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

Governance Area: Social inclusion

Women with disabilities advocate for their rights in Geneva

Posted on by Women with Disabilities India Network

In February 2019, the Women with Disabilities India Network (WWDIN), coordinated by the Shanta Memorial Rehabilitation Centre, submitted an Alternative Report on Article 6 of the UNCRPD to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Our report was prepared in response to the Initial Report submitted by the Government of India on progress towards meeting its commitments to the UNCRPD. In April, a team of four women with disabilities from WWDIN travelled to Geneva to present the report’s findings. This was the first such engagement of its kind for women with disabilities in India.

The Alternative Report is the product of two years of data collection (2017 and 2018) from consultations with 441 women with disabilities in 23 states of India. Women with disabilities are one of the most vulnerable and invisible sections of society in India. Women with disabilities are marginalised in different ways related to education, livelihood and access to health and other services leading to different forms of gender and disability-based violence within families and communities.

‘…the distance of educational institutions from home also has a specific effect on girls’

The report appreciates the positive initiatives taken by the Government of India such as the passage of the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The India Country Report has extensive listings of legal provisions, schemes and programmes for persons with disabilities in India. However, little data is provided about differential access women with disabilities have to these provisions. One of the reasons for this is that there is no coordination on issues of women with disabilities, who are relegated to the Disability Department by the Women and Child Development Department and often times overlooked. As a result, women with disabilities continue to remain far from achieving either de-facto or de-jure equality. The recognition of the legal capacity of women is partial, and this can be seen in old and even new legislation such as the newly introduced Mental Health Care Act (2017).

The Women with Disabilities India Network deliver the alternative report in La Salle des Emirates in the Palace of Nations, Geneva

Our research revealed that women with disabilities are consistently marginalised in education and employment, with low enrolment and work force participation. An insufficient number of schools in rural areas, where the vast majority of disabled people live, affects access to education; in particular, there are low enrolment numbers for girls with disabilities.

‘In practice women with disabilities have effectively no access to the justice system.’

Education of disabled girls is also affected by factors like poverty, adolescence and puberty; the distance of educational institutions from home also has a specific effect on girls as they are thought to be more vulnerable during long commutes than their male counterparts. The distance between home and school along with poor commuting facilities is a crucial factor in determining dropout rates among disabled girls from educational institutions. This is compounded by lack of accessible infrastructural and residential facilities.

Persons with disabilities protest for their rights in India

Our findings show that women with disabilities are also particularly vulnerable to violence both in domestic and public spaces. Much of this violence is undocumented and unrecognised as policies and practices in India fail to address specific barriers faced by women with disabilities, particularly in response to gender-based violence and violations of sexual and reproductive rights. Gender-based violence against women with disabilities takes many unique forms and includes violence that is perpetuated by stereotypes that attempt to dehumanise or infantilise, exclude or isolate them, and target them for sexual and physical abuse. Many women with disabilities experience gender-based discrimination in the private sphere, ranging from harassment and emotional abuse to rape and physical violence. Women with disabilities in India also face violence at the hands of intimate partners, including husbands and their families.

The Women with Disabilities India Network sat opposite the United Nations Committee on Persons with Disabilities as they delivered their alternative report

Women with disabilities—particularly women with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities—are disproportionately subjected to practices such as forced or coerced sterilisation, contraception, and abortion. Frequently, when these women are minors or are deprived of legal capacity, guardians, parents, or doctors may make the decision on their behalf. Women with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities face discrimination in the form of continued institutionalisation in state- and privately-run care homes and hospitals. Indian Laws however do not take cognisance of the special types, intensity and magnitude of violence perpetuated against women with disabilities. While some laws address violence against women with disabilities in institutional settings, in practice women with disabilities have effectively no access to the justice system.

The most obvious barriers to equality before the law in terms of disabled women’s access to the justice system are physical access, communication barriers, and financial constraints. Current policies and practices in India addressing violence against women fail to address the unique causes and consequences of gender-based violence against women with disabilities. For instance, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 does not address violence against women with disabilities.

