March for International Campaign to ban landmines, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 1995. Photo by Connell Foley Concern Worldwide s
Concern Policies Concern is a voluntary non-governmental organisation devoted to the relief, assistance and advancement of peoples in need in less developed areas of the world. Concern believes in a world where no-one lives in poverty, fear or oppression; where all have access to a decent standard of living and the opportunities and choices essential to a long, healthy and creative life; a world where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Our mission is to help people living in absolute poverty achieve major improvements in their lives, which last and spread without ongoing support from Concern. We will work with the poor themselves and with local and international partners who share our vision of democratic and just societies. To achieve this mission Concern engages in long-term development work, responds to emergency situations and undertakes development education and advocacy on those aspects of world poverty which require national or international action. Concern s core values derive from a single central value: Extreme poverty must be targeted Our other values are subsidiary to this central value: Respect for people comes first. Gender equality is a prerequisite for development. Development is a process, not a gift. Greater participation leads to greater commitment. Emergencies call for rapid response. Democracy accelerates development. The environment must be respected. Good stewardship ensures trust. Experience is the best teacher. All governments have responsibility for poverty elimination. Concern s work is guided by a series of policy documents which are translated into practice through the implementation of Organisational and Country Strategic Plans and Organisational Programme Plans. Country Plans are put in to operation through projects designed using Concern s Project Cycle Management Process. Concern has a range of policies: General Policies. Programme Approach Policies. Programme Sector Policies. Resource Policies. Programme/Project Management Policies. Details of policies approved by Council are listed inside the back cover. The policies have been written to complement each other. For example, in our Health Policy we state that we will help to build the capacity of local government health services and that the approach to be used will be found in the Capacity Building Policy. Our general approach and resource policies cover all sectors. All policies are dynamic and are reviewed from time to time.
Contents Summary i 1. Introduction 1 2. Core Values and Advocacy 1 3. Approaches and Policies 2 3.1 Participation of Extremely Poor People in Advocacy 2 3.2 Adding Value 3 3.3 Appropriate Advocacy Types 4 3.4 Roles 5 3.5 Mechanisms and Responsibilities 6 3.6 Budgets 6 3.7 Concern s Competence to carry out Advocacy 7 4. Policy Monitoring and Review Process 7
Summary Concern is a membership-based, non-governmental organisation, with Articles of Association and a set of core values that drive our policies. All members and staff are encouraged to support and promote these values through effective advocacy. By way of example, the organisational values of targeting people who live in extreme poverty, and of the importance of rapid response in emergencies, are advocacy issues that we bring to governments who are sometimes distracted by other priorities. We now wish to expand on this agenda to show in more detail how these values are put into operation at policy level and at practical level with and for extremely poor people in Ethiopia, Afghanistan and similar countries. Advocacy is seen as part of the implementation of central organisational policy with the purpose of empowering people who live in absolute poverty and responding to their needs. The commitment to advocacy is reinforced in our Human Rights Policy, which states that: In the light of the development of a human rights approach to poverty elimination, Concern will seek to promote Human Rights at local, national and international level through advocacy, campaigning, education and networking activities. Concern Worldwide s Strategic Plan 2002-2005, published in March 2002, commits Concern to developing advocacy to improve the effectiveness of our emergency humanitarian relief and long-term development programmes, and to influence policymakers to remove the underlying causes of poverty. In the interest of coherence and overall effectiveness, it is clear that the advocacy strategy and programme will predominantly connect to issues arising in Concern s five organisational programme areas. In some countries, it may be necessary to avoid most types of advocacy activities due to the risk they would create for the pursuit of other programming approaches. In developing advocacy related to overseas country programming, Concern will work within the following policies: Policy One: Organisational advocacy action will begin with a consultation with people living in extreme poverty and will proceed in three sequential steps to an international perspective on rights and needs. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: People living in extreme poverty will participate in decision-making about the advocacy positions that the organisation takes. Concern will facilitate this through our Project Cycle Management (PCM) process, which is built on participation in analysis of issues, in consideration of alternative actions and in monitoring of progress towards objectives. Organisational advocacy actions suggested in Step 1 will be reviewed and further developed in conjunction with knowledgeable and altruistic members of local civil society in those countries. Advocacy actions in our home countries arising from Steps 1 and 2, and issues arising from our core values will be further developed and recommended in conjunction with knowledgeable and altruistic members of our own civil society where appropriate. Policy Two: We will take a distinctive position, which draws on our current experience and which adds value to work being carried out by others. Policy Three: In conflict-related situations where we have a short-term presence, it is permissible to conduct advocacy activities with regard to the application of the Geneva Conventions in general or to some particular section of the Conventions that, based on our direct observation on the ground, we may feel is particularly relevant. In other situations of short-term emergency response, our advocacy should be based on appropriate UN Charters and Conventions, and on the Sphere Standards and Code of Conduct of the Federation of the Red Cross. i
