning how itwas done and in catching up to the achievements of their peers. This dynamicdemonstrates the effectiveness of working at the citizen level to achieve substantiveprogress in the absence of political cooperation.

EFs pioneering work in trilateral grant making over the years has revealed a numberof fields in which the approach demonstrates sustainable success. For example, EFwas the first organization to initiate cross border media assistance, breaking the icein a field where neither local nor international organizations considered possible

before.

The field of trade and small business is demonstrating itself as another area withhigh potential for success at the regional level. EFs support to a Regional ExportCatalog is enabling local export-oriented businesses in all three countries to enhancetheir business profile among prospective foreign partners inside and outside theregion. This can help individual local firms take advantage of potential businessopportunities through a collective action model, as well as to establish bi- and tri-lateral partnerships in the region that can enable the partners to break into foreign


9/125

9

markets collectively. The Azerbaijani and Georgian partners are drawing on theexperience of their Armenian colleagues, who have been successful in generatingsubstantial subscription and advertising revenues. The partners are confident thatthey will eventually be able to make the regional catalogue self-sustainable.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Registered locally in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, EPF will be governed by ashared Board of Trustees identical for all three countries, and managed from thePresidents Office located in Tbilisi. The initial board of trustees will be comprised ofinternational figures with deep knowledge of and commitment to the region. Pleasesee the Appendix for biographies of confirmed board members. Local citizens will beadded to the board as soon as politically practical,2maintaining the principle of anidentical board overseeing all three countries. Board members will be privatecitizens, appointed in consultation with key stakeholders and donors. EPF invites Sidato nominate a Swedish national to sit on the Board of Trustees and looks forward toreceiving the recommendation.

The boards role will be to ensure overall fiscal accountability for each of the threelocalized institutions. It will meet twice per year to approve and oversee annualbudgets, expenses and general program strategies. In addition, Board members willbe invited to serve on the following three sub-committees:

1. Executive Committee The Chair of the Executive Committee will be thesame as the Chair of the Board. The committee will be made up mostly ofboard members, residing in the region, and will meet at least once betweeneach full board session to review issues that come up on an ongoing basis.

2. Audit and Finance Committee The Audit and Finance Committee will alsomeet between full board meetings to review internal and external audits,budgets and expenses, and all other finance, insurance and risk managementissues.

3.

Selection Committee The Selection Committee will convene when a currentmember leaves the board. They will reevaluate the needs of the board at thattime and conduct a search for new candidates. Each board member will beinvited to serve for a maximum three year term, renewable based on therecommendation of the selection committee. The selection committee willdetermine criteria for identifying new members and strive to create a balanceof members based on the functions of the board, gender, etc.

EPF also anticipates that board members will help to raise additional funds byestablishing initial contacts and representing EPF in wider circles.

In addition, a Local Advisory Committeecomprised of local citizen leaders will beestablished to advise on programming issues, to provide recommendations on grants

and various program areas.

Given that local NGO tradition does not usually entrust Boards with fiscalaccountability, the separation of these two bodies functions will be expedient for the

2Due to tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is not currently possible for the localentities to register boards containing local nationals from all three Caucasus countries asgovernors. When political conditions allow, local citizens will take places on the governingboard, and will likely be drawn from the national advisory committees.


10/125

10

first few years of operations. We have found that local advisors still fear taking onpersonal responsibility for the transparent allocation of finances, while internationalprofessionals do not. In addition, it is useful in the current political context to haveinternational scrutiny on the finances of a public good foundation, because it addsto the credibility that resources are not simply being allocated according to insiderconnections. Once EPF has been operating successfully for several years, we

anticipate that the reticence of local professionals to take on an accountability rolewill significantly diminish.

In combination with a strong coordinating function of the Office of the President(which will serve the donor relations, fundraising, outreach and coordination needs ofthe partnership), this dual trustee/advisory structure should meet the governanceneeds of the new organizations.


11/125

11

II.TODAYS CHALLENGE IN GEORGIA

A vibrant civic sector and high rate of public involvement in decision makingprocesses are hallmarks of participatory democracy. A mature civic sector serves avariety of roles in this atmosphere:

It is a check and balance against the concentration of power in an(inevitably) limited number of hands

When the state does not or is incapable of providing public services, civilsociety groups perform this role, especially in service provision tovulnerable groups in society

Civil society serves as a middleman, representing individual interests at thestate level and galvanizing citizens to action around shared interests.

Civil society organizations employ a number of tools in this work: advocacy to makecitizen voices heard; independent data collection, research and analysis; citizeneducation and awareness raising; and service provision.

In the South Caucasus, the civic sector does not yet serve these roles in full. Fewmaterial resources, a lack of reliable information and elite-driven political processesdeprive people of the opportunity to decide basic issues in their lives. Adding lowlevels of government accountability to the mix, a negative feedback cycle emerges citizens dont take action for their own interests and as a consequence governmentsare not held accountable; when governments do not answer to citizens demands,community members lose the incentive to seek change and defend their rights. Thisbasic set of challenges exists in most emerging democratic countries, but in thethree countries of the South Caucasus, they are manifest in different ways.

In Georgia, a strong civil society sector was instrumental in the 2003 revolution andthe implementation of reforms that quickly followed. Civic organizations relied onindependent data and monitoring of issues (such as corruption and government

abuse of power) to galvanize the public. They knew the issues that mattered tocitizens because they were closely connected to their constituencies. Today, a coregroup of experienced civil sector organizations (mainly based in Tbilisi) are achievinglaudable results for the groups they represent, but relatively few organizationsrepresent the interests of Georgians living in the regions outside of Tbilisi especially vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities. To maintain the pace ofprogress that has been achieved over recent years, Georgias civil societyorganizations require a deeper connection to their community and constituencies,and especially to groups outside the capital city.

A different set of challenges hinders citizen initiative in Armenia and Azerbaijan. InArmenia, civil society lacks the capacity to demand government transparency and tofight corruption. These problems stem from institutional problems inability to

generate income through fee-for-services programming or to effectively engage theirconstituencies and leverage non-monetary resources. In Azerbaijan, mediapersecution, unaccountable government and high levels of corruption prevent peoplefrom participating in the decisions that directly affect them, while civil societyorganizations are institutionally weak and unable to represent the needs ofvulnerable groups in society. Locally-led programming in all three countries targeted at empowering people to make change in their own lives can achievelasting results.


