Ending Hunger in Africa: What Strategies, What Governance?
Posted on 19 December 2011 | 1 response
By Nora McKeon
Nothing unusual in the title of the seminar that The Hauser Center at Harvard University put together just over a year ago. Everyone from academics to NGOs, government officials and even rock stars seem to have something to say on the topic. The innovation here was the choice of the lead panelist: Ndiogou Fall of Senegal, an authoritative and articulate representative of the burgeoning movement of Africa small producers who, in his words, “are both the prime victims of and the solutions to the problem of hunger”. Listening to the views of the actors most directly concerned by the problem sounds like common sense. But how often have you seen peasant leaders on stage at Harvard when food and development issues are under discussion.
Ending Hunger in Africa panel discussion, November 8. 2010, Harvard Kennedy School
The leap into uncharted dialogic territory paid off. Ndiogou Fall gave us the gift of a lucid, convincing and combative analysis of how African food security has deteriorated over the years and what is required for the continent to feed itself. The policies applied during and following the colonial period, from export-oriented specialization to structural adjustment and liberalization, have drastically dampened food production, barred small producers’ access to their own domestic markets, and reduced them to de-capitalized subsistence farming. The 2007-2008 food crisis and the attendant uprisings have had the salutary effect of dramatically exposing the failure of past approaches. What to put in their place? For Fall the horse to bet on can only be the small-scale family farmers who today provide food, employment and incomes for the majority of Africa’s population despite the neglect from which they have suffered for decades. With supportive policies and programs, and applying environment-friendly agro-ecological methods, it is possible to significantly increase smallholder productivity while helping to cool the planet and defend biodiversity.
Paul Farmer’s Call for a New Conversation on Aid to Haiti
Posted on 9 December 2011 | No responses
By Steven Lawry
Paul Farmer’s compelling new book, “Haiti: After the Earthquake,” suggests that international aid to Haiti, while providing relief from suffering during the worst of times, including in the aftermath of the January 12, 2010, earthquake, has for the most part failed to help Haiti build capacity in its own public institutions, including its public health and education sectors.
A capable, responsive and accountable public sector is essential to helping Haiti become a healthy, productive and ultimately resilient society—one better able to cope with the destructive forces of inevitable natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Moreover, Farmer argues that meddling by the West in Haiti’s internal politics has contributed to the country’s chronic political instability. Periodic withholding by the U.S. of direct assistance to the Haitian governments—including democratically elected but leftist governments—and U.S. vetoes of initiatives by international organizations to channel aid directly through the Haitian government, have steadily eroded the capacity of the Haitian public sector to provide basic social services.
In testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003, Farmer called for an end to the de facto prohibitions of development aid to the government of Haiti that the US promoted in forums in which it held influence, including the Inter-American Development Bank. “At the time [of the testimony], influential American institutions were effectively blocking four loans to Haiti from the Inter-American Development Bank—for primary health care, education, potable water, and road improvement—because they didn’t condone the outcome of Haiti’s 2000 elections, which brought the left-leaning Aristide back to power.” (p. 97)
Emerging Models of Participatory Philanthropy: FRIDA | The Young Feminist Fund
Posted on 5 December 2011 | 1 response
By Alexandra Pittman
What if grantmaking were revolutionalized to be a much more participatory, transparent and democratic process, where there was little to no distinction between grant recipients and grant makers? What would that look like and how would it work?
The Young Feminist Fund – FRIDA has set out to do just that. FRIDA was launched earlier this month with the aim to cultivate and support a community of young feminists and people who support women’s rights worldwide. FRIDA was born out of collective calls by feminists globally at the 2008 AWID Forum to close the significant gap in funding available for feminist organizations, particularly those led by young feminists.
Calls for action were spurred on by the rise of youth-led groups and movements and the higher demand for funding support in addition to the need to advance sustainable solutions to the rights violations, violence, inequalities and discriminations that girls and young women face daily. Three years later, we fast-forward to the Fund’s realization and articulation of its mission and unique funding model.
FRIDA aims to provide accessible, strategic and responsive funding for young feminist-led initiatives. We aim to strengthen the capacity of young feminist organizations to leverage resources for their work and to increase donors’ and allies’ commitments to resourcing young feminist activism.
