NGOs in transition

Current challenges for international organisations

in development

NGOs in transition - Current challenges for international organisations in developm

ent

The challenges currently facing international organisations working with development are many. Social movements are gaining ground on NGOs while the aid effectiveness agenda is putting more demands on NGOs. Climate change is adding new dimensions to development work, and the question of NGO legitimacy is becoming increasingly pertinent. In a world moving towards globalisation, the response from many NGOs is to join hands and form alliances. But is bigger always better? And how do these changes affect the poor people, whom NGOs claim to support?

This booklet documents a series of seminars on the changing civil society context arranged by the Danish NGO network Thematic Forum in the autumn of 2009.

NGOs in transition

Current challenges forinternational organisations

in development

� �

CONTENTS

NGOs in transitionCurrent challenges for international organisations in development

By Lisbeth JensenEditor: Helene Ellemann-JensenPublished in April 2010 by

c/o MS ActionAid Denmark12, FælledvejDK-2200 Copenhagen NDenmark

The publication can also be downloaded from www.tematiskforum.dk

Cover photos: Pernille BærendtsenPhotos: Lisbeth Jensen (pages 10, 16, 29, 34, 38, 70, 77); DanChurchAid and CARE Denmark (pages 48, 62); Rahul Sriskanthan (page 86); Freek Visser (page 90); MS ActionAid Denmark (page 93) All other photos: Pernille Bærendtsen

Design: Kurt Lukowski/MS GraphicPrinted in Denmark by Handy Print A/S

Preface

Theme 1 – A changing civil society

NGOs caught by the mainstreamDemocracy in a globalised worldWorld Social Forum and democracy

Theme 2 – Aid effectiveness

New policy spaces for civil societyEffectiveness of aid or of developmentJust jump on boardA Danish attempt to implement the Paris principles

Theme 3 – Climate change and development

No more room for developmentAgriculture – both problem and solutionAdvocacy for a just adaptation practiceUsing local climate knowledgeBuso Islanders alone in the oceanA helping hand – not another burden

Theme 4 – NGO legitimacy and accountability

Global ISO standards for NGOsTogether against HIV/AIDSChanged mindsets more important than new policy

Theme 5 – Global civil society and internationalisation of NGOs

NGOs are tamed civil movementsThe INGO sector is in crisisThe old INGOs are ”out of sync”Danish case stories about alliance buildingRemember where you come fromClimate change and international alliances

TABLE OF

� �

Civil society around the world is in transition. The challenges facing development NGOs trying to navigate in this ocean of change are abundant and interlinked. Opening up one discussion leads to another. As soon as the questions of roles and room for manoeuvring for NGOs in the changing civil society are addressed, other issues line up: Will independence and diversity still be a feature of NGOs in a development world highly influenced by the Paris Agenda and the claims for effectiveness of development assistance? New challenges to all prospects for development in the South – including NGO activities – are brought about by the climate changes. Another crucial challenge for all NGOs is the question of legitimacy and accountability. What are the most recent initiati-ves within these areas? Last, but not least, is the new tendency of internationalisation, where major NGOs, also in Denmark, decide to establish strong and formal relationships – or even merge – into alliances of very large international organisations. What are the prospects, challenges and risks in this trend?

During the autumn of 2009, the Danish NGO network Thematic Forum addressed these questions in a series of seminars bringing together Danish and international NGO practitioners and academics. This publication reflects the five themes explored:

A changing civil societyThe debate is opened by Anthony Bebbington from the University of Manchester, who claims that NGOs today are entangled in bureaucratic demands from donors and that they do not see real change as a result of their work. Teivo Teivainen from the University of Helsinki advocates building international networks and discusses the potentials for social movements as alternative change agents.

Effectiveness of development assistance“Adapt or die” – this is the message from Lars Koch from the Danish NGO IBIS to the development NGOs within the framework of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action. Franz Josef Berger from CONCORD out-lines some of the challenges for NGOs in adapting to the new framework, while Lisa Henry from DanChurchAid proposes that development NGOs copy the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) aimed at enhancing effectiveness and securing accountability within humanitarian assistance.

Climate changeChristian Friis Bach from DanChurchAid outlines the consequences of climate change for the poorest people and introduces a rights-based approach to integrating the need for adaptation into NGO programming. Poul

Erik Lauridsen from CARE Denmark presents a tool that combines stakeholder analysis and poverty assessment with climate analysis, and his colleague Liv Østergaard shows how the tool can be applied in an example from Mozambique.

Legitimacy and accountabilityBjørn Førde from the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre discusses the increasing demands on NGOs to demonstrate their accountability and legitimacy and asks: Who do the international NGOs actually represent? Marianne Bo Paludan from Save the Children Denmark shares how difficult it is to meet the demands of the NGOs’ own assessment frameworks, including the INGO Accountability Charter.

InternationalisationMarlies Glasius from the University of Amsterdam gives an overview of the globalisation trends that also apply to NGOs and the challenges they are currently facing with regard to representation, internal democracy, and power balances. Harry Derksen from ICCO is convinced that INGOs must shift power to the South in order to gain influence. “They have to change themselves before they can change the world”, he claims – and explains what his own organisation is doing to shift power. Frans Mikael Jansen from MS ActionAid Denmark urges INGOs to join forces to form a critical mass exerting pressure for influence and stop being polite to the governments. The discussion on globalisation is wound up through four examples of Danish NGOs at different stages of integra-tion into global civil society: CARE Denmark, IBIS (part of Alliance2015), Save the Children Denmark, and MS ActionAid Denmark.

We wish to express our sincere thanks to everyone who contributed actively to the debate through sharing valua-ble insights and experience and raising relevant questions. It is the hope of Thematic Forum that these discus-sions will provide the Danish (and international) development community with new knowledge and inspiration for necessary adjustments of policies, strategies and management procedures, and thus create new grounds for enhancing the performance and impact of civil society organisations in a changing world for the benefit of the poorest people.

Thematic Forum Copenhagen, March 2010

PREFACE

� �

THEME 1A changing civil societySome argue that NGOs have in fact been unsuccessful in their

fundamental mission of promoting social change. Accordingly, we

need to question whether NGOs are still able to work as change

agents and advocates for the interests of the poor.

What does it take for NGOs to re-think and renew themselves to

become effective change agents? Or should we rather turn to

social movements and other forms of civic action to find new

potentials for transforming unequal and unjust social structures?

� �

NGOs caught by the mainstream The neoliberal order has deprived The nGo world of alTernaTives

NGOs today have turned to service delivery at the expense of innovation, alternative approaches and research. At the same time, state agencies and multilateral develop-ment organisations have taken over working methods and policies from the NGOs.

Anthony Bebbington, professor at the University of Manchester, no longer sees the NGO world as a forum for alternative thinking about international development. For the past 20 years, he has conducted research for NGOs in Latin America and interna-tional organisations. He has experienced and documented a distortion of the NGOs’ original mission.

“Today the NGOs have become subcontractors and turned to service provision and measurable impacts. They are entangled in the bureaucratic demands from donors and stranded in a hegemonic view of development,” he claims.

Examples of this hegemony are the Millennium Development Goals.

“Many NGOs working with democracy and advocacy have been very frustrated over this tendency. Their governments invite them to hearings and ask for comments, but they don’t get real influence and never see changes as results of their work”, he says.

NGOs...

10

Anthony Bebbington reports an example from seven knowledge-generating organisa-tions in Central America and Mexico.“They all experienced the same pressures on their organisations. The weakening of the left parties and financial needs influence the way the organisations were mana-ged, and they often found themselves in a mismatch between their original political project as social movements and the neoliberal demands for funding”, he tells from his work with the seven organisations.

Four pressures:1. The first pressure was a change in the left-wing movement. Neoliberal govern- ments took power, left-wing parties were weakened and non-governmental organisations were left hanging. 2. The second pressure was financial. Fundraising efforts and demands from different donors sacrificed the organisations’ long-term focus to a short-term chase for project funds.3. The third pressure was the human resource management in each organisation. Employees were often treated according to standards contradicting the principles of the organisation.4. The fourth pressure was that the organisations found themselves in a conflict between their original political project, their internal management and their finances.

“I could see an increasing tendency to work as a think tank instead of a social move-ment. They took the short route to knowledge instead of the long route together with their partners and constituencies. This also weakens their legitimacy”, Anthony says.

So what can the organisations do?“Be well positioned to anticipate changes in development, seek new relationships and be ambitious. Think big thoughts and not just the next project proposal. And if necessary renovate the organisation, bring in youth, new staff and first of all, practise what you preach for others, also inside the organisation,” he advises.

Mining and developmentIn Peru, investments in mining exploration increased by 2,000% from 1990 to 1997, and 64% of the land in the region of Cajamarca is now under concession for mining. This implies a profound systemic and structural change in society, which Bebbington defines as “little d” development.But is it good or bad? Organised civil society was taken aback. They had no responses and they came too late.

“This is an example of how dynamics in the private sector overtake the NGOs with surprise. The rather strong NGOs and Oxfam America were still discussing thematic development of society, when mining industries were booming. They had no alterna-tive to the mining, and they got a very bad press when they organised a public debate and tried to raise resistance to the mining”, Anthony Bebbington tells.

The NGOs were tamed. The big donors, Canadian Lutheran World Relief and Oxfam International, withdrew their funding for anti-mining NGOs and the protest was crimi-nalised. As part of the concession agreements, mining companies committed them-selves to funding local projects, and many NGOs chose to be co-opted and administer such undertakings instead of dying.

“The NGOs turned to “big D” development, implementing projects instead of “little d” development, i.e. discussions on the social and political transformation of society. Today only a few social movements criticise the mining policy”, he says.But why were the NGOs unprepared when the mining industry started booming? “Many NGOs have so many projects, papers and pressing issues on their desks that the time to reflect and think strategically about big changes is not available. I have seen so many NGOs struggling, not learning by doing, but learning while doing”, he says.

anthony bebbington, professor at the University of Manchester, member of the peruvian Centre for social studies. M

ININ

G AN

D DE

VELO

PMEN

T

11

1�

...on key words:Non-governmental organisationsThe term “non-” implies a wish to be an alternative as a reason for being. But are the NGOs still alternatives? Many are heavily dependent on state funding and often tied to their home country’s bilateral aid programmes, as seen in the relationship between Danish NGOs and Danida. Today there is a tendency to see global movements as “the alternatives”.

