Tag: Networks and coalitions

Civil society responses in the wake of COVID-19

Without doubt, the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the lack of preparedness among states across the global north and south for a disaster of this magnitude. Decades of underinvestment in health and education has been laid bare. The unravelling of the institutions that underpin these sectors has been spectacular, exposing fundamental deficiencies in their capacity to deliver. It is no exaggeration to say that vast sections of the global population face further exclusion unless governments affect far-reaching reforms. An assertive and engaged civil society can help governments find solutions to these challenges by drawing from the experience of their grassroots constituencies.

Civil society organisations have so far been involved in a range of interventions, from direct service provision to engaging lawmakers to reform the policies and guidelines that govern responses to the pandemic. Within the Commonwealth, there has been enhanced engagement in Commonwealth Ministerial Forums by civil society. At a recent Health Ministers meeting, the Commonwealth Civil Society Policy Forum made a presentation on how digital diagnostic technologies can be used to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Members are advocating the One Health approach, which looks at finding ways for the civic, private and government sectors to better communicate and work together to achieve UHC.

‘in poor rural areas and especially in the global south, the infrastructure for digital learning is not in place.’

As a leading member of the Forum, the Commonwealth Health Professions and Partners Alliance has been at the forefront of advocating for the implementation of UHC. In the wake of the pandemic, the Alliance has scaled up its advocacy, making proposals for mapping the use of digital technologies in health service and medicines delivery; using technology for better deployment of human resources; and development of model regulation, policy and standards for the use of digital technology, including addressing privacy and other human rights concerns. Articulation of these priorities has been an important first step. The next is to ensure their systematic implementation.

The wide application of digital learning in place of face-to-face learning is clearly a vital innovation that, in our post-pandemic world, is here to stay. But the effects of these changes can only be understood by first acknowledging the fact that, in poor rural areas and especially in the global south, the infrastructure for digital learning is not in place. We do not yet know who–or how many—are currently excluded from these new digital technologies. But a ‘one size fits all’ approach is undoubtedly a recipe for entrenching that exclusion. During this time of systemic change, it is thus vital that the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action is adhered to. This commitment recognises the role of education as a key driver of development and provides guidance for implementing Education 2030—an essential prerequisite for achieving the promise of Sustainable Development Goal Four: equitable learning for all.

‘Civil society must be—and must be seen to be—a partner and ally to governments: working together to forge a path towards a more positive future.’

Tackling the challenges ahead will require substantial policy and institutional reforms. Without change, there is a real risk that the Covid-induced health crisis will become something much more serious and enduring: that it will lead to even greater inequality and instability; that it will stall our progress towards the realisation of truly peaceful and inclusive societies. Civil society must be—and must be seen to be—a partner and ally to governments: working together to forge a path towards a more positive future. The Foundation is seeking to pivot its own programmes to ensure that it is able to make a meaningful contribution to Commonwealth civil society as communities and countries work to repair and recover from the global pandemic.

Shem Ochola is Deputy Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Civil society organisations engaged in responses to COVID-19 in Commonwealth countries are encouraged to subscribe to our mailing list for updates on our forthcoming grants call.

Bringing the sustainable development goals home

The Commonwealth Foundation (CF) spoke to Namhla Mniki-Mangaliso about her role in domesticating and implementing the sustainable development agenda in African countries. Namhla is the Director of Africa Monitor, which currently acts as the Africa Working Group (AWG) secretariat, a broad regional coalition of African civil society organisations. The Commonwealth Foundation has funded and supported AWG since 2014.

CF: Namlah, welcome to the Foundation. Could you start by introducing Africa Working Group (AWG) and the Africa Monitor’s role as secretariat?

