Evaluation e-Library (EeL) cover page
|
|  Yüklə 0.71 Mb.
|
2.2Challenges & ConstraintsThe key challenge to LUPP’s influencing objectives has been the highly-centralised and essentially non-consultative character of the Angolan government, its mistrust of international agencies and the relatively low credibility of the NGO sector at large. These attitudes are largely a product of Angola’s isolation and suspicions acquired through the long years of war. This has been combined with the weak capacity of both public authorities and civil society in the post-conflict period. Exposure to, and ready acceptance of reformist ideas for pro-poor public service delivery have been limited and thus the potential for influence constrained. Mistrust of the international donor community and the availability of significant investment from, in particular, the Chinese government as well as from the private sector, notably oil companies, appears also to have limited the degree of leverage for pro-poor reform by the international community. LUPP has also been seeking to address an enormous development challenge – urban poverty at distressingly high levels and a fundamental lack of government capacity to respond. The challenge has been to develop a more widespread understanding of the nature of Angolan urbanisation and to confront the prevailing views that the urbanisation of Angolan poverty is a transitional phase before the urban poor return to their rural origins15. Neither global trends of urbanisation nor the consistently high growth of the urban population support this view, but the lack of reliable urban data means that policy debate and programme planning takes place without an evidence-base. Another key challenge for LUPP has been the short time span for the programme. The transition from a service delivery programme in Phase 1 to an influencing strategy in Phase 2 has taken time to develop, simultaneous with programme development and implementation. As a result, some of the impacts of the LUPP governance and service delivery models are only just coming on stream. Whilst there has been case study documentation and publicity, evidence-based good practice documentation for deeper and more widespread influence and dissemination are only now being produced.
2.3Effectiveness, Inclusiveness and SustainabilityLUPP has undoubtedly been effective in raising the profile of urban poverty16. Its advice and influencing has been perceived by the government to be of positive assistance and LUPP has achieved a position where doors are generally open to LUPP team members. The community is increasingly confident to undertake its own influencing activities. However, it is also clear that key messages concerning the urbanisation of poverty and community empowerment are not being internalised; and that while debate continues (e.g. on the PRSP), there is a lack of an institutionalised centre of research and influence. The Urban Forum and the work of LUPP’s PMU on GIS and other research represents the start of this institutionalisation but MINUA and the Urban Forum lacks the technical capacity to be effective. The GIS has potential which has not yet been fulfilled to be an important influencing tool to link urban poverty with urban basic service deficiency. Whilst other programmes are coming on stream (EU, UNDP, USAID), none of them have either a multi-sectoral approach or a purely urban focus. Thus new programmes will not adopt, benefit from or sustain LUPP’s urban experience or multi-sectoral approach.
3Engagement and linkages with external partners3.1Achievements3.1.1GovernmentOne of LUPP’s major achievements has been its engagement of key government partners. Based on long-standing field experience, the programme has been able to win trust and confidence at the highest level of a series of central government ministries, the Luanda provincial administration and the four municipal administrations. Key ministries are MINUA (through work on urban poverty and planning), MINPLAN (through urban poverty and the PRSP), MAT (on decentralisation and participatory planning and governance), and MINEA and MINARS (on service delivery). Other government institutions with which LUPP has a collaborative partnership are the National Bank of Angola (on micro-finance), and the various para-statals for service delivery within the musseques (EPAL, ELISAL, EDEL).
3.1.2Civil Society OrganisationsLUPP has worked to network related civil society organisations including NGOs, academic institutions and the media. This has been successful in the creation of models of community-level federations (e.g. alliances or federations of area-based or service-based CBOs (e.g. the Alliance of Hoji-Ya-Henda communa, federations of ODAs and ACAs17); of interest-based networks (e.g. MIFIBAC for savings organisations, RASME for micro-enterprise and ATREINE for BDS); and of partnerships with academic institutions (e.g. with the Agostinho Neto University on planning and with students from the Catholic University for micro-credit and business advice) and with the private sector (e.g. commercial banks on micro-credit). 3.1.3Donor agenciesAs noted above, LUPP has engaged with the key donor agencies on all aspects of the programme. UNDP, the EU, USAID, French Cooperation and the World Bank-funded FAS have all come into contact with LUPP partners through LUPP’s influencing and communications activities, through donor working groups, and other sector-based activities. 3.2Challenges & ConstraintsEngagement with both government and donor programmes faces the challenge of a lack of collaboration amongst most agencies. Most donors have particular agendas or models they wish to promote and have little motivation to engage with others. Most government departments are unused to sharing or collaboration and so multi-sector working is constrained. Service delivery reform is also affected in the run-up to elections. There is an opportunity to popularise pro-poor policies but also the danger that vested interests are able to block reform (this may be the case with water tariffs). Thus there may be support for pro-poor reform from technocrats in line Ministries and even rhetoric from politicians supporting pro-poor reform but little action. The challenge, which LUPP is successfully addressing, is to present evidence-based argument and to create spaces for dialogue. |