Submit a thread to our digital quilt for the chance to be featured in an exhibition and win £200. Learn more
Menu

Category: Knowledge Hub

Blue economy conference: reflections

Posted on by Renwick Rose

What role is there for the literal ‘salt of the earth’ – fisherfolk, farmers, and the endangered people living on islands and along low-lying coastlines of developing countries – in the push towards a ‘Blue Economy’?

That was the big question facing representatives of those sectors as they arrived in Nairobi at the end of November 2018 for a grand international conference on the theme ‘The Blue Economy and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. It was a highly relevant topic given the present state of affairs in the world today and, in particular, the challenges facing developing countries.

‘The most urgent questions are: how do we understand and interpret what “Blue Economy” means to us, our development and sustainability?’

Unfortunately, in spite of intensive discussions at the conference, the major questions seem to remain unanswered and without a consensus as far as government to civil society relations are concerned. The conference itself was organised in such a manner as to virtually prevent a consensus from emerging. The civil society delegates were for the better part of the conference confined to ‘side event’ silos, so common in official international gatherings, and there was little space or opportunity for the results of their rich discussions to be fed into official conclusions.

The Caribbean was represented both at the official and popular sector levels and I was honoured to have been part of a Caribbean delegation supported by the Commonwealth Foundation. The composition of the delegation provided for input from sectors of Caribbean society that were highly relevant to the theme and content, including fisherfolk, farmers, women, and environmentalists. It was a pity though that there was not greater governmental presence and that there was insufficient interaction between these two critical elements of Caribbean society.

Yet the issues are critically important to our people and require more active participation from countries like ours which are on the front line of climate change challenges.  For us, ‘Blue’, whether sea or skies, is a far greater expanse than ‘Green’, the concept to which we have been historically linked. The most urgent questions are: how do we understand and interpret what ‘Blue Economy’ means to us, our development and sustainability?

How do we identify ‘our’ resources and how do we work with them? How do we prevent the plundering and pillage of our marine resources? How do we collaborate to arrest and prevent the plundering and pillage of such resources as has occurred on ‘green’ Mother Earth?

‘For us, “Blue”, whether sea or skies, is a far greater expanse than “Green”, the concept to which we have been historically linked’

For countries such as ours in the Caribbean and those in the Pacific, these matters are crucial to our survival if a mockery is not to be made of the touted ‘Blue Economy’. Critical and practical ideas were advanced by civil society representatives during the ‘side events’ of the conference, including those from the Caribbean. These included:

  • The essential role of fisherfolk in the process. They depend on marine resources for their livelihood and are crucial to the economies of small developing countries. The conference did not seem to recognise this
  • Continued interactions between government and civil society in formulating policies and programmes for the Blue Economy
  • The treatment of Blue Economy issues as integral to the development process in such countries
  • The absorption of the lessons from unrestrained pillage of land-based resources, so as not to repeat the mistakes and ensure the sustainability of Blue Economy approaches

Finally, thanks to the Commonwealth Foundation for the opportunity afforded and an appeal to those Caribbean participants not to drop the baton but to deepen our exchanges and interaction in the common cause.

Renwick Rose is coordinator and CEO of the Windward Islands Farmers Association. 

Editor’s note: other delegates to the Blue Economy conference, whose attendance was also funded by the Commonwealth Foundation, have shared their thoughts in the following places online:

Mitchell Lay, Program Program Coordinator Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations

Nicole Leotaud, Director, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

Confronting assumptions: gender equality

Posted on by Heather Cole

I was recently asked to provide input and expertise around ‘gender’ in a workshop for Commonwealth Foundation grant partners; the Foundation has identified this as an area of work in the 2017-2021 strategic plan and recognises the deep connections between gender inequality and the SDGs.

One participant pulled me aside before the workshop and said ‘Before we start, I have to tell you that I really don’t know anything about gender’. My immediate response was: ‘You know everything you need to know, what we need to do is make it visible’.

Their question reminded me of why it can be so hard to talk about ‘gender’ in our programme design; we all live with, and participate in, inequalities around gender, and it can be destabilising and threatening to talk about. Sometimes, it can feel as if we are supposed to ‘know’ what it means and how we want to engage with it. Thinking about how gender inequality operates in practice, and how what we do can contribute to it, as well as concrete ways to challenge it, often generates feelings of apprehension and even defensiveness.

‘Gender equality’ is a concept that most of us agree with in principle – it is hard to find anyone working in development, for example, who would suggest that women should be discriminated against. At the same time, it is also not easy to define what we mean by ‘gender equality’ or to articulate what this might look like in the everyday lives of women and men. It is also not always easy to look at the ways that we participate in and tolerate inequalities in our own lives.

‘Talking about what “should” happen as well as what happens in practice helped us to think about our own assumptions, and about the realities of the contexts we’re working in, and being honest about the realities and needs of women and girls.’

As we worked through the analysis tools in the workshop, and pulled on the threads of how gender inequality is sustained, the conversations moved to the participant’s specific programmes and contexts. We started to dig deep into the ways in which the lives of women and girls can be so different to those of men and boys. There was so much intuitive good practice informing the programme design without necessarily an articulation of the underpinning theory of change. The questions asked reflected the apprehension; is it ok to have programming for women only, or should it be 50-50? What does ‘gender equality’ look like? How do we focus on supporting women and girls without creating additional risks in their lives? How will we know whether our work has made a difference and what kind of difference it has made?