12/125

12

THE ROLE OF NGOS IN CIVIL SOCIETY

Despite substantial development of the civil sector in the past 15 years, there arestill systemic deficiencies. NGOs in particular, while playing a primary role in othercivil sectors globally, still experience significant trust problems in the nations of theSouth Caucasus. NGOs are not especially trusted by local governments, local

businesses, and often not even by the common citizen. Why?

G o v e r n m e n t views NGOs as anti-government rather than as a useful partnerin social reform processes. Government is distrustful of NGOs role inproviding critique of public reform agenda, often because NGO feedback isexclusively negative and pays little attention to what successes publicservants and public sector reforms may have achieved. In Georgia, thegovernment also views many NGOs as donor-driven. This is especially true ofNGOs working to advance gender equality, which is largely seen as an issuethat has been imported from the west. A commonly held belief among manypolicy makers is that the system of communism eradicated inequalitiesbetween women and men and that such issues do not warrant furtherattention or resources.3

C i t i z e n s often view NGOs as elitist, given that their advocacy agendas arepushing toward widespread reforms and promoting conformance to globalstandards. Unfortunately, this attitude is supported by a very weak existinglink to actual citizen constituencies very few NGOs today in the SouthCaucasus are based on membership or community-defined priorities forchange. There is a strong resentment toward NGO staff, who are perceivedto receive generous salaries and do little useful work for the common citizen.

Bu s i n e s s e s are frequently cynical about the value added of civil societyorganizations and support NGOs only when they are useful in bringing aboutregulatory change affecting the enabling environment for small or medium

enterprise. In addition, businesses see little other value for social changeagendas, particularly when such agendas raise the cost of doing business inlocal economies.

One explanation for these attitudes relates to the process of development andmaturation of the civic sector in general, which has been primarily donor-led andtends not to display the key functions of civil society (advocacy, independentanalysis, citizen education and awareness raising, service provision). The civil sectorin Georgia (and many post-soviet states) often focuses primarily on the first function(advocacy) without the benefit of strong daily connections to grassrootsconstituencies and with a bias toward sensational scandals rather than taking asystematic approach. Having been funded by outside agencies (through bilateralgrants by and large), the NGO sector in the South Caucasus has foregone a more

natural bottom-up growth process, driven instead by pressing development aimsrather than by grassroots agendas and community priorities. Successful NGOs aregiven positive feedback for their ability to lobby change in legislative and policydecisions. Hence, advocacy efforts in the South Caucasus NGO sector are oftenplaced at a higher priority than are other functions such as active communityliaison, education, independent analysis and benchmarking functions, culturalengagement and social service provision. The ultimate grassroots sector is literally

3From conversations with Tamar Sabedashvili, gender studies specialist.


13/125

13

being driven by external priorities more strongly than it is being informed by localcitizen priorities.

Ultimately, the civil sector, including major NGOs, not only can but MUST play a keyrole in keeping government accountable. Only through the efficient work of a matureand robust civil sector one that applies convincing, well-documented moral suasion

on behalf of citizen priorities can government be kept responsive and heldaccountable to the needs of its citizenry.

EPFs program priorities support a re-connection to core constituencies, and anessential re-alignment of NGO activities to address root problems and socialchallenges. Our goal is to improve the quality of civil society input and the tenor ofcitizen participation in the public dialogue. An important part of this re-connection isan increased capacity of NGOs to engage with governments in a positive andconstructive fashion. More on how to address these challenges is outlined below.

ADDRESSING ROOT PROBLEMS

EPFaims to address the core issues that will help to establish a mature civic sector in

the region.They include:

Diversity of VoicesToo often, public policy formation in the Caucasus is dominated by public officialsand, at best, a limited set of voices from the private and civil sectors. What publicdiscussion does exist is dominated by men and ethnic Georgians, leaving womenand ethnic minorities largely out of the conversation. For example, civil societygroups were marginalized from participation in the formation of the GeorgianEuropean Neighborhood Policy (ENP) National Action Plan, and women policymakers involved in the process were also grossly under represented. This is atrend in most policy formation in Georgia: civil society organizations, andespecially womens groups, are excluded from participation. To address the issue

of ENP action plan formation, EF supported a group of NGO expert workinggroups to develop an alternative action plan and to raise awareness about theneed for greater diversity of voices in public policy formation.

Information AccessInformation is empowering. Unfortunately, reliable information frequently doesnot exist on certain topics, and when it does, it is not generally available to thepublic. Both decision makers and members of the general public need betteraccess to accurate information information that is based on more than casualobservation or speculation. Social science researchers also need better skills inrigorous methodology to draw useful conclusions and policy lessons from thisinformation.

Local InitiativeCitizens in the Caucasus often dont take action on their own behalf. Why?Because from past experience, they feel that individual action yields no results.They have ample reason for skepticism on this point, since prevailing publicofficials often blatantly ignore public opinion. When shared and unbiasedinformation is available, however, it can stimulate collective action and bringmore effective pressure to bear on policy makers. Bringing people togethercannot, however, be accomplished by donors themselves. EF seeks to raise


14/125

14

awareness about the mutual benefits of working together and to supportgrassroots groups who have already made a commitment to collective action.

Sustainable Domestic FinancingFollowing a decade of community mobilization programs, there remains a need tomake community-led and community-driven programming truly sustainable.

Latent resources within local communities still widely go unrecognized anduntapped, and community programs typically succeed only as long as outsidedonor funding is available. At the same time, corporate philanthropy is in itsinfancy in this region. Few incentives exist yet for businesses to invest in theircommunities or in the human capital of their countries. But in Azerbaijan, forexample, budding philanthropists who benefited from the oil boom are looking forguidance on how to invest their profits to build their companys recognitionamong the population at large. In Georgia and Armenia, steps can also be takento engage local business leaders in constructive and more transparent socialinvestment activity.

