Enhancing State Performance

strengthened Gada System has been used by the NGOs working in the Oromia region to implement programmes related to child rights promotion, girls education and eradication of VAW. Additionally, traditional system of administrative structures, informal self-help associations like Idirs and other community-based organizations have been mobilized and supported by a number of CSOs to participate in various human rights and governance issues (Rahmato et.al 2008:83).

CSOs like ANPPCAN, EGLDAM, FSCE, EWLA, IFSO and CHADET initiated and supported the establishment of the school clubs on child rights, HTPs/FGM, civic education, environment, violence against girls, corporal punishment and other issues that have now been officially recognized extra-curricular structures in primary schools across Ethiopia. The establishment of children’s participation structures in the community (outside the schools) such as networks of children's rights clubs, children’s councils and children’s parliaments has been initiated and supported from the early stages by child focused CSOs like ANPPCAN-Ethiopia (Ibid).

of FGM as a criminal act in the revised Ethiopian Penal Code. PDC has been involved in establishing local councils of elders with the objective of promoting a culture of peace and to ensure prevalence of sustainable peace.(Gebre Egziabher 2002: 10)

The capacity and efficiency of legislative, administrative, law enforcement, judiciary and other government organs are important determinant factors in realizing good governance, human rights and democracy. Even in the presence of appropriate and pro-poor policies and laws, a lack of capacity can become a critical impediment to their implementation. These problems are more critical at the lower levels of governance and administration of justice. The engagement of Ethiopian CSOs in building the capacity and efficiency of governance and justice sector institutions is quite extensive. Through training and other support interventions, a wide range of CSOs have sought to enhance the efficiency and capacity of government institutions to discharge their responsibilities. Some of these CSOs have designed and implemented capacity building programs targeting institutions across the justice sector. These interventions, which more often target lower level regional and local government structures, have also taken the form of organizing experience-sharing forums among government organizations and other stakeholders as well as joint planning and implementation of activities. The achievements and contributions of CSO engagement in the governance and justice sectors is most visible in the area of capacity building training and support to the establishment of specialized justice structures. CSO capacity-building interventions has targeted law enforcement agencies like the police, prosecution offices, courts and prison administration that are mandated with the task of dispensing justice. A number of CSOs have provided trainings on different issues of governance, democracy and human rights targeting law enforcement officials, judges, legislators and administrative officials. In this respect the scope of CSOs engagement is quite extensive but is difficult to present in quantifiable data (Rahmato et al. 2008:89).

The establishment of specialized law enforcement and judicial structures sensitive to the needs and circumstances of vulnerable groups is another area of the justice sector where CSOs have become engaged. Major intervention and contribution of CSOs in this area are related to the establishment of Child Protection Units (CPUs) in the police structure and child and victims-friendly benches in the judicial structure(Ibid:90).

The Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (FSCE), in collaboration with Save the Children Sweden, established the first four Child Protection Units (CPUs) in Addis Ababa in 1997 as a pilot project. In 2004, the CPUs evolved from being CSOs-led initiative to be part of the formal structure of the Police Commission. In 2008, there were ten CPUs operating in Addis Ababa police stations as part of the formal structure of the Police Commission. The establishment and operations of CPUs in regional towns all over Ethiopia had also been supported by various international and indigenous CSOs. For example the members of the Save the Children Alliance, the African Child Policy Forum, and ANPPCAN-Ethiopia have been providing material support, capacity building training and technical support to CPUs in Addis Ababa as well as the regional towns(Rahmato et al. 2008:90).

FSCE has been conducting a program of advocacy on children’s rights and protection against child abuse and exploitation. This program has targeted law enforcement and court officials, medical personnel and Woreda prosecutors and other member of the community. In collaboration with the government agencies and FSCE a multsectoral child protection scheme was established in 2005. These initiatives require setting up a special Child Protection Unit (CPU) in the town’s police stations. Related to that they provide training to the police officers to be able to handle abused, exploited or distressed children in a child friendly manner. Abused children are then taken from CPU to a special unit in the town’s hospital where they are examined and treated by specially trained medical staff. In a situation in which the case is brought before a court, special courtrooms arranged where only children and their counselors are allowed to enter where the victim get a chance to tell their story without intimidation. The judge is trained to hear the cases of abused children and the special courtrooms are connected by close circuit TV to the court. In case of difficult situations where the children cannot return to their homes they are placed in safe homes for protection. These safe homes are operated by NGOs working in the town. In 2008, CSOs were coming up with a new idea of piloted free phone line in towns. These free lines are connected to the CPU in the police station and are run by trained officers that children in distress can call from any public phone to get help.

The design and implementation of these judicial child protection structures have been initiated and supported by several CSOs, including, Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (FSCE), Save the Children Sweden, and the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) (Rahmato et al. 2008:90).

