The Haiti earthquake was the world’s second biggest earthquake disaster since the year 1900.

In Ireland, Haiti Week will take place on 21 – 28 January. The aim of the Week is “to raise awareness of Haiti through art, music and the business community, and to celebrate a special island that is bravely struggling to meet a range of challenges.” (RTE news on the launch of Haiti Week)

The reconstruction of the country is still very slow:

• “Two years on and Haiti’s reconstruction proceeds at a snail’s pace”, said Oxfam Ireland earlier this week. The NGO published a report, ‘Haiti: The Slow Road to Reconstruction’ in which it called  on the Government of Haiti to implement a reconstruction plan to rebuild the country and rehouse the approximately 520,000 people still living under tarpaulins or in tents.
• “Hope on Hold in Haiti” reported the Sunday Business Post on 8 January, pointing out that it took Kobe 7 years to recover from the 1995 earthquake.
• Only 21% of the aid originally pledged was actually disbursed. Donors simply moved on, after the media attention died down.
• This article in the Irish Times outlines the challenges and calls for greater Government leadership in the reconstruction.
• A Film At Eleven documentary claimed that the people who the relief money was supposed to help, were almost entirely excluded from the planning process.
• Out of 1500 US contracts given out in the first year since the earthquake, only 20 went to Haitian-owned companies, said Associated Press.
• Half a million persons are homeless in Port-au-Prince, 50 percent of the total population has no access to clean water, and 80 percent has no sanitation facilities, said MSF.
• Almost half of all Haitian children do not attend primary school, while only 18 per cent of boys and 21 per cent of girls attend secondary school.
• This article in the Kansas City Star neatly sums up the challenges that aid agencies faced, and the perceptions their response created.
• The recovery effort is ‘underfunded’ said this article in The Corkman, quoting a report by Save The Children.
• In TheJournal.ie, Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern, reflects on the slow progress in Haiti.
• This article by Plan Ireland also reflects on the Successes, Challenges and Priorities.
• An article in Thejournal.ie reports that Half a million people still living in camps in Haiti.

But there are also many positives:

• Nearly half of all earthquake rubble has been removed, accounting for 5 million cubic metres of debris (significantly faster than the rate of removal in other humanitarian crises in areas not as complex as urban Port-au-Prince), said Oxfam Ireland. (see also this slideshow)
• “Haiti rebuilds from ruins despite world aid shortfall” wrote Haven Partnership’s CEO, Anne Maguire, in the Irish Independent. She also pointed out that more children are in school now than was the case before the earthquake.
• There has been significant progress in the provision of shelter, with two-thirds of people that needed it having been rehoused.
• 87% of schools were damaged by the earthquake. Concern re-built 33 schools in the past year. And Plan Ireland has built 257 semi permanent classrooms in Jacmel and Croix-des-Bouquets.
• See this video of how Trócaire responded to the emergency.
• Habitat for Humanity served some 40,000 families through their house building activities.
• Since the devestating earthquake in Haiti 2 years ago World Vision has provided 14,000 people with secure homes.
• “I’m no expert, but it’s clear that the money already donated is changing thousands of lives for the better” says the author of this article in Hot Press.
• UNFPA installed 200 durable solar streetlights in camps for displaced people to help combat sexual violence
• Haiti still needs humanitarian aid, said the UN, although 300,000 temporary jobs have been created since the earthquake. See also these photos
• Almost two-thirds of the estimated 1.5 million Haitians living in tent shelters after the January 2010 earthquake have left, according to the US State Department. (Not an easy job, as this UN article shows).
• In 2011, Haitians went to the polls and elected a new President – the first democratic transfer of power from one democratically elected government leader to a member of the opposition. (and this ActionAid article shows that grass roots democracy is alive and well).

——

Also note:

• Ireland pledged €13 million, and gave some €11.5 million. (Click here for a detailed breakdown)
• Ireland’s Response to Haiti Earthquake – Facts, Figures and Challenges (after 12 months)
• New York Times article about Denis O’Brien and Digicel
• This BBC article provides an overview of how DEC members have addressed the emergency

 
The way we use the internet is constantly changing and evolving. The overwhelming amount of information available online means that what we see is often dictated by the search engines we use or the sites we access. In recent years, the explosion in the use of social networking and sharing sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Stumbleupon, MySpace and LinkedIn has led many people to filter the information they receive through friends and followers via these networks. Where previously the average internet user might Google search a new person or organisation, now they are equally likely to search for them on Facebook or Youtube. The news articles we read or the causes we support are often those which friends or followers on Twitter or Facebook have shared with us.

