DRAFT circulated for comments
CARE International Guideline[AT1] on Civil Society Collaboration
Introduction:
What is it?
This is a guide to how CARE can collaborate with and be a partner of choice for civil society in the countries where we work. It aims to contribute to a common yet flexible approach to civil society collaboration that is sensitive to local contexts. It is central to the CARE transformational change process, and it is written by CARE colleagues for CARE colleagues.
The guideline contains:
1) A context analysis outlining key trends in civil society and support to civil society
2) An outline of roles that CARE can play in relation to civil society
3) Guidance on steps to take our partnerships to the next level
Why a guideline?
The CI Program Strategy outlines a role for CARE as a ‘partner of choice’ for civil society and as a broker of local to global linkages to fight poverty and social injustice. The Vision 2020 and two-pager on Local to Global Partnerships recognize that CARE has to play new roles in a context where southern civil society is growing stronger and more vibrant, and north-south and south-south relationships are changing.
Despite commitments by CARE and global trends pointing us in the direction of greater focus on supporting civil society in the global South, there is little guidance as to how to do this in CARE. Therefore, the Programme and Operation Committee (POC) endorsed the establishment of a working group to draft a CI guideline for collaboration with civil society. The guideline has been drafted based on an analysis of civil society trends, consultations with country offices across regions, interviews with external stakeholders, analysis of country presence reviews and input from CARE partners.
What it does it not contain?
The focus is on civil society, so this is not a guideline for collaboration with the private sector or with the government. The CARE Governance Programme Framework captures the broader perspective of working with states and citizens to improve governance, whereas this guideline focuses specifically on working with organized citizens – CSOs. The guideline does not address civil society collaboration and partnerships in emergencies. Although many of the principles and points are valid during humanitarian operations, we felt that this topic needs to be addressed in a humanitarian strategy.
How can it be used and followed up?
The roles and principles outlined in the guideline can serve as a basis for reflection at all levels in the organization, as inspiration to change practices, and as input to specific policy and strategy review processes at country office level. Along with thisguideline,we are starting a Community of Practicearound civil society collaboration and partnership approaches. The guideline does not contain a lot of specific tools and tips, but we have gathered usefulresources on Minerva where we have created a space for practical tools and case study examples for inspiration. We encourage colleagues to upload content to share with the CARE world on Minerva. The Community of Practice will also aim at improving reporting across CARE on engaging with civil society, and look at relevant indicators to be included in the PIIRS.
Global civil society trends
A changing world order
In the past two decades, a new world order has been emerging, characterized by multi-polarity and a shifting of power from the OECD countries to the BRIC countries and other fast growing economies. Large private sector actors have gained substantial influence and power. New development actors such as the BRIC countries and philanthropic funds have entered the aid scene. The role of Official Development Assistance (ODA) is reducing as compared to foreign investments and remittances in aid receiving countries.
Global issues and global solutions
North-South[1] boundaries in civil society are also becoming blurred, with new and different forms of engagement realigning relationships nationally and internationally. A 'new' sense of solidarity amongst civil society in the North with civil society in the global South is emerging as it becomes clear, that a global elite have shared interests, close networks, and enormous influence over national and international political and economic decision-making (CS@Crossroads 2012). New global civil society alliances around global issues are emerging as an alternative to the North-South donor-recipient relations of the past decades. Northern NGOs are beginning to adopt strategies and tactics developed in the South to examine domestic policies and practices of their own governments and businesses.
In today’s interconnected worlds, poverty is increasingly recognized as a result of international and global processes.[AT2]The underlying causes of poverty and inequality often have roots far beyond the individual village or country. Issues of climate change, rising inequality, economic crisis, unequal trade terms, and ongoing conflicts call forinternational solutions. Large companies that transcend borders defy national controls and tax regulations, calling for international standards and regulation. Increases in food prices or climate change can push millions of poor people into deeper poverty. Even local civil society organisations who do not wish to engage with international issues or institutions, often find themselves affected by what is going on internationally.
In response to the global challenges, civil society is increasingly mobilizing around global problems and solutions and are working across bordersand from local to global level, to share experiences in how to overcome common challenges (CIVICUS 2014).The rapid increase in Internet, social media and mobile access has connected citizens around the globe and created new opportunities for collective action.
