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

CF Source: Foundation

Pushing back: Commission on the Status of Women

Posted on by Shamima Muslim

I was a newbie at the sixty-third United Nations Women’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) and the Annual Consultation of Commonwealth National Women’s Machineries this month. It was a great feeling to meet a few of the pioneers who attended the same conference in Beijing in 1995 – still going strong and honouring us with their hallowed presence. But I was left wondering: Where is the vibrant African women’s feminist movement that took charge after Beijing 1995? The movement appears to have subsided with time.

Over the past two decades, the women’s empowerment movement ensured that more girls and women secure their agency and claim their rights to voice, as well as access to education, health, shelter, and political representation. It catalysed progress and gains but has fallen short of a complete transformation. It was all because of the work of a few activists who braved the odds and spoke out boldly and firmly in deed and in fact against all forms of discrimination against women and girls.

‘The women’s empowerment movement ensured that more girls and women secure their agency and claim their rights to voice’

My attendance at CSW63 was funded as part of an ongoing initiative of the Commonwealth Foundation which aims to revive, reconnect, and build a cross generational women’s movement, celebrating past gains and inspiring a bold future. It is my hope that this initiative will nurture a new generation of highly motivated and skilled young African feminist activists to continue the struggle.

Hazel Brown (left), feminist activist and pioneer delegate to the 1995 Commission on the Status of Women in Beijing, joined the activities in New York this month

About the CSW 63
Representatives from 45 UN member states, UN entities and the ECOSOC-accredited non-governmental organisations from all regions of the world attended CSW 63. The key themes of the event were: social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure for gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. The programme was in line with global need: these thematic areas remain the major barriers to the full and effective participation of women in their societies.

‘We may have won some battles but the war towards a free and gender equal world is far from over.’

Push back against the push back
The new buzz-phrase for me is to ‘push back against the push back’. After so much work on women empowerment and equality, there seems to be a global push back against women’s rights issues and in some cases an erosion of the gains – in political participation for example. Women’s rights organisations and their allies must rise up and redouble their efforts to rebuild the movement. The UN Chief, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged this when he said ‘power is not given, power is taken’ (Mr. Guterres said this at a town hall meeting that Executive-Director of UN Women, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, had chaired and opened with song).

Registering my presence at CSW 63
At that same lively town hall meeting, I tried to catch the attention of Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka, but to no avail. And so in the spirit of Mr. Guterres’ words, I approached him as he left the hall. In the few seconds I had, I urged the UN Chief to look into the challenges the movement faces. My argument – as it has been throughout – was that without a deepening collaboration between the media and the women’s movement, they will at best remain mere purveyors of news, rather than proactive shapers of new narratives and realities.

This is why I was pleased to moderate the session on how Ghana was incorporating gender into its social protection programmes: I got a chance to shape some of the narrative and I feel confident that next year, God willing, I will be able to do more…

My key takeaways from CSW 63

  • Learning about our shared humanity as women of different regions, religions, ethnicities and classes is crucial. Giving agency to these different voices is key to local advocacy and implementation of action plans
  • It was sad to learn that women’s political participation has regressed; we must push back
  • There is an urgent need to ensure women’s access to social protection systems, public services and sustainable infrastructure to level the playing field
    Africa and Ghana have even greater challenges in meeting these ideals, and must work to revive and rebuild a cross generational movement of young and old feminist activists to maintain pressure on power.
  • I was inspired by the conversation about youth and rural women’s participation as well as conversations to include men and boys on the agenda
  • My suggested key action points for African and Ghanaian participants are: mobilise to organize press interactions back home on the outcomes of the CSW63 meetings;  issue statements to government agencies highlighting the gaps in existing programmes on women empowerment and equality; organize intergenerational dialogues aimed at revamping the women’s movement and including newer, younger, or excluded voices; continue public awareness campaigns to increase knowledge and shape better attitudes towards women and girl’s rights.

My concluding advice, to all planning to attend CSW 64: by all means attend, but if you can: prepare, prepare, prepare. Above all be truly present when you are in the sessions and make many friends and contacts.

Shamima Muslim is Founder and Convener of a Alliance of Women in Media, Africa. 

Just because they care: developing the capacity of family carers to advocate for their rights

Posted on by Victoria Nicholson

Family carers are an invisible force who care day in, day out for sick or disabled loved ones, without receiving payment and with little chance of respite. The effects of caring on the physical and mental health of carers can be devastating. Carers often face loss of employment, missed education opportunities, and social isolation due to their caring responsibilities.

