RF_NGO_19_SUDHA.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
RF_NGO_19_SUDHA
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND NGOs
OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.
Paradigm Shifts in Development Cooperation:
Significant changes are taking place in the morality,
motivations, concepts, policies and institutions governing
private and official development funding to third world
states and civil society (=NGOs/CBOs):
1.
Official Development Aid (now down to 0.3% of the GNP of
the developed nations, as against the committed 0.7%),
has always been driven by the political interests of the
aid giving states - more than by altruism. Before the
80's, the agenda was to halt the march of communism into
the poor third world countries. In the present
geopolitical economy of the market, it will aim at
creating and maintaining conditions favourable for the
expansion of the market. Complementing capitalist
enterprise, aid will focus on safety nets (poverty
alleviation), lest social upheavals upset investment
apple carts.
2.
However the commitment of the western public to liberal
democracy and human rights, compels aid to also support,
at least symbolically, civil society strengthening and
accountable governance. In the recent past, there is
also growing perception that development must take a
third path - the path of markets regulated by a set of
public codes set by the civil society - the state itself
becoming the will of the civil society.
3.
Official development aid is moving closer to SNGOs,
bypassing both NNGOs and Southern Governments. The state
is seen as less of a provider and more of a regulator,
and NGOs as ideally suited for poverty mitigation
(social stability!) at lower costs.
4.
Private aid giving as additionality to development tax
is also under stress. Long term giving for structural
changes is getting reduced. Measurable results are
becoming important. Even NNGOs traditionally committed
to long term development partnerships have to profile
themselves also in areas such relief, emergency and
welfare. NNGOs are under pressure to professionalise
themselves. These have serious negative implications for
the traditional SNGO-NNGO partnership relations.
5.
Corporate sector is also seriously getting involved in
development cooperation with NGOs, for PR reasons and/or
as part of taking on their social responsibilities.
While NGOs are being drawn to the centre stage of
development, this attention is motivated by a variety of
1
stated/unstated interests. The trend of official aid is in
the direction of wanting NGOs to play "ladle roles in the
international soup kitchens". But this trend will not be
evenly spread across all donor agencies. There is still
considerable space and scope for human agency and the left
of centre political forces in the north to push aid also
towards addressing systemic questions.
But, western civil society groups (and NNGOs) will
generally continue to be supportive of civil society
strengthening and capacitating the marginalised with social
opportunities. Particularly when these are linked to
sustainable development, gender equity and human rights
defense. But the partnership relations are going to be
stressed due to pressures on the NNGOs and the growing
perception that rhetoric about awareness building and
social mobilisation is not making much of a difference for
the poor.
B.
Implications for NGOs:
The larger fund flow through official aid, greater
involvement of NGOs in the social welfare tasks of Southern
Governments, the reduced, fund flo^w through NNGOs and hence
the constraints they will face in supporting long term
partnerships, all these will push SNGOs towards official
aid agencies and corporate sectors.
What will the fallout for NGO commitment to empowering the
marginalised sections and their relationship with their
traditional development partners?
It is likely many more opportunists will enter the NGO
world to corner funds and benefits. Less equipped and
smaller NGOs will be forced to serve as uncritical social
contractors and sub-contractors of the agenda of official
aid. The welfare and social security functions of the state
will get eroded and delegitimized under SAPs.
It is in this context that the better equipped NGOs and
senior NGO leaders must strategise their own responses and
those of the NGO community as a whole.
C. NGO Responses:
Case studies show that, at least as of now, NGOs equipped
with all or some of the following characteristics can
continue to hold on to their development ideals and
development spaces - even expand them:
strong leadership, forward looking strategies, creativity
in understanding and responding to changes, strategic and
niche positions, good linkages, competencies to work with
"professionals", ability to adopt new management
techniques, strategic task divisions between NGOs and CBOs,
repositioning to play complementary roles to the CBO ...
2
Thus it seems possible that NGOs can re-envisage, re-piston
and re-equip themselves to avail the new opportunities and
to reduce the risks. It is not as if the choice is limited
either/or: "subserve the donor agenda and get coopted;
dissent and get excluded/pushed out".
D. OD/ID Implications:
NGOs working with local communities and committed to public
action for political, economic and social opportunities for
the marginalised, know from practical experience that
empowerment is a mixed bag of welfare, development and
political action. The strategy has to range across
collaboration, critical collaboration, dissent, adversarial
action and conflict. The ground realities and the strength
of the NGO/collective/network must influence strategic
decision on the actual course of action.
However, working with such complex strategies within a more
complex environment (straddling welfare, development and
political action) will call for high degrees of
organisational and institutional competencies. Vision and
good will alone will no more make do!
NGOs with a tradition of commitment to the politics of
development must equip themselves with a very complex
skills to position themselves within the market/civil
society matrix and to work with new actors and scripts.
Otherwise they will fall between the stool of welfare and
the stool of working for system changes and get eliminated
or pushed to the margins by the more suave and
opportunistic new entrants into development.
The NGO commitment to the empowering the marginalised with
organisations, leadership, know-why and now-how, resources,
linkages demands of us that we take on this challenge of OD
and ID.
E. Organisation and Institution Development Areas:
a)
Actors to be Involved:
the following four categories of traditional NGO actors
in development cooperation: SNGOs, NNGOs, CBOs and
intermediaries (resource organisations, advocacy/lobbying
groups, consultants and accompaniers)
b)
ID Areas:
moving from isolated efforts (small is beautiful,
demonstration models) to collective interventions
(scaling up, global response to global issues, from
being different to making a difference)
pooling/sharing of specialized skills and core
competencies
3
moving from vertical accountability to horizontal
accountability, redefining transparency
developing strategies for a more fair and equitable
sharing of funds and resources (moving from turfs to
sectors, from insulation to collaboration and defining
effectiveness in terms of cost-benefits across the
sector than in terms efficiency of an individual NGO)
role redefinition vis a vis social, political, cultural
and economic CBOs/peoples movements
redefining geo-politics and democracy (from personal
liberty to collective security, strategising
interventions, influencing power-equations)
addressing questions of representational legitimacy in
the NGO world (dalits, tribals, women, regions)
addressing guestions of legitimacy, accountability,
values and life styles of organisations/individuals that
claim to represent grassroots activism at national and
global levels
restrategising critical collaboration with the state in
the context of delegitimisation of the social welfare
roles of the state by SAP/WB loan conditionalities.
strengthening partner relationship between SNGOs and
NNGOs and civil society interlinks between NGOs and
citizen groups, special interest groups - locally
regionally and globally
strengthening UN organisations and affirming its
legitimacy vis a vis developed countries managed world
bodies such as WTO/Brettonwood Institutions.
c)
OD Areas:
developing internal competencies to deal with the new
requirements for project planning/monitoring
developing skills and competencies for role
transformation and relationship on the basis of
mutuality with the CBOs
skills in participatory, non-hierarchical management of
the organisation
pragmaticism to convert ideals into strategies, availing
spaces, ambiguities and human agencies.
In sum, NGO ability to cope with paradigm shifts and its
implications, will depend largely on effective OD/ID
strategies that are imaginative, comprehensive and
involving both NGO collectives and individual NGOs.
4
Ca2) I/g^C>\>^S7 , C
t
z
'OOP,
L
3
\
‘V 2-(C6'-s^
S^-
<=-*“
<=■<
^XLJZt^
JZsl^oJ uS^y^.
Z-f
r
jG2
/o
f>
I <C <f.
<<Z>j2^^^ ^=to= -
<
<
r
(j
A 'IT
" rA-'A'7
Nc7r7c..^^ ■■-c"
'Qfe
s
R,,K^cx -
' 4
‘6
.e.^
+ RJ^-'
A
C.
7
(
^bS
^0 ft5.
(^3^-
rr?^r?<
7
J^X.
(<f?S ' rf‘“ 7 -Ju;
rt> 5-^kib-4
---jC2—r
,
P/2. -'
<-
fU 1.
vHfV?