Policy Four: The preferred means of initiating advocacy activities in countries where we have a longterm presence is through consultation with our target group, as outlined in Policy One. Until such time as we have developed a substantial portfolio of advocacy positions in this way, we will continue to operate the current non-participatory advocacy approach. Policy Five: Country Directors are responsible for preparing project proposals that include consideration of the need for changes in power structures that arise from consultations with people living in extreme poverty in the country for which they are responsible. Policy Six: Advocacy activities will be designed and presented in the manner of normal overseas projects and will be monitored using the same process and procedures. Policy Seven: Decisions on whether or not to undertake advocacy will depend on the impact that it is likely to have in comparison with the impact of the other forms of programmes we undertake. Accordingly, the proportion of resources to be allocated to advocacy will not be pre-determined, but will arise out of the normal programme budget development process. ii
1. Introduction In Concern, advocacy is seen first of all as implementing organisational policy. The overall organisational policy on programming currently states: Concern responds to the short-term, mediumterm and long-term needs of our target group. Our work therefore includes emergency, development, development education and advocacy programmes. In all our work we seek to empower the poor. 1 This policy clearly means that the purpose of advocacy is to respond to the needs of people who live in extreme or absolute poverty and that they would be empowered in our approach to advocacy. Our approach to advocacy is underpinned by our policy on Human Rights, which states that: Concern will mobilise public opinion, and influence the media and policy-makers towards the elimination of poverty though advocacy of the full human rights of our target group... In the light of the development of a human rights approach to poverty elimination, Concern will seek to promote Human Rights at local, national and international level through advocacy, campaigning, education and networking activities... Each programme (project) will consider options of advocacy at a range of levels, from local initiatives to global campaigns. 2. Core Values and Advocacy Concern is a membership-based, non-governmental organisation, with Articles of Association and a set of core values that drive our policies. All members and staff are encouraged to support and promote these values, which are the foundation of our advocacy work. By way of example, the organisational values of targeting people who live in extreme poverty, and of the importance of rapid response in emergencies, are advocacy issues that we would bring to governments who are sometimes distracted by other priorities. Many official aid agencies make little distinction 1 Structure and Policy of Concern, August 2001. between the needs of Least Developed and More Developed Countries, or between the average citizen in a country they assist and the minority of people who live in extreme poverty. Concern has a tradition to uphold of putting the poorest first, even when political or other events distract others. Equally, the values we place on democracy as an accelerator of development, on the participation of citizens in decision-making and on the responsibility of governments to end extreme poverty, guide us in our advocacy with policy-makers in government organisations in Ireland, the European Union or elsewhere. For example, we can advise that these values be contained in European and Irish and British policies that impact on developing countries and that might otherwise place more emphasis on government control over its citizens. In other words, there is a deep consensus in Concern on a range of issues on which we are empowered to advocate, on which we strongly desire to advocate and on which we do actually advocate. We now wish to expand on this agenda, to show in more detail how these values are put into operation at policy level and at practical level for extremely poor people in Ethiopia, Afghanistan and similar countries. Concern Worldwide s Strategic Plan 2002-2005, published in March 2002, commits Concern to developing advocacy to improve the effectiveness of our emergency humanitarian relief and long-term development programmes, and to influence policy makers to remove the underlying causes of poverty. It also sets an objective of applying a rights-based approach to our work, which effectively means adding advocacy to our traditional programming rather than replacing one with the other. The Strategic Plan identifies five priority programme areas that Concern has committed itself to: Primary Health, Basic Education, Livelihood Security, HIV/AIDS and Emergency Response. In the interest of coherence and overall effectiveness, it is clear that the advocacy strategy and programme will predominantly connect to issues arising in these areas. 1
In the past, Concern authorised individuals, usually its Chief Executive, to carry out lobbying activities with governments in Ireland, the UK, EU and USA. This type of advocacy, taken by the headquarters of the organisation as distinct from each country programme, is directed at a policy of a government that we can influence because we are part of the electorate and civil society of that government. Concern also participates in a number of networks and forums in different countries in order to influence government policy, either on its own behalf or in conjunction with the wider NGO community. Our capacity to influence is determined both by the quality of our input and by our relative standing with the respective governments; for example, it is clear that we have potentially more influence on Irish than on US government policy. Here also, our advocacy strategy and programme will obviously have to take this reality into account. This Northern advocacy we see as arising out of our work in the South, but being different from Southern advocacy, which arises in country programmes out of our development of a rights-based approach to problem identification in project work and which is particular to the country in which it is undertaken. In other words, Concern will undertake corporate or international advocacy arising out of some, but not all, of the advocacy issues that will in future be identified as part of normal project work. No formal prohibition against such Southern advocacy has traditionally existed and, as a recent survey showed, a large number of country programmes have been quietly carrying out advocacy work. In addition, human rights are now more widely accepted by governments in the South. Greater emphasis will now be given to this type of work. However, in some countries it may be necessary to avoid most types of advocacy activities due to the risk they would create for the pursuit of other programming approaches. Decisions on such balancing between advocacy and other programming approaches will be made on a case-by-case basis, through the normal management process as part of projects channelled through the Project Cycle Management (PCM) system. 