Carers’ needs have traditionally been neglected by Governments, NGOs and other agencies in low and middle income countries. Since 2012 we have been working in The Global South to improve the lives of carers and to advocate for official recognition of the important role they play in society. Our vision is a world in which the needs of every carer – physical, emotional, economic and social – are routinely met. We want to achieve this through building strong partnerships with our carers, their families and wider communities, as well as with local, national and international NGOs, Governments and academics.

‘Our holistic “Carers Worldwide Model” […] is designed to create systemic changes for carers’

In 2014 we received funding from the Commonwealth Foundation to implement a three year project promoting the recognition and inclusion of carers in three states of India: Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. Working with three local partners in India, this project focused on developing the capacity of carers and ensuring carer-specific services were developed to lessen the burden of caring. This involved disseminating our holistic ‘Carers Worldwide Model’ which is designed to create systemic changes for carers. The model comprises carers’ support groups; access to health services; respite and short breaks; access to employment, training and education; and advocacy activities. Our model is successful because it addresses the needs of carers at all levels – emotionally, physically, mentally and economically and encourages carers to advocate for themselves.

The results of the project exceeded expectations. A total of 1,963 carers as well as 2,012 care recipients and approximately 9,800 additional family members benefited. The benefits obtained by the carers included the establishment of new livelihood activities, access to medical and counselling services, and being provided with respite breaks. As a result of their advocacy activities, 90% of the carers involved in the project are now also accessing government or other NGO programmes and schemes. Such schemes include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act – an employment guarantee scheme for the rural poor from which carers were previously excluded. As a result of the project 431 carers are now accessing employment through this Act.

Caregiver support groups To reduce loneliness and isolation, create social networks and support emotional wellbeing
Health services To provide access to physical and mental health services, including locally available counselling services
Respite and short breaks To offer a break from caring responsibilities along with the development of alternative high-quality care options such as day care centres
Employment, training and education To facilitate access to employment, training or education, tailored as appropriate to co-exist with caring responsibilities
Recognition To strengthen the collective voice of caregivers to advocate for their needs and the provision they require at community, regional and national level, leading to changes in policy and practice

To increase impact at a district level, 148 village level carers groups were federated into three Carers Associations, one in each of the three project states. Each Carers Association is comprised of carer representatives who have been elected by the village level carers groups. The Associations meet quarterly to formulate responses to issues raised in the village groups, plan engagement with government officials and other stakeholders, and to organise events at district level. Government officials are now recognising the individual and collective needs of carers. For example, the Commissioner of Disability for the Government of Karnataka announced in 2018 a 100% commitment to supporting carers and scaling-up the work of our project across the state.

A district level carer group meet in Jharkhand

Last year we received further funding from the Commonwealth Foundation to develop a new project that will upscale and complement the previously funded project in India. We intend to make use of existing partnership operations, carers groups, and Carers Association networks and increase the reach we have in India. Key priorities include:

  • Implementing services at a local level that directly support carers, and ensuring the services become enshrined in policy
  • Designing an approach to engagement that is capable of influencing local, state and national level policy, immediately enriching our plans not only for our work in India but also further afield in Bangladesh, and informing our longer-term South Asia strategy

Leveraging the infrastructure and capacity created by our work to date, we feel that the project is positioned to capture and capitalise on the momentum already created at village and district level, and achieve significant steps towards establishing a robust civil society movement, able to petition for the recognition of the human rights of Indian carers. Through increasing momentum, we intend that this project will enhance the capacity of the Carers Associations and help sustain the representation of the population of carers overtime. Ultimately, we anticipate that this new funding will support the project’s transition from a grassroots carers initiative, to a robust movement of civic society poised to achieve the aims of a global strategy to reach 100,000 carers and their family members by the end of 2019.

To find out more about this current project and to learn about our other work, please visit our website and our Facebook page today.

Victoria Nicholson is a Communications Officer at Carers Worldwide.

Defining the agender: West African feminism

Posted on by Malou Schueller

The Commonwealth Foundation’s Participatory Governance and Gender Programme focusses on developing the capacities of civic voices to constructively engage with institutions, with each other, and with policy-makers to get their voices heard and ultimately influence policy.