*
r53-^'
rvi^
.
‘ r' .
*~a;
-
/sjG^ s
^CxO-
^£>5?^ •-dO
aJ6-O 5
^j^,"
Mf
(e-—j>'~^
IaD-S^^
f^&o's.
J f
Ao«—
•jS^C^A
dhcAj>cevn
■ rfcJQAvk
*\AXxfecZA_<
2^x0'V^axrvzil^
" PVaqV
Q-C-^
M
l><^£2-- OlcD-
rH'o^^eJ'”
v ^3
c
4^
^oe-2^
<—Ajp
A
IjOaIpJ c5>X^/
Q^c
)
/ (. s'
(^LqcJLu-kJ
er^iz^-C3 ,.
*-*^5^—_oAJLXyj
fUA\
x^^iiXX
jxIGo -
JJ
b^AA^JL^g ^MJa^
———T5 —
O'
~c( t<i m^AJ"
JL oAe.
^JG-O'^
V
r<3 ^xv-aIt S
1 -
n/ rT2^
rJferC
r '
c.
dL.^J'r e> -,=^r
fU^oi
va^V<
G,
.
clXjJ£<±^ cJ)UX^
; Qexy v
cW> q.A
" x/^.c y_AoX^
ZV- UM ^?
'
x duUU^'-^?r
« " s”m^
, J
Tp^ *. faM>j k **tr
r
c5v^
ZL
u
-
, CL9>^t-
L X^-— n y & AA f- - cr&/'^
g i
C_j 9^.^^
/JGa/5 " ^l4f^
QjO"------
/. rJfrD
a, ^vv
L^i' *
y-kA-Xy-A^
-v
C-. LA.p<x5^M
Vua9=sJ^^
i^JaII^^o1
ip— J&'
O\SS.
y
u
(XCG-^*-$->Jc
rfs^ '-
y‘
C
’J
Vy
( \_
-’
x^:
A
•
) (9-cJb-iV^
ClcJUSYA
-—~
>U^
■|lgY*A®£
Cw^y
. v&caEi I
--
y^v~fcy
e
z-» , > rJTC
i-eJj-^p i
■
c-^z
jKx^VA - VeJfe^ £
l^-^-^’
' f j^oja^-^Lq-P
^21‘f>rLC.
fo'‘-1 ?>f>LXvV\
iv^> ^^Cc
•
• •c-Y-r .
cs-'o j6-/<-^ v
feC
v^^v^5vj^-A_aAj
po^4 - t'
c=?«-J
s
v-^t-,' lf‘“-c~H
'o
nJ Al <?_Q-r'
c
>A&r
;UAva_9
AAAv-ft
.-
—
y:Lw17^'!
cA^
^DQa Tt^ip
t^2jxdir
^->X
fex-C? l<>
I
XX'*
s
<7 ct^LzuLkJL V
—poft^s
9 - ps^«=^ |
A^^gJ-AxJ)
^Cj_kz^o
j
c
JLz. u4^—*
v^-V
-
- 0x30--- Lc^^P
^JjQ/
.ja-plo-^A-p ;F^i l
tOCNs
^_Xc-/I' _ o- c <_ Ll /
4^'
(V: Vl^-r-~o
bvO
Z^c_<-
.
Lo^.-^
—
(jL_O£^^
t.
^7
'
pst^jy
w
p
[\^l^iPySL^L^C^
UVS-^
. y
/j
«
x.uiQuU<
i^>4
r
rf l7
J4H 1- ^P—P C
JLv J—
W '%
cj
k TUv^
—r •
"bx”* ia_,-£> ^^X>o
16o_,>\
<ScA^_s^
pjiu^cJlj
Q 4j 0
i'u^ ^U- P^e^^JUi. -
i6-
karW. - B
rv
^i. }Lg^ ,SxJ-2^^
O-J3~
T3
cA-^
~^oAxaE>-£ ^
1
- <-!
■t'-
■ ■ 2»=ct- ' • • •>
(Ti
}v
tv
/
pkv
q
_ _/
r»_ 0'^'—
C)
-J
--'
M
'’ok
■ftuE
e__x_>-^-^’;*^
tLC- y
J , .Jt^^
'C fSA
^LO^fccaW
pr
k
T''
c-—
?
%
J^sf-
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND NCOS:
OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS AND RESPONSES
SOUTH INDIA CONSULTATION:
17/18 NOVEMBER 1998 - INDIAN SOCIAL INSTITUTE
CONCERNS BEFOGS THE CONSULTATION
1.
The Context:
Concerns and interests which inform development - and shape
development cooperation - are being pulled in several
directions by the interplay of market and civil society. Of
particular significance are:
*
the changes in the motives, character and instruments
of development financing
•k
their implications for (existing and new) stakeholders
in development cooperation
"k
and, most important, their consequences for the
understanding of and response to marginalisation and
poverty questions.
The logic and compulsions of this market-civil society
dialectic pull-push NGOs, thus far on the margins of
development cooperation, onto the centre stage and right
into the vortex of a process which is defining the contours
of a new global order sans communism and state managed
socialism.
All
those
who
believe
in
the
criticality
of
NGO
contributions in shaping this new world order, must also
theorise and strategise why and how NGOs must re-vision,
re-equip, re-position and re-launch themselves. So that
they are enabled to continue to affirm their cherished
ideals and best practices, even while coping with the
sweeping changes.
2.
The Consultation Agenda:
Praxis will be the overriding concern of the two day
consultation.
The
consultation
could
focus
on
NGO
positioning within the market-civil society diad. Such OD
and ID strategies should help the NGOs:
*
to best avail the opportunities and minimise the risks
(for themselves)
*
to optimally contribute (along with the poor) to
strengthen forces that address issues of responsible
development
and
counter
those that
externalise
negatives particularly on to the poor.
The consultation will develop such a conceptual and
operational response matrix for the three major NGO
stakeholders: the Northern NGOs (NNGOs), the Southern NGOs
(SNGOs) and intermediaries (consultants/resource agencies).
These
stakeholders have a long tradition of engagement
with and partnership in capacitating the marginalised
knowledge, organisations, leadership,
communities with knowledge,
skills, resources, programmes and linkages so that they
affirm, assert and expand their political,, economic,
social,
cultural identity and sustainable development
rights within the political economy.
3.
Southern NGOs:
The consultation could envisage likely consequences and
opportunities for NGOs who work with local communities on
both rights and livelihood questions.
On the one hand, to effectively address the nature,
magnitude, implications and inter-connectedness of most
development questions of subalterns and local communities
and, on the other hand, to access larger funds from
official bilateral and multi-lateral agencies and from
business, most strong NGOs will try and scale themselves up
in size, competence, expertise and coverage. They would
rightly perceive the geo-political spaces as nothing less
than global.
Medium and large sized NGOs may have the internal
competencies and the external supports required for such
build up. But the vast majority of the NGOs working
effectively with local communities are small. They lack the
resources and the geographical spaces for scaling up. Not
only, the expansion agenda of larger NGOs have negative
externalities for them.
What are the areas in which both medium and small NGOs need
to and can syndicate their strengths? What are the
institutional arrangements for realising such synergy? What
current NGO practices are the constraints and obstacles?
Can these be addressed? How?
What are the response strategies for small NGOs? How can
they scale up? Can the more competent medium sized NGOs and
the smaller/emerging NGOs (mostly staffed and managed by
subaltern
leadership of dalits,
tribals and women)
complement each other in mutually beneficial arrangements
for themselves and for the communities they work with? How
can we contain and resolve the real and potential sources
of conflict inter-NGOs?
What
models
limitations?
4.
exist?
What
are
their
strengths
and
Northern NGOs:
It is generally perceived that existing partnership
relationship between SNGOs and NNGOS need to be further
strengthened and expanded if both are to effectively
respond to the emerging realities.
