Tag: NGO

January 20, 2020

A DFID-FCO merger needs to remain off the cards

Kawkaba Samadzada Blog DFID, INGO, NGO, Sector News

January 20, 2020
A DFID-FCO merger needs to remain off the cards

Plans to merge the Department for International Department (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) appear to have been abandoned by Prime Minister Boris Johnson for now. The idea of a DFID/FCO merger has been debated numerous times since DFID’s separation from FCO in 1997, most recently resurfacing amidst the 2019 general elections and causing a stir among UK charities. Despite the merger being allegedly off the cards for the time being, rumours of a ‘compromise’ which would put the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, in control of both ministries has failed to ease many commentators and UK NGO staff.

Two ministries with different priorities

DFID is one of the few aid departments in the world that is not part of a foreign ministry. DFID’s mission is to lead the UK’s work to end extreme poverty and aim to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing countries and the UK. Its priorities are centred on promoting global prosperity, strengthening global peace, security and government as well as resilience and response to crisis. The role of the FCO differs in that it aims to promote British interests and global security through activities that “protect our people, project our influence and promote our prosperity”. Its focus is primarily to safeguard UK national security, build UK prosperity and support British nationals around the world. So whilst DFID’s focus is on development and aid, the FCO mostly prioritises national security.

Conflict of interest?

Presently, 30% of the UK’s £14bn annual aid budget is spent in departments outside of DFID and in cross-government funds such as the conflict, stability and security fund. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has scrutinised this distribution of the aid budget, criticising the consequential growing focus on larger, middle-income countries and risking the principle of ‘leaving no behind’. The differing priorities of DFID and FCO add to the list of growing concerns amid use of aid funds. DFID’s inclusive approach to tackle the roots of poverty globally and ‘leave no one behind’ are feared to be at risk of being compromised by the FCO’s aim to protect and promote British political and strategic interests.

NGO officials in disagreement

A significant number of NGO officials in the sector have expressed their disagreement with a DFID/FCO merger. This includes senior representatives, such as the CEO of BOND, one of the leading UK networks for organisations working in international development.

“Any merger of the FCO and DFID could mean UK aid will no longer be about helping those suffering the consequences [of] climate change, and supporting people trying to survive war and disease. UK aid could instead become a façade for UK foreign policy, commercial interests and political objectives.” –Stephanie Draper, BOND (CEO)

In December 2019, over 100 British charities, including Islamic Relief UK, Oxfam GB, and Tearfund, came together to protest the dissolution of DFID, proclaiming this decision would suggest Britain is “turning our backs on the world’s poorest people”. Many experts are concerned this merger will result in development interests being overshadowed by commercial and foreign policy objectives. They believe that in order to maintain the integrity of British aid work, it will be crucial for “the political will to keep development interests separate from national self-interests”. However, this contrasts with the assertions of PM Boris Johnson that the aid budget should be spent in Britain’s political, commercial and diplomatic interests.

Learning from other countries

The examples of Australia and Canada have been cited to demonstrate how merging the foreign and development departments weakens a country’s influence and the effectiveness of their aid. The UK government is currently legally obliged to spend 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) on overseas aid. Following the mergers in Australia and Canada, the quantity of the aid budget in those countries dropped, resulting in a failure to meet their 0.7% target. Observers fear that a similar trend is to be expected in the UK, and that the UK would fail to meet its obligation to spend 0.7% GNI on overseas aid, threatening its standing and the projects that depend on DFID’s funding.

Possible loss of specialised staff

Other concerns include a loss of in-house expertise. Rather than strengthening the direction of aid, following a merger the different priorities of FCO and DFID would instead confuse the priorities of development assistance. Staff would be required to take more generalist approaches due to the differing objectives of British development and British diplomacy and political interests – it is likely there would be a loss of specialist staff, as experienced in Australia. In the words of Kevin Watkins, Save the Children (CEO):

“Save the Children is reliant on the excellence of both the Foreign Office and DFID, but they are effective because they have distinct skillsets, culture[s] and objectives. To merge them would damage the work of both. We can and should have an effective and well-resourced Foreign Office alongside an independent DFID.”

Experts have warned that with COP26, the major United Nations climate change summit, expected to take place in Glasgow next year, wasting time, money and resources on restructuring Whitehall would be “political suicide”.