The relevance of this to NGOs and Nonprofits is the subject of an ever-growing body of research in the United States. Reports like Idealware’s Non-Profit Social Media Decision Guide, the annual Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Report published by NTEN, Common Knowledge and Blackbaud and Blackbaud’s Annual State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey examine how and why US and international Nonprofits use various social networks, and what benefits and disadvantages they perceive from using them. Similarly, influential bloggers like Beth Kanter, Katya Andresen and Allison Fine provide practical advice and analysis on Nonprofit use of social networking in the US.

Related research in the Irish context is quite limited. A brief study of Dóchas members and their use of Facebook conducted as part of the TCD/ UCD Masters in Development Practice on Irish NGOs and Social Media yielded some interesting results, and highlighted an opportunity for further research in the area.

Of a potential pool of over 2 million Irish Facebook users, the 43 members of Dochas currently have only 85,000 followers between them, with the top three, Amnesty, Concern, and Plan Ireland, accounting for half of these.

This doesn’t even take into account the worldwide audience that they could potentially reach via the internet. Of those that do have a presence on Facebook, most seem to use it as a platform for broadcasting to rather than engaging with supporters. They also seem to lack a formal strategy in their use of it. Judging from much of the US research, a fundamental step for any organisation that wants to capitalise on the potential benefits of social networking is the creation of a Social Media strategy.

The ideas that need to be kept to the fore when formulating a Social Media strategy include community, conversation, engagement, transparency and influence. The marketing acronym SMART is useful when it comes to defining goals:

• Specific: They need to be detailed enough to determine whether they’ve been achieved or not. At what point does an organisation finish “building awareness?”
• Measurable: You should be able to quantify goals with a numeric benchmark.
• Achievable: Make sure your benchmarks are realistic
• Relevant: If they’re irrelevant to the mission, don’t measure them!
• Time-Based: Define the timeframe over which you’ll achieve these goals.

The strategy should be integrated with any pre-existing plan on communications, advocacy and fundraising. Essentially, every NGO in Ireland, whether 2 staff members or 102, should have a clearly defined Social Media strategy, or run the risk of failing to benefit from a fast-evolving and effective tool for engaging in social change.

The success of an organisation in using a Facebook account for everything from recruiting new volunteers and event attendees to boosting website traffic is related to the amount of time devoted to updating it. Other strategies to recruit new members through Social Media include providing recognition for current volunteers, as they can provide motivation for others to sign up; linking what needs to be an informative and engaging website to these channels; promoting events through Facebook and Twitter both before, during and after their occurrence; and targeting Facebook ads towards the demographic want to engage with. Engagement comes up again and again as an essential goal for NGOs.

The ‘Ladder of Engagement’ involves five levels of support for nonprofits: beginning with ‘Happy Bystanders’ (blog readers, Facebook friends), on to ‘Spreaders’ (those willing to share information about the cause with others), then ‘Donors’ (those willing to contribute financially), Evangelists (who will reach out to personal social networks and ask others to give time and money) and finally ‘Instigators’ (those who create content, activities and events on behalf of the cause). Kanter suggests that the organisation must purposefully assist supporters to move up this ladder through relationship building. By encouraging conversation through asking questions, providing activities and demonstrating appreciation an NGO can create a connection with supporters that extends beyond their relationship with each other to capitalise on the supporter’s extended network. The word-of-mouth marketing created by people talking about and sharing campaigns content can be an invaluable way of engaging existing supporters and recruiting new ones.

Accordingly, while building a large community of followers and fans is a hugely important step in the social media strategy of any NGO, it is not an end in and of itself. In the recently published World Giving Index Ireland was found to be the second most charitable country in the world, after Australia. Irish NGOs need to recognise that Social Networking, used effectively, can enable them to build networks and develop constructive relationships. From here, the dedication and commitment of followers can be harnessed and translated into more tangible and measurable goals, ranging from fundraising to advocacy, to awareness-raising and beyond.