Posing these questions led us to the conclusion that women and girls need specific programming because of long-term, structural disadvantages and marginalisation. We also identified that having 50-50 programming often means that men and boys dominate, and the voices and perspectives of women and girls get lost again as patriarchal dynamics are replicated. This is especially important when we are working at the intersections; men and women with disabilities, for example, will have some experiences in common and at the same time, women will face additional issues that may not be visible or important to men in a mixed group. These might include a significantly higher chance of exposure to sexual violence, responsibility for the care of others, including children, reduced control of resources, and no potential to rely on women in their families to provide care for them. All of these issues matter a great deal to women and have a significant impact on their lives; it is critical for women and girls to have a safe space to work on these together.

‘It takes courage to confront our own assumptions and […] to design programmes that are innovative and take us into new territory.’

A significant part of our discussion revolved around outcomes and indicators, and the importance of disaggregating data so we can see clearly what change our work has made. We looked at the difference between long-term strategic changes, and the importance of not losing sight of the immediate gender needs of women and girls. We also looked at the ways that some of the most important changes and benefits are difficult to measure, and the ways in which we can capture these deep changes more creatively and representatively.

As we worked through the theories of change for each new grant project we considered targeted advocacy and engagement to open up spaces for women to represent their own interests, and the need to build solidarity for women within the public arena. We challenged some of the taken-for-granted assumptions, and looked at what programming might look like if we started from the realities of women’s lives.

Talking about what ‘should’ happen as well as what happens in practice helped us to think about our own assumptions, and about the realities of the contexts we’re working in, and being honest about the realities and needs of women and girls. For example, in contexts where care for children with disabilities is undertaken primarily by women, should we be programming to encourage greater involvement of fathers (because we have an ideal about family life that is shaping our intended outcomes), or should we recognise that the social supports and core relationships of mothers are also often with their sisters, friends and aunties, and work to strengthen these? These kinds of questions are challenging but are essential to our work, and asking them ensures we are in a better position to give women more control over their lives, more opportunity to fulfil their potential and participate in social decision-making.

It takes courage to confront our own assumptions and hopes about gender equality and more to design programmes that are innovative and take us into new territory. This as a process of learning and evolution is meant to bring depth to our analysis and bring us closer to the communities we serve. It is a step toward better programming and stronger outcomes for women and girls. The participant that had approached me with trepidation at the beginning of the workshop took me aside when it had finished: ‘I just didn’t know what I was looking at. My eyes are open and I see it’. The journey has just begun.

Heather Cole is a Gender technical consultant and Doctoral Candidate researching violence against women activism in humanitarian spaces at De Montfort University.

Changing together or falling apart: global climate frameworks need concerted action – now

Posted on by Vijay Krishnarayan

I was working as a member of the environment team at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in Rio. At the time we were full of optimism and hope that the global community could come together to address the defining issue of our age. It was with some trepidation that I travelled to Katowice with colleagues to hear about the progress had been made in the time since the Convention was ratified in 1994.

The Foundation’s delegation was joined by more than 33,000 delegates including heads of state, ministers, officials, businesses, the scientific community, and the widest range of civic voices. We converged on the city’s vast conference centre, which symbolises the transition Katowice is making from a coal dependent town to one that increasingly looks to the service sector for its jobs. Perhaps this was why the conference strap line read ‘Changing Together.’

‘Will governments grasp this opportunity to convene and coordinate the multi-stakeholder approaches that are required? Will they put the “together” in changing together?’

This was the 24th time that the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention had met and this year the focus was on getting agreement on the rule book that should govern the way that countries go about achieving agreed targets. Small states – many of them Commonwealth members called for more ambitious targets when the parties met at COP23 last year. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was asked to provide scientific evidence that might support these more stringent limits on global warming. That report (Global Warming 1.5˚C) provided the backdrop to COP24. Its message was that more needed to be done and quicker. The science is clear.

More than 32,800 delegates from around the world registered to attend this year’s event, a record number

Governments found it difficult to agree how the report should be received and what the rulebook should say. This only served to highlight the importance of multilateral spaces. The majority of national governments, municipalities, businesses and civil society organisations signalled their intent to accelerate efforts. Thinking about how should these coalitions of the willing operate focuses attention on implementing national adaptation plans and delivering nationally determined contributions (NDCs). NDCs are statements on how each country will reduce national emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. Those NDCs have to be more ambitious and are due to be shared internationally by 2020. The Fijian government as President of COP 23, last year introduced the concept of Talanoa, a Pacific process of storytelling that enables agreement and action. The Talanoa Dialogue was introduced as a means of helping countries to upgrade and act on their NDCs.

 

Will governments grasp this opportunity to convene and coordinate the multi-stakeholder approaches that are required? Will they put the ‘together’ in changing together? I heard many government representatives – particularly those from the Caribbean and the Pacific commit to working in this way. This is an area of keen interest for the Commonwealth Foundation. As the Commonwealth’s agency for civil society, the Foundation is focused on supporting those that are less heard. We amplify civic voices as they engage with the institutions that shape people’s lives – UNFCCC is one such institution.

Delegates discussed how to include less heard voices in the climate change debate

The COP23 gender action plan was an acknowledgement that some voices have not been heard. Earlier this year in partnership with UNDP GEF in Barbados we called together civic voices from the Commonwealth Caribbean to explore the intersections between gender and climate change. We have committed to continuing that conversation.