Civil society A sphere of voluntary associations working for modest alternatives in self-organised collectives.OrA field of contention between hegemonic and counterhegemonic projects where de-bates on ambitious alternatives take place.

Development“Big D” development understood as interventions in the form of projects with a clear purpose.“Little d” development understood as systemic change of society over time.

Real social changeDoes “real” refer to the scale of change in space or time? Is it only real if it is struc-tural or institutional?This implies that only ”little d” development is “real”, but such changes are still brought about through interventions in the form of projects.But real to whom? Small local changes can be very “real” to those who experience them, while measurable projects can seem more “real” to auditors.

REFLECTIONS

1�

Democracy in a globalised worldexpansion of Global CapiTalisM diMinishes The rooM for naTional deMoCraCy – boTh for parliaMenTs and Csos

professor Teivo Teivainen from the University of helsinki talks of the “monarchisation” of democracy.

“Our national democracy will undergo the same diminishing of importance as the monarchies previously did. The expansion of a global economy or capitalism will de-cide more and more, and leave less to national parliaments to decide. The national civil society and the national NGOs will also get less and less room to operate in”, he states.

However, instead of protesting against globalisation, he advises civil society and its organisations to fight for politicisation of the global economy and democratisation of international institutions.

“It will be very difficult, but not impossible. Compare the situation with the feminist movement in the sixties. When they coined the slogan “Make the private political”, nobody anticipated the huge change in patriarchy it created. Let’s make the economy political,” he says.

1� 1�

Democracy

He claims that such a change has already begun and that civil society organisations should seize the chance. As an example, he refers to the fashion of “corporate social responsibility”.

“Of course the concept is crap, but it is important, because it reflects that the eco-nomy is admitting to being political, and once it has done that, it can never go back and claim that its only interest is the profit rate. It implies an open door, and we should walk in and start talking politics”, he says.

In particular, Teivo Teivainen perceives international institutions like the IMF as un-democratic, as long as they are ruled by “one dollar one vote” instead of “one country one vote”.“We are all hypocrites when we impose our Western definition of democracy on other countries without fighting for democracy in the international institutions”, he stresses.

His advice is to build transnational or international networks, whether they be tra-ditional organisations or modern movements. As an example, the Colombian trade union movement succeeded in derailing a trade agreement with the USA, because it worked closely with trade unions in the USA.

In this new global space, political advocacy and change are difficult and different, which calls for new alliances.

“At the national level, CSOs push for change through national political parties, but what about the international level? Some of the South American organisations call for more political solutions. They are tired of all the “talk and talk”, e.g. in the World Social Forum. They call for “walk and walk”. But are we ready for an international political party? Can such a party be created without the national party level? These are some of the interesting questions the international civil society will have to find answers to in the years to come”, he foresees.

World Social Forum and democracyparTiCipaTion versUs represenTaTion

The World Social Forum (WSF) movement is intended to be non-bureaucratic, as everybody and every issue are considered equally important. The chief principle is influence through participation. This has soon turned out to be a problem. African organisations have had no money to participate, and rich Western organisations have dominated the discussions.

“We have to admit that the WSF is not democratic. The principle of participation instead of representation excludes poor organisations from influence. The principle of all issues being equally important is also undermined by money. The groups with a lot of money or with friends with money get the most attention at the meetings. They can rent nice venues, print posters, call famous speakers and so on, but theirs is not necessarily the most important issue”, Teivo Teivainen recalls from experiences at WSF conferences.

He has been part of the movement from the beginning and remains attracted to the idea of a horizontal non-bureaucratic structure.

But what is the difference between an organisation and a movement? Teivo Teivainen points out that the two terms are used indistinctively without reflection - often as part of the name. But he has a clear definition according to certain characteristics in form, politics and ideology.

1�1�

Teivo Teivainen, professor at the University of helsinki, finland. director of the programme on democracy and Global Trans-formation at the national University of san Marcos in lima, peru.

An organisation has a structure and is representative. It has a political mission, and members agree on an ideology or vision. An organisation represented by its board chairman or assembly can speak and act on behalf of its members.

In a movement, all members are equal, no one ranks higher than the other, and no issue is more important than another. There are no structures and no bureaucracy.This was the case at the first WSF held in 2001 in Porto Alegre. All the organisations came together under the slogan “Another world is possible”. Only political parties and confessional organisations were not welcome.

“But what does this “other world” look like and how should we get there? It has serious implications for democracy to break down all hierarchy. There is no strategic priority and no one can represent or speak for the WSF. It is well known that tacit and implicit structures appear in horizontal, leaderless movements, and these cannot be changed democratically, because they are not acknowledged”, Teivainen explains.

The problems within the WSF surfaced quickly. Who should read and decide on applications for WSF membership? And what should be done about the skewed representation?

“It is important to practise what you preach. In the beginning we just did not discuss these problems, because representation and boards were bureaucratic ideas, which we wanted to avoid. But we have to look very seriously at these problems in the movements, not only in WSF”, he says.

WOR

LD S

OCIA

L FO

RuM

AN

D DE

MOC

RACy

1� 1�

�0

GlossaryNeoliberalism refers to a political ideology born in the 1970s and lasting at least until the late 1990s, which espouses economic deregulation and laissez-faire as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control over the economy from the public to the pri-vate sector.

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, places sovereignty within an assembly of all citizens choosing to participate. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy.

Hegemony is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a domi-nant group over other groups, regardless of the explicit consent of the latter. In the early 20th century, Italian political scientist Antonio Gramsci developed the concept of cultural hegemony to show how a social class exerts cultural ”leadership” or domi-nance of other classes in maintaining the socio-political status quo.

”Creating space” is an interesting expression. We use it all the time but do not define it. Is it space in a geographical, physical, political, virtual, institutional or legal sense?Anthony Bebbington

Do not use the words developing – developed, North – South, centre – periphery. They are all part of the neo-colonial thinking of the Teacher (us) and the Pupils (them).Teivo Teivainen

Many organisations balance on the edge of a knife. They have to engage in a critical dialogue with the government, but at the same time receive donations through the government. You can say they sleep with the enemy at night, but fight against him during the day.Bjørn Johansen, ADRA

Latin America is interesting to study just now. The governments of Lula da Silva and Evo Morales come from the civil movements, but what space does it give to the rest of the CSOs?Anthony Bebbington

�1

FACTS QuOTATIONS

Lets us think the impossible. All boundaries for democracy should be discussed in the open. Let us be frank about the problems of international democracy, otherwise we can’t discuss it. Teivo Teivainen

If we are 100,000 organisations with the whole world as our workplace, how can we be “positioned” to have an impact globally? Annemette Danielsen, Danish Children and youth Network

Neoliberalism came from international right-wing think tanks – and we had no answers and no think tanks on the other side. It is important to position your orga-nisation globally and link to political actors and academics for an optimal position in good networks.Anthony Bebbington

’’’’’’’’

’’’’’’

’’

Links:Green, Duncan: From Poverty to Power. Oxfam International, 2008. http://www.oxfam.org/en/content/from-poverty-power-full-text

Bebbington, Anthony, Hickey, Samuel and Mitlin, Diana C.: “Can NGOs make a difference?: The challenge of development alternatives”, Zed Books, 2008. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Can-Ngos-Make-a-Difference/Anthony-Bebbington/e/9781842778937

Teivainen, Teivo: “Global Civic-Driven Democratization as Political Agenda” andFowler, Alan and Biekart, Kees (eds): Civic Driven Change: Citizen’s Imagination in Action. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies, 2008.Both: http://www.iss.nl/Portals/Civic-Driven-Change-Initiative/Essays-Policy-Briefs-and-Links

����

LINKS

�� ��

THEME 2Aid effectivenessThe buzzword “effectiveness” has always been used in relation to

development assistance. However, the focus on this aspect has

increased in recent years, as issues such as harmonisation among

donors, ownership and cooperation have been addressed as part

of the OECD-launched international aid effectiveness agenda.

NGOs seem to play a dual role in the discourse.

On the one hand, they are considered able to use the effective-

ness agenda politically and strategically. On the other, the spot-

light is turned on their own performances. Basically, the question

is: How will this agenda change the civil society development

architecture as we know it today?

�� ��

“All important donors and recipient countries have signed the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). In articles 13 and 20, civil society organisations (CSOs) are acknowledged as a positive factor in their own right, and governments and donors shall provide and support an enabling environment for their existence. So today working in a CSO is a political right, not something you can go to prison for”, Lars Koch from IBIS states.

CSOs are important development partners. 11% of all development funding is channelled through CSOs, and in Danish aid alone, CSO spending accounts for up to one billion DKK.

Although governments have subscribed to the agenda, they often create obstacles for the CSOs. These can be bureaucratic registration procedures meant to curtail the influence of CSOs. Furthermore, the Accra principles are not communicated and implemented at the regional and local level.

“But CSOs can ally with bilateral donors, who want CSOs to monitor the use of budget support, and CSOs often have the knowledge and potential to implement at the sector or local level”, Lars Koch says.

New policy spaces for civil societyThe aCCra aGenda CreaTes opporTUniTies and ChallenGes for Csos

New...

��

OpportunitiesHe points to the example of the Danish NGO “Ghana Friendship Groups”. Through many years of experience in the education sector at the local level in northern Ghana, they and their partners now exert influence at the national education sector level.

“It is no longer sufficient just to do well locally; experiences should also be used in dialogue and advocacy to influence national politics. Help your partners do this by networking and knowing the new spaces for sector dialogue”, Lars Koch says.The opportunities are there for the CSOs, but Lars Koch advises to use the AAA stra-tegically. Each country is different, and CSOs and their networks should analyse the best ways to gain influence.

“I think the sector level will be the most important space for policy influence. Often the national level development plans, the PRSPs, are too general and less operatio-nal. But the CSOs have capacity and knowledge of the sector level from their prac-tice”, he explains.

ChallengesCSOs have to implement the five principles of the Paris Declaration, but how? “Adapt or die, the donors are very serious about these principles”, Lars Koch states laconically.

Like the donors, CSOs have to prove their effectiveness. They have to become better at transferring ownership to their partners and at aligning to their systems. And they have to harmonise with other NGOs working with the same issues and partners.“Harmonisation often happens by coincidence. I remember a case in IBIS where we found out, at a cocktail party, that three of us guests worked with problems in the mining areas of South America. We agreed to meet and use each other’s knowledge, e.g. sharing an assessment of the area”, he explains.