Concerns over lack of transparency

Perhaps the largest fear revolves around a lack of transparency. It can be traced back to the Pergau Dam scandal, where in 1994, aid for this project was declared unlawful at the UK high court. At the time, UK aid was handled by a department of FCO, which operated under an ‘aid for trade and arms’ model. To contrast, the independent DFID is recognised for its aid transparency and consistently ranks in the top five globally. On the other hand, the FCO ranks among the world’s worst. The present sharing of the aid budget between different departments has increased uncertainty about its use. Lack of transparency and controversial uses revealed themselves in Australia where the aid budget was being used for in-country refugee costs following the merger.

We should not conflate development interests with other priorities

Despite PM Johnson’s enthusiasm for a DFID-FCO merger, its critics have raised valid concerns. It is DFID’s independence that has contributed to its reputation, global influence and trust from donors and recipients alike. Conflating development interests with British political and commercial interests not only puts the development of recipients at stake but also the reputation of the UK and the impact of its work. It’s time to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Written by Madiha Zeb Sadiq

Research and Development Assistant

Alternatives to Aid: Mobilisation for Development

Kawkaba Samadzada Blog INGO, NGO, Sector News

January 15, 2020
Alternatives to Aid: Mobilisation for Development

There is an increasing number of critical voices that point to the limitations of conventional aid. In this blog post, R&D team member Madiha Zeb Sadiq looks at some of these criticisms and whether alternatives to aid exist.

Fake “Aid”?

There is an abundance of criticisms of foreign aid. One key concern for many critics is effectiveness and sustainability. Many poor countries are saddled with debt, and without sufficient development to justify it, the debt increases poverty, as the money spent on paying it off could have been invested in public infrastructure. Dambisa Moyo, a vocal critic of foreign aid argues that “evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower.” In fact, material donations often hinder economic progress as they destroy local businesses by eliminating the needs for material goods.

Another concern is that foreign aid is used as a tool of influence for donor countries over recipients and often does not address real needs on the ground. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) suggests that “there is little indication that DfID has sought to address the forms of corruption that most directly affect the poor”, raising the question as to whether foreign aid is truly beneficial and being used for what is really needed. Aid, the report goes on to argue, has little impact on improving political and human rights, because projects are funded to meet obligations and targets rather than to deliver results on the ground. Examples are the Indian space programme or political projects producing graffiti in Kenya (which are often erased hours after completion) – do these really address the most urgent needs of the poor of those nations?

Moreover, in states that are afflicted by high levels of corruption particularly, aid money is often misused and instead lines the pockets of the elite. Foreign aid can encourage corrupt governments by eliminating the responsibilities of the government to the people. Knowing they will receive aid money, governments have little incentive to seek better methods of financing but corrupt governments are incentivised to remain in power.

What alternatives to aid exist?

“Trade not aid”:

“Trade not aid” is an economic idea, which promotes free trade over foreign aid. The idea is that foreign aid perpetuates a culture of dependency and results in economic inefficiencies, by displacing incentives for domestic governments to invest in public infrastructure. For example, governments often fail to set up efficient tax collection due to a reliance on foreign aid. Advocates of the “trade not aid” approach argue that eliminating barriers to trade (such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies for local producers in developed countries and the high requirements for engaging in the global economy and in multilateral institutions, like the World Trade Organisation) may be more effective at increasing welfare than aid. The success of South-East and East Asia is often cited. China’s economic growth over two decades lifted record numbers of people out of poverty. Proponents of the “trade not aid” approach argue this was largely due to free trade. However, critics contend that because countries differ from one another, it is unlikely that the South-East/East Asia model would be successful in, for example, South America. Additionally, this approach would require significant market reform, and countries with underdeveloped industries may not benefit from such a drastic change. Finally, although free trade enables self-sufficiency, the benefits are not always equally distributed, which also raises questions such as how those unable to work would benefit from this.

Social enterprises:

Social enterprises are premised on prioritising social impact over profit. They do this by empowering locals through skills development and job creation. That way, local innovation and creativity is promoted through participation, empowerment and support. The assumption is that this encourages faster economic and sustainable growth. The social enterprises approach is believed to be particularly effective at addressing local issues, as it is locals who have the best understanding of issues that need addressing, making them the best candidates to resolve them. Proponents of the social enterprise approach argue that social issues, the labour market and the environment are best targeted with this approach. However, critics argue that compared with well-designed targeted foreign aid projects, there is limited potential to solve major challenges, such as HIV prevention and treatment.