Namlah: Thank you so much for having me. Africa working group is a coalition, or let me say it’s a platform, of well over 150 civil society organisations operating in Africa, working on various aspects of sustainable development. We’ve been in existence for the last 4-5 years and working to make sure we can inform and shape the evolution of the sustainable development agenda in Africa. We started during the negotiation process and now we are very well positioned as civil society […] to influence the accelerated implementation and domestication of the sustainable development goals [SDGs]. African Monitor is one of the founding members of the working group and is also the secretariat. Our work at the organisation is to enhance sub-Saharan African citizen agency […] to build the capacity of ordinary citizens to engage well with their governments. And so there is a complete alignment with what we do and the intentions of the African Working Group in making sure that African Civil Society is engaged and influences the policy direction that Africa takes as it correlates to the sustainable agenda.

CF: What are the benefits and constraints of the work of the AWG as a loose association of organisations?

Namlah: It is a loose network. We did not want to institutionalise it and turn it into a [formal] organisation: it is a coming together of a multitude of organisations. […] We wanted the likeminded to come together, as long as they care about sustainable development and as long as they cared about improving the real lives of people on the ground in Africa. I think the benefits have been the automatic commitment that organisations have to the cause because it is the coming together of the likeminded. The way that things happen in the African context is that there is a lot of influence in the collective […] you can achieve a lot more if you operate as a collective than if you operate as individual organisations. […] The challenge I think has been to work through how then do you put in place systems for accountability, governance and transparency. How then do you make decisions? Particularly the strategic [decisions] around what you focus on. And I think we had to be very careful in […] how you govern and coordinate, how you spread the responsibility of doing the […] work throughout the members. But I dare say that we’ve done much of that now. The AWG has a secretariat, there are core group of organisations that are Founding advisory members, there are working groups within the AWG, and there are co-chairs within those working groups. And so there are continuous processes of engagement, we do [web conference] calls and those kinds of things, so that we are continuously talking […].

CF: The Commonwealth Foundation supported AWG engagement with colleagues at the UN in New York while the SDGs were being negotiated – could you describe that and tell us about the impact of that work?

Namlah: Let me contextualise New York a little bit. When we did the New York mission […] at the time the negotiation around the SDGS were starting and […] accelerating. The United Nations (UN) system is set up in such a way, that the African Group [AG], in other words the African ambassadors [had] no systematic engagement with […] African civil society, in fact there was barely any presence of independent African civil society within the UN system. And so the Commonwealth Foundation came at the perfect niche, the perfect time in terms of the support and the boost we needed to get going with what turned out to be a fairly important relationship that we established with the African Group. And that was about three years ago already now and I think since then, not only were we able to continuously engage with the African Group in New York to the extent that they now know who the AWG is, which means that we continued to have the political space to shape […] the sustainable development goals. What that means for us is that the perspective of African people, our constituents, found voice and space. We wanted to make sure that the agenda on the SDGs is about people, is about the poor, is about the excluded and the vulnerable. The terminology of ‘leave no one behind’ was at the core of some of the things that we were negotiating for. We wanted to make sure that there is a very strong focus on young people, because Africa is a young continent. And we wanted to make sure that there were real conversations around structural issues, that make economies function well, […] inclusive economies, economic justice and so on. And then we wanted to make sure that governance was a central part of the agenda and so some of the big, big achievements I think [reflect] what we had been fighting very hard for. So New York was the beginning of something that continued up to December 2015 where we continued to engage. What that meant was is that we had impetus, as the civil society network, to continuously position ourselves and get ourselves organised [and] to go back as civil society leaders and say there is a real need for our continued engagement in this space, and so how do we shape that engagement with the African Union [AU], how do we shape that engagement at the national level with our presidents and our ministers and so on and I would say that moment was a really important accelerant to the work we’ve been able to do since then, […]. I think once the negotiations were completed and September 2015 happened a number of other amazing things and big milestones were achieved, I can sit here and say in most of the countries that we work there are SDG civil society platforms that exist, that have in large part been initiated by African Working Group members. So whether you are thinking about Tanzania, Cameroon, Ghana or South Africa, the SDG platforms that exist in those spaces are in fact initiated and co-coordinated by AWG members. Beyond that civil society networks at the national level are actively engaging with their own governments to ensure that the SDGS are domesticated, that accountability and review mechanisms [are in place] to ensure that the SDGs are going to be implemented. Another angle that I think AWG are working very hard on is around the issue of data. In other words, what’s the role of citizens in producing the kind of data and knowledge that can actually inform and influence review processes? So citizen driven data is a strong element of what we’re working towards both to improve national accountability systems and therefore improve national governance mechanisms, but also to improve global and regional accountability.