• Why Disability must be systematically embedded in all international cooperation 
  A blog post reflecting on the rights of people with disabilities, and how poverty focused aid programmes cannot but focus on their inclusion. (See also this blog post, which makes a similar case for older people)
• Aid Worker Security – Some thoughts and resources
  Recent kidnappings of aid workers should prompt NGOs to re-think their security and safety manuals – and practice
• NGO overhead costs
  We encourage anyone to ask critical questions of NGOs. Just make sure your questions focus on the quality of the work of the organisation – The ever-popular measure of the level of overheads is about the worst place to start. This article attempts to show why. (See also this blog post about NGOs, and this discussion of “what makes a good NGO?”)
• Getting ready for the Irish EU Presidency in 2013
  Ireland takes over the six month Presidency of the Council of the European Union in January 2013. This blog post looks at what this can mean for Development (and this post focuses on our theme: the post-MDG Development ‘recipe’)
• 14 Reasons not to donate to Somalia
  This blog post, and this one, highlighted a number of issue in relation to the famine in Somalia.
  (See also this blog post about the ethics of photographing human suffering)
  
  
• We also highlighted that despite the hunger crisis, 2 out of 3 developing countries are on track to halve poverty.

——-

Recently, there have been a few news items relating to the kidnapping of aid workers, with a number of cases in Somalia (in October and December), but also in Algeria and Mauretania.

As we pointed out on World Humanitarian Day, last year alone, 242 aid workers were killed, injured or kidnapped helping people, and aid agencies have for years commented on the overall trend, which sees a rising number of attacks on aid workers.

(The Aid Worker Security Database (AWSD) records major incidents of violence against aid workers, with incident reports from 1997 through the present)

In this context of growing violence and insecurity, the case of  Flavia Wagner vs. Samaritan’sPurse serves to highlight the duty of care of NGOs towards their own staff. The NGO is being sued by a former staff  member for allegedly neglecting their duty of care. The case is  still pending under US law, and based on the former employee’s contention that her employer prioritised funding opportunities over staff security, in situations where there were clear indications of threats to their staff.

In the Irish context, Sharon Commins, the aid worker who was kidnapped in Sudan in 2009 while working for Goal, has accused Goal of failing its field staff and not adhering to its own policies. “An aid agency has a duty of care to its staff and a legal responsibility to ensure that they are adequately protected, but this didn’t happen in our case,” she told the Irish Times. By not providing relevant protection to staff, Goal was in breach of its contracts with Irish Aid and other donors, she said.

She has accused the agency of endangering her life for financial gain. Ms Commins, who spent 107 days in captivity, said some organisations including Goal had moved into remoter areas of Sudan after other agencies withdrew. They had done this in the absence of security guarantees for staff and knowing there was an “explicit” threat that staff could be abducted.

Millions of euro in additional funds were available because they had been released by donors but were not being used after the other agencies withdrew. “Lots of money was being made by endangering frontline staff when more responsible agencies held back,” she told The Irish Times. She said a proper analysis of the security situation would have led to agencies keeping away from dangerous parts of the country.

Both these cases provide forceful reminders that charities are not exempt from normal expectations of an employer’s duty of care. (see also this statement on health and safety)

Both GOAL and Samaritan’s Purse stand accused of not taking sufficient action against a foreseeable risk (abduction), even though easy options were available to mitigate the risks. (See also the article Sharon Commins wrote on the issue) and Prime Time documentary on the same.)

Yet, simple security checks are available, to help NGOs analyse and manage the risks to their employees:

• NGO Security Quick Scan
• Risk Management International
• RedR security training programme
• Bioforce Security training programe

Other useful resources:

• Security for local people/local communities
• ECHO’s Generic Security Guide (doc)
• How to scale up aid worker security
• CARE’s personal safety and security guidelines
• People In Aid resources on Health, Safety and Security
• International assignees at risk: Employers have a duty of care for workers around the globe.
• Operational Security Management in violent environments, Good Practice Review, Number 8 (New edition), HPN, December 2010.
• OCHA – To Stay and Deliver, Good Practice for Humanitarians in Complex Security Environments, 2011

And PS:

Security and Risk Management is not just a management issue - it involves the entire organisation.

See e.g. our NGO Code of Conduct on Corporate Governance

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, recently held in Busan, intended to reach a set of principles, commitments and actions at global level, and establish the fundaments for a new global partnership, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. Following the various political declarations produced over the last decade (Monterrey, Rome, Paris and Accra), we are now confronted with a twelve page paper called the Busan Outcome Document (BOD).  The BOD includes lots of vague terms that are peculiar to the development business such as “on a voluntary basis”, “differential commitments”, “new, inclusive global partnership” and “social entrepreneurship”, some of which do not sit all that comfortably with our development and aid aspirations.