What are the existing and new areas where partnership and
complementarity will be critically important? What are the
possibilities and the specific demands on NNGOS? What are
the compulsions that may force NNGOs away from partnership
relationships? How can the new demands on ’NNGOs for
professionalism and results be balanced with the empathy,
passion and commitment that are necessary to search
together for alternatives?
5.
NGOs and the Market:
The gift economy transfers (aid) are too small and too
inadequate to meet even minimal development requirements.
NGOs would be naive if they thought that they can take on
the
development
task
in
isolation
from
for-profit
enterprises. There is therefore a pragmatic imperative for
availing
and
expanding
the
spaces
for
critical
collaboration with the market and its agencies to influence
and countervail them to rake responsibility for a win-win
relation with people and environment.
What are the human agencies, instruments and institutions
for this critical collaboration with the globalised market?
How can NGOs and their solidarities strengthen global
governance through UN institutions? Even as the market is
getting globalised, how can issues and concerns of people
be also globalised? What new strategies and institutional
vehicles are required? What are the possibilities and the
dangers?
Can the market have some beneficial impact on NGOs - for
example improve their competency and vibrancy and weed out
the incompetent and the corrupt?
6.
Intermediary Organisations and Consultants:
Development
consultants
and
professional/resource
organisations who interface NNGOs and SNGOs make or mar
partnership relations. Because of their proximity to funds
and decision making they influence the directions of NGO
response to development issues. Based on their individual
idiosyncrasies and personal vested interests, they can pull
development in different directions. They can foster or
block transparency and horizontal accountability.
Within the NGO world, these persons and organisations are
a class in itself, if not for itself.
Yet, they are ideally placed and best equipped to make the
concept of "NGO Manageriate" work. They can best contribute
to strategising interventions and funding support from
larger
and
more
holistic
sectoral/thematic
macro
perspectives. They can creatively problematise the current
approaches to identification, funding, monitoring and
evaluating projects. However, this problematisation must
begin with themselves then go on to envisage how their
roles and functions can be re-envisaged as consistent with
the present concerns with transparency, legitimacy and
collaborative processes.
The consultation could take up a SWOT analysis of current
intermediary institutions and practices. From this analysis
it could go on to revision intermediary services- in support
of the larger re-visioning and re-positioning task of
NNGOs, SNGOs and small NGOs. Particularly so when, in the
absence of visionary NGOs, intermediaries often set the
directions
and
decide
the
content
of
development
interventions.
7.
Suggested Methodology of the Consultation:
a)
b)
Plenary Session:
★
presentation and validation of the study report
(executive summary will be circulated earlier)
★
identifying
learning
stakeholders.
points
for
the
NGO
Working Groups:
The participants could form three working groups
(SNGOs/NNGOs/Intermediary
Organisations
and
Consultants)
to move
forward
from problems
to
opportunities and responses:
■k
using the learning for problematising current
practices of SNGOs,
NNGOs and Intermediary
Organisations/Consultants
k
going beyond problems to the possibilities and
hence to the response strategies, using the SWOT
and/or log frames.
The output from these working groups can be further
validated in plenary sessions.
c)
End Use:
The actionable agenda for each of the three stake
holders as emanating from these sessions will be
incorporated into the study report.
Hopefully
both
NNGOs,
SNGOs
and
Intermediary
Organisations
will
further
contextualise
these
recommendations and convert them into action platforms
for:
k
Organisation and Institution Development (inter
and intra)
k
Advocacy/Lobbying
to
influence
development
cooperation thoughts, policies and institutions
Perhaps,
the
consultation
itself
beginning in these two areas.
could
make
a
TENTATIVE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE
DAY I (Nov. 17)
Workshop Moderator
Mr M.C. Raj
10.00 a.m.
Registration and Tea
10.30 a.m.
Introductory Session : Expectation sharing and
finalization of programme schedule
11.00 a.m.
Presentation of the study report and clarifications
12.30 p.m.
Lunch Break
2-3 p.m.
Feedback to the study team on the presentation
3-4 p.m.
Identifying areas for shared reflection and
finalising the methdology of reflection
4.00 p.m.
Tea Break
4.30 - 6 p.m.
Reflections on the areas of concern - Session I
DAY H( Nov, 18)
9.00 a.m.
Shared reflections on major concerns - Session II
10.30 a,m.
Coffee Break
11.00 a.m.
Shared reflections on major concerns - Session EH
12.30 p.m.
Lunch Break
2.00 p.m.
Identification of areas for follow-up and task adoptions
3.45 p.m.
Concluding session and vote of thanks
4.00 p.m.
Tea
######***
Ref: CHC:5.5/98
29th September, 1998
Fr. Jose Muricken, sj,
Coordinator,
Indian Social Institute,
24, Benson Road,
Bangalore — 560 046.
Dear
Thanks for your letter dated 22nd July which wc just received. The joint study initiated
by Misereor and ISI, Bangalore is a very important theme and we will definitely
participate.
a) We confirm our participation for 17/18th November, 1998.
b) The papers you sent are being circulated to all members of our team and I shall send
you some feedback in two weeks. Can others attend the presentation as well?
c) We believe that Globalisation, Privatization and Liberalisation arc changing the
global, national and local scenario for the poor and for NGOs working for fxior and we
fully endorse your concerns. But we must be careful not to accept the market so
inevitably, even though it seems overpowering, without countermg it with
communitarian and collective/cooperative alternatives. Our concern will therefore
have to be more than opportuning official aid’ and insuring against dangers, but also
collective strategies to counter, control, or reverse the phenomena, if that is at all
possible?
d) Last year, I was involved with a policy process in WHO - some details of which are
mentioned in an interview in the enclosed Health Action. Now with an emerging
■Poverty and Health Network’, we shall participate in trying to counter the
indiscriminate market economy propagation’. We just completed a partial
°
“piXTXi the network members. This is enclosed by way of background (though
not to be quoted or distributed).
i
/
e) We also have been involved in recent years with provoking a paradigm shift in
the thinking of northern NGOs like Misereor and Memisa and I just enclose two
diagrams highlighting some of the new directions suggested.
Looking forward to continuing the dialogue and participating in the process.
With best wishes form all of us,
I
Yours sincerely,
Ravi Narayan.
J
Encl: i) Health Action - WHO issue;
ii) Paradigm Shift suggested inMisereor report and Memisa report;
iii) Partial survey of opinion within the Poverty & Health network members, (not
for quoting or circulating)
1
MISEREOR STUDY
A
FRAME WORK No. 2
(Draft)
The Study
OBJECTIVES
KEY FOCUS AREAS
1
To Examine the
changes & Shifts
in Resources
1.1 Identifying the
‘said - unsaid ‘seen
& unseen’ in
CHANGESAND
SHIFTS.
2
To Analyze (lie
trends and reasons
for shifts.
2.1 Latent ( Market
led Growth, Civil
society concerns,
etc.)
2.2 Manifest
( Welfare, poverty
alleviation, gender
equity, sustainable
development, etc.)
DATA
ANALYSIS OF
DATA/
REFERENCE
1 & 2.a - secondary
sources
-Desk study e. g.
Allen fowler
- Perception of
knowledgeable
persons
- opinion survey
l&2.b
Resource
Mobilization &
utilization in ADATS,
AVAS & ODP 1988-98
l&2.b
-Patterns
- Experiences
2.3 Donor
accountability pattern
(Professionalism,
LFA, PRA, Cost
effectiveness,
withdrawal, impact
orientedness,
measurability, etc.)
3
To analyze the
needs & abilities
3.1 Adequacy
3.2 If inadequate,
to respond to the
above changes and why?
shifts
4
B
C
D
E
F
3.3 Strategies
adopted
To Analyse the
implications of
l,2&3forNGOs
3.1 &3.2
Development
3.a Perception check
indices. UN, other
ADAT3, AVAS , ODP HDI
& Respective
3.3
communities
- Ideology,
3.b Case studies
Vision-mission,
-pragmatism
- organizational
capacity.