‘If “changing together” is to mean anything, that ambition cannot be limited to the scale and pace of action needed. It must also apply to the inclusion of the widest range of affected peoples.’

We convened civil society at this year’s Commonwealth summit. In their dialogue with Foreign Ministers, civic voices highlighted the unjust burden, loss and damage imposed on small states. They critiqued a preoccupation with adaptation which places an inequitable burden on communities at the margins where climate change impacts continue to be catastrophic. Speaking at this year’s Commonwealth People’s Forum, civic voices from Oceania remind us that politics and history matter too, particularly when considering relocation for already marginalised peoples.

Gender Day at COP24 promoted the fair representation of women in climate discussions

The clear message from Katowice is that this is the time for ambition and action. If ‘changing together’ is to mean anything, that ambition cannot be limited to the scale and pace of action needed. It must also apply to the inclusion of the widest range of affected peoples. As implied by the Talanoa Dialogue, fairer, more inclusive and participatory governance are central to climate justice.

Vijay Krishnarayan is Director-General at the Commonwealth Foundation. Image credit: UN Climate Change Flickr

For more Commonwealth civil society perspectives on climate change, read Commonwealth insights: climate justice. 

When the tough get going: civil society resilience

Posted on by Sarah Peck

The term ‘resilience’ is often thrown around in the context of climate change, but my research on civil society in Barbados and Grenada showed that resilience is in fact essential to achieving social justice goals.

Between September 2014 and January 2018 I worked with the University of Sheffield and the Commonwealth Foundation on my Doctoral research. The purpose of the project was to understand more about how civil society groups operate in the Caribbean: their hopes, challenges, and everyday experiences; my purpose was to foreground the opinions and voices of civil society activists.

A summary of the project findings is available here.

Recent academic and practice-based engagement with civil society has focused on understanding civil society through the lens of sustainability, and less tangibly the wider civil society space they occupy. This is partly in response to changes in donor funding and the global economy, increased emphasis on terrorism and security, and also in response to the closing down of civil society space around the world. The sustainability literature does, however, highlight two key areas of concern for civil society: firstly, the ability of civil society to operate in an increasingly restrictive environment and, secondly, the ability of CSOs to continue their work with reduced levels of international funding.

‘Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups.’

Whilst greater understanding of what sustains civil society is important, I want to use the remainder of this piece to think about the related, but subtlety different, concept of resilience. Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover from difficulties or challenging events. Critiques of this definition include the notion that ‘bouncing back’ does not challenge the status quo: they dispute the idea that vulnerabilities are entirely self-created and that responsibility lies with the individual and their coping mechanisms (see Commonwealth Insights paper ‘What makes societies resilient’). Despite these convincing critiques I want to put forward an argument for considering civil society’s’ resilience as well as its sustainability. For me the concept of sustainability implies stasis and predictability; the assumption that if certain procedures are continuously followed civil society will be sustained. This sidelines the importance of national and regional contexts and indeed innovation in the sector – factors that are far less predictable. The idea of resilience is perhaps more useful for reflecting the inherently variable, dynamic, and fluid nature of civil society. These inevitable fluctuations make being part of civil society exciting and challenging, and the need to be flexible, adaptable and resurgent in the face of change is critical. Resilience in this context can be thought of as ways of rearranging the status quo and taking control of the complexities that are part of civil society work.

This can be illustrated in a number of ways as civil society resilience takes many forms. During my research civil society activists described occasions when they have had to bounce back in the face of criticism from outside and inside the sector. This increases fatigue and places an emotional toll on activists, but in response civil society groups are finding alternative ways of engaging, for example through different media, and are using their social networks for support.

‘Groups also […] commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do’

It was also apparent that civil society groups in the Caribbean need to develop financial resilience in the face of multiple challenges, including: reductions in donor funding, increased competition between organisations, and changes in the global economy. Working in civil society is often associated with having several part-time occupations, and often working during unpaid hours over evenings and weekends.. Not knowing where funding for the next project might come from also increases anxiety levels. This insecurity has the potential to reduce human resources and human capital in the sector. In the face of this, civil society groups have to be resilient to succeed. To build their resilience they are crafting multiple financial opportunities to sustain their work. This includes income-generating schemes within the organisation and engaging with the corporate sector and philanthropic institutions. Diaspora groups also offer a valuable source of revenue and other forms of social support. Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups. Users of crowdfunding felt that the system had the potential to create more democratic relations between donors and civil society.

Civil society groups are also promoting their resilience through social connections, with friendships, for example, providing morale. Groups also: mentor each other, use volunteers, and commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do.

In the future, developing networks between locally based organisations across the Caribbean region could allow the sharing of experience and resources and build solidarity. Civil society in the Caribbean may also benefit from meeting in informal settings to build a feeling of solidarity, share experiences, and share expertise. This could provide a forum to discuss wider issues that may be relevant for the sector. Such a forum may also offer moral and emotional support for civil society groups during challenging times.

Civil society groups need to be resilient if they are to sustain their work and identity as a sector that promotes social justice. The idea of civil society resilience promotes the ever-changing nature of the sector and the need to be versatile and adaptable. A key question is: what is the role of the international community in helping civil society groups become more resilient?

Sarah Peck is a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) candidate at the University of Sheffield.

Following the money: cash transfers

Posted on by Commonwealth Foundation

(Above) Helen Mudora presents project results at the Foundation’s annual grants workshop. The workshop shares monitoring and evaluation techniques with new grants partners and provides opportunities for networking and knowledge sharing.