Frozen ConflictsRegional tensions over frozen conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and

Abkhazia are an additional challenge to democratic vibrancy in the Caucasus.Government rhetoric, perpetuated stereotypes and inflammatory language in themedia all prevent the peoples of the South Caucasus from combining resourcesfor mutual benefit. These unresolved conflicts also destabilize the region andprevent integration into European structures and practices.

Through sustained strategic support to civil society, Eurasia Partnership Foundationaspires to address the root causes of these problems.


15/125

15

III. REGIONAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

At a time when the pace of reforms and development in Armenia, Azerbaijan andGeorgia is reaching a crescendo, the voice of civil society is needed more than ever.It serves as a check on the policies of national governments, and also as agrassroots link between citizens who face common concerns about economic

security, human rights, public service delivery, etc.

The following objectives will guide all of EPFs programming. They have been definedbased on the needs of civil society outlined in the section above. As the guidingareas for a regional strategy, they will also maintain cohesion among the threePartnership institutions.

1. To equip citizen groups and civil society organizations (CSOs) with skillsand knowledge to monitor the planning and implementation of keygovernment reforms and the provision of public and social services; andto enhance the impact of civic monitoring on policy formationEPF will encourage NGOs to pursue work on setting and maintaining publicaccountability to international project and audit standards through civil sectorinvolvement in infrastructure and legislative monitoring, as well as projectevaluation. Direct citizen engagement will constitute a key component of allactivities funded. Citizen monitoring and evaluation will provide more accurateand unbiased information, on which citizens can measure their countrys progressand on which public officials can make good policy choices. The civil monitoringprogram, ENP Action Plan programming, and CRRCData Initiative, for example,bring accurate, methodologically rigorous information to bear in public dialogue.These programs make the same data accessible to policy makers, legislators,professional analysts and ordinary citizens alike.

2. To encourage the growth of corporate philanthropy; and to encouragecommunity volunteerism and activism among the youth

EPF intends to take a lead in promoting both corporate social investment andcommunity-based philanthropy efforts in the South Caucasus region. The focuson increasing awareness of targeted Social Investment practices among localbusinesses aims to move the current understanding of philanthropy away frompure charity. In its place, EF promotes investment into building social capital, aform of strategic philanthropy that improves sustainability of third sectorprograms while addressing businesses goals. Among civic actors, these programswill promote civic initiative and local ownership of development steps; and buildunderstanding of methods for sustainable financing. Supporting the initiatives ofyouth, especially those in rural areas, is also a focus of EPFs programming ineach country. The Youth Bank program develops the skills and experience ofyoung people to become active members of their communities by giving them thetools and training needed to manage a small pool of funds to support the good

ideas of their peers. Through the program, youth gain an appreciation for localphilanthropy and citizen initiative.

3. To increase local capacity to conduct high quality social science researchthat informs the actions of policy makersEPFs programs will also support independent research, especially social andeconomic policy analysis. Cooperation with DFID on the South CaucasusEuropean Neighborhood Policy (ENP) program and with the Carnegie Corporationof New York in creating the CRRC Centers are two examples of regional efforts in


16/125

16

this field. The ENP program has undertaken a number of policy research projectsthat combine high-caliber policy research practices with NGO expertise in suchareas as labor law, trade promotion, business climate reform, integration ofenergy systems, higher education, consumer rights and water resourcemanagement. The Caucasus Research Resource Centers are building the caliberof policy research produced by local social science scholars through trainings and

fellowships. In coming years, EPFs programs and grant making will increasinglyfocus on promoting concrete policy impacts as part of our sponsored activity.

4. To promote cross border cooperation ifor peach and economic growth inthe greater Caucasus and Black Sea regionsEF is one of the leading program implementers in cross border activities withinthe South Caucasus. The foundation has been working quietly, but successfully,throughout some of the toughest years of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to linkNGOs across the Armenia-Azerbaijan border in pursuing shared areas of interestalong with Georgian counterparts. Some areas of past programming include:environmental information centers, water resource management,communications and e-commerce, agriculture, trade, seismic preparedness,green tourism, and legislative reform that promotes industry compliance with EU

standards.

In a time when government will is not strong enough to peacefully resolve frozenconflicts, regional programming is key. It contributes to security and stability bybuilding links among individuals and civil society groups. As an essentialcomponent of Track Two Diplomacy efforts, cross border work that focuses on thethird sector and businesses (rather than government) establishes the essentialsocial cohesion that helps to build confidence and promote peaceful resolution toconflicts. EPF will also pursue cross border work between Turkey and Armenia.

Our programs promote dialogue and cooperation on areas of mutual benefit,building confidence across political boundaries. For example, the harmonization

of legal and regulatory structures in the region and integration of the SouthCaucasus countries into European standards is one area where cooperation isbeneficial to all parties. EPF will take the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)Action Plans, which assist the countries of the South Caucasus to align theirinstitutions and laws with the EU, as a guiding framework for its programming.The Caucasus Research Resource Centers also promote regional cooperation byoffering scholars and practitioners opportunities and resources for integratedresearch and collaboration.

All EPF funded initiatives (particularly those in citizen monitoring and youthintegration) will include a significant investment of citizen effort. Through citizen datagathering, for example, or involvement of rural citizen groups in larger NGO-managed projects, the connection between collective local action and public sector

responsiveness will be emphasized. See the Appendix for a full Logical FrameworkAnalysis (LFA), including Objectives, Outcomes and Indicators.


17/125

17

IV. HOW WE WORK

The operations of Eurasia Partnership Foundation programming methods, systems,policies and procedures, etc. will be based on those of its predecessor, EurasiaFoundation. Eurasia Foundations grant making philosophy from its very beginnings has been oriented at supporting grassroots initiatives and giving a voice to the civil

sector organizations that represent the ordinary citizen. EF was established in 1992by the US State Department as a delivery mechanism to support grassroots, locallydefined projects, and was consciously created as an alternative to more traditional(large-scale and externally driven) technical assistance projects. While EFs portfoliohas evolved over the years, all of its work retains this essential character of workingat the nexus of local priority and international interest. EF works in a mode whichmaximizes our ability to be r e s p o n s i v e to emerging community priorities, ratherthan being more d i r e c t i v e as other project operators and grants programs are.