Management
systems,
professionalism,
skill levels
- Donor
perception “ How
you sell yourself"
4. Draft Analysis
using typology of
NGOs & their
characteristics.
& communities
(the output of the
study
Stille level
workshop
End use of the
study_______
End use of the
study
Conclusion
Validation of the
output
D. 1 NGOs in South
- learning for
improved accessing
of resources
- Learning for
reducing intemalities
& externalities which
are constraining
D. 2 NGOs in North
- Campaign at policy
& institution levels.
Final report to
MISEREOR
FRAME WORK No. 1
(draft)
MISEREOR S'lWY
OBJECTIVE & APPROACH TO THE STUDY
NON GOVT. DEVELOP>MENT ORGANIATIONS (SOUTH)
** CAPACTTA'.TING PEOPLE THROUGH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS (SOUTH)**
Ideology
*
Culture
Systems &
Processes
Programmes
RESOURCES
NOR' H -SOUTH
Institutions
Financial/
Management
support
Non
Govt
Community
Non*Govt
conventional
NEED FOR ACCESSING RESOURCES
ABILITY TO AO
Changes &
Shifts during
1988-1998
S RESOURCES
IMPLICATIONS
Non-Govt
ommunities
Development
Organisations
(South)
(South)_
Understanding &
Defanition
^MISSION)
Interventions
(PROGRAMMES)
Capacitation
(CAUSE/PURPOSE)
24, BENSON ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046 INDIA
Ph : (080) 5555 189, 560 960
Fax : 080-5561700
November 10, 1998
Sub: Two-day State Level Workshop on Paradigm
Shifts in Development Cooperation
Dear 7)/^. /?,
A/
Thank you for accepting our invitation to participate in the workshop on
17th and 18th Nov. 1998.
I hope you received my previous letter and the materials sent earlier.
Please find enclosed an executive summary of the report together with a
tentative programme schedule.
We look forward to meeting you at ISI on 17th November.
With warm regards,
Sincerely yours,
Jose Murickan, S.J.
Coordinator
encl: a/s
TENTATIVE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE
DAY I (Nov, 17)
Workshop Moderator
Mr M.C. Raj
10.00 a.m.
Registration and Tea
10.30 a.m.
Introductory Session : Expectation sharing and
finalization of programme schedule
11.00 a.m.
Presentation of the study report and clarifications
12.30 p.m.
Lunch Break
2-3 p.m.
Feedback to the study team on the presentation
3-4 p.m.
Identifying areas for shared reflection and
finalising the methdology of reflection
4.00 p.m.
Tea Break
4.30 - 6 p.m.
Reflections on the areas of concern - Session I
DAY H( Nov, 18)
9.00 a.m.
Shared reflections on major concerns - Session II
10.30 a,m.
Coffee Break
11.00 a.m.
Shared reflections on major concerns - Session HI
12.30 p.m.
Lunch Break
2.00 p.m.
Identification of areas for follow-up and task adoptions
Concluding session and vote of thanks
4.00 p.m.
Tea
*********
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND NGOs
OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Paradigm Shifts in Development Cooperation:
Significant changes are taking place in the morality,
motivations, concepts, policies and institutions governing
private and official development funding to third world
states and civil society (=NGOs/CBOs):
1.
Official Development Aid (now down to 0.3% of the GNP of
the developed nations, as against the committed 0.7%),
has always been driven by the political interests of the
aid giving states - more than by altruism. Before the
80's, the agenda was to halt the march of communism into
the poor third world countries. In the present
geopolitical economy of the market, it will aim at
creating and maintaining conditions favourable for the
expansion of the market. Complementing capitalist
enterprise, aid will focus on safety nets (poverty
alleviation), lest social upheavals upset investment
apple carts.
2. However the commitment of the western public to liberal
democracy and human rights, compels aid to also support,
at least symbolically, civil society strengthening and
accountable governance. In the recent past, there is
also growing perception that development must take a
third path - the path of markets regulated by a set of
public codes set by the civil society - the state itself
becoming the will of the civil society.
3. Official development aid is moving closer to SNGOs,
bypassing both NNGOs and Southern Governments. The state
is seen as less of a provider and more of a regulator,
and NGOs as ideally suited for poverty mitigation
(social stability!) at lower costs.
4.
Private aid giving as additionality to development tax
is also under stress. Long term giving for structural
changes is getting reduced. Measurable results are
becoming important. Even NNGOs traditionally committed
to long term development partnerships have to profile
themselves also in areas such relief, emergency and
welfare. NNGOs are under pressure to professionalise
themselves. These have serious negative implications for
the traditional SNGO-NNGO partnership relations.
5.
Corporate sector is also seriously getting involved in
development cooperation with NGOs, for PR reasons and/or
as part of taking on their social responsibilities.
While NGOs are being drawn to the centre stage of
development, this attention is motivated by a variety of
1
stated/unstated interests. The trend of official aid is in
the direction of wanting NGOs to play "ladle roles in the
international soup kitchens". But this trend will not be
evenly spread across all donor agencies. There is still
considerable space and scope for human agency and the left
of centre political forces in the north to push aid also
towards addressing systemic questions.
But, western civil society groups (and NNGOs) will
generally continue to be supportive of civil society
strengthening and capacitating the marginalised with social
opportunities. Particularly when these are linked to
sustainable development, gender equity and human rights
defense. But the partnership relations are going to be
stressed due to pressures on the NNGOs and the growing
perception that rhetoric about awareness building and
social mobilisation is not making much of a difference for
the poor.
B.
Implications for NGOs:
The larger fund flow through official aid, greater
involvement of NGOs in the social welfare tasks of Southern
Governments, the reduced fund flow through NNGOs and hence
the constraints they will face in supporting long term
partnerships, all these will push SNGOs towards official
aid agencies and corporate sectors.
What will the fallout for NGO commitment to empowering the
marginalised sections and their relationship with their
traditional development partners?
It is likely many more opportunists will enter the NGO
world to corner funds and benefits. Less equipped and
smaller NGOs will be forced to serve as uncritical social
contractors and sub-contractors of the agenda of official
aid. The welfare and social security functions of the state
will get eroded and delegitimized under SAPs.
It is in this context that the better equipped NGOs and
senior NGO leaders must strategise their own responses and
those of the NGO community as a whole.
C. NGO Responses:
Case studies show that, at least as of now, NGOs equipped
with all or some of the following characteristics can
continue to hold on to their development ideals and
development spaces - even expand them:
strong leadership, forward looking strategies, creativity
in understanding and responding to changes, strategic and
niche positions, good linkages, competencies to work with
"professionals", ability to adopt new management
techniques, strategic task divisions between NGOs and CBOs,
repositioning to play complementary roles to the CBO ...
2
f z
Thus it seems possible that NGOs can re-envisage, re-piston
and re-equip themselves to avail the new opportunities and
to reduce the risks. It is not as if the choice is limited
either/or: "subserve the donor agenda and get coopted;
dissent and get excluded/pushed out".
D. OD/ID Implications:
NGOs working with local comirunities and committed to public
action for political, economic and social opportunities for
the marginalised, know from practical experience that
empowerment is a mixed bag of welfare, development and
political action. The strategy has to range across
collaboration, critical collaboration, dissent, adversarial
action and conflict. The ground realities and the strength
of the NGO/collective/network must influence strategic
decision on the actual course of action.
However, working with such complex strategies within a more
complex environment (straddling welfare, development and
political action) will call for high degrees of
organisational and institutional competencies. Vision and
good will alone will no more make do!
NGOs with a tradition of commitment to the politics of
development must equip themselves with a very complex
skills to position themselves within the market/civil
society matrix and to work with new actors and scripts.
Otherwise they will fall between the stool of welfare and
the stool of working for system changes and get eliminated
or pushed to the margins by the more suave and
opportunistic new entrants into development.
The NGO commitment to the empowering the marginalised with
organisations, leadership, know-why and now-how, resources,
linkages demands of us that we take on this challenge of OD
and ID.