Earlier this month, Helen Mudora, Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection (APSP), presented the results of her organisation’s project ‘Enhancing accountability for cash transfer programmes’ to our new cohort of grantees and our Board members at the annual Commonwealth Foundation grants workshop.

APSP’s project is being delivered in the counties of Busia, Kilifi and Kajiado in Kenya. In this interview, Helen discussed some results and lessons the project has generated with Gillian Cooper from the Knowledge, Learning and Communications team.

Gillian: What are social protection cash transfers?

Helen: The Africa Union defines social protection as: ‘responses by the state and society to protect citizens from risks, vulnerabilities and deprivations. It also includes strategies and programmes aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of livelihood for all people in a given country. This entails measures to secure education and health care, social welfare, livelihoods, access to a stable income, as well as employment’.

Social protection is largely seen to have three pillars: health insurance, social security, and social assistance.  In Kenya, the three most common social assistance programmes include the Orphans and Vulnerable Children cash transfer (OVC-CT), the Older Persons cash transfer (OPCT) and the Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer (PWSD-CT).

‘Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.’

The orphans and vulnerable children cash transfer programme was started by UNICEF as a pilot, mainly as a response to the crisis of HIV orphans. It is now funded by the government and gradually over time has included all children who face poverty and vulnerability.

Cash transfer programmes for older persons respond to the unique challenges faced by older persons including low income levels and destitution.

The Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer programme was started to meet the basic needs of carer families who may not be in a position to find time to generate income because of caring responsiblities for a family member with a severe disability.

In many countries, the poorest of the poor are PwDs. They face multiple barriers – the system disadvantages PwDs from earning an income. They don’t have access to services and there’s no transport to take them to school. Without schooling there is a close correlation to poverty – only about 5% of PwDs in Kenya make it to university – and so the PwDs cash transfer helps to redress this imbalance. Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.

Gillian: What did APSP’s community sensitisation and social audits uncover about the cash transfer programme?

Helen: APSP works with communities to promote citizen engagement in the delivery of cash transfer services through social audits. We identify community organisations to work with, who in turn identify community monitors who form the link between government programmes, citizens, and beneficiaries.

APSP trains the community monitors in social protection, rights-based approaches and advocacy.

Community sensitisation forums are held to increase awareness levels of the communities and citizens about existing social protection programmes. APSP, in collaboration with community groups, then conduct a social audit of government programmes.

The social audit is a deeper way of generating evidence to inform policy.

This entails collecting data on various parameters of the government service charter, including timeliness of payments, distance to collection points, dignity in service delivery, awareness of existing government programmes, as well as impact of the cash transfers.

‘APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational.’

Our audits have found that some people in rural areas have to walk more than 6km, sometimes 7km, to collect the cash.  In the urban areas this is not a problem as the service has been more decentralised and the road infrastructure is good. In rural areas beneficiaries walk longer distances to access the cash. We also found that the timeliness of payments varies. 50% say they get their payments on time. 33% have to wait about 6 months. For the rest, the time varies, some have delays more than six months.

We also looked at the length of time it takes to receive the cash at the bank. It was noted that because those who receive the cash are few in number, there is often a long line especially considering people have a short two week window within which to be paid.

Finally, the audit looked at the complaints and redress mechanism. We found that this has been poorly publicised as not many people know about the government toll free number, where they can report any challenges or issues. Currently the complaints process is still centralised at the headquarters in Nairobi, but the complaints might be made from 400km away! We are recommending that the complaints mechanism is decentralised so that people can lodge complaints and have it resolved at the community level.

Social accountability is about pushing for effective service delivery. What the government says it’s going to do should be done within the promised timeframe. That’s what it means to provide cash transfers as a right. APSP is trying to discourage tokenism and help community members realise that the cash transfer is a right. We’ve worked to build the confidence of the community so that if they find a problem, they have a right to complain and the government has an obligation to listen.

Gillian: What have been the most effective ways to track progress and ensure government accountability?

Helen: Evidence. You must generate evidence. For a long time, individuals would make complaints, but when you make a complaint as an individual, it’s not sufficient. But it becomes evidence when you bring in a bit of science, and present it as a research finding which shows that a particular phenomenon is a part of a bigger picture. And so, this project has helped us to move from individuals complaining, to a collective approach that generates evidence to inform policy.

‘Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them.’

Gillian: How has the project addressed gendered needs?

Helen: This is a work in progress. For starters, whenever we do community mobilisation, we always ask for a specific number of women and men. At the beginning, when you mobilise people to come together, you must make sure you get both men and women. You might not get a 50-50 ratio, but it’s important to set this as a target so that at least you will get a considerable number of women. For trainings we go the extra mile to get women to participate; we might need a sensitisation meeting to encourage participation.

We respect and are conscious of the triple roles of women. So for the community sensitisation forums, our starting time must take account of when women have completed their morning routine. We start at 9 or 10 and by 12:30 we must finish. If the timing is not right they will not come at all.  We have also built the capacity of women to articulate their issues in different fora. For APSP’s international meetings, we make sure women from project communities are on the programme to speak.

Gillian: How does APSP engage with government to make change?

Helen: We seek opportunities to sit with government and meet in their Boardroom. We always request meetings with the Permanent Secretary in her/his Boardroom so that we share these findings with them first before it goes public. APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational. APSP is part of the National Steering Committee for Social Protection, which is a government constituted committee. This shows they have faith in our work.

