Convergence among Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs

Posted on 14 June 2010

By Sherine Jayawickrama

On June 3, at the 2010 InterAction Forum, the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations convened a panel discussion on Capitalizing on Convergence: Prospects for Collaboration Among Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs. 

The panel was moderated by L. David Brown, Senior Research Fellow at the Hauser Center, and featured Marcia Marsh, Chief Operating Officer at the World Wildlife Fund USA; Radha Muthiah, Vice President for Strategic Partnerships and Alliances at CARE USA; and Sameer Dossani, formerly Director of the Demand Dignity campaign at Amnesty International USA (and now at ActionAid International).

The panel explored how the work of these different types of NGOs are converging, what opportunities and challenges are encountered in trying to foster collaboration among these NGOs, and what lessons are being learned with respect to capitalizing on this convergence.  This post combines strands of the panelists’ contributions with comments from attendees and my own observations.

The convergence among these different types of NGOs, who have long operated in their own silos, is a product of a broader understanding of each NGO’s mandate and what deeper impact means. For example, Amnesty International now sees its mandate as encompassing the full range of rights reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and no more limits its work to political rights). WWF understands poverty as an issue that is inextricably linked to environmental degradation. CARE sees poverty through a human rights lens and knows that global poverty will increasingly be shaped by climate change.  This convergence reflects a fundamental reconceptualization of what development means, what conservation means and what human rights mean.

The vision and leadership of individuals at the field level (who can clearly visualize the payoff of combining capacities and approaches) and at the top level (who understand the importance of such integration in increasingly complex contexts) are often drivers for alliances among “unusual suspects.” 

But collaboration is sometimes made harder by the fact that there is often a “missing middle” within organizations: staff in various functions (communications, fundraising, human resources, etc.) necessary to support such alliances but whose incentives focus them on the narrower goals of their own organization.

Sometimes external constituencies are more receptive to the potential of silo-breaking alliances than constituencies within these organizations.  Large INGOs like CARE, WWF and Amnesty have strong identities fortified by big brand-building investments and fairly complex organizational structures.  This does not make them particularly agile, a factor that can work against alliance-building.

A major lesson learned seemed to be to take the time and have the patience to build relationships of trust and understanding among partners.  NGOs from different silos sometimes have divergent cultures and styles, and these differences have to be appreciated and overcome. It is also important to clearly distinguish when it is worthwhile investing in a strategic alliance (with many interlocking pieces) and when it is better to build a simpler, looser coalition.

An important reality check: make sure that the work it takes to build alliances across silos is not just creating a bigger silo that shuts out poor communities and other partners.  Being open and attuned to the perspectives of people closest to the problems being addressed is critical, and NGOs should not take their focus off that.

At the end of the day, the real payoff of convergence among development, environment and human rights NGOs will be in the extent to which they are collectively able to challenge and address the broader structural problems that underpin persistent poverty, continued social injustices and worsening threats to the natural environment. 

If they are not able to rise to this challenge (and instead limit their efforts to bigger, better projects and bigger, better campaigns that do not leverage transformational change) then the promise of convergence will have been wasted.

Is convergence the wave of the future?  No, it is already here. Perhaps it only a reflection of NGOs coming to terms with how complex the present context is, how limited the tools within each NGO silo are, and what it will take to be effective in a globalized world of multiple crises? 

Are NGOs – especially the large, professionalized (sometimes “corporatized”) NGOs – agile enough to evolve at the speed required?

Sherine Jayawickrama manages the Humanitarian & Development NGOs domain of practice (and the Humanitarian & Development NGOs blog) at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University.