So what does Busan mean for Irish Aid and Irish Development NGOs? As the post-Busan dust begins to settle, it is now important to create some space for discussion and reflection on the key messages that came out of Busan and, most importantly, the possible implications this holds for the work of the Irish development sector.

Having taken a quick look at the BOD, I am delighted to discover some rather positive aspects, some of which, according to people who attended Busan, were introduced only after intensive advocacy and lobbying work carried out from CSO networks, from both, developing and developed countries:

• A broad alliance of actors joined together in demanding a shift of focus, from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness. This shift may seem small, but it holds the promise of introducing a holistic approach to sustainable and equitable development for the first time.
• New players on the development agenda, the emerging countries and the private sector, have been taken on board. The full diversity of forms and modalities of development cooperation (such as South-South co-operation, triangular co-operation, PPPs) have now been formally recognized.
• The concept of democratic ownership has been introduced, in stark contrast to the previous hijacking of the aid effectiveness agenda by central governments of partner and donor countries alike, reaffirming the vital role of parliaments, local governments and CSOs, as key players in development.
• BOD reaffirms the role of CSOs as independent actors (see also Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness). This is welcomed, especially as we continue to observe a further shrinking of political and operational space for CSOs in many countries.
• Some existing positive elements have been retained or strengthened, e.g. the use of the country system has been set as default, untying aid has been reaffirmed, aid predictability commitments have been underlined, mutual accountability has been reinforced, and finally, there is a new deal for fragile states.

However, my happiness is limited. I feel, a truly new era of development effectiveness has not yet started. A number of critical aspects highlight that we are far from an actual paradigm shift, many challenges still remain.

• There appears to be a dangerously exaggerated focus on economic growth, and its role in the fight against poverty and inequality, and for the achievement of MDGs. In a zero-sum style, this seems to have been at the expense of important issues of human rights, democracy and governance.  There is no explicit, strong commitment on a right-based approach to development.
• The Progress Report on Implementing the Paris Declaration states that “only one out of the 13 targets established for 2010 has been met”. Shockingly, at Busan there was no deep level of discussion on this failure to fulfill commitments and targets agreed in Paris and Accra.
• Shifting geopolitical realities have been reflected in the document, as the role of the emerging economies such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) has been recognized. But the fact that these new actors have not clearly endorsed the previous fundamental principles, commitments and standards can undermine the very spirit of PD and AAA. The adherence of BRICS to the PD, AAA and BOD common principles is on a “voluntary basis”.
• Aid assistance is still seen more as provision of resources, mainly financial resources coming from donors, rather than a platform for knowledge and experience exchange and innovation; furthermore, little attention is devoted to domestic resource mobilization.
• The participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development policies is welcome, but capacity strengthening of partner governments is an essential first step.  In countries where governance is weak, state capacity to define the appropriate framework for development and adequate accountability mechanisms, there is a real danger that the fruits of private sector engagement will not lead to human development, and will even cause harm.
• The urgent issue of shrinking CSO space in a rising number of countries was not explicitly addressed.
• A monitoring framework with specific targets, indicators and timeframe, is not yet developed and agreed and it is unlikely that issues such as human rights, democracy and good governance will be taken into account in a future framework for monitoring and oversight of the commitments from Busan.

The BOD will have implications for Irish Aid and NGOs. The ongoing review of the White Paper of the Irish Aid is a good opportunity for reflection on the formulation and redesign of policy orientations and strategies to address the challenges raised in Busan and to reassess the policy and strategy focus for Irish development cooperation.

What should be done?

