Each country team will discuss and then put on flipcharts:

• obstacles encountered and why; how you resolved them
• what made process go well and why
• what differences the results have made and evidence of that
• lessons learned

Key points to include in discussion:

• How activities were decided upon and carried out
• Role of incentive fund
• Roles of 3 actors (NGO, PVO,USAID)
• Role of IA

Activities

1. National conference (5 April 2005)
2. Information Day on the MCA (22 October 2005)
3. Technical Training Workshop on the strategic mobilization of human and financial resources (18 – 21 April 2006)
4. Days event on food security (31 August 2006)
5. Round table for local NGOs on USAID accreditation process (21 August 2006)
6. ALPI column in CCAs information bulletin (March 2005)
7. Meetings of CCA members, NGOs on the MCA compact document (12 September 2006)

Results

1. Information sharing / contributions by participating parties to the Action Plan
2. Bringing up to speed of members participating in the process
3. Local NGOs informed and trained in method of mobilising human and financial resources
4. Framework for formal exchange established between ALPI and the state / Commissariat on Food Security
5. Local NGOs informed and trained on the USAID accreditation process / Presentation for accreditation of some local NGOs
6. ALPI column in CCAs Activities Bulletin
7. Definition of the mandate by the local NGO members of the technical committee

Obstacles

1. Limited resources to decentralize the workshops
2. Three parties present but in insufficient numbers (notification time)
3. Perception of the approach relative to the holding of the meeting
4. Difficulty in re-launching of publication ‘CCAINfo’

Effects / Changes

1. Taking on of the ALPI process
2. Increased openness on the part of the government to civil society
3. Increased the quality of the partnership – coordination of actions
4. Lessening of stereotyping of USAID

Activities

1. MCA

2. Information exchange fora

3. NGO policy / Law Support

4. NGO / CSO Standards project

**NGO and government Trust Bill

Obstacles

1. Taxation
2. Information flow between government and NGO / Information flow between GAPVOD and Ghana Country Team
3. Delayed funding
4. Inadequate funding

Solution

1. Proactive in getting information from all sources
2. Ghana Country Team members made in kind contributions
3. Commitment on the part of all GCT members and other NGOs
4. Frequent consultations
5. Joint decision making
6. NGO community ready to see change in the sector

Results

1. Critical mass of NGOs supporting Standards project
2. NGOs see urgency in building a strong national platform
3. Recognition of existence of more national networks

Lessons

1. Strong coordination fosters higher level collaboration among NGOs on dealing with sector issues - e.g. NGO credibility; MCA; NGO Bill; Relations with Government and National Platform – facilitates team work

Incentive Fund

1. Good stimulant
2. Limited specific funding available for enhancing NGO environment

2 Country Teams

After observing each other’s experience and analysis discuss and record them on flip charts:

1. What stood out for you regarding?

• Similarities
• Differences

2. Derive 2 – 3 themes (common issues, concerns and approaches) you see

Outstanding Similarities

• Incentive Fund a stimulant of the process
• Strong National platform – the existence of a strong platform would lead to strong coordination at higher levels
• Expansion and wider participation of other NGOs
• The need for team spirit among the NGOs

Differences

• The peer review programme (code of standards) being undertaken in not within the Kenya action plan
• Synergies and links developed by the Kenya team are non-existent in the Ghana programme ( At this point in the presentations, it was interesting to note that the two members of the Ghana team familiar with the process were not present at the discussion and those present and unfamiliar with the processes were of the view that there were no synergies or linkages)
• The transfer of funds to Kenya seems to have been faster than that of Ghana. In the case of Ghana the process was slow and delayed (how was the process managed when money was delayed)

Themes

• Relationship within partnerships
• Funding / Resources – the need for more resources and resource mobilisation. Made efforts to mobilise resources in cash and kind
• Knowledge sharing - through learning strategies documenting case studies on what had worked in other areas

Outstanding Similarities

• Ownership of the ALPI programes within the countries
• The Local NGOs contributed significantly to the preparation of the Action Plan

Differences

• Has to do mainly with the approach in Mali – organised a national workshop
• Tried to tackle access to resources from USAID

Themes

• The MCA theme was common to both countries
• The imbalance in the commitment of the various actors – commitment on the part of USAID

Sylvain: There is a difference between each stakeholder group in interaction with ALPI. That is why the USAID Country Director does not visit. He/She doesn’t necessarily have to be there. There must be distinction between participation and commitment.

Lawrencia: On activities developed by the Country team, the International NGOs do not regularly participate. PVOs have a luke-warm attitude to ALPI. How does one define commitment? May have contact with USAID but that doesn’t necessarily translate into support of what you are doing. Commitment and interest depends more or less on the person in charge of USAID operations in the Country.

Comment: Access to USAID resources is not a mystery. It is posted on the website. Both local and international NGOs have to compete for these resources

Lawrencia: To what extent do the Mali and Senegal Country team engage directly with USAID officials? In the case of the Ghana team, regular visits are paid to the USAID mission to update them on ALPI programmes and it is gratifying to know the Country Director is up to date on all ALPI activities. It’s all about relationship building and engaging the person face to face.

Carolyn Long: It’s natural for the US PVOs not to show interest or sign on to the same issues because they already have access to resources in the US. They already have standards they have met and are working towards.

Following from the discussions three major themes that surface in the work of ALPI are as follows:

• The whole area of relationships among the actors / the power / access / engagement
• The role of platforms – how do you use it effectively to ensure stability and coordination?
• Participation – Senegal National & Regional workshops