One of the conclusions of the IOB evaluation was that the former VMP policy framework was insufficiently clear about the intended results and how improving unions’ capacity and improving union and labour rights contributed to sustainable poverty reduction. The current VMP policy framework therefore describes clear objectives for FNV and CNV: implementation of the Decent Work Agenda, social dialogue and strengthening sister organisations in the countries concerned.80 The first two objectives are aimed at sustainable poverty reduction. Other important themes are fair trade and labour standards, corporate social responsibility and improving the position of women (participation in trade union organisations and access to the labour market). The policy framework also describes the main types of activities to be developed by CNV and FNV, and the criteria to be satisfied. The main criteria are evaluated in this report.
4.2.2 Underlying theories of change
The VMP is based on the conviction that trade unions can play an important role in sustainable poverty reduction.81 As civil society organisations with specific capacity on labour matters, they also play an important role in democratic processes and participate in formal international and other dialogues or networks.
‘Positioning’, which should be understood in process terms, influences the degree to which organisations can contribute to and play a more effective role in bringing about social change.82 The process of change itself is another, central dimension of the theory as it in turn is the driving force behind the other dimensions.
The associated change and process outcomes are by definition difficult to measure: the degree to which organisations have become ‘a labour movement’, acquired political and legal status, gained strength, have found ways and means of working with other organisations based on mutual interest, and so on.
‘Positioning and role’ should be a distinct outcome category, next to internal (e.g. better organisational structure, more members) and external results (e.g. improved rights for target groups), the two categories of the IOB’s VMP policy theory. While positioning is determined in part by internal and external results, other important factors are the organisation’s links with other national and international organisations, the organisation’s capacity to contribute, its ability to adapt to new circumstances and its scope for negotiation, and support from organisations like FNV Mondiaal and CNV Internationaal.
A contextual analysis of these elements, as well as other research, will inform country- specific policy (which goes beyond partner policy). Figure 1 depicts how these elements may be added to the existing policy theory.
Figure 1: Amended VMP policy theory
Ministry FNV/CNV Partner organisations
Inputs:
. VMP policy framework . Grants e.g. VMP . Feedback
. Linking with other policies and instruments, e.g. involving other actors (employers)
Outputs:
. Contracts/agreements with CNV/FNV
Inputs:
. Policy and own resources . Multilateral and other networks . VMP grants
. Feedback etc.
Outputs:
. Financing contracts
. Expertise (PME, issue-specific) . Lobbying
. Campaigns . Solidarity
. Networks activated
Inputs:
. Own policy/culture etc. . Own resources, e.g.
commitment, specific expertise . Other external support . VMP grant
. Institutional position and recognition/networks etc. Activities/Outputs: . Training/education etc. . Campaigns . Services . Strikes/dialoguing . Networking etc.
Internal results: outcomes related to organisational strengthening . Better organisational structure . More members
. Better systems: administration, PME etc.
. Better representativeness . Better service provision
. Improved capacity cross cutting issues . Better financial base: self-financing i.e.
External results: outcomes related to target group (workers)
. Freedom of association
. Decent Work: e.g. labour rights, working conditions, social security . Decent and equitable incomes . Equal participation
Role and position in social change - Positioning outcomes:
. Positioning amidst other organisations/recognition . Links (issue-specific)/searching for complementarity . Collaborations/coalitions
. Outward looking
. Capacity to acquire and use negotiating space . Capacity to adapt to changes
(Catalysed) Change Processes Process outcomes . Labour movement/ recognition/increased (countervailing) power . Political and legal status . Organisations working
4.2.3 FNV and CNV response (3a)
The degree of effectiveness depends on what dimensions of change an activity is aimed at, and which are thought to be the most strategic. This has consequences for the approach to be adopted and the programme strategy.
FNV
It is probably against this background that FNV in particular is entrenched in an ongoing debate with the Ministry. The two parties cannot agree on the most effective way of contributing to poverty reduction, nor therefore on the underlying theory of change. FNV sees itself as a catalyst for and facilitator of social change processes. While these roles can best be exercised by acting directly on situations in the countries in question, FNV’s approach is indirect, acting through multilateral channels and taking complementary action such as lobbying and influencing policy, networking where the opportunity arises and taking a multi- actor approach at country level. One of the implications of this approach is that a large degree of responsibility rests with partners and constraint should be exercised as regards interfering in their internal processes.
In other words, FNV tends to formulate outcomes in terms of partners’ positioning, empowering them to step up pressure83 in order to change the way, for instance, that government and businesses act, resulting in sustained social change. Such behaviour change should also take place in unions and among senior union officials.
Process-oriented approaches are iterative processes and demand a margin of flexibility. As these are generally not included in existing PME systems, an approach based on continuous learning is recommended. In order to make the most of process outcomes it is logical that FNV uses outcome mapping and associated reporting on progress markers. FNV asks partners to formulate proposals in an LFA (logical framework analysis) format, but where multiannual plans apply, these should be linked to progress markers.
CNV
CNV’s approach matches the linear approach advocated in the VMP: its programmes have a country and partner focus (usually one partner), and are aimed at the two main goals of strengthening the partner and achieving improvements for workers directly. This linear model, which ties in with the CNV strategy adopted in early 2008, is straightforward, especially in terms of defining and evidencing the two types of outcomes. However, there is a risk that partners’ role may be reduced to that of ‘project implementer’ and that the focus may be on relatively short-term achievements. The model does not explicitly consider whether and to what extent the partner organisation can acquire added value in terms of its role and position in social change.
The manner in which CNV views its own role confirms this. As donor and provider of technical assistance, it presents partners with a uniform PME system, including payment for a longer or shorter period of time to cover the operational and administrative costs of introducing the system. A relatively large proportion of funding is intended to help the partner organisation establish itself more firmly (which in turn boosts the partner’s readiness to comply with the proposed PME system) and above all to increase its ability to perform, i.e. to conclude agreements and provide services.
The partners strive to achieve concrete outcomes at target group level and in terms of organisational strengthening.
The obvious choice in such a setting is the Management for Development Results (MfDR)/Logical Framework Approach (LFA).
4.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations concerning the policy framework
Conclusions
- The current VMP framework remains unclear as to the desired main outcomes at policy level, nor does it provide indicators for assessing outcomes. It is therefore unclear what information is to be given to the Ministry and how progress on policy objectives can be measured. The policy framework does not include a baseline and only describes major themes to work on.
- The VMP framework does not elaborate on the role and positioning of organisations in social change processes and the character of those processes. If these key elements were included in the underlying VMP theory, they could:
identify where the added value of CNV’s one-partner approach lies, as more emphasis would and could be placed on the role of the partner in relation to general democratic processes in the country in question, and on influencing policies at national level to strengthen the position of unions and workers. It could possibly be integrated with the Lobbying and Campaigning programme, which should then be reformulated to include a country level dimension;
provide justification for the facilitative and multi-actor approach used by FNV;
underscore the importance of coherence with other (Dutch government) policies and instruments aimed at creating a good business climate in developing countries (also important in most RDA programmes).
Recommendations
- The Ministry should reconsider the theory underlying the VMP, modifying it into a theory of social change.
- The Ministry should be more specific in defining outcomes and outcome indicators at policy level, thus clarifying the aspects to be reported on by FNV and CNV. This will make clearer what is to be monitored and how programmes should link up with the policy objectives. In preparing the new VMP policy framework, the Ministry should use the dialogue with FNV and CNV as an opportunity to check feasibility proactively.
4.3 PME84 by FNV and partners