Our engagement has paid off; APSP’s research has influenced the process of cash disbursement. In 2018, the government started a universal cash transfer for older people. Previous cash transfers were provided at only two banks. Now there are five banks from which to choose from. In addition, clients are given an ATM card, so they can access the money at any time.

We also engage in the legislative process. Social protection is in the constitution but there is no subsidiary law to enshrine the cash transfer system. APSP has been working with both Parliament and the Executive arm. We try to balance our engagement so we are not leaning on one side. Parliament now invite us to the departmental committee meetings and we are working with them to pass that law.

Gillian: How should marginalised groups be included in decision-making about policies that affect their lives?

Helen: Capacity building is very important. Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them. The voice is there but how they voice it may mean nobody can listen to them. They may be voicing it through complaints or in anger or desperation.

Evidence generation is one way. People are less likely to doubt statistics – you don’t have to bang tables when you have data. The skills we’ve been able to build for the community has been intense but transformational.

We have developed an advocacy tool. It provides steps for engaging and how to make your message hard-hitting. The advocacy tool includes a monitoring guide to help track meetings and progress so you can attribute the impact of your work to a policy change.

Gillian: What are the next steps for your project?

Helen: We are hoping our experiences can be used to replicate the project in other counties in Kenya.  We can also replicate it in other countries – APSP works in 27. The project provides a very good basis for knowledge sharing. When we have our delegates meeting in August, grassroots representatives are part of the programme. We can show it as a model of citizen engagement in decision-making.

Beyond that our long term goal is for sustainability of social protection programmes. Our bigger advocacy agenda is around national budgets and processes. In many countries, social protection is funded by donors. In Kenya it is now 97% government funded but in other countries it is 100% donor funded. So where is the government commitment? We aim to push for social protection allocations from national budgets to meet the African Union  Social policy framework – which states that every government should use 2% of its budget on social protection so that it is sustainable and not dependent on external donors.

Helen Mudora is Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection

Rewriting the script

Posted on by Commonwealth Foundation

Photo credit: Russell Watson. 

The Commonwealth Foundation (CF) spoke to Lisa Harewood, a Bajan filmmaker, during the Commonwealth People’s Forum 2018.

We talked about storytellers’ experiences, working with the Commonwealth Writers programme and the ways in which less-heard voices can influence public discourse.

CF: Please tell us how the work of the Commonwealth Writers Programme has supported your work and whether it has enhanced or impacted on your storytelling and if so, how?

Lisa: I would have to say, and this is no exaggeration, that the Commonwealth Writers programme changed the course of my career. They not only supported the development of my film, Auntie (2013), but they also premiered it in New Zealand and supported its screening at a variety of quite high-profile festivals. Due to the publicity and the conversations those screenings generated people started to tell me their own stories which then led me to say: ‘Wait a minute, there is so much more than just the one story that I told!’ A year after the film was out, Commonwealth Writers reached out and asked me whether I was willing to do some outreach which they offered to fund.

‘For a wider audience, especially policymakers, hopefully the effect is that they perceive and understand an issue in a different and more powerful way.’

What I created was Barrel Stories, an online oral history archive where I record and share the stories of people who have been affected by parental separation because of migration. The site also includes a list of resources and other work on the issue. Commonwealth Writers didn’t hesitate in saying, ‘How can we help? What do you need?’…They trusted me to pull it off and they helped me to understand my own process and the logistical and emotional pitfalls of getting involved with the recording of real stories. Out of that I developed a much deeper interest in non-fiction storytelling and two years ago I moved to the [United Kingdom] to do an MA in documentary.

Auntie (Harewood, 2013) follows a middle­-aged seamstress and respected caregiver in her rural Barbadian community

Now I’m in the process of developing this project across multiple platforms. I’ve hit this rich vein, not just of stories but of emotion and I feel a responsibility now to see it through. I want to create something that really gets to the heart of this issue and provides a tool for understanding and maybe even some healing where it’s needed.

All of this is a direct result of being selected for the Commonwealth Writers programme in 2012.

‘I would have to say, and this is no exaggeration, that the Commonwealth Writers programme changed the course of my career.’

CF: What are the most effective ways to reach people with your storytelling, and raise awareness of issues so that it influences public dialogue?

Lisa: I’m open to using all sorts of means to craft and to deliver the story I want to tell. I’ve made films, I’m building an audio archive, I’m experimenting with VR and immersive technologies and old school community workshops. As long as it works for the story and for the audience, I’m at a stage where I think beyond just film.

Harewood on the set of Auntie (Harewood, 2013)

From a content standpoint I’m interested in empowering the people whose stories I want to share. I want to help them to co-create the work with me. In that regard they are the first audience that I am trying to reach. I want them to feel heard and validated and supported by a community of other people who have shared similar experiences.

For a wider audience, especially policymakers, hopefully the effect is that they perceive and understand an issue in a different and more powerful way and are moved to act to bring about positive change. I have to be careful though not to allow myself to be burdened by an expectation of certain outcomes from this work. I have to be focused on telling the best stories that I can.

 

CF: How important is it to hear from storytellers outside of the mainstream, those less heard voices and less heard stories? Can such stories impact the dominant narrative?