E. Organisation and Institution Development Areas:
a) Actors to be Involved:
the following four categories of traditional NGO actors
in development cooperation: SNGOs, NNGOs, CBOs and
intermediaries (resource organisations, advocacy/lobbying
groups, consultants and accompaniers)
b)
ID Areas:
moving from isolated efforts (small is beautiful,
demonstration models) to collective interventions
(scaling up, global response to global issues, from
being different to making a difference)
pooling/sharing of specialized skills and core
competencies
3
r
moving from vertical accountability to horizontal
accountability, redefining transparency
developing strategies for a more fair and equitable
sharing of funds and resources (moving from turfs to
sectors, from insulation to collaboration and defining
effectiveness in terms of cost-benefits across the
sector than in terms efficiency of an individual NGO)
role redefinition vis a vis social, political, cultural
and economic CBOs/peoples movements
redefining geo-politics and democracy (from personal
liberty to collective security, strategising
interventions, influencing power-equations)
addressing questions of representational legitimacy in
the NGO world (dalits, tribals, women, regions)
addressing questions of legitimacy, accountability,
values and life styles of organisations/individuals that
claim to represent grassroots activism at national and
global levels
restrategising critical collaboration with the state in
the context of delegitimisation of the social welfare
roles of the state by SAP/WB loan conditionalities.
strengthening partner relationship between SNGOs and
NNGOs and civil society interlinks between NGOs and
citizen groups, special interest groups - locally
regionally and globally
strengthening UN organisations and affirming its
legitimacy vis a vis developed countries managed world
bodies such as WTO/Brettonwood Institutions.
c) OD Areas:
developing internal competencies to deal with the new
requirements for project planning/monitoring
developing skills and competencies for role
transformation and relationship on the basis of
mutuality with the CBOs
skills in participatory, non-hierarchical management of
the organisation
pragmaticism to convert ideals into strategies, availing
spaces, ambiguities and human agencies.
In sum, NGO ability to cope with paradigm shifts and its
implications, will depend largely on effective OD/ID
strategies that are imaginative, comprehensive and
involving both NGO collectives and individual NGOs.
4
INDIAN SOCIAL INSTITUTE
24, BENSON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 046
October 22,1998
Ph. :
(080) 5555189, 560960
Fax: 080-5561700
To
Sub: South India Consultation: Paradigm Shifts in Development Cooperation and
NGOs (Nov. 17-18,1998) - Specific Concerns to be Addressed by the
Consultation
Dear
Thank you for your letter of
:
;
accepting our invitation to participate in the
two- day consultation. Thank you also for your feedback to the study design.
Supplementing the background material, we are now enclosing a note on the specific concerns that
we should address ourselves to during the consultation. I will be happy to receive your comments
on this note as well
We have only limited fimds for organising this consultation. However, ISI will take care of your
hospitality for the 2 days of the consultation. In case you have serious constraints in meeting your
travel expenses, we could arrange to reimburse your travel costs by second class train/bus.
By die end of this month, I will send you an executive summary of the study findings and
conclusions which can serve as an orientation of the consultation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
With warm regards,
Sincerely yours,
Jose Murickan, S. J.
Study/Consultation Coordinator
encl: a/s
TH
Cf^lF I
/ s PT I Cj /
pcz -t'
hcr->7
2.7/1®
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND NCOS:
OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS AND RESPONSES
SOUTH INDIA CONSULTATION:
17/18 NOVEMBER 1998 - INDIAN SOCIAL INSTITUTE
CONCERNS BEFORE THE CONSULTATION
1.
The Context:
Concerns and interests which inform development - and shape
development cooperation - are being pulled in several
directions by the interplay of market and civil society. Of
particular significance are:
*
the changes in the motives, character and instruments
of development financing
•k
their implications for (existing and new) stakeholders
in development cooperation
k
and, most important, their consequences for the
understanding of and response to marginalisation and
poverty questions.
The logic and compulsions of this market-civil society
dialectic pull-push NGOs, thus far on the margins of
development cooperation, onto the centre stage and right
into the vortex of a process which is defining the contours
of a new global order sans communism and state managed
socialism.
believe
in the criticality of NGO
All
those who
contributions in shaping this new world order, must also
theorise and strategise why and how NGOs must re-vision,
re-equip, re-position and re-launch themselves. So that
they are enabled to continue to affirm their cherished
ideals and best practices, even while coping with the
sweeping changes.
2.
The Consultation Agenda:
Praxis will be the overriding concern of the two day
focus
on
NGO
could
The
consultation
consultation.
positioning within the market-civil society diad. Such OD
and ID strategies should help the NGOs:
*
to best avail the opportunities and minimise the risks
(for themselves)
k
to optimally contribute (along with the poor) to
strengthen forces that address issues of responsible
development
and counter those
that
externalise
negatives particularly on to the poor.
The consultation will develop such a conceptual and
operational response matrix for the three major NGO
stakeholders: the Northern NGOs (NNGOs), the Southern NGOs
(SNGOs) and intermediaries (consultants/resource agencies).
These
stakeholders have a long tradition of engagement
with and partnership in capacitating the marginalised
communities with knowledge, organisations, leadership,
skills, resources, programmes and linkages so that thev
affirm, assert and expand their political,, economic,
social, cultural identity and sustainable development
rights within the political economy.
3.
Southern NGOs:
The consultation could envisage likely consequences and
opportunities for NGOs who work with local communities on
both rights and livelihood questions.
On the one hand, to effectively address the nature,
magnitude, implications and inter-connectedness of mosz
development questions of subalterns and local communities
and, on the other hand, to access larger funds from
official bilateral and multi-lateral agencies and from
business, most strong NGOs will try and scale themselves up
in size, competence, expertise and coverage. They would
rightly perceive the geo-political spaces as nothing less
than global.
Medium and large sized NGOs may have the internal
competencies and the external supports required for such
build up. But the vast majority of the NGOs working
effectively with local communities are small. They lack the
resources and the geographical spaces for scaling up. Nez
only, the expansion agenda of larger NGOs have negative
externalities for them.
What are the areas in which both medium and small NGOs need
to and can syndicate their strengths? What are the
institutional arrangements for realising such synergy? What
current NGO practices are the constraints and obstacles?
Can these be addressed? How?
What are the response strategies for small NGOs? How can
they scale up? Can the more competent medium sized NGOs and
the smaller/emerging NGOs (mostly staffed and managed by
subaltern leadership
of dalits,
tribals and women)
complement each other in mutually beneficial arrangements
for themselves and for the communities they work with? How
can we contain and resolve the real and potential sources
of conflict inter-NGOs?
What
models
limitations?
4.
exist?
What
are
their
strengths
and
Northern NGOs:
It is generally perceived that existing partnership
relationship between SNGOs and NNGOS need to be further
strengthened and expanded if both are to effectively
respond to the emerging realities.
What are the existing and new areas where partnership and
complementarity will be critically important? What are the
possibilities and the specific demands on NNGOS? What are
the compulsions that may force NNGOs away from partnership
relationships? How can the new demands on 'NNGOs for
professionalism and results be balanced with the empathy,
passion and commitment that are necessary to search
together for alternatives?
5.
NGOs and the Market:
The gift economy transfers (aid) are too small and too
inadequate to meet even minimal development requirements.
NGOs would be naive if they thought that they can take on
the
development
task
in
isolation
from
for-profit
enterprises. There is therefore a pragmatic imperative for
availing
and
expanding
the
spaces
for
critical
collaboration with the market and its agencies to influence
and countervail them to take responsibility for a win-win
relation with people and environment.
What are the human agencies, instruments and institutions
for this critical collaboration with the globalised market?
How can NGOs and their solidarities strengthen global
governance through UN institutions? Even as the market is
getting globalised, how can issues and concerns of people
be also globalised? What new jstrategies and institutional
vehicles are required? What are the possibilities and the
dangers?