Foreign Direct Investment:

The Foreign Direct Investment initiative has garnered support from the IMF and World Bank. It entails a long-term commitment for foreign companies to involve themselves with a locally established company’s day-to-day operations. This could be by bringing in capital, skills, technical know-how or technology that will encourage growth of the locally created company. This is expected to result in job creation and increased skills of local employees, linking to international value chains and international trade. An example of this would be the telecom sector in Ghana, where foreign direct investments enabled greater job creation and improved overall infrastructure. However, due to the control of foreign companies, issues of security and politics arise. This is particularly the case for countries with a history of colonialism, who fear FDIs may result in modern-day economic colonialism. Another issue would be the question of where the local company’s profits are directed. From the point of view of the investors, there are questions such as country risk, economic stability and risk of nationalisation.

Islamic Microfinance:

A fourth alternative to aid is Islamic Microfinance. The shariah compliance of this economic model makes it a viable approach for many Muslim communities who may reject other forms of microfinance due to their religious beliefs. Islamic microfinance takes the approach of “socially responsible investing” by premising itself on ethical principles and avoiding the use of riba, or interest. One approach of Islamic microfinance is known as Qard al Hasan – this is a goodwill loan, where the borrower is only required to repay the exact amount that was borrowed. Small loans can be given to communities in need, making it particularly effective at enabling the growth of entrepreneurs and providing financial stability. The downsides of this approach are that it can only really help individuals who possess the skills to run a business – this is because the loan should be repaid. Additionally, the religious association might discourage some non-Muslims from pursuing Islamic microfinance as a solution.

These are just four of the many approaches that can be explored to encourage growth and development in different countries and contexts. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that foreign aid is not only failing to effectively combat poverty and corruption but indeed encouraging them. What may feel fulfilling and rewarding for donors is often only further damaging the recipients – it’s time to take a different path.

Written by Madiha Zeb Sadiq

Research and Development Assistant

Civil society organisations, social media and capacity-building: Why we need to support CSOs operating in restrictive environments

Kawkaba Samadzada Blog Civil Society, INGO, NGO, Sector News

December 11, 2019
Civil society organisations, social media and capacity-building: Why we need to support CSOs operating in restrictive environments

While the turn of the century saw many developed and developing countries in Africa enjoying civic freedoms, more recently, the trend is one of restricting and limiting civic space. This blog highlights some of the findings of programmes I undertook with civil society organisations across East and Southern Africa, where public spaces for debate are rapidly closing.

How are restrictions being imposed?

In some contexts, closing civic space means enacting legislation directly aimed at civil society organisations and their activities, restrictions on freedom of association, freedom of expression or freedom of assembly. This could mean actively changing laws to ensure greater barriers for civil society organisations. In many countries, for example, the requirement to register as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or civil society organisation (CSO) is now being used to limit the work of these organisations if they are critical of the government in any way. Other legislation is less direct in its restriction of civil society organisations, but equally damaging. Laws that limit the use of social media for example or that target journalists, further restrict the ability of organisations to openly critique poor governance practices.

Also worrying are reports of indirect challenges to civic space that are often targeted directly at activists, journalists, academics and other individuals. This could include, for example, the tactic being employed by repressive African states to shut down the internet or mobile communication platforms (such as WhatsApp) when levels of criticism need to be controlled. Additionally, many governments in Africa are taxing social media users in an effort to deter citizens from going online and limiting freedom of expression.

Social media to the rescue?

As the space for traditional media is restricted, civil society regard social media as a space where they can better control their own content, have more direct access to stakeholders and citizens, and use the power of prominent individuals to draw attention to issues. Social media give CSOs the agency to control their communications and advocacy. This is particularly important because it allows CSOs to control their messages and even set the agenda for social, human rights and development issues, which is often limited with traditional media.

My programmes has shown that social media provides CSOs with a number of advantages over traditional media. In the African context, where traditional media often require financial persuasion to write about development issues, social media provides a mostly-free, highly targeted and relatively limitless opportunity to engage with audiences and citizens locally and globally. Direct access to diverse audiences with targeted messages but at little cost seems almost too good to be true. In addition, CSOs are using highly prominent, independent individuals to promote development issues and raise awareness about advocacy campaigns. What comes out strongly from the programmes is that social media has given participants some agency in their communications and advocacy which was limited with traditional media. This is particularly important in contexts where agency and advocacy are restricted because it allows CSOs to control their messages and perhaps even set the agenda for accountability issues. The reality is that social media does go some way in offering opportunities for speaking out in contexts where traditional media are restricted.