A new burgeoning of social movements and citizen uprisings
The recent years has seen a surge in social movements, mass protests and citizens’[AT3]uprisings in many parts of the world. The new movements are characterized by informal structures and have often bypassed the more formal civil society organisations. Citizen movements are increasingly using new tactics and new technology, especially social media, in campaigns and mobilization.
The mass protests from South and North America, over Europe, North and Sub-Saharan Africa to South and South East Asia reveal a deep dissatisfaction with practices of politics and economics that serve elites, as well as frustration with the inadequacy of formal party politics in which people have few practical opportunities to influence the decisions that affect their lives. Civil society groups have highlighted rising inequality, corruption, and declining civil liberties as reasons for action.Increasingly, civil society is also organizing to protest and combat the expansion of the private sector into many aspects of public life and the privileging of big business in governance (CIVICUS 2014).
A “third wave” of women’s liberation has begun in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East with women demanding recognition of their human rights and an end to gender based violence (Scenario 2025). The One Billion Rising movement is one example of a global campaign. Grassroots women’s movements in several places are struggling to increase their voice and momentum in conservative environments.
Stronger and more diverse civil society [AT4]
While several undemocratic regimes continue to limit and prevent civil society from organizing and working, the global picture shows a world where civil society is growing stronger and more diversethan ever, ranging from formal organisations to huge informal movements across the globe (CIVICUS 2014). Although there are still very real capacity and accountability gaps, CSOs in the Global South are becoming stronger and more capable every year. This calls for a renewed debate over the roles and priorities of especially the Northern-based NGOs, which were set up to work in the South.
The NGO sector continues to mushroom, and in many newer democracies, hundreds of new NGOs are registering every year. Reliance on short-term international donor funding is still an impediment for sustainability of many NGOs (USAID CSO sustainability index 2013). While some South-based CSOs are being blamed for being urban elitist organisations, many others are considered legitimate representatives of their constituencies and give a voice to people who are poor and marginalized. Still, large scores of poor farmers, landless, agrarian workers and jobless people in urban and rural areas in especially Africa and Asia remain unorganized and have little voice.
Increasingly restrictive environments for civil society
While civilsociety space is expanding in some countries with civil society becoming more vocal, it is simultaneously contracting in many countries and contexts (CS@Crossroads,Freedom House,USAID,Danida, EU, CIVICUS, etc.). Over the past year, in contradiction of international human rights standards, more than 30 countries have drafted laws to impede civil society activists and their organisations from speaking out and mobilizing. There is growing concern regarding the deteriorating environment in many countries for CSOs to organise, raise funds, and to speak out free from state interference. The restrictions are imposed on civil society despite states having committed to guaranteeing an ‘enabling environment’ for CSOs at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid and Development Effectiveness in Busan, 2011.
Organisations challenging government policies and doing advocacy are typically facing more barriers than those solely involved in service delivery, although scepticism towards foreign funding in general is increasing in several countries (CIVICUS 2014). Nonetheless, evaluations suggest that even in restrictive contexts, CSOs have sometimes been able to build constructive relationships with and influence governments on social issues, particularly at a sub-national level (OECD Evaluation Insights 2013).
In the case of (post) conflict or fragile countries, both the state and civil society have often been severely eroded and traditional community structures are often disrupted due to displacement, fragmentation of society and distrust. NGOs in these contexts often fail to represent vulnerable and excluded groups, and lack the capacity to engage effectively with the state and other actors. Patterns of patronage, social exclusion and corruption that sometimes characterize society as a whole are usually mirrored in civil society organizations. In the absence of government capacity, international NGOs tend to partner with local NGOs in taking over part of the government responsibility to deliver services. While this strategy may be effective in the short run, it can undermine state-citizen relations in the longer run. Building on state structures and strengthening the capacity of NGOs and civil society structures to engage becomes critical.
Trends in support to civil society
Global commitments to support civil society
Governments and global institutions increasingly recognize CSOs as important development actors in their own right, and they increasingly have access to global institutions and government decision-making processes.More than 80 developing countries, all OECD donors, some 3000 civil society organizations from around the world and representatives of emerging economies, United Nations, multilateral institutions and global funds, agreed to the Accra Agenda for Action in 2008. Itstresses the fundamental, independent role of civil society in engaging citizens, making their concerns and needs heard, and in helping to ensure that donors and developing countries fulfil their commitments. It emphasizes the need for inclusive partnerships with civil society for development and their full participation in these development partnerships.The Busan agreement from 2011 and the Istanbul principles confirmed the commitment to deepening civil society partnerships.