• The rights-based approach to development needs to be efficiently and fully integrated into public policies and programmes. Thus, Irish Aid and Irish NGOs should continue to engage for the inclusion of human rights, democracy and good governance aspects into the global frameworks, following the United Nations Millennium Declaration.
• The indicators and targets of the PD and the MDGs do not focus on human rights, democracy and good governance, peace and security, although the United Nations Millennium Declaration states these as key objectives. Thus, it is unlikely that these dimensions of human development will be taken into account in the formulation of indicators and targets in the post-Busan process. Consequently, Irish Aid and Irish NGOs should start putting these issues on the table for future discussions.
• The broadening of the development agenda and taking new development actors on board is a good move. However, Irish Aid and Irish NGOs should select specific priority themes and issues (e.g. human rights, democracy and good governance, gender equality and women empowerment, civil society space, etc.) on the basis of where they want to see clear improvements. This will enhance targeted investment and appropriate resourcing.  These should be placed on the post-Busan table of discussions, at different forums such the UN and EU.
• In the preparation and design of policies and programmes to support partner countries there is a need to conduct sound analysis of political economy; thus, Irish development actors, including NGOs and academic entities, should promote and invest more into this kind of focused analysis.
• The mixture of aid delivery methods (various actors at different levels and various instruments), pursued by Irish Aid is a good approach and it should be proactively communicated and advocated for within the wider international community.
• Irish Aid and Irish NGOs should assess the opportunities and challenges for increasing their work with parliaments, their forums and communities and local authorities in the South and North, with a focus upon reinforcing their capacities to ensure greater transparency, accountability and oversight, as well as their involvement in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes.
• The issue of shrinking space for CSOs in partner countries needs to be monitored in a systematic and consistent manner as a matter of urgency; as improvements in the CSO enabling environment, especially in Africa, look unlikely, it is crucial that Irish Aid and Irish NGOs boost their advocacy work around Civil Society space. For instance, there is a need to improve the space for non-service delivery orientated NGOs, e.g. designing proper strategies to improve advocacy and policy capacity of those NGOs mainly working on service delivery.
• Irish Aid and Irish NGOs should increase technical support to partners in the South in terms of their analytical capacities enabling them to actively participate in the post-Busan discussions.
• There is a need to assess the opportunities and challenges for establishing stronger alliance with the private sector, e.g. exploring areas and strategies for collaboration and synergies, and advocating for respect of internationally recognized rights and standards, for this, more investment into political economy analysis and economic advocacy will be needed.
• Increasingly, everyone speaks about the need to place more focus on results. I agree, but think there are still lots of issues around the very concept of results that need to be discussed. We should not dissipate our scarce resources “trying to measure what we can´t measure”. Indeed, one does not need to understand the law of gravity to realize that it is raining. For instance, the development for results framework – nowadays a MUST – should be shaped taking into account the specific country context and the complexity of the thematic area where it is being applied, so that one can develop appropriate outcome and process focused M&E indicators that demonstrate positive changes in people´s life. This is of course assuming we want a results framework to be more than an administrative task.
• Organizational changes and additional staffing & training will be necessary in some Irish NGOs and their networks as well as their partner organizations in the South to address new strategic themes/issues, new working and learning platforms may need to be established (e.g. private sector development, business for development, transparency and accountability mechanisms for PPPs, innovative development finance, triangular cooperation, policy coherence for development).
• In times of global economic downturns and having in mind the tough financial situation Ireland faces at the moment, it is crucial to continue support for advocacy, public engagement and development education for Irish citizens. We have a major responsibility to show the transformative change we affect as the Irish development sector and how the aid and development effectiveness agendas play a key role within that.

—

Further reading:

* Dóchas resources on Development Effectiveness

* Interaction blog post about Busan

In October 2011, CBM Ireland and the Centre for Disability Law and Policy (CDLP) National University of Ireland Galway in conjunction with Dochas and the Disability Federation of Ireland organised a major conference: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “Promoting Disability inclusion in Ireland and World”. The overarching message of the conference was that Irish International Cooperation must be inclusive and accessible to those with disabilities. The conference programme focused on good practice from around the world – including particularly USAID and AusAID.

The rationale for the conference stemmed from the need to reflect on the positive role of development aid programmes in lifting people with disabilities out of poverty and opening up new opportunities in their lives. As one conference participant commented ‘inclusion does not necessarily require more money – just that existing monies are spent smartly to avoid exclusion and to create pathways into the mainstream.”

A number of distinguished speakers addressed the conference such as Ms Judith Heumann, Special Advisor for International Disability Rights at the U.S. Department of State. Ms Heumann delivered the keynote address by reaffirming that there is a need to acknowledge that disability is unquestionably a development issue. Furthermore, she highlighted that if the Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved then people with disabilities need to gain access to changes brought by development money and programmes.

L to R: Mr Bob McMullan, former parliamentary secretary for international development assistance, Ms Judith Heumann, Special Adviser for International Disability Rights to the US State Department, Dr Maurice Manning, President of the Human Rights Commission, Ireland

Mr Bob McMullan who served as an MP in the Australian Labour government and who championed the inclusion of people with disabilities in the Australian governments overseas programmes also addressed the conference. Starting with what he called an imaginary country, he gave the audience some stark statistics. This country has up to 500 million people, the under 5 mortality rate is up to 80%; the school attendance is 10%; the literacy rate is 3% and the unemployment rate is up to 80%. These statistics in any country would be unacceptable from a human rights perspective. Mr McMullan went onto explain that while the country might be imaginary, the statistics are true when it comes to describing disability within a developing country.