It’s not all good news

Unfortunately, while social media does offer great potential for development work in restricted spaces, it does also require strategic planning, pro-active utilisation and thinking ahead – perhaps something that many CSOs are not very good at. When asked whether they had a specific communications strategy for the use of social media, programmes participants were almost equally divided between those that did have a strategy and those that did not. It seems that social media is being heralded as a key element of civic space, but civil society is as yet unsure of how to maximise its potential. This potential has to include a strong understanding of the risks of exposing individuals who are too prominent on social media, thus, risking repressive retaliation by the state or by interest groups and big business that have the resources to push back in multiple ways, including through social media.

What can CSOs do?

What is further required from civil society beyond their own strategy for using social media in closing civic spaces is to also begin to understand and predict the backlash by states of this emerging platform. It is clear that states across the region are tapped into the potential of social media and have already begun to clamp down on social media use either through legislative restrictions or more crude internet shutdowns and social media taxes. What civil society require are further strategies for overcoming these restrictions and better use of all media to ensure civic space is able to perform and promote human rights and development.

Find out more about how HAD builds the capacity of civil society organisations

Find out more about the programmes HAD conducts

Written by Dr. Vanessa Malila

Research & Development Officer

HAD Joins NGOs Empowerment for Poverty Reduction Program

An Islamic perspective on how to avoid negative effects of NGO programmes

The Negative Effects of a No-deal Brexit on British NGOs

September 10, 2019

The Negative Effects of a No-deal Brexit on British NGOs

Kawkaba Samadzada Blog Brexit, NGO

September 10, 2019
The Negative Effects of a No-deal Brexit on British NGOs

October 31^stis right around the corner and as discussions are still ongoing between Parliament and Office about the UK’s agreement to leave the European Union, the no-deal Brexit is an outcome for all to consider. A no-deal Brexit is something that can potentially affect people, business and institutions alike, and the British NGO sector is not excluded! We are still unaware of what the negative effects of a No-deal Brexit on British NGOs could be.

As the no-deal scenario remains a possibility, British NGOs are unsure of what will happen to funding, employees and donations. Britain has one of the largest groups of humanitarian aid workers and donors in the world, and is the second largest recipient of EU Aid to Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). According to EU data, in 2017 British NGOs secured €228 million in new grants from the EU’s humanitarian arm (ECHO)’s budget of €2.5 billion. From the budget, UK NGOs received €214 million (28% of all NGO allocations). If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, British NGOs have a better possibility to have access to ECHOs budget and agreements on employment. On the other hand, if the UK decides to leave the EU with no deal, the scenario could be very different.

So, what should British NGOs be aware of?

Access to EU Funding

Currently, the UK is a strong collaborator in the NGO sector and a recipient of European Community of Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) funding. Every year, ECHO-funded projects affect almost 120 million people in 90 countries, and together with the aid given by each member of the EU, it is the largest aid donor in the world. In the event of a no deal, the greater risk is that ECHO could cut any funding to British NGOs. According to the UK Aid minister Penny Mordaunt, UK NGOs have already selected a smaller number of ECHO grants, mainly because the contracts last year demanded proof that British NGOs could continue funding a programme in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

In 2017, a study guided by Bond determined that if the EU stops funding, UK CSOs are most likely to face an annual funding shortfall as high as €356.9 million per year. According this issue, a recent letter written by Secretary Alok Sharma from the Department for International Development (DFID) confirmed that in case of a no deal Brexit, the government is committed to fill the gap in any signed contracts with ECHO that are at risk of having their funding terminated. For that to be done, DFID encourages organizations to apply before October 31^stthis year. If you want your NGO to apply, you can do it here. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-overseas-aid-programmes-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/delivering-overseas-aid-programmes-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

On other news, in last week’s UK government Spending Round, Chancellor Sajid Javid announced that the UK will continue with its commitment on spending 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. Also, the announcement included a 1.5% increase in the DFID resource budget for 2020-21, together with other budgets for projects that help refugees, climate, capacity building, etc. While many organisations are questioning how this aid will be spent, the uncertainty of a no deal leave still endangers important amounts of EU funding for British NGOs.