Can the market have some beneficial impact on NGOs - for
example improve their competency and vibrancy and weed out
the incompetent and the corrupt?
♦
6.
Intermediary Organisations and Consultants:
Development
consultants
and
professional/resource
organisations who interface NNGOs and SNGOs make or mar
partnership relations. Because of their proximity to funds
and decision making they influence the directions of NGO
response to development issues. Based on their individual
idiosyncrasies and personal vested interests, they can pull
development in different directions. They can foster or
block transparency and horizontal accountability.
Within the NGO world, these persons and organisations are
a class in itself, if not for itself.
Yet, they are ideally placed and best equipped to make the
concept of "NGO Manageriate" work. They can best contribute
to strategising interventions and funding support from
larger
and
more
holistic
sectoral/thematic
macro
perspectives. They can creatively problematise the current
approaches to identification, funding, monitoring and
evaluating projects. However, this problematisation must
begin with themselves then go on to envisage how their
roles and functions can be re-envisaged as consistent with
the present concerns with transparency, legitimacy and
collaborative processes.
The consultation could take up a SWOT analysis of current
intermediary institutions and practices. From this analysis
it could go on to revision intermediary services- in support
of the larger re-visioning and re-positioning task of
NNGOs, SNGOs and small NGOs. Particularly so when, in the
absence of visionary NGOs, intermediaries often set the
directions
and
decide
the
content
of
development
interventions.
7.
Suggested Methodology of the Consultation:
a)
b)
Plenary Session:
*
presentation and validation of the study report
(executive summary will be circulated earlier)
★
learning
identifying
stakeholders.
points
for
the
NGO
Working Groups:
The participants could form three working groups
(SNGOs/NNGOs/Intermediary
Organisations
and
to move forward from problems
to
Consultants)
opportunities and responses:
using the learning for problematising current
practices of SNGOs,
NNGOs and Intermediary
Organisations/Consultants
•k
going beyond problems to the possibilities and
hence to the response strategies, using the SWOT
and/or log frames.
The output from these working groups can be further
validated in plenary sessions.
c)
End Use:
The actionable agenda for each of the three stake
holders as emanating from these sessions will be
incorporated into the study report.
Hopefully
both
NNGOs,
SNGOs
and
Intermediary
Organisations
will
further
contextualise
these
recommendations and convert them into action platforms
for:
*
Organisation and Institution Development (inter
and intra)
*
Advocacy/Lobbying
to
influence
development
cooperation thoughts, policies and institutions
itself
Perhaps,
the consultation
beginning in these two areas.
could
make
a
(j,; /'f "L
/"Jr
"J’-
I I
<■<
6^
/
- <io
(E v- 3
PROMOTING HEALTH IN INDIA: QUO VADIS?
A process review of the Indian partnership of Misereor
during the period 1989-93, in the promotion of health
in selected regions and sectors
Ravi Narayan and Thelma Narayan*
December 1994
Community Health Cell
Society for Community Health Awareness, Research and Action
326, Fifth Main, First Block
Koramangala
Bangalore-560034
INDIA
I
fe'
■f -
t
(* On sabbatical at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E
7HT, UK)
Content List
Section A
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION
Misereor: a Profile
Misereor’s Indian Partnership: An outline
Background to the Review
2.
2.1
2.2
OBJECT IVES AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
Focus
Methodology
Reporting the Review
The Review Document
2.3
2.4
2.5
1
2
7
9
9
10
11
12
Section B
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
HEALTH CARE PROMOTION POLICY: A Critical review
Developing Health Care Policy
Health care - Project or process?
Health care - Promotion trends
Towards a new value orientation
13
15
16
18
Section C
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
SOCIO-EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PROFILE OF PARTNERSHIP
Geographical Distribution
Distribution by size and project outlay
Distribution by type or partner
Distribution within the church
Distribution by Rural-Urban Focus
Distribution by Target groups
Distribution by project focus
The Emerging Profile
5.
REGIONAL PROFILES
Orissa
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
28
33
Un.
40
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
A SITUATION ANALYSIS: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES (India Desk)
Positive Features of development Sector (in India)
47
Negative Features of Development Sector (in India)
48
Additional Trends
49
Strengths and weaknesses or work done by Partners
50
Trends of significance to the future
51
Future Directions
7.
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
EMERGING SECTORAL PRIORITIES
Towards Community Based Rehabilitation - Introduction
Trends in Misereor support of persons with Disabilities
Critique of policy paper
Reaction by Misereor partners
Criteria for Appropriate projects
Challenges ahead
54
55
57
62
63
64
7A
Responding to the Urban Crisis
64
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Substantive Priorities
Processing of Requests
Role of the German Sectoral Expertise
Involvement of Indian Partners and Experts
Accompaniment
Proposals regretted
Post funding reporting/Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
66
67
68
69
72
73
74
75
21
Section D
9.
9.1
9.2
I
II
10.
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1994 Health Partnership Scenario
Responding to the challenges
- Next Steps
A - Building Additional Background for Policy Review
B - Towards a Partnership Policy Review
- In the interim
C - Substantive Priorities
D - Approaches/strategies
E - Methods of support
F - Recognising the Paradigm shift
81
82
84
86
References
88
Appendices
77
79
c
c
1
79
80
90
E
C
E
E
Recognising the Paradigm Shift:
T/?/3Z-£-/o
Required in the Partnership of the 1990s
Expansion
Consolidation
—>
All regions
Some regions - some needy districts/diocese
Infrastructure
Human Resource Development
Growth in size/outreach
Sustainability
Individual projects
Regional collectivity
Final Decision
Endorsement of local group decision
Quantitative
Qualitative
How money spent
How money used
How many benefited
Who benefitted
Church
People
Medical
->
Provision
Basic Training
Health
Enabling
----- >
Continuing Education
Central/National
Regional/state level
South/West
North/East
Many projects/quantity
Few projects/Quality/Creativity
Orthodox/standard packages —>
Creative/Alternative approaches
Funding Agency
Solidarity providing organisation
87
JO F'
REPORT OF
THE WORKSHOP FOR CORE PARTNERS OF MEMISA
ORGANISED BY
I
THE CATH8UC HEALTH ASSOCIATIOH OF INDIA
AT THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
HYDERABAD, A.P.
I
DURING 1 - 3 AUGUST 1996
I
Prepared by
M.O. Peter, CHAI, New Delhi.
CONTENTS
1
Pages
i
ii - v
Preface
Executive Summary
I. INTRODUCTION
£
01
02
03
04
Genesis and Preparation
Objectives
Agenda
The workshop - Participants and Facilitators
1 -3
x.
1.
II. PROCEEDINGS
3-41
<
hi.
a.
=1
A.
bL
-<
4.
<
<
e
4
L
*
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Inauguration
introduction to the Workshop
Dynamics of the Workshop
Highlights of the Process Review
Memisa’s Response
Core Partners’ Response
Other Responses
Group discussions on the Goal of Partnership
State Policy Papers
State Groups on Policy Papers
Reports of Field Reviews
Community Health and Primary Health Care
Dr Peter Kok’s paper on Memisa’s Policy
Group discussions on stategies for promotion of CH.
General discussions
Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
Views of Core Partners and Field Partners
Highlights of the Workshop
Follow up of the Workshop
Final opinions and conclusion
Contd. 2
1
1
4
*
BOXES
x
x
L
1
w
1
5
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
5-38
Highlights of the Process Review (1.1 to 1.12)
Highlights of the West Bengal Policy Paper
Highlights of the Orissa Policy Paper
Highlights of the Andhra Paradesh Policy Paper
State Groups on Policy Papers - Summary
India Today’s classification of the people of India
Objectives of the Field Review
WBVHA Review of West Bengal Field Partners - Highlights
CENDERET Review of Orissa Field Partners - Highlights
CHA I’s Review of A.P Field Partners - Highlights
Memisa’s Policy options - Highlights of Dr P Kok’s Paper
AME Systems of WBVHA - Highlights
AME Systems of CENDERET - Highlights
AME Systems of CHAI - Highlights
1
1
APPENDICES
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
01 Programme Schedule
02 List of participants
03 Extracts from the Guidelines for the Health Policy
of the Church in India
-k & &
42 - 51
4 .
