What role should INGOs play in governance What role should INGOs play in governance? The case of Christian Aid Olivia McDonald Christian Aid 18 April 2011 Introduce yourself and your role

Content CAID’s governance strategy Christian Aid’s role Context Evolution Challenges Christian Aid’s role Power and change

Context Turning Hope into Action 2005–current, with 2010 refresh: Accountable governance programmatic focus area New strategic plan in development Working with and through partners 1. 3 other programmatic areas – HIV, SL, EJ 2. governance to remain programmatic focus area but with shift towards ‘power’ 3. focus on ‘demand’ more than ‘supply’, although do support partners to do the latter, unlikely to fund local authorities for e.g.

Strategy evolution Supply / demand (where supply accountability as much as capacity). Shifted more to interaction and dialogue between citizens and power holders. Mechanisms for dialogue has been a priority – but not sure how far been taken up systematically. Challenge is to ensure such spaces are institutionalised. Key for sustainability Shift from AG being everything we do on accountability to a focus on people’s engagement with the state, looking at two areas: building foundations for good governance, including mechanisms for dialogue challenging bad governance including human rights, conflict, corruption, discrimination Important that this last shift was to make the strategy more operational and focused, but as an INGO see our global campaigns work as key to governance, more on that in a jiffy

Challenges Means to an end or and end in itself? More knowledge or changed behaviour? Discreet or cross-cutting? Internalised internally and informing decisions? Means to an end or and end in itself? I know what I think, but its far from agreed in the organisation, which is important for programming. The two assumptions lead to quite different programming and results focus, but if you think it is an end in itself, or both, you are much more likely to try to find good, measurable indicators that show this. Something trying to do via the GTF. More knowledge or changed behaviour? A challenge we’ve set to programmes – and myself to partners through the GTF programme – is that knowledge, whilst massively important, is not necessarily the best thing to track. Are people doing things differently? But still seeing a lot of programme info talking about x many people know about a law as an outcome Discreet or cross-cutting? Real challenge is our strategy is both – its human rights advocacy on IOPT and support to partner anti-corruption campaigning, but its also trying to nurture citizen engagement to power holders throughout our work on livelihoods, HIV etc. Hence why approach on challenging bad gov (discreet) and building foundations (x-cutting) useful. Internalised internally and informing decisions? Always a challenge, can spend a long time writing strategies, but how to get people to live and breathe them? I can say CA thinks this, because I’ve written something – informed by consultation with interested parties - that the directors have approved, but is it really what CA thinks out there in the real world. Important to bear that in mind when thinking about ‘CA’s role with re to governance’

Christian Aid’s role Want to briefly step back from strategy and answer question set – what is CA’s role. Danger if focus too much on one strategy miss bigger picture of how CA sees its role on governance 1. 2. 3. Providing support to partners in their attempts to challenge governance – including support / solidarity, grant financing and more technical capacity building 4. 5. Speaking out against the scandal of poverty – and poor governance and solutions – ourselves through lobbying on specific countries, and policy analysis donor approaches to governance / x-cutting issues like corruption. 6. We think that our global campaigns are important for gov too, even tho ostensibly not about governance – currently campaigning on climate and tax improving space for southern voices in global governance spaces improving space for southern civil society to influence these agendas in their own countries 7. Challenging systems and structures – through our support to partners, through our own direct advocacy but also through building global alliances of northern and southern civil society on issues like tax and climate. CA does not see itself as neutral, see ourselves as agitators too, although got strong principles on not taking partner space in country. 8. Increasingly see a role to challenge and debate with our partners – last slide will look at this

Power and change Shifting from accountable governance to transformed power relations Looking to support but also to challenge our partners in thinking about How change happens Who really holds the power and how to influence them Changing the rules of the game Bringing gender and beneficiary accountability centre-stage Increasing priority – exploring these issues in order to get our strategies right. Us – shifting from the normative to the truly context specific Looking to challenge our partners particularly around their theories of change and strategies for engagement with power holders – who really holds the power? LAC – challenge the resistance, “speaking truth to power” model Africa – challenge the “engaging with the process as it should be” model Changing the rules of the game means looking more at political systems i.e. electoral systems in Brazil or the overlap between traditional and decentralised governance in Kenya and Sierra Leone. Institutionalising change is not just about pieces of paper, its about behaviours being entrenched, so whilst in Brazil at the mo its about legislation and court cases in Kenya its about building alliances with elders and shifting them from obstacles to allies of progressive devolution Challenging notions of powerlessness and increasingly important to bring gender / beneficiary accountability into work – governance of all areas needs to live and breath the principles of accountability and transparency