3. Approaches and Policies This document is of a more general nature than sector policies on such topics as Microfinance and Health. It sets out our approach to a series of key issues and defines our policy in each area. 3.1 Participation of Extremely Poor People in Advocacy Concern s advocacy work, as with all our work, begins with people who live in extreme poverty. At this starting point, participation in analysis of problems and solutions is a key part of our work. While fully respecting their decision-making powers, we accept that their views on broader international issues may not be fully formed or may not be easily accessed by an international organisation such as ours even when using Participatory Approaches. (For example, no participatory appraisal we have yet done has told us to change Northern policy with regard to debt or to lower prices for HIV/AIDS drugs). Some manifestations of extreme poverty may be solved by local actions or by national ones; some others may need international change. In the case of local or national issues, our preference is that nationals of the country carry out the actions with appropriate support from us. When international connections are objectively suggested by outsiders who are more aware of them, we desire that the extremely poor understand these connections and give us a mandate to pursue them, so that we speak for the poor rather than about the poor. To accomplish this, when participatory appraisals are made, by ourselves or by a partner agency, the problem trees are discussed between our target group and a national civil society organisation (CSO) that is chosen because of its deeper knowledge of global connections, as well as because of its commitment to ending absolute poverty. We are interested in making connections, if they exist, between the roots of practical problems and local and international structures created by governments and 2
civil societies which we can influence and change, and we want the appropriate local organisations 2 to rigorously demonstrate that the connections exist and that they determine the extent of extreme poverty. Just as we frequently have operational partners in the countries in which we work, we now envisage also having international advocacy partners in these countries, who are chosen as much for their in-depth knowledge of macro-issues as for their commitment to helping others. This arises from our view that an operational partner, while being favourable to advocacy, will most probably not have the skills and knowledge base to allow it to assemble a coherent advocacy brief that would be taken seriously by Northern governments and their expert advisers. To be effective in policy, advocacy requires us to use top level advisers from civil society in the countries in which we work, advisers who are skilled in the policy area and whose altruism extends to understanding the cause of people in extreme poverty as distinct from the cause of poverty reduction in general. When, arising out of this type of analysis, a recommendation is made that advocacy activities be carried out with policy makers in Ireland, the UK, EU or USA, the achievement of a high quality of advocacy may require the application of knowledge and expertise that is not available within the organisation. This may be sought from members of an appropriate civil society organisation who will, where necessary, be supplemented with experts in policy advocacy. Our first policy arises from our approaches to this issue of participation. Policy One: Organisational advocacy action will begin with a consultation with people living in extreme poverty and will proceed in three sequential steps to an international perspective on rights and needs. Step 1: People living in extreme poverty will participate in decision-making about the advocacy positions that the organisation takes. Concern will facilitate this through our Project Cycle Management process, which is built on participation in analysis of issues, in consideration of alternative actions and in monitoring of progress towards objectives. Step 2: Organisational advocacy actions suggested in Step 1 will be reviewed and further developed in conjunction with knowledgeable and altruistic members of local civil society in those countries. 3 Step 3: Advocacy actions in our home countries arising from Steps 1 and 2 and from our core values will be further developed and recommended in conjunction with knowledgeable and altruistic members of our own civil society where appropriate. Country Directors who have a significant new project in preparation will therefore be allocated an Advocacy Researcher on a consultancy basis for up to two months. The Advocacy Researcher will assist in carrying out the task in Step 2 of selecting an appropriate civil society organisation (CSO) and in collaborating with it and the operational NGO in undertaking participatory appraisals. They will advise on the choice of Southern CSO and produce an international advocacy brief based on the input from Steps 1 and 2. On return home, they will be involved in selecting and briefing the Northern CSO in Step 3. The Advocacy Researcher will be recruited at Headquarters and will have a research background in a social science and probably be a mid-level academic. While overseas experience would be desirable, it is not essential. This approach represents a major change in our operational methods. 3.2 Adding Value We have outlined a way of building an advocacy position upwards from the micro level of our specific target group, rather than adopting a macro level position based on political theory. This arises out of our desire to add value, and values, to the sometimes excellent advocacy work already carried out by other NGOs. We believe that our overseas work at the grassroots with people living in extreme poverty can give a human scale to national and international policy formulation, and that, in addition, the 3 2 3 Whether or not there is one local agency or a range of agencies with differing Steps 1 and 2 may be carried out concurrently and jointly. opinions, Concern will have to make decisions on which opinion it wishes to follow. This will be done against our core values and in consultation with the target groups.