When EF was established in 1992, its method of delivering development assistanceat the grassroots level was pioneering: directing financial resources to inexperiencedNGOs based locally, coupled with technical assistance to ensure that funds werehandled responsibly. Since that time, EFs approach has evolved to adapt to theneeds of civil society as the sector grew and changed in each country. In Georgia, forexample, after a core group of EFs partners demonstrated their independence andsustainability during and after the 2003 revolution, EF began broadening anddeepening its programs to reach a wider geographic scope and increase theconnection to local constituencies. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the approach focuseson supporting democratic processes and is tailored to the local political landscapes,where corruption and government accountability are still the biggest challenges toimproving lives. EF has earned a reputation throughout the region for administeringefficient, results-oriented grants. Its approach is grassroots and demand driven, andalways emphasizes strengthening local capacity, fostering local initiative, andpromoting transparency of local decision-making.

GRANTS MANAGEMENT:BUILDING LOCAL CAPACITY

EFs grants are more than just a mechanism for disbursing funds they build theinstitutional capacity and internal controls of partner organizations. Before grantimplementation, EF staff work jointly with grant applicants on project design,implementation schedules, and evaluation processes, including establishing baselinesand indicators. EF program officers guide organizations through the grants process,helping them to build and mobilize a constituency, run a public outreach campaign,and strengthen the administrative systems of an organization. The applicationprocess even builds capacity among those who are not ultimately funded. CRRC, forexample, is pioneering an online application system through which potential fellowsprogress through a series of steps designed to improve the quality of theirapplications All applicants, whether funded or not, receive feedback on their ideasand proposals.

During the grant period, EF also employs a unique grants management system,which allows for strict fiscal oversight of grant recipients. Detailed procedures havebeen developed with respect to inquiry and proposal review, grant awarding,monitoring and closing. Each grantee is required to submit periodic analytical andfinancial reports that document grant activity and expenditure. In addition, EFFoundation conducts periodic site visits to each grantee in order to verify that grantsare progressing as expected and to confirm grantee compliance with internal


18/125

18

controls, accounting procedures, and management practices. The intensive grantreview and implementation process pioneered by EF builds internal capacity, policiesand procedures that strengthen the future work of its partners and inherently workstoward institutional sustainability.

EFs key tools for building capacity and addressing the regional priority areas are

grants and projects: open door grants, targeted grants, trilateral grants and targetedoperating programs. Grants generally range from $5,000 to $35,000, with occasionalgrants up to $50,000. They last in duration from six to eighteen months, but mostoften are about one year in duration from contract signing to delivery of finalproducts.

OPEN DOOR GRANTS:FLEXIBLE AND DEMAND DRIVEN

Approximately a quarter of EFs grants are awarded through an Open Door Program,in which EFs staff receives and reviews a wide variety of unsolicited proposals on acontinual basis. The Open Door Program has proven to be an effective means tosupport new and innovative pilot projects, or projects whose need is time-sensitive.In many cases these grants have been so successful that they were replicated on a

larger scale. For example, EFs Armenia office piloted a project with an NGO locatedin Charentsavan to develop a municipal software program that could be used bygovernment officials to track their work, and also accessed by citizens who areinterested in the activities of their local governments. The program was so successfulthat the original grantee has now received funding from other donors, including theWorld Bank and UNDP, to install the municipal software and train specialists in tencommunities across Armenia. The Open Door Program is also a way to ensure thatinitiatives are driven by community needs rather than solely on donor-definedpriorities.

EFs program staff engages in extensive research and outreach to cultivate interestin the Foundations programs among potential grant applicants. These activities

result in greater innovation in grant making, opening up new fields of interest,different approaches to project activities, new collaborative efforts, and imaginativeco-funding ideas.

TARGETED GRANTS:ADDRESSING PRIORITY NEEDS

To complement its Open Door grant program, EF sponsors targeted initiatives, orgrant competitions, in which multiple projects sharing a common programmatictheme are solicited and funded together. This allows each country office to identifyand target areas identified as high priority with funding and technical assistance. Thisscheme complements the Open Door grant program by supporting areas that needadditional focused support or receive little support from other donors.

TRILATERAL GRANTS:REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT

The political will of national governments is low in the South Caucasus when it comesto peacefully resolving frozen conflicts. Often citizens are kept in the dark orpresented a less-than-balanced picture of the national interest, particularly in a post-conflict environment. Without citizen action and fuller information, the effects ofpolitical stalemate can spill over into renewed hostility. Building links betweenindividuals and non-government organizations establishes the kind of social capitalthat reduces the chances for violent conflict. EFs trilateral grant-making mechanism


19/125

19

builds confidence and repairs broken relationships across lines of division betweenArmenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia at both the citizen and professional levels. Projectsfocus on areas where cooperation regionally has add-on effects that cant beachieved by three stand alone projects, in areas such as environment and trade,media projects focusing on tolerance, harmonization with ENP goals and Europeanstandards in various fields.

The trilateral grants process keeps all partners involved in parallel, and has provento be a significant force for effective promotion of cross border civic dialogue. Theprocess involves three steps, including two unique types of grants:

Cluster meetings: To facilitate partnerships, EF initiates cluster meetings tobring together up to 40 professionals from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgiato introduce a topic and to share experiences. Participants return to theirhome countries with an established network of practitioners in their field.

Contact Grants:Groups of three organizations, one from Armenia, Azerbaijanand Georgia, apply for a Contact Grant, which provides seed funding (up to

$1,000 per partner) for the group to meet with one another, conduct researchon feasibility and needs, and ultimately to develop a proposal for a LinkageGrant. Partnerships may be initiated by the organizations themselves or maybe facilitated by EF staff through cluster meetings.

Linkage Grants: Successful partnerships usually result in a joint formulation ofa shared project, and application for a full-scale trilateral project.Applications for Linkage Grants (generally up to $35,000 per partner) arereviewed by an independent Advisory Committee and awarded to support theimplementation of coordinated, trilateral projects.

A typical trilateral granting cycle involves up to 40 representatives of 40 differentorganizations during a cluster meeting, 8-10 resulting sets of Contact Grants and 3-4

final sets of Linkage Grants.