The establishment of child friendly benches also involves the creation of special juvenile benches. In 2008, child friendly benches were in place in all but two of the nine regions and two federal cities in Ethiopia. The juvenile criminal bench has been set up in the Federal First Instance Court in partnership with many international and national CSOs including the African Child Policy Forum and Save the Children Sweden. In special juvenile courtrooms, children accused of crime are entertained in an informal manner. With the purpose of creating a conducive environment for the involvement of the child, the setting of the courtroom has been changed to simulate settings familiar to the children in schools and families. The establishment of the child friendly bench has contributed for discharging cases of children efficiently and fairly in an informal and child friendly setting (Ibid:91) .

CSOs render their support to the government through identifying social problems, which have not been detected or addressed by the government (Gebre-Egziabher 2002: 9). For example, CSOs like FSCE and APAP in Ethiopia provide various supports including provision of appropriate training for improved government institutional practices. The police forces are duty-bound in protecting the right of children therefore the advocacy program of Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (FSCE) has been targeting police. In this respect, FSCE have made efforts to raise the awareness of the police force on the needs and problems of children and the role they play in protecting and caring for children. In line with these objectives, educational programmes have been conducted at various police stations for crime prevention and investigation officers and non-commissioned police members in Addis Ababa and other major towns. In addition FSCE has supported the inclusion of modules on children’s issues in the training programs among the police (Rahmato et al. 2008:84).

APAP has organized human rights education and training to promote accountability and transparency in the local government administrative units for law enforcement organs including for judges, prosecutors, administrator and police officials in different parts of the country(Gebre-Egziabher 2002: 10). Additionally it has established Community Human Rights Centers. It has initiated Iddir Unions in various major towns of the country to form Human Rights Resource centres. APAP provided the centers with human rights and paralegal trainings and other technical and material supports. Ten Human Rights Resource centers are actively engaged in

providing human rights trainings and legal aid services to their community members. These centers have provided legal advices, preparation of applications to administrative organs and other related counselling supports to more than 4,000 people between the years 2005-2007(Rahmato et.al 2008:84). Aside from APAP, professional association like Ethiopian Bar Association provides free legal aid service since 2003. Since the centers have become operational, they have provided free legal aid service for about 2791 people. (Temuagach 2006: 3)

Strengthening the capacity of government is another area where CSOs are working.

In this respect they have provided financial and technical support for the local government administrative units like Woreda and Kebele. The support they provide includes drafting, strategic and development plans and designed training and awareness raising opportunities for civil servants. In addition various capacity strengthening supports are provided by CSOs to improve governments’

responsiveness related to underprivileged groups like children, women, and other marginalised groups. On top of that they have contributed to the drafting of specific extension packages like HIV/AIDS and gender mainstreaming. Hence, it can be said that CSOs have provided some models or samples that informed and shaped the government's development plan and strategies (Rahmato et al. 2008:28).

Ethiopian CSOs have contributed in enhancing state performance engaging themseleves in various areas of development including supporting the poverty alleviation strategy effort of the government. They have significantly contributed to agricultural and rural development. They have supported the promotion of human development related to promotion of health services, education and provision of social services (Ibid).

CSOs have strengthened rural institutions like cooperatives, micro-finance institutions, self-help and other grassroots associations. They carried out activities related to environmental rehabilitation including promoting conservation-based sustainable development comprising promotion of small-scale irrigation, fruits and vegetables and the like, addressing chronic food insecurity, water supply and sanitation, pastoralist livelihood development, market development, and strengthening government capacity towards that end. In connection with their rural development interventions, they have experimented and successfully applied approaches and technologies which improve access to finance and markets for the

rural poor and promotion of new and high-value crops and stocks that later came to be part of the government's national strategies and programs. All these integrated rural development intervention activities conducted by the CSOs contributed significantly to the emergence and development of rural institutions for facilitating access to finance, market, potable water supply and other needed services related to that. CSO's engagement in agricultural and rural development activity has contributed immensely in transforming agricultural practices in the direction of intensification, diversification and market-orientation.

The various development and service-oriented interventions of CSOs both in the urban and rural areas have benefited poor peasants, children, women, and vulnerable groups in society. CSOs contributed to enhancing community actions for self-help and for assuring all inclusive development process through promoting activities related urban poverty in general, urban agriculture and environment, rural potable water supply, support for the Elderly and PWD, rehabilitation of street children and CSWs. Additionally, their experiences and lessons provided models and inputs for shaping government policies and programmes in some areas (Rahmato et al.

2008:29).

The human development intervention of CSOs has empowered the community, promoted health services, education, and child protection and welfare institutions.

CSOs play an important role in the provision of services where no government facilities exist. This is happening to some extent mainly in health and education sectors. CSOs constructed schools and clinics that are then handed over to the government when they are running successfully and sustainably. CSOs introduced innovative approaches such as community-based approaches to health services and alternative basic education, which were latter adopted by the government and which have significantly contributed to the achievements attained in the health and education sectors. In the education sector, for example, it is hard to see how the government can succeed in forcing a major breakthrough in enrolment figures without using more non-conventional approaches. (Diesen & Karen 1999)

Initiation, promotion and strengthening of partnership and collaboration between CSOs and government at various level is the other task of CSOs. In this respect, the activity of CSOs include support drafting collaboration guidelines, organising group events and supporting joint reviews/assessments. CSOs have made some

contributions towards the implementation of the decentralisation programme of the government. CSOs have a good track record in promoting participatory development, which is also a key objective of the present government. NGOs, due to their closeness to the people, play an important role in creating grassroots ownership of development programs, in mobilizing communities and in creating public awareness about development issues. (Diesen & Karen 1999)

CSOs are engaged in addressing the root causes of poverty and vulnerability through the strengthening of awareness, transfer of skills and technologies, supporting institutions, and promoting linkages. In this respect, CSOs facilitate and create grounds for achieving even more useful contributions to the national effort of addressing poverty, vulnerability and promoting good governance and democratic practice.