CF: Why were Cameron and Tanzania selected to localise the SDG agenda and what have the successes and challenges been?

Namlah: So both Tanzania and Cameroon exist within the context [of] AWG […] working across all the major countries to ensure that the SDGS were domesticated. The civil society organisations both inside Tanazania and Cameroon are a part of the Africa Working Group, so we already had very fertile ground in relation to the engagement of civil society in those spaces. When we started last year we said that we wanted a pilot programme, something that essentially would give us a model on how civil society can engage in the domestication agenda. Now you must remember that the background to this is that we had spent three years in policy advocacy trying to shape the agenda, and then we were realising that it was time to implement and to make sure that it comes back to the national level. That meant a couple of things. It meant that there needs to be policy integration, that we need to take the 17 SDGs and make sure that they are integrated with the national development plans. There [also] needs to be the institutionalisation of multi-stakeholder systems that would make sure we can jointly plan and jointly make decisions and review the SDGs. And then implementation approaches so the SDGS can be implemented […]. Tanzania being in East Africa and Cameroon being in West Africa … also gave us a really nice spread in terms of the geography of the continent. We also wanted to make sure that we could learn from the results of what was happening in both of those countries and it’s been exciting because I think there are a couple of milestones that we can look at that have happened. The first of those, was can we make sure that civil society gets its act together and positions itself well to engage as a value creating partner in the SDG agenda? What does that mean? That essentially means the establishment of the civil society SDG platforms… this idea of saying that all of civil society […] engaged in the SDGS must come together and think creatively about how to effectively engage.

Interestingly in most of the countries, civil society has come to the same conclusion about their role in monitoring and review in the data processes, […] in joint planning, joint decision making processes… and that’s the first milestone that I think we were able to achieve in each of the countries. In Cameroon they developed what I think they called the civil society chatter that essentially was a framework of how civil society would engage with other stakeholders, particularly government in the SDG process both from the policy integration perspective and the joint planning perspective as well as the monitoring and review perspective. Interestingly in Cameroon, the government hadn’t begun to think about how it was going to engage with other stakeholders, and so the process that civil society started, with the support of the Commonwealth Foundation, eventually ended up being endorsed by the planning ministry as a way forward in terms of making sure that there was going to be multi-stakeholder engagement.
In Tanzania, a similar process unfolded where civil society set-up what they called the civil society SDG platform and developed a monitoring and evaluation framework that then was the basis for negotiations with government. Because the Tanzania government decided that the institute for sustainable development would be the lead agency for the domestication of the SDGS, they’ve got political commitment to establish a multi-stakeholder forum, where government, business and Civil Society Organisations come together to work on the SDGs. The AWG members that are presented as a part of the CSO collation.

So [these are] huge millstones that would not have happened if civil society wasn’t organised and hadn’t positioned themselves well. The big task is that it’s not enough to have the institutional systems in place, the SDGS are about implementation. What do you prioritise? How do you budget in such a way that those that are in the frontline are now in the position of benefiting from implementation and services? That’s what we are engaged in now […] now the institutions are in place, how do we prioritise, plan properly and implement so that we leave no one behind. The next 13 years is going to tell us how successful we are.

CF: What aspects of partnership with the Foundation have been valuable to the AWG and the localising process? What distinguishes the Foundation as a partner?