Lisa: As a person from the Caribbean I grew up seeing so many terrible depictions of Caribbean people. Usually as happy-go-lucky, ‘everything is great, yeah man!’ people. And it sounds like a really silly thing… but when someone says this is how your country is and this is how these people act and sound and it’s not anything that you recognise, you feel really insulted and demeaned. Having other people tell our stories takes away so much from us if it’s not done well. I’m not saying that you can’t tell a story from a community that’s not your own. You can, but you have to do it with a great deal of sensitivity and a desire to get it right. So I’m really glad to be a part of a generation of filmmakers and writers and artists who are taking control of our own narrative. We can have rich, fully rounded portrayals instead of damaging stereotypes.

I’ve seen through my own work on Auntie and Barrel Stories just how amazing it is for an audience of Caribbean people to see and hear characters who they recognise. It’s almost a cliché to say people need to see themselves reflected but they do. It’s one way for them to make sense of their own lives and experiences and their place in the wider world.

Lisa Harewood is a film director. 

Malawi’s 50-50 campaign

Posted on by Gillian Cooper

Gillian Cooper investigates one partner’s decade-long effort to secure greater female representation in decision-making in Malawi.

Emma Kaliya is Board Member of Gender Links, Chairperson of FEMNET, and the Southern Africa Gender Protocol Alliance in Malawi and a women’s rights activist of many, many years. We had the pleasure of speaking to Emma Kaliya about her life’s work and her role in the Gender Links project Making the Post-2015 agenda work for gender equality in Southern Africa, which is supported by the Commonwealth Foundation.

I was struck by the continuous challenges and her unwavering dedication, over more than a decade, to increase the numbers of women in political decision-making roles. Emma’s story highlighted the highs and lows and continuous struggle that gender equality advocacy requires the world over. I was pleased to learn that the global ‘50-50 campaign’ had started in Malawi as a national, grassroots campaign.

Back in 2008, after many years of lobbying and negotiations by the Southern Africa women’s movement, the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development was adopted by Heads of States and Government. Civil society alongside Ministries of Gender/Women affairs had fought long and hard to get SADC leaders to agree to the Protocol – transforming a non-binding Declaration into a more robust Protocol agreement.

Civil society fought to include the protocol target that at least 50 per cent of decision-making positions in the public and private sectors are held by women.  (Since the Protocol’s revision in 2016/17, this target has been revised to be met by 2030).

‘Emma’s story highlighted the highs and lows and continuous struggle that gender equality advocacy requires the world over.’

Adoption of the Protocol was a significant achievement, but civil society recognised that the Protocol’s adoption was just one step in a long journey to implementation. In Emma’s words: ‘We were not going to sit quietly! We know there are tricks!’ Pushing for implementation required tracking progress, and this would be done using the SADC Gender Barometer.

An important first step in the introduction of the Barometer was to popularise it and to show its usefulness to improving gender equality. Fortuitously, Malawi’s elections closely followed the Protocol’s adoption in 2009; Malawi had not yet ratified the Protocol. So in the run up to elections, Emma and other civil society actors used this opportunity to translate the target of 50-50 female representation in political decision-making into action.  The ‘50-50 campaign’ was born.

The campaign was able to gain momentum and really took root with Malawians.  Mini-buses and roadside rest houses painted with the 50-50 campaign slogans are still visible today. While we chatted, Emma challenged us: ‘Ask anyone what 50-50 is and they will tell you.’ And so I asked a couple taxi drivers and the receptionist at our Lilongwe hotel – both male and female – if they knew about the 50-50 campaign. Though not a representative sample, of course –each was able to tell me that it was about increasing numbers of women in politics.

Late Bingu wa Mutharika, the President at the time, was eager to demonstrate that Malawi would make progress on its regional and international commitments to increase the numbers of women in decision-making spaces. And Emma was given a number of platforms to present the movement’s agenda. She was clear: ‘We have come for one agenda. Women want to be in Parliament and local councils.’ Sure enough, in that year, the President provided small but significant funding for the campaigns in each constituency where there was a female candidate. The campaign paid off. At the time, Malawi had the highest number of female candidates it had ever had and 43 seats out of 193 seats were eventually won by women.

‘Mini-buses and roadside rest houses painted with the 50-50 campaign slogans are still visible today.’

Three years later Malawi got its first female President. Previously Vice-President, she took office following the sudden death of Mutharika. Expecting to build on the progress over the last few years, instead the 50-50 campaign faced some of its biggest challenges in the 2014 election cycle.

Those unhappy with her leadership promoted a campaign in the 2014 elections to discriminate against all women in political office. The campaign against women leaders saw the number of women representatives drop from 22% to 17%. ‘We were really let down…I never expected it’; Emma’s body language showed the toll the discriminatory campaign had.

In 2017, Emma was one of the Commissioners on the Special Law Commission on the Review of Electoral Laws in Malawi. One of the recommendations of the Commission was the institution of a quota for women in each of the 28 electoral districts. Such a quota system would open up a seat in each district, guaranteeing 28 seats for women, but would not challenge seats in existing constituencies where women would still be eligible to stand.

While President Peter Mutharika was supportive when he made a statement at an EU-Brussels meeting, his Cabinet decided to reject the recommendation for the ‘28 seat initiative’, siting technical implementation challenges once adopted. Emma was understandably frustrated.

Malawians go to the polls in 2019, and campaigners have been told that the 28-seat-initiative will not be considered. However, the 50-50 campaign lives on and is gearing up again.