Harmonisation can be a trigger, because CSOs also compete amongst each other for funding, both in the North and the South. A manageable solution can be local or regional networks or platforms to exchange ideas.

Accountability can also be a problem. Both the donor organisation and the recipient organisation should find ways to be open, transparent and accountable.“It is not the case that all CSOs are good by definition. There are many bad CSOs out there”, Lars Koch says.

For small organisations in both the North and the South, this whole system of advocacy and policy dialogue with governments can be too daunting a challenge.“Small CSOs can get lost. They don’t have the capacity to gather all the information at all the levels. Here the answer must be to link to networks and platforms”, says Lars Koch.

OPPO

RTuN

ITIE

S

CHAL

LENG

ES

lars Koch, Governance and policy adviser, ibis.

ibis is a danish member-based development organisation working at the global, national and local levels to create equal access to education, influence and resources for poor and margi-nalised people in africa and

��

�0 �1

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness from 2005 was a response to complaints over excessive bureaucracy imposed on aid recipient countries having to deal with more than 1,000 different donors. Harmonisation of administrative procedures was necessary.

The declaration affirms five principles: 1. Ownership is the key principle – aid shall be in line with the recipient country’s own strategies and plans2. Alignment – donors shall align with their partners’ agenda and systems3. Harmonisation – donors shall establish common procedures and share information4. Managing for results – better joint monitoring of effectiveness5. Mutual accountability – openness regarding the flow of funds, spending and budgets

The Paris Declaration envisages “partners” as recipient governments as well as bilateral and interna-tional donors. Civil society and its organisations are not mentioned.

Criticism of this fact led to the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) in 2008.• In AAA, ownership is not confined to the government, but refers to the entire recipient country, including its parliament and civil society engaged in development policies (Article13). • Both recipient countries and donor countries acknowledge the critical role and responsibility of parliament and civil society, and donors pledge to support efforts to increase the capacity of all development actors (Article 13).• Civil society organisations are recognized as development actors in their own right, and they are promised an enabling environment (Article 20).• Civil society organisations shall apply the Paris principles by means of better co-ordination with government programmes, greater accountability and improved exchange of information (Article 20).

FACTSParis and Accra declarations

�� ��

“We have to reflect critically on the Paris and Accra declarations. They are Northern agendas, even if all countries have signed up to them. The opinion of Malawi does not carry the same weight as that of the USA.”

Franz Josef Berger from CONCORD works for the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness. This entity was set up, because CSOs were lost and lagged behind donors in the discussion about effectiveness.

“But we want a more political concept than just a measurable objective. We want to talk about effectiveness of development understood as change in the country, from planning through implementation to lasting effects. We want a broader level than just the indicators on a high political level, like in the PRSPs. The CSOs do more than provide financial help. They have a lot of different roles which contribute to develop-ment or change for individuals”, he says.

CSOs want to use the word “impact” instead of “effectiveness”. “CSOs often work in long-standing partnerships, and they know that change takes time, whereas donors, with their log frames and contracts, have a short timeframe, going from project to project”, he says.

Effectiveness of aid or of developmenta Global aTTeMpT To ColleCTively define effeCTiveness for Csos

Effectiv...

�� ��

franz Joseph berger, ConCord, european nGo Confederation for relief and development.

The ConCord secretariat hosts the open forum for Cso development effectiveness.

Internally in the Open Forum, discussions have been going on for a year now, and a common global model for the measurement of effectiveness is still not in sight. The diversity of CSOs, which hold different visions and compete for funds and media attention, makes it difficult.

“But we have to be aware of the fact that CSOs today are more visible. Think tanks like One World Trust are questioning the work of CSOs, and they publish an annual report on CSO accountability, which attracts media attention”, he says.It is not only the Paris and Accra Declarations that demand action, but also the need for legitimacy and accountability of CSOs in general.

Is the Paris Declaration usable at all?

The international CSO community does not agree on the five principles of the Paris Declaration and their usefulness. One group fears being cornered along with their partners by the bureaucracy of effectiveness. They want to maintain a wider concept of development, and they do not necessarily see the benefits of harmonisation. They perceive the diversity of ideas among CSOs as an advantage.Another group sees the five principles as useful. Though they have been conceived for partnerships between recipient governments and donors, they still make good sense when applied to collaboration between a civil society partner in the South and an NGO from the North.

“Harmonisation doesn’t necessarily mean speaking with one voice or reducing the number of actors. It can mean better coordination of work”, Franz Berger says.The Open Forum still has a long way to go. It is collecting best practices from member organisations and discussing if a collective approach is possible.“It is a political process, which is just as important as the outcome”, he states.

����

Just jump on boarddanChUrChaid already operaTes a sMarT inTernaTional MoniTorinG sysTeM

37 international NGOs involved in humanitarian aid already work with a joint system to secure their effectiveness. It is based on a peer mechanism with six benchmarks.“Just jump on board. The system can also be used by organisations working with development. There is no need to use time and resources to develop more systems”, says Lisa Henry from DanChurchAid.

DanChurchAid is involved in both relief and development work, and the same system works fine in both areas. The system is called the Humanitarian Accountability Part-nership, HAP. It was initiated in 2003 by 37 international humanitarian organisations in response to the project Good Humanitarian Donorship launched by 35 donors.

“But it was a totally voluntary process. Today it is more like a certification scheme, and some donors now demand HAP as a condition for funding,” she says.From her point of view, a parallel system for development organisations could easily be set up: the Development Accountability Partnership, DAP.

Just...

The humanitarian organisations were ahead of the Paris and Accra meetings. HAP is built on existing agreements and standards:

1. 10 principles in a Code of Conduct signed by 200 international non-governmental organisations2. A Humanitarian Charter – based on international agreements 3. Sphere Standards – “do no harm” – a handbook of tools

HAP is about improving, and the focus is on beneficiaries.

1. Improving quality – doing better2. Improving accountability - responsible use of power3. Improving commitment – making implementing bodies accountable to beneficiaries

HAP has a small office in Geneva, and all members are assessed according to six benchmarks.

“When DanChurchAid was tested, we got a lot of points to improve on, even though we were already complying with standards in the business. The peer mechanism is applied before the yearly general assembly. Each member has to testify how they have acted on the points to be improved, which they were told about the year before, and it seems to work. It is embarrassing to get a negative report”, Lisa Henry says.

The six benchmarks are:1. Humanitarian Quality Management System – mission, values, standards and procedures2. Information – access and availability of information for beneficiaries3. Participation and informed consent of beneficiaries – in all phases of the project/programme cycle4. Competent staff – induction, appraisal and training5. Complaints handling – beneficiaries’ opinions, concerns, suggestions and complaints6. Continual improvement – effective monitoring and evaluation systems

��

On two legs“HAP is one way of answering the donors and the Paris Declaration. Alliances are another. DanChurchAid has joined ACT International. Today it is easier to stand up to donors like Danida”, Lisa Henry says.

Action by Churches together (ACT) is an international alliance of 150 churches and church-based organisations. Altogether, they have a total annual income of US$ 1.75 billion, cooperate with 130 countries, and have a physical presence in 90 countries.“On the national level, we form ACT platforms. All members working in the area meet and discuss. The platforms can also be formed at a local level”, Lisa Henry explains.

Membership of an international alliance enables DanChurchAid to improve its impact. Through the platforms, members can design joint policies and procedures and streamline their administrations. This is effectiveness in the Paris spirit.

��

lisa henry, relief director, danChurchaid, denmark.

danChurchaid (dCa) is a ma-jor danish non-governmental organisation (nGo) working with local partners, interna-tional networks, churches and non-religious civil organisations to assist the poorest of the poor.

�0 �1

A Danish attempt to implement the Paris principlesThe international NGO coalition Alliance2015 was very active in lobbying in Accra, Ghana, but was met with the question: What are NGOs doing to improve effective-ness? In the course of 2009, IBIS, the Danish member of Alliance2015, took up a new approach to strengthening effectiveness.Alliance2015 has drawn up a set of principles for member organisations to implement and adapt to their programmes. These are in line with the five Paris principles.

Ownership is understood as democratic control over development by locals. Funding should be targeted in pursuit of the local partners’ own core functions and strategies.

Harmonisation amongst alliance members entails coordination whilst taking advanta-ge of diversity. Efficiency is optimised by sharing office facilities and analyses as well as other assets and activities. Harmonisation should also be carried out with others donating to same organisation or project. This is already widely practised.

Alignment to partners’ strategies and management systems should be ensured whenever possible.

Mutual accountability means that Alliance members will build long-term partnerships and be transparent in their decision-making, both towards donors and partners, expecting the same in return.

Managing for results will focus on advances towards reaching the Millennium Development Goals

Just another donor“In IBIS there was questioning of our role. Did we deliver anything besides Danida funding? We needed to clarify our relation to partners and how partnerships create results. And we had to reflect on effectiveness and the Paris principles”, Lars Koch from IBIS explains.

In December 2009, the new Partnership Strategy was adapted, and during 2009, IBIS’ field offices have worked on partner assessments and partnership development plans to clarify the division of roles and responsibilities between IBIS and each partner.“It is still just a practice, not a best practice, but we have documented some good results from West Africa”, he says.

The strategy is based on the Paris principles. The partner assessments and the orga-nisational development plans have the objective of strengthening partners in taking on ownership, enabling alignment and creating results.

IBIS will harmonise with others donating to the same partner, and will pursue mutual accountability by entering into long-term commitments and promoting transparency both within IBIS and its partners; i.e. downward, inward, and upward accountability.

Each partnership will include an annual joint assessment.“We expect the role of IBIS to differ from one partnership to another. In some part-nerships, we will be the implementing organisation, in others we will merely supply budget support”, Lars Koch foresees.