4
t
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
3
I
1
1
3
17
BOX 1.12
DESIRABLE PARADIGM SHIFT
•
Expansion
Consolidation
•
Quantitiative
Qualitative
•
Projects
Process
•
Individual Project
Regional Collectivity
Medical
->
Health
National/State
Regional/Local
•
Providing
Enabling
•
Standard Packages
Alternative approaches (creative)
SouthAVest
North/East
•
Basic Training
Continuing education
•
Community as beneficiary
Community as participant
•
Funding Agency as
money grant agency
Funding Agency as Solidarity
Providing organisation
F A makes final decision
->
Endorsement of local collective
decision of FPs, CPs and FAs.
3
’13?
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION AND NGOS:
OPPORTUNITIES, CONSTRAINTS AND RESPONSES
STUDY DESIGN / THU ERAIO / BUDGET
PRESENTED TO MI SEREDR FOR APPROVAL
1.
2.
1
Study Objectives :
a)
to facilitate development practitioners/thinkers to
share/compare/critique
actual
and
ground
level
experiences in "official" development cooperation (with
the state and with northern bilateral and multilateral
agencies), to better comprehend the changes in funding
policies/instruments and their implications for people
and for NGOs working with them
b)
from this exercise, to develop a frame of reference for
restrategising
NGO/CBO
responses
to
trends
in
development
cooperation,
to
legitimise/safeguard/
expand their intervention space, and to improve their
access to (official) development funds, minimising the
risks involved
c)
to generate data that could better inform on-going
dialogue - within Misereor, between German NGOs and the
German Government, the German Government and southern
Governments, southern Governments and NGOs - on why and
how policies / instruments of official development
cooperation can be made more responsive to the task of
capacitating the marginalised.
Study Context :
In the globalised market environment, the complex interplay
between market and the civil
society determines
the
character and direction of paradigm shifts in development
cooperation. Aggressive market led growth agenda of northern
capital is softened by civil society concerns of the citizen
groups.
In the south, compulsions of electoral politics,
rising articulation of the underclasses and civil society
activism resist the feudal forces and brake the pace of
crude marketisation.
The negative externalities of the
market are countervailed by global concerns with human
rights, democracy, gender equity, sustainable development.
1
Whatever
be
the
agenda/concerns
shaping
development
cooperation, it is clear that official northern aid to NGOs
- vis a vis aid to the southern governments - is increasing.
This spurt in direct funding of NGOs is impelled by the
northern perception that : (a) least government is the best
governance : several areas in the domain of development are
best left with the civil society, with the state playing
(b) NGOs are more cost-effective than
enabling functions,
poverty
services,
delivery
<of
governments
for
reach
better
have
NGOs
(C)
alleviation/combatting,
more
they
are
(d)
and
to/credibility with the poor.
civil
strengthen
to
equipped
sensitized
and
better
societies.
Thus, though collaboration between NGOs and the state is
nothing
new in India,
also
northern
governments
and
multilateral/international aid/development agencies are now
increasingly
"discovering"
southern
NGOs.
They
also
pressurise southern governments to more extensively delegate
welfare/development tasks to the NGOs.
These paradigm shifts in official development cooperation
hold out both opportunities and constraints for NGOs
committed to capacitating the poor for asserting themselves
as stakeholders in the national and geopolitical economy.
Southern
and
northern
NGOs
have
developed
effective
policy/institutional frameworks for development cooperation
among themselves. However, though official aid is likely to
emerge as a significant NGO funder, NGOs have limited
understanding of its rationale, compulsions/mechanisms.
It is not enough that southern NGOs are concerned with
empowering the poor. This commitment also demands that they
position
themselves
appropriately
for
accessing
the
opportunities official aid offers, while insuring themselves
against the dangers.
They have to evolve organisational
institutional strategies and acquire new competencies for
dealing with official aid.
and ISIThis is the backdrop/context in which Misereor
1
of
the
study
Bangalore
are
collaborating
in
this:
opportunities and problems thrown up by shirts in the
paradigm of development cooperation.
3.
The Central Concern of the Study :
Collaboration - the dominant development paradigm today - is
only an instrument. Its
I tsend is defense and expansion of
democracy/human
rights,
effective
control
by
the
poor/women/children over their lives and persons,
the
increased capacity of marginalised communities to develop
and manage the resources on which their livelihood and
future
depend.
For
these
goals
to
be
realised,
collaboration must recognize the right to critique and to
dissent. It must respect spaces for alternate praxis, When
disabilities
and
discriminations
are
structured
and
sanctioned by ruling classes/castes, collaboration with
official aid, at times, will only be point of arrival.
Activist NGOs and peoples movements are often forced to
forces/political
confront
the
nexus
between
feudal
leadership/administration
and
the
market.
In
and
its
fractured/divided
societies,
marketisation
accompanying structural/fiscal adjustments impinge heavily
on the poor.
NGOs that take up causes of the people are
often squeezed out of official development spaces.
On the
other hand, there are also positive experiences of creative
interaction between the state, NGOs and other actors in
civil society, which have made a difference for people.
If bilateral, multilateral and international aid agencies
bypass northern NGOs and directly relate with southern NGOs,
there is a danger that NGOs committed to the politics of
alternatives may find themselves squeezed out of development
spaces and funds.
Increased state control over funds may
lead to situations where collaboration becomes a hegemony of
the state.
The spaces occupied by NGOs committed to
alternatives may go to NGOs who allow themselves to be
coopted for "pragmatic" considerations.
Since the forces that shape official development cooperation
are diverse and sometimes contradicting, it is inevitable
that collaboration experiences are a mixed bag, particularly
at the ground level.
The complexities of development
cooperation, seem to indicate that rather than take rigid
ideological positions,
NGOs
could
be
pragmatic about
official
aid
and
critically
collaborate
with
it.
Cooperation with official aid does not necessarily force
NGOs to abandon their cherished ideals and best practices.
They can negotiate for spaces - if only they could also
restrategise, reequip and reposition themselves.
3
There is a growing perception that the market cannot be
wished away.
Development has no space outside the market.
The market does not exclude the poor.
NGOs concerned with
empowering the poor must, therefore, understand the market
paradigm more positively.
In order to equip the poor with
competencies, NGOs do not have to necessarily negate the
market.
Rather, the NGO task is to capacitate the poor to
stake their claims at the market place.
Addressing the
basic needs of the majority makes sound market sense, since
the penalties of discriminations and deprivations will, in
the final analysis, destabilize the market. The market need
not be demonised.
Also development funds are getting marketised.
NGOs should
learn to be efficient and professional in accessing and
managing scarce resources since there are competing demands
made on it.
They should be willing and able to meet
stringent market criteria to access official aid :
cost
effectiveness,
proven
organizational
and
institutional
capacity to achieve and monitor results, transparent systems
of accountability.
Good will is not enough.
Even
politically oriented NGOs must acquire new competencies so
that they can achieve measurable and verifiable results.
If NGOs, committed to public action and capacity building,
are not willing and able to respond to the demands of
development cooperation changes, the negative fallout will
be on the poor.
It could lessen the ability of the poor to
resist marginalisation.
The spaces vacated by their allies
could be occupied by those who coopted by the system and
hence reinforce peripheralisation.
It is incumbent on
"political" NGOs to be attentive to the shifts in fund
allocation, accessing, managing and accounting.
They must
develop the clout and strategic sense to collaborate and
critique development cooperation.
Obviously, this study focuses on NGOs/CBOs that understand
and approach development politically,
Such NGOs are far too
few in number. C"
’
Often
they are ideology driven.
Pragmatism
is not their strength.
They are skeptical or the validity
of managerial approaches and professionalism in the politics
of development.