The trilateral grants mechanism is a model that can be effectively adapted to othercontexts, and has strong potential for encouraging bilateral work with partneredorganizations operating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to promote collaboration withGeorgian counterparts.

THE GRANTS REVIEW PROCESS

The review process includes several stages:

1. Letter of Inquiry: Interested applicants submit a letter of inquiry with a basic

project description, which is reviewed by a program officer for relevance andgeneral compliance with current priorities. If the project described in the lettershows promise of a match, the applicant is invited to submit a full proposal. Ifthe project is determined to be out of mandate, the inquiry is answered with astatement of why it is out of our current mandate. EF staff makes every effort toprovide appropriate referrals to other donors or partners when it is possible to doso.


20/125

20

2. Submission of Full Proposal: Full proposals are reviewed by program officersand grants managers for suitability and cost effectiveness. If there is potential inthe proposal draft but certain adjustments are advisable in cost structure,deliverables, or other key project elements, the program officer can correspondwith the applicant to clarify what adjustments would be desirable.

3.

Due Diligence: When strong projects pass preliminary program officer review,they go to our Grants Management staff for an organizational capacity and duediligence review. Budgets are trimmed or adjusted according to experiences ofcost effective management and other project adjustments are made to assureproper documentation of project impact and lessons learned.

4. Advisory Committee Meeting: Once every two or three months, EF convenes areview committee (consisting of prominent local NGO leaders, Internationalorganization staffers, and local experts and practitioners) to consider thoseproposals highly recommended by the program officers and select final projectsfor funding.

5. Pre-award Site Visit: After the Advisory Committee has given a stamp of

approval for the project, each potential grantee must undergo a pre-award sitevisit. Program officers and grants managers interview key staff in the applicantorganization, with the aim of documenting organizational capacity anddetermining possible risk factors in awarding fiscal responsibility to a particularorganization.

6. Grants and Program Management Seminars: Each grantee is required to attenda seminar on financial and program management techniques, which they areexpected to use in administering their Eurasia Foundation grant. Financialcontrols are stringent, and complying with them can significantly build capacity inyounger organizations. Many more mature NGOs in countries where we workhave actually based their internal accounting, control and procurement systems

on EFs standard operating requirements. Funds are disbursed in three or fourtranches, depending on the projects activity cycle and cash flow needs. Duringthe Program Management Seminar, grantees receive an overview of reportingregulations and program implementation requirements.

7. Ongoing Grants Monitoring and Reporting: Throughout the project life cycle,financial reports are submitted and reviewed by grants management staff prior torelease of subsequent tranches of funding. Program update reports are reviewedby both program and grants staff to assure adequate progress in implementationand output development. On occasion and as needed, project site visits will bescheduled to track and support grantees during unanticipated challenges inimplementation. In rare cases, funding is cancelled if compliance with EFstandards is lacking.

Grantees are also coached in understanding how to measure and document impact oftheir projects. Particular emphasis is placed on documenting policy-relatedrecommendations arising as a result of grant-related experience, and suchinformation is a required part of EFs regular project reporting format.


21/125

21

OPERATING PROGRAMS

In addition to grants, in the last few years EF has run an increasing number ofoperating programs in each country. Operating programs maintain EFs focus onrevitalization of the civil sector and strengthening linkages between civic groups andcommunities, but they target these areas from a different angle than grants alone.

They do so in three ways: 1) When there is a need for a convener or an intermediaryamong stakeholders on an issue, EF can bring various groups together to improvecollective action; 2) operating programs allow for larger-scale, sustainedinterventions when a challenge cannot be addressed by a grants competition alone;and 3) through operating programs, EF can leverage the small achievements ofindividual activities and programs by many actors for long term, sustainable impactin a targeted field. Current operating programs include Youth Fund, Islam in aDemocratic Azerbaijan and the Caucasus Research Resource Centers. For moreinformation on EFs current operating programs in the South Caucasus, please referto the Appendices A-D.

Operating programs within EF can be on a very large or a very small scale. Forexample, the CRRC program enjoys a $1 million annual budget from a single donor,

and operates across all three South Caucasus countries. Youth Fund entailsapproximately $250,000 in funding annually (from three donors), operating inAzerbaijan for the third year and just getting started with a smaller pool of corefunds in Armenia and Azerbaijan. EF Armenia convened an Anti-Corruptionconference in cooperation with the Parliament of Armenia, which took the form of anoperating program and had a budget of under $15,000. EF Georgia operated amonitoring capacity building program (the Pipeline Monitoring and Dialogue Initiativeor PMDI) for a coalition of donors in Georgia, with a budget spanning over 20 monthsand totaling $450,000. The Tourism support program, by contrast, involved a totalof $35,000 in contracted and directly provided technical assistance to theDepartment of Tourism in Tbilisi.

Technically, the primary difference between operating and grant programs is thelocus of responsibility for program outputs, and the mechanisms controlling financialexpenditure. Grants allocate funding to outside partner organizations through a grantagreement, and the responsibility for delivery of project outputs rests entirely withthe grantee. In running operating programs, EF directly manages project activities orconcludes contracts with supplier partners (NGOs, individuals or commercialentities); usually the aim of the contract is to support direct provision of technicalexpertise to project participants. More importantly, EF takes upon itself ultimateresponsibility for delivery of outputs and project results.

In order to augment EFs technical capacity, country offices convene advisory boardsand expert panels of locally-based and international experts to provide advice onneeds, existing resources and potential program direction. Advisory boards

participate in the review of grant proposals and make recommendations, but do nothave final decision-making authority. These boards add significantly to the reviewprocess by bringing new perspectives and networks of contacts to the decision-making process. The Country Director approves grants and programs up to a certainthreshold; for large programs the approval of the Regional Vice President or EFExecutive Committee is required. Thresholds are set annually. This decentralizationof authority is designed to maximize the input of local staff so that programs areresponsive to local conditions.