CASE STORy

We should remember who sits in the driver’s seat. We should decentralise the har-monisation and see it from our partners’ side. It is time consuming for small CSOs to participate, and it is important that we accept this.”Bente Topsøe-Jensen, COWI

And what about the small Northern NGOs? Will we get lost in these new demands? “Mette Müller, Plan Denmark

We, the small Danish NGOs with no employees, can’t cope with more demands. Already today it is difficult. The demands for project proposals are overwhelming. CONCORD has made the calculation that an EU project proposal costs 20,000 Euro to prepare”Karen Ingrid Schultz, Danish-ugandan Friendship Association

We don’t have any donors and we have no bureaucratic structures and no strategy to follow. That makes us very open minded when we talk to our partners”Tommy Falkeøje, The Swallows

We have set some standards for all to follow in our local NGO Forum, so that our donors can trust us. But then we should ask you to harmonise and follow the same standards to ease our work”Edward Dtimkene, Plant and Health Project, uganda

Links:

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. OECD, 2005. http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html

The Accra Agenda for Action, World Bank, 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ACCRAEXT/Resources/4700790-1217425866038/ACCRA_4_SEPTEMBER_FINAL_16h00.pdf

Andersen, Ole Winckler & Therkildsen, Ole: Paris-erklæringen og den internationale bistandsdagsorden i Den Ny Verden, 2007/3. http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/DNV/2007/Paris-erkl%E6ringen_og_den_internationale_bistandsdagsorden.pdf

Better Aid. A civil society position paper for the 2008 Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. www.betteraid.org

Naidoo, Kumi: International aid – charity or justice. Reflections on the Accra Aid Effectiveness conference, CIVICUS, 2008.. http://www.civicus.org/content/deskoftheHonoraryPresident-CIVICUS.114.htm

Tandon, Yash: Ending Aid Dependence. Fahamu Books and the South Centre, 2008. http://fahamubooks.org/book/?GCOI=90638100770030

Svoboda, Daniel, Berger, Franz Josef and the Global Facilitation Group: “Open Forum on CSO Development Ef-fectiveness as a Response to the Paris Declaration”. http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/

�� ��

QuOTATIONS

’’

’’’’’’’’

LINKS

����

THEME 3

Climate change and developmentClimate change will primarily have negative consequences for

the poorest people in the world. The present and future scenarios

require new strategies for organisations working to assist people in

developing countries.

The NGOs may have to reinvent the term “sustainable development”

and develop a rights-based approach combining the climate and

development agendas. How can they ensure a participatory

approach to addressing the issues of both agendas?

����

No more room for developmentan inTernaTional CliMaTe aGreeMenT shoUld noT sTand in The way of The MillenniUM developMenT Goals

“The quest for development faces a bitter dilemma today. Poor countries see the oppor-tunity for higher incomes and more consumption, but we in the West have left no room for continuing to pollute the atmosphere”, says Christian Friis Bach, DanChurchAid.

DanChurchAid has incorporated the right to a dignified level of development into their policy on climate change.

“We have to ensure that international agreements on climate will not stand in the way of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Everybody has the right to sustainable development”, Friis Bach says.

This is why the calculation model to determine each country’s mitigation responsi-bility and capacity includes a “free” standard emission allowance for each person based on the consumption of US$ 20 a day.

Climate change also damages long-term development work.

No more...

��

“Cyclones and floods destroy all that we did in recent years. An example is northern Ghana after the flood in 2007. Crops and domestic animals were washed away, and all of a sudden we were into relief aid. Our participatory methods and capacity building had to be put away. And we were surprised to learn how long it took for the communi-ties and families to recover,” remembers Poul Erik Lauridsen, CARE Denmark.

The boundaries between relief aid and development aid will become more blurred in the future. Indeed, disaster risk reduction is set to become an important component of development programmes.

“We should promote climate-resilient livelihood strategies and plan for disaster risk reduction to prevent destruction of wells, houses and other infrastructure”, Poul Erik Lauridsen says.

poul erik lauridsen, programme and Climate Change Manager, Care denmark.

Care international is a confederation with an international secretariat in Geneva, switzerland. 12 autonomous national Care organisations are members of the confederation. Care denmark is the lead of climate policy.

Christian friis bach, international director, danChurchaid.

one of the major danish nGos, working with local partners, international networks, churches and non-religious civil organisations to assist the poorest of the poor.

��

�0

Agriculture – both problem and solutionThe riCh world MUsT pay for researCh and iMpleMenTaTion of new MeThods

Food production is set to fall because of climate change. The World Bank ’World Development Report’ 2010 estimates that up to 500 million people already suffer from hunger or malnutrition. In semi-dry areas of Africa, production will fall by half.“We in the rich countries have to pay to change agriculture to become sustainable, and we have to pay for research and testing of new crops”, says Christian Friis Bach, DanChurchAid.

Traditional agriculture is a cause of climate change. The clearing of forests to create arable land and the burning of biomass creates large emissions of CO2. In Sub-Saharan Africa it amounts to more than 60 percent of total CO2 emissions.But agriculture can also be an important part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions.

“Adding organic material in the topsoil as a farming practice would bring about 70 percent of the possible moderation of damage (mitigation potential) in developing countries,” Friis Bach says.

He explains that in the United States farmers already follow this practice, subsequently selling their contribution on the market for CO2 reduction.

�1

Agriculture...

��

“DanChurchAid and the University of Aarhus are preparing a research project on this matter. We need knowledge of adding organic material to topsoil and of growing better crops. We, the Western world, have to pay African farmers to use the new methods”, he stresses.

Agriculture features as an important component in the programmes of many develop-ment organisations, and it is important to rethink and incorporate how to adapt to and moderate consequences of climate change.

“Many organisations are already doing something today. The planting of green belts in dry areas in Mauritania, drought- and wind-resistant crops in many places, dykes to prevent flooding and terraces to prevent soil erosion in Nepal are some examples. People have a right to food, and we can help with knowledge of sustainable agricul-ture”, says Christian Friis Bach.

Agriculture...

both problem and solution��

Advocacy for a just adaptation practiceCliMaTe refUGees, adapTaTion fUnds and fairness

“If the world were fair, every individual should have the right to let out the same amount of CO2, but the rich countries have already polluted too much of the atmos-phere”, says Christian Friis Bach.

A fair world is not today’s reality, and international NGOs have their work cut out to advocate for fairness.

DanChurchAid seeks to ensure the right of all people to reach a dignified level of development, insisting that mitigation of climate change should not stand in the way of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

The battle to split the bill for global warming between the world’s nations has been going on for some years. The UN Climate Convention states the principle of dividing the bill based on differentiated responsibilities and capacity to pay, but without men-tioning any figures.

DanChurchAid has chosen the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework to calcu-late “the responsibility-capacity-index” for each country. “Based on those calculations, Denmark has a share of 0.38%, almost the same as India with 0.3%. The USA has a share of 34.3%. We believe in the principle that the polluter pays”, Christian Friis Bach comments on the figures. AD

VOCA

Cy

����

The share is used to calculate each country’s needed reduction in CO2 emissions, and the amount due to be paid for necessary adaptation to climate changes both nationally and internationally.

“We must advocate for guidelines for the adaptation funds. Today the money is not reaching the poor and vulnerable. Often the funds stay in the ministries”, says Poul Erik Lauridsen, CARE Denmark.

“It is also important to monitor that funds are additional. It will be technically difficult, because the money will be spread across all kinds of projects, but we have to track the volume of the total budget for aid. In Denmark the figure today is DKK 15 billion, so all additional funding comes on top of that”, says Christian Friis Bach.

Climate refugees are another international problem to be confronted. Extreme weather conditions because of global warming are already causing many people to flee their homes. Over the next decades, up to 200 million people could become refugees due to climate changes. The trigger could be floods, desertification, cyclones and rising sea levels.

“Climate refugees have no protection and rights in UN conventions, like other refugees have. They ought to have. A tarpaulin as a shelter is not enough,” Christian Friis Bach says.

ADVO

CACy FACTS

The Greenhouse Development Rights approachThe idea is to calculate a just share of responsibility for climate change, as well as the capacity to contribute to the solutions. The GDR framework has been designed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and the think tank EcoEquity.

The two parameters of responsibility and capacity have been agreed upon in the UN Convention on Climate Change.Responsibility is calculated based on the level of greenhouse-gas emissions in 1990, the year of the first report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.The model operates with a minimum emission allowance for every person based on consumption worth US$ 20 a day. This level gives room for development for the poorest, who are not responsible for climate change, but are being affected.

Capacity is inferred on the basis of gross national product with a deduction of US$ 20 per person per day.From these two parameters, the “responsibility-capacity index” is calculated.The index shows how much each country must reduce its emissions, and how much it must invest to help the world adapt to climate change and to promote sustainable technologies.Denmark has an index figure of 0.38 percent and an annual bill of between one and two billion US$ to pay. This is almost twice the country’s current level of development aid.The EU combined has an index figure of 26.2 percent and USA 34.3 percent.www.ecoequity.org/GDRs/

(ActionAid and others use another model, called Adaptation Financing Index, introduced by Oxfam. The princip-les are the same, but the parameters are weighted slightly differently.)

�� ��

FACTSDanChurchAid’s climate change policyDCA works to ensure:

1. that we limit global warming to a two degree temperature increase implying a significant reduction in energy and resource use, especially in rich countries;2. that climate change mitigation policies and energy constraints safeguard the right of all people everywhere to reach a dignified level of sustainable human development, and do not stand in the way of achieving the Millennium Development Goals;3. that we integrate global warming as a cross-cutting concern into all develop- ment and relief activities to increase the adaptation capacity and avoid increased vulnerability to climate change;4. that we develop a fair global burden-sharing arrangement based on capacity and responsibility following the principles set out by the Greenhouse Develop- ment Rights, implying significantly increased, predictable and additional funding to the worlds’ poorest countries;5. that we strengthen the transfer of and access to new and clean technology to developing countries in support of both mitigation and adaptation;6. that international climate negotiations are inclusive and transparent, with full participation of developing countries and strong avenues of influence for civil society.

www.danchurchaid.org

FACTSGlossary:Adaptation: Adjusting at a variety of levels to withstand climate change.

Resilience: The ability to manage, absorb and recover from changing conditions and even disasters.

Mitigation: Action aimed at lessening the severity or intensity of climate change, e.g. by emitting less CO2 into the atmosphere

using local climate knowledgeCoMbininG sCienTifiC faCTs wiTh CoMMUniTy wisdoM

A new tool from CARE combines scientific research with local knowledge in the community to produce the strongest possible response to climate change in future projects.

CARE’s approach to community-based adaptation consists of four pillars:1. Promote climate-resilient livelihoods2. Create disaster risk reduction strategies3. Support local capacity development4. Conduct advocacy to address underlying causes of vulnerability

“Even if the world leaders reach a good climate agreement, the climate will not reco-ver next year. It will take at least until 2050 to get the temperature to fall again. So we have to incorporate climate resilience into all projects,” says Poul Erik Lauridsen, CARE Denmark.

The new tool “Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis” combines known stake-holder analysis and poverty assessment with climate analysis.