Four things NGOs should know for successful engagement with indigenous peoples
Posted on 3 December 2011 | 5 responses
By Elisa Peter
In a time when NGO leaders are increasingly looking at engaging with grassroots movements, it is crucial that they spend the time necessary to build relationships based on mutual trust, respect and understanding.
This is particularly important when engaging with indigenous peoples movements. “’Red-washing’ is not uncommon”, says Carol Kalafatic, Associate Director of the American Indian Program at Cornell University who spoke at the Hauser Center yesterday. “It has become profitable to look “indigenous peoples friendly” but many NGOs only pay lip service to the priorities and rights of indigenous peoples, especially if they don’t fit into the NGO’s organizational goals and culture”.
Kalafatic proposed four principles for engagement, which all NGOs wanting to partner with indigenous communities need to embrace:
1. An honest examination of power relationships. NGOs are often the ones initiating cooperation with indigenous communities. Most of them already have a set agenda, which may not correspond to indigenous peoples’ needs and priorities. It is important that indigenous peoples are able to enter the relationship on their own terms and at their own pace, in keeping with the principle of self-determination.
Read more
Aid Effectiveness in Fragile Contexts: Lessons For Busan
Posted on 30 November 2011 | No responses
By Isabella Jean
Achieving development goals in conflict affected and fragile contexts remains one of the biggest challenges for development actors worldwide. Consider this fact: not a single low income, fragile state will achieve any of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Weak governance and political instability continue to thwart meaningful progress and cause deeper divisions within society leading to violent conflict. Many actors engaged in supporting development, statebuilding and peacebuilding in these societies find the lack of progress unsettling and recognize the need to elevate conflict and fragility issues in the ongoing development and aid effectiveness discussions.
Earlier this year representatives from over 40 countries, international organizations and civil society groups called for a “New Deal for international development co-operation in conflict affected and fragile countries.” The New Deal calls for progress in five key areas: fostering inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution; establishing and strengthening people’s security; addressing injustices and increase people’s access to justice; generating employment and improved livelihoods; and enhanced revenue management and capacity for accountable and fair service delivery.
But aid effectiveness in these difficult contexts remains a moving target. Assessments of past aid efforts have shown, however, that much more can be done to improve results when it comes to aid planning, programming, delivery and measurement toward urgent development, statebuilding and peacebuilding objectives.
The Future of Business–NGO Relationships
Posted on 16 November 2011 | 2 responses
By Ayesha Barenblat
In my new role as BSR’s Director of Stakeholder Collaboration, I am focused on building relationships with NGO colleagues globally to bring their insights to our member companies and develop next-generation stakeholder engagement approaches that are outcome based and take into account trends in the field. BSR created this position to deepen relationships with civil society and foster collaboration between stakeholders and business.
Over the past decade, NGO activity has been shaped by the spread of democracy and the rise of the internet opening up societies. This spurred a flowering of all types of NGOs that enjoyed support from northern governments and unfettered trust from the public. In particular, we saw the rise of western-based international NGOs (or “INGOs”) that now form a key bridge between business, government, and society.
To get a sense of what’s in store for the next 10 years, I spoke with 15 NGO leaders from around the world (with a particular focus on Brazil, India, and China) as well as BSR’s senior management team in the United States, Europe, and Asia. My aim was to get their candid perspectives on how business-NGO relations will evolve over the next decade.
Based on these conversations, what follows are five trends shaping the NGO sector, and an analysis of what these trends will mean for business and NGO engagement in the next 10 years:
NGOs lobbying International Organizations: How to set agendas effectively
Posted on 13 November 2011 | No responses
By Rahul Daswani
The reason there are 9 “Major Groups” of stakeholders as part of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development is because these groups are the ones who are pushy and vocal.
Felix Dodds (Executive Director of Stakeholder Forum), shared his tips during a talk at the Harvard Kennedy School on November 10 2011: “By getting involved early, you can have a huge impact on influencing the policy agenda”.
Even when governments are not ready to engage and we want to keep up momentum, there are lots of ways conversations can be kept moving – from coffee chats in capital corridors to more formal discussion with officials on their priorities, constant engagement leads to a strong trust-based bond.