‘Civic voices’ in this context is a broad concept, which does not only include civil society organisations but also individuals such as writers and filmmakers, who have a public voice and can influence public discourse towards policy change. The Foundation recognises that there are voices in the margins, voices who are more excluded than others, because they may not only be female, but female and from a poor rural background, or female and disabled, or young in societies where older people are more likely to be respected and listened to. Therefore, an intersectional analysis lies at the heart of our work.

‘local ownership is critical and movements need to identify their own agendas and solve their own problems’

In line with this broader understanding of civic voices, the programme worked with the West African Civil Society Institute in Ghana to organise a three-day dialogue in Accra.  A diverse group of women’s rights activists, networks, journalists and writers from five West African countries, both young and older, were invited to the conversation to explore strategies to amplify their voice, advance the women’s rights agenda across the region, and identify challenges to the women’s movement. In the spirit of South to South learning, women’s rights networks from Southern and East Africa were also invited to share their learning on monitoring the gender commitments of their governments.

Movement-building is critical to strengthening the collective voice of women. The added value of the Foundation is to facilitate processes that enable women from across the Commonwealth to come together to learn from each other and strategise together. This is part of the Foundation’s capacity development approach, which is a holistic process of change whereby people and institutions develop their abilities to do what they already do even better, to help them solve problems, and set and achieve their goals. This also means that local ownership is critical and movements need to identify their own agendas and solve their own problems. The conversation in Accra was organised on this basis; there was an explicit acknowledgment of this from participants: ‘[we need to] redefine feminism for ourselves, set our own agenda and harness our own resources and inspiration.’

‘In the spirit of South to South learning, women’s rights networks from Southern and East Africa were also invited to share their learning on monitoring the gender commitments of their governments.’

A key result of the dialogue was an in depth analysis of the main challenges facing the West African women’s movement. There was agreement that the women’s movement had been fragmented and was characterised by numerous cleavages, especially along intergenerational and class lines.

‘It is imperative to start a serious intergenerational dialogue, so the next generation of young women will get to understand what we have fought for and the need to continue the fight if the gains are to be sustained.’

The discussion therefore focussed on developing strategies to bridge these gaps–between women of different ages who had a different understanding of feminism and experiences of being a woman; the gap and mistrust between female politicians and women’s rights activists; the gap between rural and urban, rich and poor women – in order to effectively mobilise women to develop an inclusive agenda that all could support. Therefore, engaging more with younger women and expanding the dialogue on equalities-taking into consideration the various diversities-was seen to be critical to furthering the agenda.

Ultimately, the dialogue created the space for a renewed commitment to the women’s movement at national and regional levels, which enabled each country to develop a road map to strengthen its women’s movement. The Foundation is currently supporting some countries to develop these plans further into proposals that can be supported over the medium-term.

Malou Schueller is a Senior Programme Officer for  the Partipatory Governance and Gender team at the Commonwealth Foundation. 

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

Seasonal message from the Director-General

Posted on by Vijay Krishnarayan

As we start to look forward to a seasonal break, we pause to reflect on the year that’s passed.

For the Commonwealth Foundation, one of the highlights of the year was the Commonwealth Summit held in London. This biennial gathering of Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, civil society, and business naturally focusses the system’s energies. We played our part, convening diverse civic voices at the Commonwealth People’s Forum (CPF 2018), which placed inclusive governance at the centre of Commonwealth renewal.

Creative expression helped to animate the discussions and dialogues at CPF 2018 and made a real impact on the delegates. Seeing Karlo Mila deliver the poem that she wrote for the occasion to more than a thousand people was electric. She used the form to bring issues from Oceania to London, including colonial legacy, inequality, and climate change.

We were able to take some of those messages from civil society to the climate change talks taking place in Poland. Indeed, I write from Katowice, where 33,000 people are gathered at COP24. Here the Foundation is driven by the need for international processes to listen to and hear less heard voices. We gathered 40 of these in Barbados earlier this year in partnership with UNDP Global Environment Programme to explore the intersectionality between gender and climate change.

Our grant making continues to illustrate the ways in which participatory governance shapes people’s lives. Since 2012-13 we have invested nearly £6 million in projects that span a wide range of sectors but have one theme in common. They show how people’s participation in a wide range of governance processes can enhance development outcomes. We were able to add a further five projects to the portfolio this year.