Namlah: I think probably the most important characteristic is something that we’ve found very difficult to get funders to understand, because funders work in very traditional ways […] they look for an organisation and they look for established track records and there is usually very little understanding of how change works in the African context: that you need to operate by coalition […] and the model of the African working group is very unique in that sense, because we are not an institution, we are the coming together of different organisations and networks that want to make an impact in Africa. I think what, for me, distinguishes the Foundation has been the ability to understand those organic processes and the willingness to listen to what would work and why we are organising this way […]. I think this fits in very well around the new strategy of the Foundation, which is around civic voices because it’s about understanding the very many ways citizens can organise themselves, in order to improve governance and in order to improve democracy, not for its sake but to make real impact in the lives of people. Being able to work together in that space and being able to co-lend and co-create together has been wonderful, and we talk about development effectiveness and the idea that the solutions for problems must come [from those] at the helm of those problems and I think that the Foundation has an amazing ability to come in, listen in, and say what are the big problems, what aligns with our strategy, what can we add value to, while leaving the decision making powers to those that are involved and I think that has been our experience. I mean we are talking about a modest sum of resources, but I think it has given us the impetus that we needed at critical moments […] to make important impact. I do hope that becomes the example [for] more funders […]. […] It is important to safe guard civil society and civic space in Africa, we can’t talk about democracy in Africa without talking about how you protect civic space […]. [Funders] understanding why that’s important, I think would make a huge difference.

CF: What does the future hold for the AWG in the context of civil society supporting SDG? Could you identify gaps and potential gains?

Namlah: The bottom line is that we want the lives of African people changed in radical ways, and […] while we are still in the continent with the most young people in the world, the most resources under the ground, we still are faced with absolute poverty, huge unemployment issues and huge problems with governance. The SDG framework provides an opportunity within which that can change, but that’s not going to change by having the right policies in place, it’s going to change by implementation. And it’s our job, because we are civil society and we are independent from governments, [that] we work as a value creating stakeholder within the sustainable development agenda. It is our job to hold our governments accountable, to make sure that the resources that belong to the peoples of Africa are actually used to benefit Africa. […] so we’re not just going to challenge the status quo at the national level, we’re going to challenge it at the regional level [and] you can be sure we are going to challenge it at the global level because we know that it is the global dynamic that creates the mess in Africa, in terms of global resources [being] used and stolen and hidden […] and I think that the responsibility of the network is to be useful, directly in the lives of people, but also […] in giving voice to Africa’s aspirations globally and regionally.

CF: Namlah, thanks for giving us this insightful interview.

Namlah: Thank you.

ENDS

The Foundation’s Network Effectiveness Framework: what’s it all about?

Over the last few years I’ve had the privilege of working with a number of the Foundation’s civil society partners across the globe.

Many of our partners have initiated exciting projects to address some of the most pressing issues of our time: youth unemployment, sustainable energy, climate justice. For civil society, one of the ways to increase its power and recognition is by connecting and collaborating with other organisations, individuals, and experts to build a stronger voice and network for change.

Networks have always been important mechanisms through which civil society can increase its power and voice. However, they have gained increasing relevance in the last few years. For one, the power of technology has made the ability to connect people, attract support and to get the message out that much easier. Some well-known networks and social movements such as Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Living Wage Campaign, Black Lives Matter have demonstrated that a strong message, effective use of online media and in many cases a distributed and devolved network leadership, can challenge and create powerful change.

Over the last little while, the civil society sector has faced more than its usual share of disruption. Shifts in funding and aid arrangements and shrinking of the operating space for civil society have meant that the sector is considering new ways of connecting and collaborating. Networks and movements that use more agile, fluid structures for organising and connecting actors can provide a way in which to advocate for some of the urgent issues we face.

But, if you’ve ever worked as part of a network, you’ll know that working collaboratively is never straightforward. Because networks are made up of independent organisations and actors, each with their own purpose and way of working – managing their different interests and finding a common vision or voice can be like ‘herding cats’!