Naturally, the desire to get involved early must be complemented with enough substance in order to get the attention of international organizations. Some ways to do that include a) writing background papers – promoting ideas, workshops, information leading up to a major event b) providing policy recommendations for instance on how to reshape financial markets (indices, governance, incentives, state owned investment vehicles) c) building alliances with key players in industry, for instance on the issue of corporate accountability for sustainability.
While this makes sense as a broad strategy, an audience member raised a question that is likely to be an obstacle to actionable progress: How do we make sure governments collaborate, agree, and execute?
Is civil society ready to countenance the big COP-out?
Posted on 11 November 2011 | No responses
By Alexios Mantzarlis.
The 17th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP17) is coming up, and no one harbors great hopes that the South African hosts will manage to cajole all major polluters into signing a legally-binding agreement to cut emissions. Civil society is rightly flummoxed at the glacial progress of negotiations, which never respected the pace set out by the Bali Action Plan of 2007. Failure to find common grounds on the future of the Kyoto Protocol killed off COP15, and the matter was essentially circumvented in Cancun.
In the meantime, 2012 is only a month away, and – doomsday previsions made by Hollywood blockbusters aside – calamity is about to strike. The Kyoto Protocol – flawed, limited, but also the only treaty to have ever committed countries to stabilize GHG emissions – is set to expire, and the political will among key players to sign an agreement at least as strong is nowhere to be seen.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) will struggle to decide which advocacy strategy to undertake. In Copenhagen, the massive effort of mobilization raised awareness (and expectations), yet by CSOs’ own reckoning, probably helped the talks collapse. In Cancun a year later, the quieter effort to help build consensus so as to sow the ground for a comprehensive agreement in Durban didn’t quite work out as expected – consensus was reached, but only because most sensitive topics were deferred to COP17.
I Participate, You Participate, They Decide.
Posted on 8 November 2011 | 2 responses
By Elisa Peter
The women are sitting in a circle on the ground under a tree. They were brought together by an international development NGO. An NGO staffer is facilitating the discussion and drawing lines on a large sheet of paper.
This could be in Bangladesh, Mali or Peru. All of us working in international development have participated in or seen photos of such meetings. They are a key element of what is called “participatory programs” and have become a popular tool in development processes. Arguably, the knowledge shared through these bottom-up processes informs development policies and practices that are better adapted to the local context and targeted to the specific needs of local people.
Two weeks ago, David Bonbright and Nicholas van Praag wrote on this blog, “it is easier to listen than to act on what you hear”. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has come to the same conclusion.
In its latest issue of “Participatory Learning and Action” (How wide are the ripples? From local participation to international organizational learning), IIED looks at grassroots participatory learning programs led by international NGOs (INGOs). The report looks at the impact of such processes on INGOs’ decision-making and strategic planning. It asks the following questions:
1. How do INGOs use and manage local, traditional knowledge?
2. Is this knowledge translated into wider organizational learning, and if so how – or why not?
3. Does local knowledge inform INGOs priorities and policies?
Insights from India’s Anti-Corruption Movement
Posted on 1 November 2011 | 1 response
By Abby Bellows
In April 2011, the Indian middle class started to wake up. Development activist Dr. R. Balasubramaniam (Balu) (HKS Mason Fellow, 2009-10) shared the story in a talk at the Hauser Center on October 31, 2011. India’s “dying democracy,” he explained, was revived by a convergence of factors – the Arab Spring uprisings “suddenly made change possible,” patriotism surged after India won the World Cup in cricket, and growth in the young middle class created a demographic with energy and money, restless for a noble cause.
That cause came in April when Dr. Balu and others, including their symbolic leader Anna Hazare, embarked on hunger strikes in opposition to corruption. Their immediate raison d’être was the superficiality of the feeble anti-corruption bill proposed by the ruling party, but the fight was one that Dr. Balu had pursued devotedly for decades. Since then, the movement has taken on a life of its own, with hundreds of thousands participating in anti-corruption protests across the country.
While the movement’s key demands are still pending in Parliament, the movement has faced two main critiques, addressed insightfully by Dr. Balu during his talk.
First, Indian activists and outside observers have raised concerns about the use of hunger striking as a tactic. Is it a form of moral blackmail? An attempt to bypass the process of parliamentary deliberation?
Subscribe