Deal or no deal, after Brexit, the UK will still be a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Because of that, UK CSOs will still be eligible to apply for external EU funds such as the work with “Least Developed Countries” (LDCs) and “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries” (HIPCs).

Until this day, the UK pays around £1.5 billion a year into the EU’s development and humanitarian aid budgets. Since Britain is legally obliged to maintain the same level of aid spending, it would leave the UK with an extra £1.5 billion that must be spent on aid. The government has shown interest into continuing to give funding to the EU, but the question is how and if there is going to be negotiation to make this happen. What will occur in funding for next years to come, is still uncertain.

Risk Management Assessment for currency fluctuations

As the UK government insists on leaving the EU even without a deal, the pound’s value continues to fall and further volatility is expected, according to experts. This could potentially have a great impact on British NGOs because if the pound value fluctuates, donors could potentially struggle to commit in a larger scale or in long-term programmes. If the pound continues to decrease, it is likely that UK aid CSOs will have to reduce their number in aid work as well.

According to Bond, NGOs can reduce this risks by what financial institutions call “hedging” or a “forward contract”, which in simple words means that NGOs invest in the protection of their finances from risky situation. This could be done to minimize the chance that their assets could lose value, for example to secure an amount of currency at a specific value.

This kind of risk management planning involves the help of experts, which is commonly available in larger and experienced organizations. But, medium or small size UK NGOs do not generally invest in this sort of assessment, therefore making them more likely to be affected.

Ensure that your EU national employees apply to the Settled Status Scheme

As the Institute for Public Policy Research states, over 80% of EU nationals currently working in the NGO sector would be ineligible to work in the UK post-Brexit under current migration proposals. If your NGO has European employees based in the UK, it is important that they apply to the “Settled Status Scheme”, so that they can continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021. However, if the UK leaves without a deal, the deadline for applying for either a settled or pre-settled status will be 31 December 2020. More information is available in https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

On the other hand, if the UK leaved the EU with no deal, British nationals who work for European NGOs can also be affected by the possibility of having to pay Visas, which means costs, bureaucracy and delays.

Always be aware of the official information

Lastly, it is important that British NGOs are informed with the best sources. It is recommended to keep updated not only with the press but with the Government’s official information about how to prepare for Brexit and the specific guidance for CSOs from the Charity Commission and Office for Civil Society.

Written by Gabriela Hagedorn

Marketing and Communications Intern

References:

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families/applying-for-settled-status

https://www.gov.uk/brexit

https://www.bond.org.uk/news/2019/08/brexit-looms-6-things-for-ngos-to-consider

https://www.bond.org.uk/resources/the-impact-of-brexit-on-eu-funding-for-csos

https://www.bond.org.uk/news/2019/09/uk-government-spending-round-implications-for-international-aid

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49162356

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46862790

https://www.devex.com/news/uk-ngos-in-the-dark-about-eu-aid-funding-post-brexit-94312

https://www.devex.com/news/experts-question-dfid-s-promised-spending-boost-95534

July 10, 2019

The impact of decentralised service delivery on beneficiaries in the non-profit sector; an INGO subsidiary perspective.

E Library Coordination, Decentralisation, Development, Humanitarian Response, Impact, Islamic Relief, Kenya, NGO, Non Governmental Organisations

The impact of decentralised service delivery on beneficiaries in the non-profit sector; an INGO subsidiary perspective.

by Rawaad Mahyub

TYPE

Fact sheet and Summary

OFFICE

Islamic Relief Worldwide

LANGUAGE

English

YEAR

2018

KEYWORDS

Coordination, Decentralisation, Development, Humanitarian Response, Impact, Islamic Relief, Kenya, NGO, Non Governmental Organisations

Summary Paper This paper aims to provide an analysis of the impact that decentralisation has on the delivery and performance of an INGOs core services to its beneficiaries. The content of this paper is the intellectual property and sole responsibility of the Author. Office https://had-int.org/ Citation Rawaad Mahyub (2018) The impact of decentralised service delivery on beneficiaries in the non-profit sector; an INGO subsidiary perspective, Humanitarian Academy for Development, Birmingham, UK.

Impact-of-regionalisation.pdf

DOWNLOAD

ACC Project

Action On Climate Change and Consumption (ACC Project)

July 10, 2019