22/125


23/125

23

THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL AND DCOFFICES

The Tbilisi-based Presidents Office will play several important roles in themanagement of EPF. First, it is a coordinating mechanism for strategic programdevelopment, fundraising, donor relations, and governance. The President convenesregional staff and strategic planning meetings, assists country offices with external

relations issues, identifies regional or multi-country program and fundingopportunities and helps pursue them. A key function of this office (which is part ofthe decentralization strategy of EF worldwide) is to provide for coordinatedmanagement and implementation of the localization process. Second, it is acentralized go-to point for donors, partners, and outside agencies for informationabout the Foundations regional activities. The key reporting responsibility for allregional branch offices lies with (and is carried out through) the regional office.Finally, the office plays a role in fiscal control, reviews and approves annual budgets,monitors expenditure progress, and oversees compliance with internal procedures.

The Presidents office will serve as the governance liaison point, convening meetingsof the Board of Trustees and supporting implementation of their directives across allthree EPF institutions. The regional office also supports cross border cooperation

between the three local institutions and the CRRC program, which is central to thevision of this new regional network of foundations. Management of internalcommunications systems is another responsibility that lies with the Presidents office,ensuring that knowledge and best practices are shared across the region and withthe wider EF Network.

EPF will be a member of the EF Network, consisting of four localized legacyinstitutions in Central Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. The EFDC office provides basic services to all members of the EF Network, as laid out in thenetworks charter. EF DC also manages core grants to network members (EPF will bea grantee of EF DC) and reports on the Networks activities to US governmentinstitutions. The EF DC office also aids in the institutional development of Network

members by participating in the Board of Trustees (for example, EFs President,Horton Beebe-Center, will serve on the Board of EPF) and maintains commoninformation systems, programmatic standards, and fundraising strategies. The twomain purposes of the EF Network are to assist legacy institutions in financialsustainability and to ensure high programmatic standards.


24/125

24

V. EFS CAPACITY:WHAT HAVE WE ACHIEVED IN 13YEARS?

With over $20 million invested over 13 years in civil society development in Georgia,EFs impact has been extensive. Although it is nearly impossible to document thecumulative impact of this investment, we can show the results of specific programsand broader initiatives. By demonstrating achievements at small and medium scales,

we hope the reader will gain an appreciation for the overall achievements of EF.4

1995-2000

EF was established to deliver seed capital to emerging civil society organizationsworking for democratic reform after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the firstyears of EFs operations, rigorous grant management procedures built the capacity ofstart-up civic organizations in financial and project management. (For moreinformation on EFs grants management and organizational capacity buildingactivities, please see Section VI, How We Work.) Todays strongest and most activecivil society organizations in Georgia received seed grants from EF in the early- andmid-1990s, when most donors were not yet active in the country. This cadre ofsustainable and effective organizations includes the Georgian Young LawyersAssociation, the Association for Legal and Public Education, Radio Green Wave, theCivil Society Institute, Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN), LibertyInstitute, Caucasus School of Business, European School of Management, Associationof Young Economists, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development,Georgian Federation of Certified Public Accountants and Auditors, Association for theProtection of Landowners Rights and many, many more. Although EF cannot claimresponsibility for the individual success of each of these organizations, the collectivegroup whose roots are tied to EF seed capital strongly suggests that EFs early grantmaking had high impact.

Today it is nearly impossible to find a successful local NGO in Georgia that did notreceive a grant from EF in the early stages of their institutional start-up and

development. In many cases, the small projects that these local organizationsimplemented with EF funding were so successful that larger donors took on similarprojects with bigger pools of funding. For example, the Association for the Protectionof Landowners Rights (APLR), received their first grant from EF in 1997 to preparedraft legislation on land privatization, which helped to consolidate land parcels andpave the way for economic growth in the agriculture sector (the law was adopted in2005). After this project, APLR was contracted by USAID on a large land parcelregistration project and is now the leading source of expertise in land-related issues.APLR is also a successful social enterprise, supplementing its social work withincome-generating consulting projects for the government and businesses.

Many other organizations are winning direct bids from major donors and pursuingnuanced campaigns for social justice and democratic development. One formergrantee of EF, the United Nations Association of Georgia, is even sub-contractingactivities of a large USAID-funded program on integration of minority ethnic groupsback to EF.

4Additional program results from Georgia and a set of summaries of relevant evaluations canbe found in the Appendix. Because the achievements of EFs affiliate offices in Central Asia(EFCA), Russia (FNE), Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the South Caucasus are also thestrengths of EPF in Georgia, we have included several examples from EPFs affiliate partnersthat have direct relevance to programming in Georgia.


25/125

25

EF also established itself during this time as a foundation willing to take risks bypiloting new ideas and programmatic approaches, especially in the field of crossborder work:

An external evaluation of EFs support to cross border media programs

between 1999 and 2004 noted that In late 1999, when the first regionalmedia projects were funded, the Eurasia Foundation was one of very fewinternational organizations that pioneered work in the field of cross bordermedia assistance The wide range of [EF-supported trilateral] regionalmedia initiatives broke the ice in many areas which neither local norinternational organizations considered possible before. This conclusion isfurther supported by a recent decision of the European Commission to fundthe Caucasus Journalists Network through their Independent Media for CivilIntegration program. This program is an example of a partnership group thatEFs cross border program brought together and that continues to cooperatefor mutual benefit.

Another evaluation of EFs support to public policy NGOs in the South

Caucasus documents the payoff to taking risks in the region. An externalevaluation of EFs Cross Border program noted: EF most broadlyexperimented with its programmatic approaches in its South Caucasus clusterof grants. The idea of [EFs trilateral] program of collaborative policy studiescarried significant implementation risks due to the additional difficulties offorming a partnership team, filing joint grant proposals, communication in thecourse of work on a project and collective reporting. The deep and unresolvedconflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan complicated the matter further.However, these risks were justified by the invaluable opportunity to promotetrust, goodwill, and mutual understanding between the intellectual and policyelites of the South Caucasus countries, and to draw on multiple synergiescreated by cross border cooperation of policy experts. Such synergies

included: dissemination of policy blueprints and outcomes; creating regionalcompetition in policy reform; pooling bigger expert teams (economies ofscale) and de factointroducing the practice of peer reviews; addressing crossborder spillovers of national policies; and seeking policy harmonization.