�� ��

using...

�0 �1

“There is often a hidden capacity in communities that we don’t acknowledge. During the flood in northern Ghana in 2007, 270,000 people lost their homes, but we did not understand where they found shelter. They moved across the border or to relatives in Accra”, Poul Erik Lauridsen says.

CVCA is based on guiding questions to examine factors enabling adaptation at house-hold and individual, local government and national levels. The CVCA uses a variety of participatory exercises and involves multiple stakeholders.

The analysis is carried out nationally, locally and in each community to gather data on the four pillars at each level.

“But our focus is on the community. By understanding and sharing local knowledge, we can take it to the international level for advocacy purposes, but at the same time support local organisations to participate in conferences and national advocacy. The important issue is to get the money from adaptation funds out to poor and vulnerable people at the local level”, he says.

The tool can be used for free by all not-for-profit organisations. It can be downloaded at: www.careclimatechange.org

Poverty, Environment & Climate Change Network (PECCN) The Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network (PECCN) is a CARE International-led “Community of Practice’” with a secretariat hosted by CARE Den-mark and global membership. It consists of hundreds of professionals from CARE and partner organisations committed to addressing the challenges of environmental change from the perspective of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. The Network operates globally, but with a focus on developing countries. One of the Network’s key strengths is its ability to forge collaborative relationships between, and distil lessons from, CARE staff members and partners working around the world.

The Network Secretariat consists of CARE staff based in Europe, Asia and Africa. Network priorities are set every three years by CARE International’s Climate Change Task Force.

using... local climate knowledge

FACTS

�� ��

CASE STORyBuso Islanders alone in the oceanA small island off the coast of Mozambique is being severely subjected to the damage of climate change. CARE Denmark has used the new tool Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis to make a holistic analysis of this community of 800 inhabitants.Buso Island is not just poor, as other rural areas in Mozambique. It is also extremely exposed to climate changes. Cyclones from the Indian Ocean, soil erosion and change in temperatures all affect the small community dependent on fishing. A development project on the island has to take all these threats into account in its design.

“We hoped to find the most vulnerable households and the threats to their livelihood. I was glad to learn that there was a high degree of consistency between the scientific knowledge about coastal areas and the knowledge of the islanders. We could really use their comments”, Liv Østergaard from CARE Denmark explains.

One part of Buso Island has disappeared into the sea. In 2006, 200 people were moved to the mainland of Mozambique to build new homes. The remaining 800 people now live in fear of the future.

“We found out that the resettlement had been a disaster. Recipient communities on the mainland regarded the newcomers as cursed, because they had destroyed the island, and now they would destroy the mainland too”, Liv Østergaard recounts.So the project needed a component of dialogue with local authorities on the main-land.

The islanders affirmed that they could cope with cyclones, even though these had become increasingly fierce and destructive. The worst problems were soil erosion and declining fish stocks.

“The fishermen had difficulties planning their fishing, because storms today are more unpredictable. The regularities of the weather, with its rainy seasons and hot seasons, have disappeared”, she learned on the island.

The analysis identified several recommendations to the project:• Replanting of mangrove to reduce erosion and increase fish stocks• Promoting dialogue between local governments on the mainland and resettled islanders• Establishing cyclone protection systems and warnings• Making contact to civil society organisations interested in working with the islanders• Conducting a dialogue to prepare future resettlement to the mainland

“The final report presented both the observations and recommendations of the local community and the findings of international and national studies on climate change on the island”, Liv Østergaard explains about the work on Buso.

liv helstrup Østergaardprogramme officer, Care denmark

�� ��

A helping hand – not another burdendanish neTworK To esTablish CliMaTe TasKforCe

“We are all affected by “the NGO disease”. New tasks and demands are appearing, but existing ones are not going away. I dream of having a taskforce to give a helping hand in updating our programmes with the latest knowledge on climate change.”Helene Gjerding from the Danish NGO IBIS knows from her own work that there is no time to mainstream climate change adaptation into all programmes.

“Imagine if we had a common advisor to visit our organisation, go through our pro-grammes and partners, and tell us exactly where to use our time”, she envisages.Both Berit Asmussen from MS ActionAid Denmark and Poul Erik Lauridsen from CARE Denmark find the idea interesting.

“We have never had so many crosscutting issues before. The Danish NGO community could be ten times better at coordinating and sharing responsibilities. In the Danish ”92 Group” [alliance of environmental and development organisations] we discuss and coordinate the policy issues. Maybe we should have a group to coordinate tools and programme planning. It is a waste of time if we all try to reinvent the wheel”, Berit says.

The Danish NGOs have several experiences of establishing networks and working groups, e. g. an Aids network and a Gender network. Thematic Forum, a network for Danish NGOs aimed at sharing experiences and generating common learning, has had working groups on various issues. However, yet again, this is another workload on top of daily duties for the participants. Accordingly, results are limited.“A taskforce has to consist of people from outside; we can’t ask more from our own staff. But do we trust each other fully? We have to remember that we also compete for the same funding”, Berit Asmussen says.

Helene Gjerding suggests that a thematic need, like climate change knowledge, could override competitive pressures and political differences between Danish NGOs.“The Paris Declaration tells us to cooperate. Creating a common taskforce on climate change could also be used politically. We could address the media and the public with a high profile together: Look, we act and we act now. But we are still different organisations with different profiles”, she says.

“I have seen in Ghana that Danish NGOs in the field are working together, both of-ficially and on the personal level. CARE Denmark was actually the facilitator of this cooperation”, says Poul Erik Lauridsen from CARE Denmark.

CARE Denmark provides the taskforce on climate change inside the international CARE network with a list of experts and advisers ready to be sent out.

The ideas generated by the discussion will continue to be refined within the organisa-tions, though not by Thematic Forum. This body is due to be shut down in 2010, as funding has dried up and its secretariat at MS ActionAid Denmark will be closed.

CASE STORy

�� ��

THEME 4NGO legitimacy and accountabilityAs development NGOs become increasingly involved in advocacy

and political activities, questions about their accountability and

legitimacy are raised by various stakeholders. NGOs are faced

with extremely complex accountability demands, as they are

answerable upwards, inwards, horizontally and downwards

– on their own behalf as well as for the actions of partners.

NGOs must adhere to accountability mechanisms linked to trans-

parency, participation, monitoring, as well as complaints and

redress. The question is whether small and volunteer-based NGOs

will be able to cope with such comprehensive demands.

��

Global ISO standards for NGOsUndp sTrives To bUild ConfidenCe beTween Civil soCieTy and GovernMenTs

”There is a need for a global dialogue on accountability between international and national NGOs. A lot of activities and practices are going on already, but we need to select a common formal standard. Maybe UNDP (United Nations Development Pro-gramme) should take the initiative or maybe the NGOs themselves should take over”, says Bjørn Førde, director of the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.

Bjørn Førde carried extensive experience from civil society into the UNDP and is currently trying to establish confidence between governments and representatives of civil society. The Oslo Governance Centre collects, discusses and distributes best practices and examples of good governance and accountability; not only in govern-ments, but also in civil society organisations.

“We, UNDP, must cooperate with governments, but we also reach out to internatio-nal NGOs. We want to teach governments to trust civil society. Otherwise we will not achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is a win-win situation”, he says.But building trust is not easy. In many countries, the legal framework for civil society has been tightened and demands for control are growing. E.g. in Ethiopia, all CSOs with more than five percent of their funding from abroad must have a government- appointed member of the board.

��

Global ISO...

�0 �1

“Some governments are afraid of civil society and want to control CSOs. The essential criticism is that CSOs are not accountable and have no legitimacy. But taking this stand on the CSOs blocks acknowledgement of resources in the organisations”, Bjørn Førde says.

UNDP is working on this problem, but mostly through discreet diplomacy. “In some countries, CSOs appear as the opposition, because there is no strong politi-cal opposition. Even when CSOs claim only to be in the service delivery business, the government might be reluctant to cooperate. But if we can facilitate good examples of cooperation on non-controversial problems we can build up trust. Like we did in Botswana on the national AIDS policy,” Bjørn Førde says.One driver for better self-regulation inside CSOs is this mistrust from national governments. Another is the growing influence of CSOs.

“Now international organisations are sitting at the table of international forums, like those producing the Paris and Accra Declarations, but who do they represent? Are they just seven random organisations or do they represent the World Social Forum?” Bjørn Førde asks polemically.The need to gain the trust of the public is also an important driver for CSOs to live up to high standards. The organisations face the same demands from the public as governments to be transparent and accountable.

“This can be horizontal in the sense that international NGOs monitor each other, or vertical in the sense that organisations are transparent to both beneficiaries and donors, government and parliament”, he says. Self-regulation is one of the latest buzzwords in the development business. A lot of money is given to projects to enhance accountability.Bjørn Førde points to two good resources in the international arena. One is the CIVICUS Civil Society Index using the Diamond model. Another is One World Trust and their research on global governance.

“But use these indexes carefully. Be aware of the ideology and methodology behind each of them. Very often they are based on perceived facts instead of empirical facts”, he says.

309 attempts worldwide The London-based think tank One Wold Trust has made a database of civil society organisations’ self-regulating initiatives.309 initiatives were identified around the world, most of them in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. The initiatives can be grouped into five broad categories:

1. Code of conduct and ethics: Sets of basic principles to guide the behaviour of members.2. Certification schemes: Principle standards to inform assessments by the organisation itself, its peers or a third party.3. Information services: Sharing information on annual accounts, activities or directories of the CSO.4. Working groups: Peer organisations discussing, sharing and defining best practices on a particular issue. They often use self-assessments, toolkits and guides.5. Awards schemes: To identify, highlight and reward good practice administered by a peer, umbrella or third party organisation.

The study also examined the initiatives on two parameters:

Institutionalised structures, which range from very formal and strong structures with clear guiding mechanisms to informal setups without established guidelines.

Compliance mechanism, which range from strong monitoring with penalties for non-compliance to voluntary self-monitoring.

The briefing paper Civil Society Self-Regulation, June 2009, can be found at www.oneworldtrust.org

bjørn førde,director of the Undp oslo Governance Centre.

previously, he served as resident representative of Undp and resi-dent Coordinator of the Un in botswana. Throughout the period 1975-2002, he worked for Mellemfolkeligt samvirke (today Ms actionaid denmark), from 1995 to 2002 as secretary-General.