Donor justifications for supporting civil society
More and more donors have formulated and updated strategies and policies for support to civil society.Donors with explicit civil society strategies, policies or principles include the EU, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands. In case of the US and other donor countries, the approach to support to civil society is integrated into other strategies namely those on democracy, human rights and governance.Support to a strong, independent civil society in developing countries is justified in different ways in donor civil society policies and strategies, as also pointed out by the OECD evaluation insight from 2013:
1.Civil society actors [AT5]are important change agentsand indirectly contribute to development or humanitarian outcomes by supporting informed and active citizens to make governments more effective and accountable, to stimulate public debate, influence laws, and promote democratic processes, accountability and good governance. Civil society is alsoseen as a crucial component of the well-being of society with intrinsic merit.
2. Civil society actors contribute directlyto development and humanitarian outcomes bydelivering services to vulnerable groups. CSOs are selected as partners because of their local expertise and connections and ability to provide basic services to marginalized communities, often in cost-effective ways. In that way, they help donors deliver value for money.
Often, thesenarratives co-exist in the same strategies and policies.As pointed out by the OECD evaluation insight (2013), it is not always clear which of these roles, or combination of roles, donors expect civil society to play. There is often a tension between these different roles for civil society support because each role has different implications for the type of funding or support that is appropriate,the nature of partnerships, and the way success is measured.The OECD DAC reporting distinguishes between support to CSOs where the money’s final destination is a CSO – for core support or for activities programmed by CSOs; and support through CSOs in order to reach some end constituency that the donor wishes to serve. Future funding for CSOs largely depend on which narrative is predominant.
There is a need for donors and INGOs tospell out a clear intervention logic and theory of change for the support to civil society in the global South. The OECD calls on donors to formulate overall frameworks for supporting civil society in developing countries based on analysis of the civil society sector and contributions to development.
Strategic partnering with civil society
Increasingly, European donors are beginning to subscribe to the change agent narrative, andfocus on civil society strengthening because it has an intrinsic value for sustainable development. This is reflected in the policies from both the EU, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands.Common for these policies is, that they specify the role of civil society[AT6]asa democratic watchdogwhocanempower and inform citizens and monitor and influence government and private sector policies.It is emphasized that service deliverycannot be an end in itself or stand alone, but must be used strategicallyas a means to influence policies or change structures that keep people in poverty. Hence, civil society can still play both roles (service providers and advocates), but service delivery has to be strategicand linked with advocacy. Stand-alone service delivery is generally excluded from donor support to civil society except in fragile and humanitarian situations.
This change is encouraged by the OECD pointing to a broader trend. The OECD is calling ondonorsto build partnerships with civil society that are consistent with, and enable them to achieve the objectives of civil society policies.The OECD recommends that donors should strive to increase the share of core funding to strengthen CSO ownership, and make capacity development of civil society in developing countries a key condition.However, donors and North-based CSOs often struggleto find the most relevant southern CSO partners who can act as legitimate change agents.In many cases, suchchange agents and grassroots organisations are out there, but according to the OECD study, regulatory and administrative requirements, aversion to risk and lack of trust, and inadequate understanding of the complex world of civil society are part of the reasons for this. It is increasingly important for North-based CSOs to find the right partners among South-based CSOs, to handover more money and decision-making power to the partners in line with a strategic development perspective and the aid effectiveness agenda.
At the same time, North-based CSOs will have toprove their value addition in the strategic partnerships. While Northern CSOs continue to be a preferred channel for ODA support to civil society in developing countries, there is evidence that this is on the decline (OECD 2012). There is a tendency that donors are channelling more funding directly to civil society in the South through their representations in country or through multi-donor civil society funds (Riding the Wave 2013 a.o.).
The results based management agenda
Experience shows that civil society capacity and coalition building and advocacy for policy change takes time and require long-term commitments and flexibility. This is clearly a challenge to donors who are under pressure to show tangible results and value for money from civil society support within a short time frame. As governments are pressured to show tangible results from aid, they impose stricterresults based management regimeson the recipient CSOs. This can have somenegative consequences and can undermine the objectives of civil society strategies. Short time frames and highly ambitious targets can lead to a choice of quick fix interventions, which might be less sustainable, and favour urban elite NGOs, who are highly professionalized, while weaker more legitimate grassroots organizationsare left behind.