Gillian Cooper is Programme Manager for Knowledge, Learning and Communications at the Commonwealth Foundation.

Why land laws matter

Posted on by Patience Ayebazibwe

Patience Ayebazibwe led research in Southern Africa on the policies and conventions governing women’s access to land. Here’s what she found.

The status of women in Africa as a whole, and the extent to which the regulatory environment promotes gender equality across different spheres of life, provides an important backdrop for understanding and addressing gender imbalances  in land and investment governance. Moreover, patriarchal attitudes and practices persist, particularly in rural areas, which means that women continue to be marginalised in terms of access to land and productive resources.

A 2017 study conducted by Akina Mama Wa Afrika in Malawi, eSwatini and Zambia, with support from the Commonwealth Foundation, revealed that deliberate restrictions on women accessing, controlling and owning land are common to all three countries. The study also showed that most dominant legal systems are strongly gender discriminatory. This is attributed to an unenforced policy regime on land guided by patriarchal cultural beliefs that do not regard women as custodians of land, discriminatory laws and policies, expensive legal justice, and low representation of women in senior leadership positions, largely as a result of persisting patriarchal attitudes and practices at both community and household levels.

Land is a critical tool of production and remains a social asset that is central to political and financial power, cultural identity and decision making. In Africa women’s customary land rights are more vulnerable. Even where customary tenure systems recognise land rights of both men and women, women’s names are rarely on the documents, making them more vulnerable to losing their rights.

Patience recently met Commonwealth Foundation staff to discuss the progress of Akina Mama Wa Afrika’s project in partnership with the Commonwealth Foundation ‘Strengthening women’s voices to advocate for women’s land rights in Southern Africa’

Study after study has shown that women’s access to and control of land, and other productive resources, is central to ensuring their right to equality and to a decent standard of living. This is emphasised in Sustainable Development Goals 1 and 5. While Goal 1 recognises that to end poverty, it will be crucial to ensure equal rights to ownership and control over land, as well as equal rights to inheritance of productive resources (target 1.4), Goal 5 on Gender equality and women’s empowerment calls upon governments to carry out legal and policy reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources (Target 5a). Indeed, evidence shows that a woman who has land has a degree of security; she is less likely to tolerate domestic violence and is in a better position to leave a violent relationship and negotiate safe sex, so the importance of ensuring women’s land rights goes far beyond economic security and access to resources to the imperative goal of ending violence against women.

Why is it then that while women’s land rights are well-recognised as an important pathway for achieving poverty reduction at individual, household and national levels, as highlighted above, many African countries continue to deny them ownership and control of land and other productive resources?

‘Land is a critical tool of production and remains a social asset that is central to political and financial power, cultural identity and decision making.’

The Akina Mama wa Afrika study showed that the situation of women and ownership of land has been worsened by the increased rush for large scale land acquisition by both international and national investors. While contexts differ, investor interest in large-scale land deals for agribusiness has raised commercial pressures on land and livelihoods across sub-Saharan Africa.  Admittedly such projects can potentially benefit local communities, but research suggests that investments can often have negative consequences on vulnerable groups, indeed women suffer disproportionately. This is because such investments tend to reinforce, or even exacerbate, existing attitudes and practices. Further denying women’s access to land.

Understanding these customary norms, as well as the opportunities and challenges presented by existing statutory laws relating to land and investment, is crucial in developing appropriate and effective interventions to strengthen women’s voices and accountability in land and investment governance.

Going forward, advancement of women’s economic rights, their control and participation in the land economy can no longer be ignored if we are to attain gender equality and reduce poverty. The study reveals that Malawi, eSwatini and Zambia need to push for accelerated land reform, particularly to address the duality of the land tenure system which is governed by traditional and statutory norms. This should involve increasing access, control and ownership of land by women in order to address the historical injustices that women have faced over land. The research also points to the need to strengthen women’s livelihood opportunities by increasing their ability to hold agricultural investors in their countries to account. This will not happen overnight and will require organising so that there is a critical mass of activists demanding policy change. This point was well articulated by one of the participants in the research project: ‘land is power, and it won’t be given away easily by those who have it. We need to build a strong movement so that collectively we take actions to challenge the barriers…our voices from the ghetto must be heard. We need land: it’s capital and it’s life’.

Patience Ayebazibwe is Programmes Officer at Akina Mama Wa Afrika. Women’s Land Rights in the Wave of Land Acquisitions in Malawi, eSwatini and Zambia is available for download here. 

Details for a difference

Posted on by Anita Nzeh

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) are implementing a Grants funded project on the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2016.

In June the Foundation’s Knowledge, Learning and Communications (KLC) and Grants team went on mission to Sri Lanka to learn more about our partner’s work.

We met with RTI civil mobilisation coordinators from different districts in Sri Lanka who shared both stories of positive change and resistance. We observed an RTI awareness raising and RTI filling training session in Nonagama and we spoke to elderly community members in Matara who consider themselves torch bearers of the RTI Act.

Before the Act came into law, TISL advocated for its adaptation to the Sri Lankan context.  This involved representations in the drafting committee’s final meetings and working with parliamentarians to sensitise them and broaden their understanding of what RTI is about. Post-enactment of the RTI Act, TISL have adopted a watchdog role to ensure compliance.