FACTS

The Civil Society DiamondThe CIVICUS Civil Society Index (CSI) is a participatory needs assessment and action planning tool for civil society around the world. The CSI is initiated and implemented by, and for, civil society organisations (CSO) at the country level, and actively invol-ves a broad range of stakeholders including governments, donors, academics and the public at large. Since 2003, the tool has been used in 59 countries, and in 2008 more than 50 new countries took op the challenge. In general, the CSI methodology has been designed to measure five core dimensions:

Civic engagement: The extent to which individuals engage in social and policy-related initiatives.Level of organisation: Analysis of the degree of institutionalisation of CSOs.Practice of value: The extent of core values in CSOs.Perceived impact: The extent of impact on the social and political arena caused by CSOs as perceived by internal and external persons.External environment: The context, including the socio-economic, political and cultural conditions within which civil society operates.

The first four dimensions are drawn into the shape of a diamond. Even though the four-dimensional approach of the Diamond Tool does not generate an index in the strict technical sense of a single additive score, CIVICUS employs a broader interpretation of the term “index” as concise and comparable information on a phenomenon in different contexts, and has consequently retained the project’s name, the CIVICUS Civil Society Index.

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is an international alliance of mem-bers and partners, which constitutes an influential network of organisations at the local, national, regional and international levels. www.civicus.org/csiwww.civilsocietyindex.wordpress.com/project-overview

Together against HIV/AIDSIn Botswana, the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, was accepted as a facilitator in uniting all forces against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

“The problem was not few resources available, but that resources were situated in different organisations and funds with their own priority and policy,” remembers Bjørn Førde, former director of UNDP Botswana.

The facilitation worked out well. The strategy, implementation and monitoring of the national AIDS policy were discussed during 18 months, and in the end, all joined in the fight against the disease.

“The government was the owner, UNDP the facilitator, Bill Gates and other American funds paid the bill, and all kinds of national and international NGOs implemented the policy on the ground. If they did not sign the policy, they could not participate”, Bjørn Førde says.

With this shared effort, Botswana succeeded in implementing a very ambitious policy. All infected people now have access to treatment, and centres for testing and coun-selling are available all over the country.

“With this model, we aligned to the Paris Declaration and we bridged the gap of fear and mistrust between government and civil society”, he says.

The government as well as the UN and civil society were represented in the imple-menting agency and on the project executive board.

�� ��

FACTS CASE STORy

��

However, the model cannot be applied to all other national problems in Botswana. Controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a common and uncontroversial goal.

“The land reform struggle and the water problems were not possible for UNDP to address in this way. The interests of the government stood in the way, and the politi-cal gap between the civil society and the government was too big. The model can only be used to solve problems when there is a political consensus,” Bjørn Førde says.

In some tasks, NGOs act as subcontractors for the government, and in others, they serve as watchdogs and critics of the government. This dual approach is possible in some countries. For instance, the Danish development NGOs’ dependence on Danida does not stop them from criticising the Danish government.

Together... against HIV/AIDS

��

�� ��

Changed mindsets more important than new policy“Accountability to children as stakeholders is extremely difficult. It has to do with our attitude and practice towards children”, tells Marianne Bo Paludan from Save the Children Denmark. She quotes a frequently expressed adult feeling: “We know what is best for the child”. But at the same time she questions it:

“When we started our research on children as stakeholders in our partner organisations and projects, we got many surprises. In Uganda, the children told us that health and lack of food were their main problems, but Save the Children never worked with those two areas”, she remembers.

Save the Children Denmark is part of the worldwide Save the Children Alliance and a signatory to the INGO Charter on accountability.

But how to implement all the nice words?

In their Child Rights Programming, the Save the Children Alliance uses 14 benchmarks to assess the level of implementation in the individual organisation. Save the Children Denmark went through the test without obtaining a high score, but the internal debate was very fruitful. The two most difficult benchmarks to pass are to have the children as stakeholders and to set up mechanisms for accountability to children.

“It is difficult with children, because of the skewed power relations. And how can you share power with children who have not reached legal age?” she asks.The first round put the question to everyone at the office: How do we understand children as stakeholders? “Everybody could say what we should not do, but nobody could come up with examples of what to do.”

In the next round, the same question was asked in partner organisations, collecting examples of best practices.“We found some examples of children participating in the project cycle, but not in governance and accounting. A partner in Ethiopia was trying to get children to parti-cipate in the decision-making process”, Marianne Bo Paludan says.One of the conclusions was that children’s participation should be built into project designs and that children should be engaged in some of the platforms already set up within the projects.

“The staff on the ground working directly with the children should have all the support, training and incentives that they need. Often their jobs have the lowest prestige. The leaders both in Copenhagen and in partner organisations must act as role models”, she stresses.

A grim example from Uganda tells exactly what not to do. At a meeting in a project for girl prostitutes, a leader of the partner organisation arrived in his big car, heading straight for the office to join the other leaders without greeting or talking to any of the girls.Marianne Bo Paludan found another obstacle to accountability to children as stake-holders.

“It seems that the bigger and more structured the donor organisation becomes, the more it will clash with democracy and accountability towards stakeholders on the ground. Are we really ready to share the power to change the strategic development of our organisation?” she asks.Often the systems in donor countries stand in the way of children’s participation. E.g. a partner organisation in Bangladesh actually asked the children to participate in creating the project document, and they did so with drawings.“But are we willing to accept children’s drawings as vouchers for payments? And is Danida?” Marianne Bo Paludan wonders sceptically.

Link to the INGO charter and Child Rights Programming:http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/about_us/

CASE STORyMarianne bo paludan,programme Coordinator, policy, strategy and Change, save the Children denmark.

Member of the international save the Children alliance made up of 29 national organisations, working together to improve children’s lives in over 120 countries.

�� ��

Child Rights Programming (CRP) Benchmarking: Main benchmark categories: 1. Organisational strategies adopted to introduce CRP2. Institutional ownership of CRP3. Programme development 4. Accountability to children as stakeholders

Organisational strategies for implementing CRP: Benchmark 1 ~ A clear mandate, vision and mission express commitment to children’s rights and CRP Benchmark 2 ~ Policies and strategies translate the mandate and mission into practice Benchmark 3 ~ Staffing policies, including recruitment and induction, facilitate effective CRP Benchmark 4 ~ Tools, guidance and planning guidance have been developed to build capacity for CRP Benchmark 5 ~ Cross-sector support has been introduced to strengthen an integrated approach to CRP Institutional ownership of CRP: Benchmark 6 ~ All staff and Board members have a clear understanding of and commitment to CRP Benchmark 7 ~ Staff feel competent and confident in CRP Benchmark 8 ~ Partners are supported and enabled to work within a right-based approach Programme development: Benchmark 9 ~ Situation analysis is directed towards mapping rights violations, and identifying causes and duty bearers, through a process that respects the views of children Benchmark 10 - Priority setting and planning is informed by a rights-based perspective, and takes account of the views of children Benchmark 11 - Implementation is directed towards the fulfilment of all children’s rights, without discrimination, both holding duty bearers accountable and supporting children to claim their rightsBenchmark 12 - Monitoring and evaluation is informed by CRP both in respect of its process and focus Accountability to children as stakeholders Benchmark 13 - Children are acknowledged as stakeholders within Save the Children Benchmark 14 - Mechanisms for accountability to children have been introduced

FACTS QuOTATIONSOur partners in Uganda are not interested in harmonisation. They will rather have four entry points than one. Today they are part-ner of four national Save the Children orga-nisations, but in the future it will be only one through the Alliance.Marianne Bo Paludan, Save the Children

International alliances are smaller organi-sations’ chance to work with professional tools on things like accountability; without them we might never have started. But what will happen to partnerships during the pro-cess? Can we manage to align to policies and systems in our alliance without losing our partners in the South?Annemette Danielsen, Danish Children and youth Network

UNDP is light-years ahead of the NGOs. We do a survey among all 8000 staff and some 9000 clients every year. It is easily done online, and the software exists. We use it as a management tool.Bjørn Førde, Oslo Governance Centre, uNDP

We have worked for a stronger civil society in the South, but what did our partners gain from it? A smaller legal space in many coun-tries. They are the ones going to jail; we are just escorted to an aircraft back home.uffe Torm, Danish Mission Council Development Department

We should not impose bureaucratic de-mands on the small community-based orga-nisations. It would be a way to kill the grass-roots. Remember that around 90 percent of all CSOs are below the national level.Bjørn Førde, Oslo Governance Centre, uNDP

Everybody supports democratic values, also in Africa and South America, but many are ready to renounce their rights if they get better service delivery.Bjørn Førde, Oslo Governance Centre, uNDP

’’’’

’’

’’’’’’

’’

�0 �1

LINKSUNDP Governance Centre: Accountability and voice for service delivery at the local level. 2008. http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs08/sofia/AV%20in%20local%20service%20delivery%20UNDP%20final.pdf Brown and Jagadananda: Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges. CIVICUS and Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organisations. 2007. http://www.civicus.org/lta

INGO Accountability Charter. http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/

Jordan, Lisa: Mechanisms for NGO accountability. GPPI Research paper series No.3. http://www.globalpublicpolicy.net/fileadmin/gppi/Jordan_Lisa_05022005.pdf

Lawrence, Pareena, and Nezhad, Sheila: Accountability, transparency, and government co-option: A case study of four NGOs. International NGO Journal 4, 3.. 2009. http://academicjournals.org/INGOJ/PDF/Pdf2009/mar/Lawrence%20and%20Nezhad.pdf

Lee, Julian: NGO Accountability: Rights and Responsibilities. CASIN, 2004. http://www.casin.ch/web/pdf/ngoaccountability.pdf

Ruchir Shah: Legitimacy and accountability of civil society. http://www.lasociedadcivil.org/docs/ciberteca/art.ruchir.sha.pdf

UNDP Governance Centre : The role of legal reform in supporting Civil Society. August 2009 http://www.undp.org/oslocentre

�� ��

THEME 5Global civil society and internationalisation of NGOsAs NGOs worldwide enter into alliances – or even merge and

become major global actors, i.e. international NGOs – the NGO

community inevitably changes. Will this trend towards unification

translate into greater impact for the benefit of the poor?

Or is it merely paying lip service to bureaucratic demands

generated by the donor-driven effectiveness agenda? Will it

streamline NGOs, thus ruining their diversity? Will smaller

and less professionalised NGOs lose recognition? And will

the internationalisation of NGOs impede genuine North-South

partnerships?