Traking, reflecting and informing on performances of public institutions in delivering planned services and goods are some of activities promoted by some CSOs. The recent engagement of Ethiopian CSOs related to the poverty reduction strategy process is a good example. PANE and its member organizations are further examples (Rahmato et al. 2008: 29).

CSOs facilitate in some region's learning and reflection processes with partner governmental units in a mutually beneficial way. In addition, CSO's participation give donors evidences of the presence of social accountability instruments in development coordination, hence build confidence and legitimacy of the government to seek more development aid from international cooperation (Ibid).

CSOs promoting the advancement of the country benefit from global cooperation and marketing processes. In this respect, the fair trade campaigns of the CSOs have contributed to the improved income of the beneficiary households and financing of pro-poor programmes and services(Rahmato et al. 2008:29).

Civil society organizations also work on the amendment and development of existing traditional law to cope with the current economic, political and social situations of the community and to be in line with the new demand and expectation of their respective society. For example Guraghe People’s Self Help Development

Organization supported and reinforced ‘Qicha’¹³ the Guraghe ethnic traditional law was amended to incorporate issues related to HIV/AIDS and to fight harmful tradition practices. In addition, GAPSO mobilized the community for indispensable development activities for example through urban community networks it mobilized financial and human resources.

CSOs support the government efforts in making services more available to the poor and more responsive to democratic influences. (Gebre-Egziabher 2002: 9) For example NGOs in Ethiopia have experience in terms of being highly involved in delivery of services and developmental activities. Although their size and scope of work vary to a great extent from one region to another, NGOs operate in almost all regional states of the country. During the years 1997 – 2001 excluding relief operations twenty million people benefited in one way or another from NGO development programs alone and about 3.2 million people benefited from the relief and rehabilitation programs in the same period (CRDA& DPPC 2004:18) According to a CRDA report in 1994 alone NGOs handled 60% of all food aid coming to Ethiopia. (Kefele & Dejene 1999) For example, according to CRDA and DPPC 2004 report between 1997 and 2001, NGOs that implemented programs in the six study regions made financial outlay of some Birr 3.53 billion, about Birr 3.18 billion or over 90% on development programs and the rest about Birr 347.8 million or 10%

on relief and rehabilitation operations. (CRDA& DPPC 2004:29) Through the promotion of human development or provision of social services, CSOs have complemented and supported the government. According to Rahmato and others, earnings flowing into the country through transfers to NGOs in the year 2006/07 was far higher than earnings compared to coffee exports (which is the major export of the country) for all the years for transfers to NGOs were US$ 537.4 million while coffee earnings were US$ 24.2 million(Rahmato 2008:25). According to Sahleyesus and Freyhold, Ethiopian NGO sector contribution to the social services sector is

13 Guragie community had their own customary administration. It was in the 1880’s that the Guragie were brought under the official state administration. However both type of administration coexist side by side however, the sanctions that the former carries in many terms have supremacy over the later. The traditional administration has three type of councils namely the family council, elder’s council and ye joka qicha . The family council which oversees and arbitrates family/kin related matters, elders’ council deals with issues related between households that are not related to each other, and ye joka Qicha is the highest body to which cases that could not be resolved by the elders’ will be taken. It is virtually impossible for a Gurage to decline to abide by the community regulations and the decisions of its councils. Challenging or disobeying this established practices of the community and the decisions of its councils can cause the wrath of the community and its sanctions that can ultimately take the form of total excommunication from the community (Admassie et al. 2003:21-22).

quite significant. For example in the year 1996/97 the total annual amount of NGO spending is roughly equivalent to over one- third of what the government has allocated for social services (heath and education) (Sahleyesus & Freyhold 2002:9).

According to Rahmato et al. 2008 the global resources mobilized by the voluntary sector are tremendous and this has benefited the country’s economy significantly for example the organizations’ annual resource investment is equivalent to 25% of the government’s annual budget. (2008:24) Although the current Ethiopian government is much more accepting aid donors, the proportion of total development assistance to Ethiopia channelled through NGO projects has remained high. As late as 1999 an estimated US$ 120 million, or some 20% of all non-emergency development assistance to Ethiopia from all sources, totalling approximately US$ 660 million, came through the NGOs. A significant proportion of these funds are provided by the public purse in various donor countries (Helland 2004: 21). According to some scholars, the collective contribution of the NGO sector and other CSOs to development is poorly recorded and assessed and should be substantially higher than the figure indicated (Tafesse2005: 11).