2001-2006

As civil society began to flourish in Georgia, EF focused the second phase of itswork on deepening and strengthening existing partnerships, consolidating thecapacity of partners and grantees, and achieving concrete program impacts in fieldsidentified by the Foundation as critical to civic and democratic development. Between2004 and 2007, EF awarded more than 85 grants to Georgian NGOs and civil society

groups mostly through the Open Door Program. Through grant clusters in specificprogram areas, EF targeted resources where needs were highest, while the OpenDoor Program allowed EF to retain its flexibility to respond to emerging needs.Notable achievements during this time include:

Elections Monitoring- In 2003, the local branch of the International Societyfor Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) came to EF with a proposal toconduct exit polling during the 2004 Presidential elections. Recognizingthe potential impact of this program, EF quickly made a grant through the


26/125

26

Open Door Program. The results of ISFEDs exit polls provided reliable andindependent confirmation that the elections had been rigged. The results ofthe exit polls were broadcast on independent TV channels across the country,galvanizing public opinion and ultimately precipitating in the Rose Revolution.In 2006, EF responded to the need for further voter education in the run-upto the hastily announced municipal electionsheld in October. With a grant

from EF, New Generation New Initiative monitored the new central voters list.The grantee, using teams of volunteers in the regions, checked over 100,000names on the list, finding a significant number of errors which were reportedto the Central Election Commission. A grant to ISFED promoted the activeinvolvement of youth in the election process by training first-time voters inthe election code and election procedures. A smaller group received additionaltraining to serve as volunteer observers during the election.

In 2003-2004, in cooperation with IREX and OSGF, EF awarded grants toseveral independent regional newspapers, radio stations and televisions toprovide unbiased and professional coverage of the November 2, 2003parliamentary and January 4, 2004 presidential elections. The grantee mediaorganizations organized live talk-shows involving all major political players,

civic organizations, experts and private citizens, allowing the Georgiancitizens to stay fully informed about their election rights, electoral procedures,standards for fair elections and the programs of different political parties. Themedia grants culminated in civic and political activism of informed citizens todefend their constitutional rights and to resist election fraud by theincumbent government. The grants also helped the recipient media outlets toenhance their management, quality of programs and reporting.

NGO Watchdogs - In 2001, a grant awarded through EFs Open DoorProgram to an NGO in Akhaltsikhe launched a public campaign that succeededin pressuring the government to maintain higher accountability over the localbudget. Building from the success of the pilot project, EF launched the

Anticorruption NGO Watchdog Initiative (ACWI) in 2002, awarding grants tosix NGOs in Georgias regions and to one Tbilisi-based organization. Thepartners increased public awareness regarding the rights and responsibilitiesof different government bodies, identified numerous cases of corruption andorganized responses through court appeals, law suits and media campaigns.Achievements from Phase I include significant changes to the staff, budgetsand expenditures of government bodies, including the dismissal of severalcorrupt officials. EF launched a second round of the program in 2004 and overthe next two years ten NGO Watchdogs received grants to conductanticorruption activities in the regions outside of Tbilisi. One grantee, theGeorgian Young Lawyers Association, monitored the use of presidential envoyfunds in six regions of Georgia and found many examples of misuse andcorruption. They developed a package of recommendations on effective

management of these funds, which were presented to regional governors.Many of these recommendations were adopted by regional administrations.Other partners monitored local government budgets and the procurementprocess; identified numerous instances of corruption; publicized findingsthrough public information sessions, quarterly bulletins and media campaigns;and advocated for citizen interests. More than 70 percent of therecommendations made by the NGO watchdogs were integrated by localgovernments into their activities, and the grantees won several court cases


27/125

27

under the law on freedom of information to make government expendituresand budget planning processes open and available to the public.

The Data Initiative Recognizing that the quality of research in the socialsciences in the South Caucasus was low and was not meeting the informationneeds of policy makers, independent analysts or the donor community, EF

launched the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) in 2001 withsupport from the Carnegie Corporation. The goal of CRRC is to strengthen thequality of social science research in, for and about the South Caucasus. At thetime, reliable and freely available data about the South Caucasus was difficultif not impossible to find. In response, CRRC launched the Data Initiative, ayearly household survey containing over 120 questions that is conductedsimultaneously in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. First coordinated in 2004,the survey aims to provide publicly accessible, consistent raw data on a widerange of issues related to demography, education, migration, economicbehavior, health, political activities, social institutions and crime. During thefirst year of the survey in 2004, 4,500 households were surveyed (1,500 ineach capital city). Each year, the survey has expanded in geographic scopeand size. By 2006 the survey included over 6,800 households and covered all

regions of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (excluding conflict zones). In2007 the survey will include more questions to fill additional information gaps,and it will cover 12,000 households in all enough to make significantlystatistical comparisons across regions within each country. In addition toproviding data for researchers to use for academic and policy research, thedataset is now being used in trainings and presentations to teach policymakers and analysts how to better manipulate data and to educate thedevelopment community about datas importance. The data is immediatelyrelevant to the problems that both the development community is facing andproblems academics are interested in and many individuals apply the hands-on activities used in the trainings to their classrooms or workplaces.

The growth of Georgias private sector over the last few years has created ahigh demand for local managers with management skills that meetinternational standards. EF played a key role in the development ofuniversity level business education to meet this demand. Back in 1998,EF supported the launch of an MBA program, the Caucasus School of Business(CSB), which since then has become a leading business school in Georgia. In2003, EF gave institutional development grants to both CSB and EuropeanSchool of Management (ESM), the other leader in business education, toaddress institutional weaknesses such as scarce library resources, a smallcapacity for faculty development, and a lack of international recognition.Through these grants, the schools expanded their libraries by purchasingtextbooks and subscribing to electronic business libraries. The grantspromoted the professional development of core faculty by supporting faculty

members research activities, and strengthened the schools internationalpartnerships. As a part of the accreditation process, CSB and ESM completeda self-assessment and underwent evaluation by the Central and EastEuropean Management Development Association (CEEMAN) experts. As aresult of this process, both schools were awarded accreditation by CEEMANfor meeting high standards in business education.