So what is the Foundation’s Network Effectiveness Framework (NEF) all about? Recognising the challenge of maintaining the momentum of collaborative working and sharing a vision across different interest groups, we hoped that by developing a tool, our partners could analyse and assess their progress as a network as well as identify areas and needs of capacity to improve the effectiveness of their change agenda. At the same time it needed to provide the Foundation with monitoring benchmarks to show progress to its own funders. I began to research networks and evaluations on what makes them effective. What key elements determine their success? What is and isn’t a change network? How can you keep network members keen and motivated? Is it possible for all participants to have a stake?

Drawing on the research as well as the work of our partners, we see that most networks that work towards a social change, policy reform purpose are facilitated by an identifiable supporting entity – the network leaders – a steering group, organiser or secretariat that provides strategic leadership and administration. From a central ‘core’, membership is often diffused. In well-developed social and policy change networks, membership can be multi-layered with sub-structures, such as a technical advice committee or geographical hubs, allowing for decentralised forms of decision-making.

The Foundation’s NEF aims to look holistically at all aspects of network effectiveness – leadership, structure, impact. The framework breaks down network effectiveness into four main areas or ‘elements’. Ideally, all four elements should be analysed to provide a holistic view of where you are as a network and where you’d like to get to, to effect change. The four elements and their ideal ‘state’ are as follows:

1. Vibrancy: A vibrant network has clarity on the change it wants to see, devolved leadership, actively addresses gender and power imbalances in its structures and learns from its experiences.

2. Connectivity: A connective network has structures that allow for a diversity of connections required to make decisions and achieve its outcomes.

3. Resources: A well-resourced network values, utilises and cultivates funding from members as well as external funders and is transparent in its management of funds.

4. Policy advocacy strategy and impact: An effective strategy has a clear problem identification, is backed up by research evidence and is targeted where power lies. A network has made an impact when the media adopts its messages, decision-makers engage the network in determining the policy agenda and its recommendations has led to changes in policy.

Each of the four NEF elements is broken down into key characteristics:

Vibrancy

Characteristics:

  • Shared vision
  • Recognition of gender and societal power imbalances
  • Distributed leadership
  • Learning and development
Connectivity

Characteristics:

  • Structure
  • Connections between core members
  • Linkages with wider constituents
Resources

Characteristics:

  • Financial resources
  • Skills capacity
Policy advocacy Strategy and impact

Characteristics:

  • Strategy
  • Influence of the policy debate
  • Engagement with decision-makers

We developed a number of questions to probe and help network leaders and members reflect on the main attributes and capacities of each of the above characteristics. These are presented in the The NEF matrix. The framework is designed for network leaders and members to undergo a self- assessment process, ideally working in groups, using the questions in the matrix in a facilitated workshop setting. The workshop should also outline targets and agree on actions and responsibilities to improve. These can be recorded on the NEF Record Sheet, developed on Excel. Ideally, the targets should form part of the network’s workplan.

In the end, each of the characteristics is rated using a red-amber-green status and scored to provide an overall tally. Both the rating and scoring should be helpful to quickly demonstrate progress and change to network members. Although the ranking is helpful, it is the discussion, reflection and consensus between core members on each of the characteristics and on the strengthening needed that is the most important result of the framework analysis.

It is important to say that a key aspect of this framework is the recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all with regard to network structure and operation. Different structures will be appropriate for different purposes and contexts. Network leaders are encouraged to assess and experiment with the structural needs that best serve the change they want to see. The NEF questions have been designed to help networks reflect on this.

So far we have found NEF’s application insightful in probing and pinpointing capacity support needs in the developmental stages of the Southern African Alliance for Youth Employment (SAAYE). We hope to apply NEF with other Foundation partners in 2017.

I hope that organisations and network leaders will find this framework useful. I really believe that making connections, finding common ground and making linkages through networks and collaboration with tried and tested partners as well as forging new and different relationships will become more and more important in this new political and development era. As Naomi Klein put it in her acceptance lecture for the Sydney Peace Prize in November last year, ‘Intersectionality … is the only path forward.’ The enormous problems of inequality, human rights abuses and climate change are all linked; so we need to do better at linking up and working with others to find solutions.