�� ��

NGOs are tamed civil movements“Most NGOs started around a shared idea in a chaotic manner. Then institutions and bureaucracy arrived, and in the end, the civil movement became tamed, and NGOs became part of the political establishment. This even happened to World Social Forum when international NGOs came on board. But new movements will always emerge to challenge the establishment”, says Marlies Glasius, who is a lecturer of International Relations at the University of Amsterdam. She has been studying international NGOs (INGOs) for the past 10 years.

“NGOs never close down. Instead they find new roles for themselves and divide labour and power in new ways. That is the challenge for many big Western NGOs and INGOs today”, she says.

The first successful example of an INGO is the Anti-Slavery Society from 1840. Over the past 20 years, the number of INGOs has skyrocketed. In 1945, no NGOs had consultative status at the UN, in 1985 the number was 760, and in 2005 2,595. The latest number of INGOs in the world is from 2001, namely a total of 24,797.

“But they are not a homogeneous bunch. And they are not all big. Oxfam, Greenpeace and Amnesty International are the best known, but many are small and work with a narrow problem or within small geographical areas. Common for all are the transna-tional elements in their work”, Marlies Glasius says.

NGOs are...

�� ��

Before globalisation, NGOs would conduct their political work and campaigns inside each nation state. Parliament and political parties were either targets or partners. Funding was often from the government, and only development projects were carried out in the South.

“When states withdrew and the economy became more and more transnational, the NGOs also increased their transnational work. East Timor is a successful story of transnational advocacy, but in the present crisis in Iran, the national civil society appeals directly to foreign governments and international institutions. They have no use for the INGOs”, Marlies Glasius explains.

Advocacy is one of the new issues which most NGOs took up after leaving the service delivery business. But do they have the legitimacy to speak on behalf of the poor and marginalised?

“To justify their legitimacy, some call it empathy, others global values, or they claim to represent their partners. But values are not always global. For example, women do not agree on whether abortion should be legal. And climate and environmental concerns may clash with the pursuit of development. The UN conventions could be invoked, but they don’t have legitimacy just because they are ratified by state governments. How can you document that you represent your partners?” Marlies Glasius has doubts about how to tackle these problems.

“Some bring their partners along to global summits, but often they are instrumenta-lised by the INGO, for example former child soldiers. In national democracy, voters get less and less influence. Maybe we should start talking about stakeholders’ demo-cracy instead of electors’ democracy,” she says.

The organisations are also struggling to uphold internal democracy and represen-tation while coping with new demands for forming larger transnational entities. All kinds of alliances, federations and networks are emerging with the major national NGOs as members or partners. Many models for boards, headquarters and member consultation are being tested.

“In the old national structures, national members and national staff had a lot of in-fluence, and beneficiaries in the South had very little. In the new international set-up this balance might shift”, she says.

Marlies Glasius lecturer in inter-national relations at the department of politics, Univer-sity of amsterdam.

NGOs are tamed

civil movements

��

GLOBALISATIONWhat is globalisation?• Western social structures are spread worldwide, normally destroying pre-existing cultures and self-determination (capitalism, nationalism, bureaucracy, democracy....)• Government-imposed restrictions are removed in order to create an open, borderless world economy (multinational companies, international trade agreements)• Certain goods and experiences are distributed to people all over the world (Internet, Baywatch, human rights, sushi, McDonalds)• Social space is no longer mapped out in terms of physical territories, distances or borders (easy travel, new means of communication).

Why globalisation?Top-down explanations:• New technology has enabled global communication, global financial flows and cheap transport.• The Iron Curtain came down and this facilitated global cooperation and global trade.• The IMF’s and World Bank’s conditionality together with transnational corporations have undermined the power of Third World states.

Bottom-up explanations:(Reaction to an increasingly controlling state)• From 1968 onwards, new social movements emerged on a global scale to fight for peace, human rights, women, and environment.• In the 1980s, neo-liberalism emerged. The Chicago school of economics advocated the retreat of the state. Thatcher, Reagan, the IMF/World Bank took note.

The INGO sector is in crisisInequality is growing despite years of development work.

“All we managed to create was little islands of happiness. We never managed to push real fundamental change and fight poverty and inequality,” says Harry Derksen, ICCO.

Apart from frustration over the absence of change, the INGOs face:• A fragmented and competing civil society• Bureaucratic fundraising procedures• Diminishing support for development work among Northern voters• A role as an integrated part of the centre, not as a challenge from the periphery• China’s development work in Africa• The appearance of new South-based INGOs (e.g. BRAC)• Climate changes

“We cannot return to before these changes, instead we have to change fundamen-tally. I see no other word than revolution. But who will drive this revolution?” Harry Derksen asks.

He sees the world as an open global space. The only question is who will seize the opportunity to use this space in order to make the world sustainable, fair and just. However, the INGOs have to change themselves before they can change the world.“One of my main points is to involve Southern actors and partners more. They have ideas and capacities. So I say to the INGOs: Give up power in order to gain influence. Don’t control your world, but let your world control you. Let us again build on trust, not control”, he says.

��

...crisis

�1

Two other opportunities in the global space are better communications and more diverse funding options. He advises the INGOs to wean themselves off their depen-dence on governments.

ICCO is in the middle of this transformation. Power is being shifted from the Nether-lands to the South.

“We have yet to see the long-term impact of these changes, but I am confident. Our Northern staff was very concerned in the beginning. Not about losing their jobs, but about the quality of work from the Southern staff. This is an interesting concern, but it is decreasing now with the growing interaction between the offices. Another interesting experience is that the Southern staff told us we were too nice and polite to partners. If we wanted change, we had to be tough and professional,” Harry Derksen recounts.

Another driver of change springs from working together with new people and inclu-ding views from other parts of society.

“If you keep discussing with like-minded persons and organisations, there will be no added value. Today our aim is to explore the benefits of working with academic institutions, businesses, banks, trade unions and others. It might be as members in our councils or as partners in different programmes,” he says.

As an example, he mentions the cotton industry. Fairtrade organisations are moving into the business, but slowly and mostly buying from smaller companies.

“Fair trade is slowly coming into the area. Big companies are still in denial, but together with the small number of pioneers, we can push or pull them: First to accept local government regulations, later to join a label like Fairtrade and in the end to produce bio-cotton as a business strategy,” Harry Derksen hopes.

harry derksendeputy director of iCCo, the inter-church organisa-tion for develop-ment cooperation from the nether-lands

�0

FACTSThe ICCO transformationThe Dutch inter-church organisation, ICCO, and six like-minded national organisati-ons make up the ICCO Alliance, which is currently dedicated to shifting power from the Netherlands to councils in the South.

The new structure starts with a supervisory board in the Netherlands responsible for the overall policy and contacts to donors. Eight regional councils are responsible for strategies and policies at the regional level, as well as for running regional offices. Council members come from all walks of life, such as the business community, the universities or other international organisations. They may also represent their own views as independent members. The ICCO Alliance partners did not want to sit on the council.

The implementing and supporting staff will be organised along similar lines. In the Netherlands, the international headquarters will be cut down from 270 to 125 employees. Some regional offices will have international staff to support councils in policy-making and to offer training, coaching and technical assistance at the country level. The eight regional units are not supposed to be independent of ICCO, but to share values and pursue a common five-year plan.

�� ��

The old INGOs are ”out of sync”Ceos froM MaJor inGos MeeT To disCUss “deCisive aCTion”

“A guy from ActionAid India told me his opinion of the old INGOs. They are out of sync with the reality of today”, Frans Mikael Jansen, MS ActionAid Denmark, reports.

He has just participated in a meeting of the “Club of CEOs”. It is normally confined to the administrative leaders of major INGOs, though this session was also attended by academics and directors from other organisations.

Frans Mikael Jansen tends to agree with his Indian colleague.“The INGOs are all Western and part of the governmental sphere, underperforming and often struggling with their slow internal democracy. Almost all of them are un-dergoing some sort of reform process“, he says. “My thesis is that the INGOs are underperforming, because the space for acting at the national level is shrinking. But

the breakdown in international governance creates a lot of new space for INGOs, and we have to act on it.”

But act on behalf of whom? And with what legitimacy?“ActionAid tries to speak for the social movements of the world, but that is a very time-consuming strategy, and we often see national NGOs not voting for international campaigns, like the one in the run-up to COP 15 (Climate-Change Summit in Decem-ber 2009). Do we have the time to wait? Oxfam speaks for Oxfam and Greenpeace has a structure with few entities and faster decisions”, Frans Mikael Jansen says.

He sees several dilemmas which international NGOs or alliances will have to face:• Democracy and legitimacy versus power and action• Threats and opposition versus lobbying and influence• Internationalism versus nationalism• Need for unity versus fading trust between NGOs in the North and the South

“My analysis is that we have ceased to be balanced in our advocacy. We are not challenging our governments, but legitimising them. There is a lot of political politeness between us and the government officials, whether it be on the national or international stage. We speak the same language”, he says.

Conversely, big NGOs have been successful in their dealings with the corporate world by threatening companies with consumers’ disapproval and media exposure. He mentions consumers’ boycotts and fair-trade as examples.

“We have to join forces to form a critical mass exerting pressure for influence. But I have experienced that when a joint campaign becomes very successful, some of the big INGOs pull out to safeguard their own brand and name. We are still competing for funds. In the future we have to fundraise directly for international advocacy campaigns to avoid that”, he says.

frans Mikael Jansensecretary-General of Ms actionaid denmark.

...out of “sync”

�� ��

Danish case stories about alliance building Care denMarK

CARE International is a confederation with an international secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland and two lobby and advocacy offices in Brussels and New York. 12 auto-nomous national CARE organisations are members of the confederation, sharing field offices in 65 countries. “Today it is not enough to be a small Danish organisation. Times have changed and we need to live up to international standards. Being a member of an international confederation gives power to fundraise from big donors like the EU and UN. We can even apply for basket funding.

We share our country offices and save money on administration that way. E.g. in Uganda we have one office with staff to carry out projects from five or six national CARE organisations.

CARE International builds up taskforces of experts in different areas. Climate exper-tise is coordinated by CARE Denmark. Being big also gives rise to challenges. It is time-consuming and expensive to develop and fundraise from big donors. Two years of paperwork before a project can take off is not unusual.Until two years ago, we had problems with Danida due to being part of an internatio-nal NGO. But now Danida is actually praising us for it.”

lisbeth Møller, head of programme section, Care denmark

ibis -

Alliance2015 is a partnership of seven like-minded non-governmental organisations working in the field of development cooperation. The Alliance members are CESVI from Italy, Concern Worldwide from Ireland, Welthungerhilfe from Germany, Hivos from the Netherlands, IBIS from Denmark, People in Need from the Czech Republic and ACTED from France.