28/125


29/125

29

of developing an alternative plan was to set a high standard for thegovernments own version. EF chaired two expert working groups oneconomic development and anticorruption that were composed of civilsociety leaders, private sector specialists and former members ofparliament. Unofficially, it appears from comparing the governments draftand final plans that many of the sections developed by the NGO working

groups were directly incorporated into the governments final plan. EF andits partner organizations have also organized a series of roundtablediscussions about the most important reform topics under ENP, includinghealthcare and social security, judicial reform and the rule of law, taxationand conflict resolution. The partners are now organizing a lobbying trip toBrussels in November 2007 to meet with representatives of the EuropeanParliament and to present a set of recommendations set out as a work planwith specific targets for implementing the national action plan. It is hopedthat this campaign will help to put additional pressure on the governmentto make concrete steps towards achieving the commitments they havemade, some of which are quite vague.

Looking ahead, EF is planning to launch the Corporate Social Investment program toincrease the long term sustainability of civil society organizations in Georgia one ofthe major challenges facing the sector:

In addition to broadening the reach of civil society across the country, EF isalso cultivating local sources of funding for long-term sustainability of civicinitiatives. The Corporate Social Investment (CSI)program is encouraginglocal philanthropy, one important source of capital for civil society in the longterm when donors exit the region, by working with businesses to design socialinvestment strategies. Although this program will be launched in Georgia inthe near future, EF has seen significant results of similar initiatives inAzerbaijan and Russia. As a result of EFs program activities in CSI inAzerbaijan, Garadagh Cement, a local business, has funded the expansion of

the Youth Bank program to the neighborhood where their cement plant islocated; and a major telecommunications company has restructured its entireCorporate Social Responsibility department and appointed two full-time staffmembers to oversee its social investment program. This company also assistsEF in financing the trainings and high level speakers for the 25 other localbusinesses active in EFs CSI events. After the first kick-off event for theprogram in Armenia, EF was approached by HSBC Bank to implement an eco-friendly tourism project. The summary of the impact evaluation for EFsCorporate Social Investment program in Russia (in the Appendix) alsodemonstrates many notable achievements that we hope to see replicated inGeorgia.

Over its 13 year history of grant making and programming in Georgia, EF has helped

to launch some of the strongest civil society institutions in the country (GYLA, CENN,APLR, CSM, ESM, etc.); invested in small but risky ideas with large payoffs later(exit-polling during 2004 elections); focused resources where needs and potentialimpact were greatest (NGO Watchdogs); and filled the information gap (CRRCs DataInitiative). In the years ahead, EPF will seek to replicate these successes by buildinga stronger civil society sector in Georgias regions and by strategically investing innew ideas while building off successful existing ones.


30/125

30

We remain committed to building a civil society sector that conducts high quality andindependent policy analysis, citizen education, advocacy and service provision,enabling all citizens to achieve social and economic prosperity.


31/125

31

VI. RELEVANCE

CONFORMITY WITH SIDAS REGIONAL STRATEGY

Eurasia Partnership Foundations focus on empowering individuals and strengtheninginstitutions of civil society is relevant to a number of the objectives that are set out

in Sidas Regional Strategy paper for the South Caucasus. For example, a vital civilsociety plays a critical role in enhanced democracy and effective governance. Italso serves as a springboard for advocacy in compliance with human rights andenables independent institutions to monitor compliance with human rights. The civicsector also supports economic development through community organizations inareas such as agriculture where cooperation can yield higher returns. A tabledemonstrating synergies between EPFs activities and Sidas priorities is available inthe Appendix.

CONFORMITY WITH NATIONAL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS

Eurasia Partnership Foundations mission and goals are designed to complement thebroader picture of development assistance to the South Caucasus. Through strategicplanning sessions that occur both during yearly planning sessions and on an ongoing,as-needed basis, each countrys own development priorities are regularly reviewedand programs are continually reassessed to ensure that they are relevant to nationaldevelopment strategies, including the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) andENP Action Plan documents.

At the regional level, the ENP Action Plans are important guiding documents to EFswork. Cooperation at the regional level is a significant priority in the ENP Action Plansof all three countries. However, promoting trilateral intergovernmental cooperationwill be extremely challenging given the lingering political impasse between Armeniaand Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is here that NGOs can play akey role in facilitating cooperation across the region through the exchange of ideas

on issues that impact all three countries. EF is implementing an 18-month ENP CivicDialogue Project (described in the Appendix) that seeks to promote regionalcooperation on NGO input to ENP action plan implementation; to foster dialogue andcollaboration between government and civil society on public policy issues commonto all three ENP Action Plans; and to raise awareness of the concrete benefits ofEuropean integration and the ENP process among journalists and the generalpublic. EF has already conducted three policy forums examining waste management,food standards and safety, and vocational education. The policy forums havesuccessfully brought together NGO and government officials from all three countriesto establish the research agenda for forthcoming policy reports on these topics. Inaddition to promoting a cross border exchange on policy issues, the ENP CivicDialogue Project will also serve as a catalyst for government-NGO dialogue on theselected public policy issues in each country through the establishment of in-countryworking groups consisting of NGOs, government agencies, and other stakeholders inthe development of the policy reports.

For more detail on conformity of EF objectives with various relevant nationaldevelopment strategies, please see the Appendix.


32/125

32

IMPACT ON THE POOR,GENDER EQUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Poverty

Poverty is a multi-dimensional problem. It involves not only physical and materialdeprivation, but a lack of information, education, power and political influence.

Poverty also affects different segments of society in different ways. In manyimpoverished families, women have taken on the role of breadwinners by taking low-paid jobs. This has given them a certain degree of empowerment through increasedeconomic independence, though it has also subjugated them to gender-basedviolence both in the domestic as well as public domains. The majority of women whoremain employed in the formal sector work in the low-paying fields of agriculture,education, healthcare and light industry.5 The vertical and horizontal gendersegregation of the labour market is obvious from the high concentration of women inlower positions in the less profitable sectors of the economy. As a result, accordingto the State Department of Statistics, in 2005 the average nominal monthly salary ofwomen in all fields of the economy and all sectors was 49% that of men.6

Our programs help to increase the material and non-material assets of the poor and

vulnerable groups, incl

Organisationens förfrågan om 24 miljoner Sidakronor

Documents

Transcript of Organisationens förfrågan om 24 miljoner Sidakronor