Mr McMullan, then outlined to conference participants the 10 low cost steps that can be taken to make Aid or International Cooperation more inclusive. These steps are

Step 1 Establish reference or advisory group

Step 2 Review mainstream programmes for compatibility with CRPD obligations

Step 3 Develop strategy documents focused on rights

Step 4 Fund DPO strengthening (e.g. DRF)

Step 5 Adapt scholarship programme for PWDs

Step 6 Ensure infrastructure programmes reduce barriers

Step 7 Develop disability focus in volunteer programmes

Step 8 Establish partnerships with NGO’s

Step 9 Undertake research

Step 10 Become a global advocate for the post 2015 priorities

Other speakers at the conference included NUIG Centre for Disability Law and Policy Director Professor Gerard Quinn who described the event as pioneering at European level. CBM Ireland National Director David McAllister called for disability support to be systematically embedded in Ireland’s Overseas Budget. Mr McAllister’s final remarks concluded by stating that Ireland has an opportunity to be a leader in this field through ensuring that the Overseas Development is inclusive and accessible to those with disabilities. However this inclusion will not happen merely because of legislation or the development of discussion papers. It must be dynamically imbedded in Irish Development Policy for Overseas Development Aid.

* Mary Keogh is Advocacy Coordinator at cbm Ireland

 

More videos from Busan:

• Day 2 – Video Blog by Dochas Director Hans Zomer on Busan Summit
• Justin Kilcullen, Trocaire Director and CONCORD President
• Dochas Director Hans Zomer on the recent developments at the Busan Summit 
• Dochas Director Hans Zomer tells us about what the Busan Summit on aid effectiveness is about 

More video blogs from Busan:

• Video Blog 2: Dochas Director Hans Zomer on the recent developments at the Busan Summit 
• Video Blog 1: Dochas Director Hans Zomer tells us about what the Busan Summit on aid effectiveness is about 

As with all such conferences, it is easy to get disappointed and cynical about the lack of progress that can be made through international negotiations. And in the heat of negotiations about phrases and commas in the final summit declaration, some participants tend to forget that with the statements and declarations are the beginning, not the end of a process.

Some of the key issues during the negotiations are, in fact, not the key issues at all when it comes to the practice of “Development Effectiveness”. For ultimately, when it comes to the question of how we can do “Development” better, the key issues are those of ensuring real impact at country level.

And that is not merely a question for donors, or for Governments. Although one of the potential breaking points of the negotiations here in Busan related to the text on “use of country systems” (an issue on which several of the African governments’ represenatives here have been very outspoken), the key challenge relates to ensuring that developing countries have developed (NB: through a genuinely democratic process) an inclusive national strategy, and a development model to benefit all their citizens.

Civil society representatives have been very vocal on the importance of democracy and inclusiveness, and their arguments have been echoed widely during the presentations and negotiations. And rightly so, as many Governments seem only too keen to use the Aid Effectiveness language to clamp down on domestic civil society.

But as the end of the summit nears, we now need to look at NGO practice too.

Hilary Clinton, Paul Kagame and Queen Rania were pretty clear in their speeches at the formal opening of the summit: Too many aid programmes (and those include many NGO programmes) create parallel structures, or islands of relative prosperity in a sea of misery. NGOs are being challenged to demonstrate that they can relate their efforts to the wider Development effort.

This should not mean blindly rowing in behind Government priorities. nor does it mean that civil society should concentrate on service delivery. But it does mean that we should challenge ourselves to implementing our roles as civil society organisations more fully in line with our own (Istanbul) principles. Can we go beyond the impact at micro (community) level and affect transformational change? Can we work in genuine partnership with other Development actors?

As Queen Rania put it: “As the global landscape is changing, it is time to change the ‘aid scape’ too.”

Judging by the proceedings here in Busan, civil society has earned its place as an equal in the setting of Development policy. And civil society principles, in the shape of the Istanbul Principles for Development Effectiveness, are an explicit part of the ‘effectiveness recipe’ emerging in Busan.
This should make it easier to win the battle for the right to do our jobs, and to advocate for the rights of people.

In addition, we NGOs must now get ready to take on the next battle: demonstrating that we can ‘walk the talk’ on Quality, Effectiveness and Impact.

A great and worthwhile challenge indeed.