While in Geneva last month, the WWDIN team presented our findings during two interactions with the CRPD – one with the entire committee and a second meeting with committee member Mr. Jun Ishikawa. In both our engagements, we were able to impress on the CRPD committee members the violations of the rights of women with disabilities in India, the roots of these problems, and their varied nature. The committee members asked pertinent questions, asking for clarification on several points and duly noted that there is a need to engage more proactively on issues of violence against women with disabilities. The outcome of the pre-session has been favourable as the List of Issues mentions the violations of rights of women with disabilities and enjoins the Indian state to be more proactive in addressing the concerns of women with disabilities across the country.

This article was written collaboratively between Nandini Ghosh, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata, and Reena Mohanty, Programme Officer, Shanta Memorial Rehabilitation Centre, Odisha.

Inclusion: let’s walk the talk

Posted on by Myn Garcia

Inclusion. It’s a buzz word. Inclusion finds itself in public policy discourse and conversations in development circles. Situated at the interface between policy and political processes, it is relevant in discussions and debates on citizenship and migration, cultural studies, economic theorising, humanitarian standards and the intersection of gender and climate change, among many others.

But we all know that inclusion is fraught with challenges. Raul Cordenillo in his article, Political inclusion is vital to sustainable democracy, argues that ‘foremost amongst these [challenges] is the increasing difficulty by which the needs and aspirations of citizens can connect with accountable and representative political institutions.’ He also cites the inequality of opportunity to engage in policy discussions and the lack of access to political institutions due to ‘frameworks or modalities for inclusive citizen involvement and engagement not being implemented or are simply not in place’ as a key issue.

‘The Foundation is committed to linguistic diversity, and believes that supporting translation and local languages fosters diverse traditions.’

At the Commonwealth Foundation, inclusion is key. Central to our work is the imperative to strengthen and include civic voices, those less heard, in the mainstream spaces where policy is interrogated and decisions are made. We refute the notion that there are people who do not have a voice. Rather we posit that people in all their diversity and in the margins, despite having a voice, are less heard.  Thus, access to spaces in the public sphere and the amplification of civic voices in matters of policy, governance and development are the areas that require accompaniment and support.

In March 2019, our cultural initiative, Commonwealth Writers, convened a small group of translators, writers, publishers, literary agents and cultural activists from South and Southeast Asia in Penang, Malaysia. The intention was to investigate imbalances caused by the relative lack of literary translation in the region.

Malaysian National laureate Dr Muhammad Haji Salleh (second from left) joined translators, publishers and writers at the Translation symposium in Penang, March 2019

But why is this important? The Foundation is committed to linguistic diversity, and believes that supporting translation and local languages fosters diverse traditions. To support translation is to encourage writing in local languages and the proliferation of diverse narratives. While Commonwealth Writers ‘recognises the value of English’s status (and others widely-spoken) as a “bridge language” – a conduit through which works spread beyond borders or communities – its prevalence has often obscured the vitality and range of creation in non-dominant languages in Commonwealth regions.’

‘We all know that inclusion is fraught with challenges.’

In the same month, through our Participatory Governance and Gender programme, we supported six women from West Africa, to be part of United Nations Women’s Commission on the Status of Women and the Annual Consultation of Commonwealth National Women’s Machineries in New York. This built on a dialogue on African Feminism which the Foundation co-convened with its partner, the West Africa Civil Society Institute in July 2018.

Pictured: dialogue on African feminism co-convened between the Foundation and the West Africa Civil Society Institute in July 2018

The New York delegation was intergenerational with more seasoned members mentoring those who have not yet had an exposure to a global space. In the Caribbean, the Foundation is supporting a governance dialogue on the intersectionality of gender and climate change, taking into account the impact of differentiated vulnerabilities.

Hazel Brown (left), feminist activist and pioneer delegate to the 1995 Commission on the Status of Women in Beijing, pictured with younger activist Shamima Muslim (right), whose attendance was supported by the Foundation.

At the last Commonwealth People’s Forum held in London in April 2018, women who have not only been ‘included’ but have actually been authorised to be decision makers in peace panels and processes came together to share their experiences and good practices. The Foundation’s grant programme features a range of projects that highlight inclusion of women in political processes, civic voice inputs to legislative reform, women with disabilities engaged in advocacy for the rights of people at a disadvantage, community-based organisations undertaking policy advocacy on social protection, and NGOs dedicated to promoting health rights and accountability in delivering health services. These are just a few examples of what inclusive governance entails.

Let us not just talk about inclusion. Let us accompany each other to demand for it and more importantly, to walk the talk.

Myn Garcia is the Deputy Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.

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.

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.

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

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.