“The goal is not to become a monolithic block, but to respect and benefit from the diversity of member organisations. By joining forces, our organisations get access to a larger infrastructure without giving up individual philosophies, approaches or brands.

The alliance started in 2000 and is linked to the Millennium Development Goals. Our best experiences are projects where two or three partners work together. We also share offices in some countries, and we have spoken with one voice in some advocacy campaigns.

In Mozambique, we tried to gather all partners in one big AIDS project, and that was a disaster. Even if we are all European organisations, the culture varies widely from one organisation to another, and it takes a lot of effort to get results. In the next strategy period, we will try out new models of cooperation in six countries. But I can already see how the organisations are changing because of inspiration from fellow Alliance members.”

Karen andersen, head of the south department, ibis

CASE STORy CASE STORy

member of alliance2015

�� ��

save The Children, denMarK

The International Save the Children Alliance is made up of 29 national organisations, working together to improve children’s lives in over 120 countries.

The alliance is sharing expertise, coordinating activities and pooling resources. Save the Children has a secretariat in London and staff based in New York, Geneva and Brussels to influence the United Nations’ and the European Union’s policies. The plan is to open seven joint regional offices and a unified presence in all countries.

“We are in the middle of this restructuring process, and when I sit buried in bureaucratic red tape, I have to remind myself of the child who will benefit from my work.

I am impressed on a daily basis by the usefulness of sharing views and problems with colleagues from all over the world and of being able to draw on the knowledge of an expert in New York.

But I also miss the familiarity of Danish “cosiness”, whenever I go to Uganda. In the new big joint office, I can’t find “our” staff and “our” partners. And what about the Danish rank-and-file members and the Danish name for Save the Children, “Red Bar-net”? Well, we have to cultivate a corporate rather than a “Danish” identity.

In the beginning of the process, there was competition between national Save the Children organisations to act as lead agency in each of our programme countries, but now we compete to become leaders of the most interesting policy themes. One of my hopes is that we can contribute Danish values to the Global Civil Society”. Mikkel balslev, head of section for programme implementation, save the Children denmark

Ms aCTionaid denMarK

ActionAid International was launched in 2003 as an association of independent mem-bers (national ActionAid organisations). After the foundation, Austaid from Australia was the first external organisation to join ActionAid International. The international secretariat is based in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the association is governed by an assembly composed of members, as well as a board of independent trustees elected by the assembly. There are regional offices and country programmes with their own offices. MS Action Aid Denmark is in the process of becoming a full mem-ber of ActionAid International.

ActionAid International works in 50 countries worldwide.“MS is a very home-grown Danish organisation, even if we have worked internatio-nally for many years. We wanted to be internationalised and decided that ActionAid was our best choice. But it is a radical change for us. We give up our own country programmes and offices. ActionAid offices in each country are autonomous. It really is a major devolution of power from the North to the South.

MS started this process 20 years ago by creating a Policy Advisory Board in each country programme, but the set-up of ActionAid International is better, even though it is still an appointed rather than elected board.MS ActionAid Denmark will continue to send funds to the South. But we will not only provide money, but also personnel and advice. Our concern is that we will be swallowed up and lose our identity as MS. But I am optimistic. We have a lot of young activists both from the Global Contact programme and the Danish advocacy campaigns, and they are the new members of MS ActionAid Denmark.

MS is an influential member of ActionAid. We bring solid democratic values, and we have long-standing experience with the partnership approach to development work.MS ActionAid Denmark hosts a shared knowledge centre on governance for all ActionAid offices to use.”

steen folke, member of the board of Ms actionaid denmark and the board of trustees of actionaid international

CASE STORy CASE STORy

�� ��

“We should stop looking at our members as bank accounts. Instead they are our agents of change. We are becoming too vertical. That is why I like Alliance2015 so much. You have the international network, but you still keep your own identity”, said Herry Derksen, ICCO.

Before entering merging processes with international organisations, Danish NGOs held discussions with their main donor, Danida, in order to get the go-ahead.“Some years ago, Danida saw us as a fundraising mailbox for an American NGO, but this has changed. Now Danida is positive about the international dimension of our work”, said Lisbeth Møller, CARE Denmark.

“We have had a good understanding with Danida throughout the process. But it is a valid concern whether we will be able to exert influence when we are no longer imple-menting”, said Steen Folke, MS ActionAid Denmark.

It will be difficult to measure and document the specifically Danish input funded by Danida, and also to prove the cost-effectiveness of the new international set-up.“Measurement systems are a growing disease in our organisations. Sometimes I feel like driving a VW with the panel of a Boing 737. We have to discuss if measuring is performed for the purpose of learning or merely to exert control”, said Harry Derksen, ICCO.

Remem

ber your

focus...

Remember where you come fromThe proCess of inTernaTionalisaTion leaves oUT The GrassrooTs

At the last seminar, there was widespread concern over changes among NGOs back in Denmark. Participants feared less Danish backing, loss of grassroots support and maybe even of funding.

“We have to be aware of the transition period. It takes a lot of focus and energy. We have to keep in mind that the process is carried out to create a more effective orga-nisation and free up more time and resources for the children”, said Mikkel Balslev, Save the Children Denmark.

“We are all so involved in this technical merging. We should remember our vision and the positive stories about our work,” said Birgit Lundbak, Save the Children Denmark.

Others feared that activists and supporters in the North would disappear, if all policy discussion were to take place in the South or in other Northern countries.“Today’s national NGOs are the watchdogs of the development strategies of their governments. I fear they will use up all their energy in the alliances”, said Annemette Danielsen, Danish Children and Youth Network.

“We have a lot of young activists with a very international mindset. But they are cam-paigning here in Denmark. They do a lot of meaningful work and spectacular actions. That is our way of gaining popular support”, said Frans Mikael Jansen, MS ActionAid Denmark.

100 101

Climate change and international alliancesThe Travel of MaJor inTernaTional orGanisaTions is aGGravaTinG CliMaTe ChanGe

Knud Vilby, facilitator of the discussion at the last seminar, raised the question of whether the organisations’ internal practices are compatible with their climate- change policies.“You can’t do development work without travelling. We are paying carbon compensa-tion for each flight instead. We have the money to do it”, said Harry Derksen, ICCO.

“We have an international Green Team, which has set up a catalogue of ideas. E.g. we hold Skype meetings instead of flying, whenever possible”, Lisbeth Møller, CARE Denmark, explained.

“We are already running at low cost and employees are cycling to work. But I will also stress that we should not be ashamed of our carbon footprints, just because they are bigger than those of our partners”, said Karen Andersen, IBIS.

“Christian Aid allows itself a reduced number of flights per year. They have to discuss and prioritise each journey, asking if it can be replaced by a Skype conference”, said Knud Vilby, facilitator.

“But climate change is precisely one of the international problems we have to solve together in the organisations. And it takes meetings to agree and to form a critical mass to press world leaders to act”, said Frans Mikael Jansen, MS ActionAid Den-mark.

10� 10�

QuOTATIONS

’’

The tragedy of global common goods like land, water, air: Like the story of the many herders on one piece of land. Everyone brings in more cows, and in the end they all lose.”Harry Derksen, ICCO

Impact studies should evaluate change and development in a community instead of evalua-ting just the work of one organisation.”Harry Derksen, ICCO

How many of the INGOs have an exit strategy to phase out cooperation with their Southern partners? If they are just distributors of embassy donations, their job might as well be done by a national entity, like the Foundation for Civil Society in Tanzania.”Søren Asboe Jørgensen, The Project Advice and Training Centre

Often the Southern NGOs want us out. But when IBIS wanted to withdraw from Latin America, our partners pleaded with us to stay. Not for the fun-ding, but for the support and discussions - they wanted international partners.”Karen Andersen, IBIS

Save the Children’s office in Ethiopia will be very big, in budget terms bigger than the national Ministry for Foreign Affairs. We have to be aware of that in the relation to our local partners. And we have to have an exit strategy for how to leave when a national Save the Children organisation is ready to take over.”Mikkel Balslev, Save the Children Denmark

Let us be honest and talk about class instead of North-South. Who takes the decisions? Not the wretched of the earth – but university people like us.”Marlies Glasius, university of Amsterdam

Environmental and human rights movements are often in opposition to each other instead of uniting around their common interests.”Harry Derksen, ICCO

We need a climate justice movement to combine the effort against climate change with one for social rights. New ideas will not come from the big old INGOs, but hopefully they will listen.”Marlies Glasius, university of Amsterdam

Please, do not speak with one voice at the lowest possible level. Debate is what makes things grow.”Marlies Glasius, university of Amsterdam

’’’’’’’’

’’’’’’’’

LINKSThematic evaluation of support from Danish NGOs to civil society in Ghana and Ethiopia 2009http://www.um.dk/en/menu/DevelopmentPolicy/Evaluations/Publications/ReportsByYear/2009/200907ThematicEvaluationofSupportbyDanishNGOstoCivilSocietyinGhanaandEthiopia.htm Global Transformation by David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton, 1999http://www.polity.co.uk/global/research.asp

Davies, Thomas Richard: The Rise and fall of transnational civil society: the evaluation of international non-governmental organisations since 1839. City University, London, 2008. http://www.city.ac.uk/intpol/dps/WorkingPapers/T_Davies%20The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Transnational%20Civil%20Society.pdf

Anheier, Glasius and Kaldor: Global Civil Society, 2003. Centre for the study of global governance. http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/yearbook03chapters.htm

Derksen, Harry: Challenges for International NGOs, INTRAC civil society conference, 2008. http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:4kqBapVX55wJ:www.intrac.org/docs.php/3355/Challenges%2520for%2520INGOs%2520Harry%2520Derksen,%2520ICCO,Netherlands.doc+derksen+challenges+international&cd=1&hl=da&ct=clnk&gl=dk

Dialogue Committee, The Netherlands: International Cooperation in Transition, October 2008. http://www.ontwikkelingisverandering.nl/uploaded_files/Synthesis_report.pdf

The Necessary Revolution by Peter Senge and othershttp://www.economist.com/media/management/necessary-revolution-senge-uk-e.pdf