Presentation on theme: "Richard Manning Seoul, 7 October 2013. Value of nationally-owned strategies for achieving key outcomes …..supported by internationally consistent."— Presentation transcript:
Value of nationally-owned strategies for achieving key outcomes …..supported by internationally consistent data collection and monitoring….. ….and by regular review at national, regional and international levels
Governments always likely to default to easy, politically convenient, and short-term decisions Governments in any case unable to deliver on issues that involve behaviour change at community or individual level And Governments severely limited in ability to deliver services directly
CSOs roles in: Delivery of services Community engagement Monitoring Campaigning Holding Governments to account
NOT just ‘NGOs’ Value of eg religious institutions, trade unions, professional associations and standard-setting bodies, independent media, think-tanks etc
For: ◦ Ensure comparability ◦ Facilitate comparison ◦ Basis for campaigning ◦ Should encourage donor support Against: ◦ Not locally owned ◦ May be inappropriate ◦ Ignore sub-national dimension So: use them intelligently – good servants and bad masters!
Run independent process(es) Access and use data Monitor public service delivery Challenge poor and inappropriate policies Ensure own standards and legitimacy
Good start by post-2015 and other CSO groups at international level. Need to bring the development and environmental communities together more effectively. Key actions however at national (and maybe sub- regional) level. UNDP role has been important in facilitating this, but must be locally-owned. Understand and communicate with Governments but maintain independence and ability to challenge Work together!
The percentage of countries and territories for which most (16 to 22) of the MDGs indicators series present at least two points in time rose from 2 to 83 percent in a decade (Ecosoc E/CN.3/2013/21). But data still lacking (eg at subnational level) Data needs quality analysis and dissemination: role for think-tanks and media, as well as for campaigning NGOs.
Much discussion of this Need more evidence of what works (eg reports by Svensson et al and now Zeitlin et al on Uganda) But undeniably an important area for CSO interest
Classic role for campaigning NGOs Needs good underlying analysis and arguments, based on real experience Needs enabling environment
Importance of an operating environment that encourages pluralism and openness Too often, public institutions can be capricious and unaccountable And Governments too sensitive to criticism ‘The conditions in which civil society operates are shaky at best and even deteriorating in many parts of the world.’ Civicus, 2013 Governments need to be readier to allow uncomfortable criticism, but…
…CSOs cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously if their own house is not in order CSOs legitimacy is not ‘built-in’ (like that of an elected legislature) but needs to be earned 2006: Istanbul Declaration, and INGO Accountability Panel 2011: Busan HLF: International CSOs declared that alignment of CSO accountability is a key factor in the improvement of aid effectiveness. Leads to new CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE). Ongoing: Joint Standard Initiative (JSI), which is developing common verifiable standards for the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), Sphere and People in Aid Proposed: Global Standard for Core CSO Accountability (ACFID (Australia), InterAction (US), Philippine CNC (Philippines), QuAM (Uganda), Rendir Cuentas (Latin America) and VANI (India))