I would be very grateful to have any feedback on any use of the NEF, which can be left in the comments section below. We would be keen to know how you’ve used it but also:

  • Are you or your organisation currently part of a network and what do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of this alliance?
  • Do you feel that the NEF can help your network build on its strengths and address the weaknesses? If not – why not?
  • What’s missing from it?

The Network Effectiveness Framework is available for download here.

Photo: Flickr CC: Rosmarie Voegtli

CIVICUS World Assembly in Bogota

Been there, done that…

There are two types of delegate to the CIVICUS World Assembly. The hardened veterans who have been there, done that and worn out the tee-shirt. They take a particular joy in telling anyone who cares to listen how many times they have heard it all before. Then there are those that are never tire of this amazing moment when civil society colleagues from across the globe come together to talk and think. I’ll confess here that this year I felt myself drifting dangerously towards that first rather unattractive group. But that was before I had a chance to stop and take stock of what was being said.

This was the first opportunity for civil society to come together in the Sustainable Development Goal era. It was one of the most diverse CIVICUS gatherings with more than 900 people converging in Bogota. They reflected the gamut of civic perspective: concerned individuals; local groups; national associations; international federations; development donors; government officials; and the occasional tribune from business.

These are interesting times for civil society. The new agenda for 2030 brings with it a new reality regarding its resourcing. We’ve known for some time that there is less money around for the usual work from the usual sources but last year’s Financing For Development discussions in Addis signalled the end for Official Development Assistance. That cat has the attention of many pigeons: from government donor agencies increasingly having to defend their ever smaller budgets to international NGOs having to review their business models accordingly.

Ever since the phrase War on Terror was coined it was clear that civil society would be caught in the cross fire. In the run up to the conference the violent deaths of brave people working for social justice in each part of the world brought that home to delegates in a chilling way.

The move to have the conference in Colombia at this time was in part a decision aimed at making it more diverse with a better balance between delegates from the North and the South. It was also designed to support the continuing peace process and highlight the importance of civil society in making the ultimate outcome a lasting one.

These contextual factors made delegates look at some of the usual agenda items through different glasses. “Shrinking space for civil society” has been a preoccupation at these gatherings for nearly 20 years but the evidence of the increasingly violent closing down of dissent with impunity is transforming this issue from the metaphysical to something very real.

The context also revealed the tensions within civil society. I heard from several delegates and not just the young, a sense that the organisations that were established in the 1980s to coordinate and articulate civic voice were now impeding. These intermediaries were taking up too much of the “shrinking space,” coveted by new social movements and networks.

The frustration of these new players is fuelled by government institutions that are still unable to engage with multiple stakeholders let alone those who continue to be kept at the margins. It’s also driven by an awareness of the need for urgency in addressing inequality, violence and a damaged environment.

Reduced funding from established donors is also turning civil society in on itself. New initiatives portray themselves as closer to people than established civil society organisations with the promise of impact and results. “Fundamediaries” or those that make the connections between donors and implementing agencies are despised for skimming scarce resources. At the same time civil society in the South rightly question why only 1% of official development assistance comes to them directly.

The diversity of civil society and the operational constraints faced by the sector as a whole means that competition is inevitable but it comes at a time when collaboration with the sector is needed more than ever. Organisations like the Commonwealth Foundation have an obligation to enable dialogue and cooperation between civic stakeholders. At the same time there is also an obligation to help civil society organisations to adapt and come to terms with a changing context.

The evidence from this year’s ICSW is that new approaches are challenging the orthodoxies – space for some may be shrinking but for others new opportunities are being taken advantage of. Funding for some is reducing but new forms of social organisation are coming up with ideas for self-financing and effecting change. The painful truth is that hardened veterans like me will be some of the toughest to convince that these new ways can work but at the very least Bogota convinced me that I need a new tee-shirt.