On the advocacy side of the project the RTI team provide feedback and advise the government on how best to implement the law. This includes work with the RTI Commission who provide the Act’s guidelines and the Ministry of Finance and Mass Media who raise awareness of the Act. In addition to this TISL have worked to ensure that other legislation does not interfere with right to information laws. A recent examples is the National Audit Bill which, while still in drafting stage, has certain provisions that prevented information disclosure.

Above: Project manager Sankhita Gunaratne. Hear her account of the project here. 
Above: Community flag bearer of the RTI act. Flag bearers assist other citizens in filing information requests.

In Sri Lanka people file RTI’s for many reasons. Amongst the most common are:

  • Land e.g. public property, land permits, development licences, paddy land for citizens and canal cultivation permits;
  • Development activities e.g. Construction delays and procurement;
  • Social welfare e.g. law enforcement, police, army;
  • Health and Education e.g. school admissions process and educational facilities.

Awareness raising around the RTI Act is key to the project’s success. TISL’s RTI team, led by Sankhita Gunaratne conduct awareness raising in the form of street dramas (in local languages of five districts), press advertisements and newspaper articles. In addition to the RTI van, a dedicated website called RTI Watch and a film on RTI has been created; providing personal stories that have been be shared with wider audiences.

Although outcomes for citizens are overwhelmingly positive, it is clear that some information requests are not being dealt with in the correct way. Pushing for the full realisation of the RTI Act in practice is the task ahead for the TISL RTI team.

Please use this link to read more about TISL RTI teams work Right to Information: a success story from Vavuniya, Sri Lanka written by Sankhita Gunaratne.

Anita Nzeh is Senior Programme Officer for Knowledge and Learning at the Commonwealth Foundation.

Right to Information: a success story from Vavuniya, Sri Lanka

Posted on by Sankhita Gunaratne

Transparency International Sri Lanka made an Information Request of the Vavuniya Divisional Secretariat, querying the lack of updates to the Secretariat’s website.

The site in question had not been updated since 2015. Information was also requested about the steps the Divisional Secretariat had taken to help and facilitate members of the public who submit RTI Forms.

The Divisional Secretariat responded by updating their website in June 2018 . Furthermore, an information board was displayed in front of the Secretariat Office, containing details about the information officer of the Divisional Secretariat. This enabled easy access to the Secretariat’s RTI Unit for members of the public, and set a precedent for proactive disclosure.

The picture depicts the website last updated on 18 December 2014 and the update following the RTI request on 19 June 2018.

Sri Lanka marked a historic victory in August 2016 when the right to information act was passed. The law now enables all citizens to access information held by the State and was internationally acclaimed: ranking third in Centre for Law and Democracy’s RTI rating.

Even though the passage of the law was a result of 20 years of agitation by civil society, journalists, politicians and activists, beyond this circle, knowledge of the law and its significance was mostly non-existent. The grant provided by the Commonwealth Foundation enabled Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) to be one of the lead organisations in Sri Lanka demystifying the law for citizens – in Colombo, Matara, Ampara, Trincomalee and Jaffna, spanning the Northern, Western, Eastern and Southern provinces, and other districts as well.

Sri Lanka’s rank on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (91 ) demonstrates the challenge set before the country and hopes and were fostered that the RTI law would open up the space for transparency, accountability, and an avenue for ordinary citizens to better understand government processes.

However, since the law’s enactment little effort has been made to educate people on RTI, and it is civil society that has filled that space. Through this grant, TISL has employed several techniques aimed at doing so.

Very early on, as RTI was operationalised, TISL used an ‘RTI Van’ with a large LED screen and loudspeakers, to drive through the districts, stopping in strategic locations. It ran audiovisual content on the RTI process, with staff members interacting with the public, and in certain cases, helped them to formulate RTI requests on the spot. Notably, in the Trincomalee districts, over 150 RTI requests were facilitated covering issues of corruption, access to education and health facilities. Street dramas around International Right to Know Day 2017 , newspaper advertisements, missed call campaigns and SMS shots are among the other techniques that were used.

A Manual and information leaflets were created and mirrored on a website which was regularly updated. These described case studies and the law in local languages in a simplified and accessible manner. TISL has continued to visit communities conducting small pocket meetings, listening to people’s needs and brainstorming as to how people can use RTI creatively and at times collectively to resolve problems. TISL also facilitates constructive discussions with government counterparts.

RTI has been working in unforeseen ways in Sri Lanka. While it has in many instances led to information disclosure, government actors have been known to remediate issues causing discontent without disclosing information.

For example, the residents of Akkaraipaththu in Ampara made a complaint to the Medical Officer of Health (MOH), about garbage accumulation affecting 10 families and a school in Akkaraipaththu in May 2017. The issue was communicated to the President via the ‘Tell the President’ campaign in July 2017, but no action was taken. In January 2018, a RTI was filed, requesting information on the actions taken by the MOH pursuant to the complaint. Within four days of making the request, the garbage was cleared and the MOH even asked the citizen if he could withdraw his RTI.. The citizen has refused.

Another manner in which RTI has assisted the average citizen is that it has given them access where formerly she might have been stonewalled. The stringent timelines for disclosure stipulated in the law has ensured that citizens with a good understanding of the RTI process could follow a few simple and non-confrontational steps to hold a public institution accountable.

RTI is both weapon and deterrent, enforcer and protector. Stories of the law’s success have now begun trickling in from many parts of the country. It is eminently important that these hard-won victories continue to be used for the benefit of all.

Sankhita Gunaratne is a project manager at Transparency International Sri Lanka.