Thus study hopes to address the external
and internal constraints such NGOs/CBOs will face i f they
try and access official aid.
It will examine to what extent
these threats are real and how much of it are only cobwebs
in the mind : ideological rigidities, unwillingness and
inability to accept new realities and to develop new
competencies.
4
4.
Issues To Be Addressed :
The study will facilitate grass root experiences of NGOs and
communities of marginalised people to interrogate official
development cooperation regarding :
a)
its trends, instrumentalities,
and areas of participation
b)
policy regime
stated and unstated
that shape the policy
c)
the development of the cooperation, its programmatic
content, its participation potential, the visibility
and access marginalised communities have, its gender
equity guarantees, the self-reliance, sustainability
and replicability concerns inbuilt, its sensitivity to
environmental concerns, human rights, rights of the
children, and traditional users of the commons, etc.
d)
the
adequacy
and
appropriateness
of
planning,
monitoring systems, the degree of participation these
allow, their sensitivity to differential impacts on
poor. on women, etc.
e)
internal effects on NGO's development vision/strategies
and internal organisation, the balance between charisma
and professionalism
f)
external ramifications : the way the NGOs redefines its
relationship with communities of marginalised people,
with other NGOs (including northern NGOs), collective
processes, people's struggles, the civil society
g)
the
consequences
for
marginalised communities
h)
consequences for the autonomy of the NGOs,
dissent and alternate praxis
the
5
relationships^
degree
and the forces
capacitation
of
the
spaces for
Within this frame,
larger issues :
the
study will
address
the
following
a)
what is the distinctive role oi an NGO in development
collaboration?
Why?
Can this role be now played by
other institutions
(local bodies, community based
organisations) ?
b)
if such distinct roles indeed exit, what is the space,
autonomy and support that the NGO requires to be
effective?
Do
emerging
trends
in
development
cooperation guarantee such spaces or rather impinge on
them? How? Why?
c)
to what extent are NGO experiences in development
cooperation the consequence of its political options?
What perceptions do different NGOs have on development
and on collaboration?
To what extent does this
position influence perspectives/experiences under (a)
and (b) above?
d)
to what extent are NGO experiences in development
cooperation the consequences of their work style.
ethos, competencies, capacities? What credibility does
the NGO enjoy? What erodes that credibility? Why?
e)
to what extent do the nature of the state and the
market agenda define and shape the nature and areas of
collaboration?
To what extent
are
these
being
countervailed? by whom? how? What is the bargaining
power of the parties involved in collaboration?
f)
what
are
the
strengths/limitations
collaboration institutions? Why?
9)
in collaborative arrangements what can be the relation
between
peoples
organisations/local
governance
institutions and NGOs?
What are the dynamics that
impact this collaboration?
of
existing
I
h)
is it possible/feasible for all types of southern
NGOs/CBOs to access official aid?
Are there spaces
within official development cooperation for political
action?
Can "political" NGOs/CBOs professionalise
themselves without compromising their commitments? Or
is it more the question of mind sets, posturing and
work styles of NGOs?
I)
what are the options before NGOs whose development
concerns do not converge with those of official aid:
abandon/compromise their development commitments
and become more pragmatic about the market?
5.
*
if some logic/scope does exist for accessing
official aid, what are the ways NGOs/CBOs could
restrategise
themselves
to access
it?
Are
NGOs/CBOs
prepared for
the
implications
and
consequences of such choices?
Or is it yet
another
instance
of
"grapes
are
:
sour"
rationalisations?
*
if collaboration is not possible/feasible, what
other alternate options exist?
Can resources be
fully
mobilised
from
communities
of
the
marginalised that NGOs are working with?
Are
NGOs/CBOs prepared to accept the consequences?
*
what is the role,
northern NGOs?
relevance
and
legitimacy
of
Study Design :
While there could be positions and hence an assumption
framework to a study of (official) development cooperation^
the study consciously adopts an empirical and exploratory
design.
Rather, than fit realities into ideological frames,
NGOs and the
the study will facilitate experiences of the
development
marginalised
communities
to
interrogate
cooperation concepts, policies and institutions.
7-
4
This documentation and analysis of ground experiences and
their cross-NGO comparison/validation will, hopefully, lead
development
practitioners/thinkers
to
a
theoretical
understanding of official aid - its dynamics/compulsions and
also its opportunities/threats.
By correlating the (varied) experiences of each NGO with its
development understanding and organisational/institutional
vehicles, the study can provide insights into strategy
options before "political" NGOs/CBOs:
*
it
*
areas where access to
possible and feasible
of Iicial
aid
is
desirable.
in case they wish to tap the opportunities official aid
offers, how to reequip themselves both for accessing
the funds and to minimise the casualties for their
organisations and for communities they work with
in case they opt not to access official aid, strategies
for accessing alternate sources
The case studies and the critique of data that flows out of
them, will support :
*
NGO thinking and strategisation on official aid
*
inform
advocacy/lobbying
for
influencing
official
funding policies and instruments towards empowering and
capacitating the marginalised.
■kitlcititititititltic
2
N o - iV
OBJECTIVES of the Study
• Determine the status of NGOBusiness engagement among the
Cordaid partners and evaluate the
level of engagement.
• To build capacities of NGO partners
of Cordaid in India to conceptualise
and strategise their engagement
with private sector
Status Report on NGO-Business
Engagement of Cordaid Partners
Pranjal Jyoti Goswami
Manager Projects
Operational Period
Key Observations
Engagement with Stakeholders
Thematic Area
Health &
Environment
12%
Major Primary
Stakeholders
• Community
• Small Farmer/
Worker
• Disadvantaged
groups
Education and
Rights
16%
Community
Development
16%
4
Livelihood
promotion and
Microcredit
34%
Research,
Campaign and
Advocacy
10%
Capacity
Building and
Training
12%
5
Major Secondary
Stakeholders
• Government
• Industry
Association
• Individual
company/ Bank
• Donor agency
6
1
The Need
Level of NGO-Business Engagement
• Identification and mapping of key
stakeholders
• What specific role each stakeholder may
play in achieving goals
• Need to analyze Impact on the
stakeholders or by the stakeholder
• Assessment of interest and expectations
between stakeholders
_______ Engagement______
Public Pressure/ campaign
Gather intelligence/ Research
Fund Raising____
Innovative Solutions/
Community Development
Responsible Business Practices
Structural Changes in Society
Image Building_______
Institution Building
Key observations
Response
24%
52%
40%
48%
28%
36%
24%
24%
The Need
• Limited engagement with the private
sector
• Nature of engagement is mostly
activity specific
• No strategic NGO-Business
partnerships
• Fund raising
• Strategic and formal partnership
Understand the Private sector & the
broad framework of CSR
• Analyze what resources/expertise
both can share
• Analyze risks and opportunities for
both the sectors
9
10
The Bottlenecks
•
•
•
•
Reason for Engagement
Conflicting Ideology
Low priority for engagement with
private sector
Potential opportunities have not
been explored
Limited in-house expertise
•
•
•
•
Business has the resources,
infrastructure and necessary mandate to
work for social changes
It can generate job opportunities
Private sector can supplement
government initiatives
Business sector can enhance market
access for the indigenous products.
11
12
2
Scope of Future Engagement
•
Livelihood promotion, marketing indigenous
fJi UUUCIS
•
•
•
•
•
Poverty eradication
micro finance business, raising funds for
marginalized community
Tie-up with business community for better
market opportunities
Environmentally sustainable industrial
development
Health, education and empowerment of youth
Community Health Programme, sanitation and
waste management
Agri-business promotion
13
1
Conclusion
• NGOs are willing to build partnership with
the business sector. This is an apparent
indication of paradigm shift from the civil
society perspective and will spell out
greater benefits in future
Prepared to analyze the opportunities that
business sector can bring to the social
development agenda
Capacity needs to be build among the
partners towards formal engagement with
the business & create a win-win situation. N
Position: 1799 (2 views)