One of the Foundation’s defining characteristics is a commitment to South to South and South to North knowledge sharing and learning. We saw a good example of this in action at the learning workshop that we convened for new grant projects in October. This annual activity aims to help project leaders to refine their approach to monitoring and assessment. This year we included sessions on gender sensitivity and its intersectionality, which helped underline the importance of holistic and integrated approaches.

These highlights give a sense of the busy and productive year that we have enjoyed at the Commonwealth Foundation. On behalf of staff I would like to thank our member states for their sustained support as well as our civil society stakeholders for continuing to walk with us.

Vijay Krishnarayan is Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.

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.

Trade 2030: questions on gender and technology

Posted on by Myn Garcia

‘Economic policies impact different segments of the population, including men and women, in different ways. In turn, gender inequalities impact on trade policy outcomes and economic growth. Taking into account gender perspectives in macro-economic policy, including trade policy, is essential to pursuing inclusive and sustainable development and to achieving fairer and beneficial outcomes for all.’-  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’ (UNCTAD)

The recent public forum of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in October 2018 with the theme Trade 2030 addressed the issues of sustainable trade, technology-enabled trade, and a more inclusive trading system.

The inclusion of civic voices in the forum was important. Coalitions and organisations such as Third World Network, Our World is Not for Sale, Women at the Table and Consumer Unity and Trust Society International curated and facilitated important sessions debating the intersection and implications of trade justice (or lack thereof) on: human rights gender, agriculture, food security, and climate justice, among others.

Two issues that stood out for me were ‘gender-responsive trade policies’ and the notion of technology as an enabler of trade.

Trade experts from around the world presented on options for sustainable trade

In 2017, the Ministerial of the WTO in Buenos Aires endorsed the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women’s Economic Empowerment. The views on the Declaration were contrasting. One argument asserted that the Declaration does not need to assess the negative gendered impacts of trade liberalisation in multiple sectors such as agriculture, industries, service and garment sectors, among others. However, Ranja Sengupta of Third World Network in her paper, Addressing Gender and Trade Issues in Trade Agreements: Creating more problems than solutions? suggests the need to explore the question as to which space is best suited for achieving gender equality or readjustment to address the adverse impacts of trade policy and liberalisation.  She posed the question: ‘Is it [gender equality] in trade agreements or should it be done in other enabling spaces such as through human rights mechanisms or should it be done through domestic policy…?’

‘Women entrepreneurs and producers not only benefit less proportionately from trade liberalisation but also bear a much higher share of the adverse impacts.’

In the current climate of ‘hyperglobalisation’ where trade negotiations are driven strongly by large and complex corporate and commercial interests, there are indeed serious questions that persist: what policies are likely to have an effect on gender equality and how can such policies be influenced? How can civic voices and development workers advocate for gender equality and better support women’s access to the benefits of trade?  And how robust is the process of identifying and addressing gender-based constraints that impede inclusive development?

The dominance of neo-liberalism, which is focused on creating a set of rules, arguably works against women’s rights and equality and excludes women. The questions that resonate are: how can the rules be rigged to make the system more inclusive? How can women in the global south and in the margins of developed countries in the north truly benefit from inclusive and enabling trade policy? What does this look like and what will it take to make this happen? And is the claim that countries should and will be enabled to ‘trade their way out of poverty’ viable?

Over 1500 participants attend the forum each year

Trade 2030 also highlighted technology as a driver of innovation for development. But civic voices said this cannot come at the expense of other imperatives such as social justice and environmental protection, which must also be considered when industrial policy is being formulated. While there is healthy scepticism about technology as a panacea, it would be wrong to discount the potential for technology to enable inclusion. For example, women entrepreneurs and producers use technology as part of their business solutions. But even as this is the case, access to technology is differentiated and the result is often making the gulf between haves and have-nots even greater – in an already divided and polarised world. For instance, women entrepreneurs and producers not only benefit less proportionately from trade liberalisation but also bear a much higher share of the adverse impacts due to their unequal access to resources and their location in the power structure. And at the macro level, economic empowerment of women in developing countries must be analysed within the broad context of development in these countries. How can a global ‘free’ trade agreement benefit women if their countries are not able to realise their domestic economic, social and human development plans and outcomes?

The answers to these questions can begin to rebuild trust in institutions- but only if voices less heard in trade debates are listened to.

Myn Garcia is Deputy Director-General at the Commonwealth Foundation. Image credit: WTO

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