effectiveness of our project work can be greatly enhanced and revitalised by the combination of a practical response with a deeper response aimed at the roots of extreme poverty. In all of our programmes, we are driven by our Organisational Policy on Impact: Concern aims to use the resources available to it to achieve the maximum impact in alleviating poverty and in developing the capacity for sustainable development. A key means of achieving such impact is through the empowerment of the people and groups with which Concern works. 4 In giving examples of this policy, reference is made to the need for innovation in all the work that we do: Given the scale of need in the countries in which Concern works, a particular effort must be made to use resources in an innovative manner which could lead to better ways of doing things. In advocacy, as in other programmes, we cannot simply reproduce what has worked or is working for others. We have to strive to find new and what we hope are better ways of making advocacy effective. This does not mean that we want to be isolationist. It means that we want to have much more to contribute to the network of activists who share our cause, so that our actions complement theirs. When we have identified micro to macro advocacy activities, we will, of course, link our actions with those of Alliance 2015, as well as with those of appropriate networks, NGOs and CSOs within Ireland, the UK, EU and USA. Arising from our wish to add value based on our experience, we arrive at our second policy. Policy Two: We will take a distinctive position, which draws on our current experience and which adds value to work being carried out by others. 3.3 Appropriate Advocacy Types We have two types of overseas presence a long-term presence, where we can potentially implement our development and emergency work simultaneously, and a short-term presence, to primarily carry out emergency work. In each of these circumstances, a different type of advocacy is appropriate. 4 Structure and Policy of Concern, August 2001. Short-term Presence The process of consultation with beneficiaries is obviously lengthy and complex, and for that reason is easier to carry out where we have a long-term presence. Emergencies or crises, to which Concern frequently responds, require rapid responses and, in the initial phase, our consultation with local people or organisations will of necessity be shorter and will primarily be concerned with urgently providing basic needs. Without having the time to develop a mandate from our beneficiaries, our advocacy of policy change is obviously limited during this phase. Two actions of an advocacy type (i.e. actions aimed at policy change) are still available. No mandate is required for making a case that a particular crisis is of such severity that the distribution of international aid has to be re-prioritised or that more aid be allocated to the particular emergency or emergencies in general. This is advocacy for important policy changes, but it addresses itself more to the ethics of a donor country s own civil society than it does to the inadvertent effects of international policy with which advocacy is generally concerned. For that reason, full-scale local consultation is less necessary and Steps 1 and 2 can be skipped. During either an international or a civil war, we operate as a humanitarian organisation, in the sense intended in the Geneva Conventions, and we have to be neutral and impartial as is reinforced by our adherence to the Code of Conduct. Our advocacy can then extend to advocacy of application of the Geneva Conventions in general or to some particular section of the Conventions that, based on our direct observation on the ground, we may feel is particularly relevant. For example, advocacy of aid to both sides, and of humanitarian access, would also be open to us. Where local conditions suggest the relevance of advocating the Geneva Conventions, a Country Director could recommend this and we could proceed to Step 3 under our first policy point. For emergency countries of operation, we could call this type of work the advocacy of ethical and legal principles rather than of specific policies in the countries of the North. 4
To respond effectively to the constraints of a shortterm presence, we have developed a third policy. Policy Three: In conflict-related situations where we have a short-term presence, it is permissible to conduct advocacy activities with regard to the application of the Geneva Conventions in general or to some particular section of the Conventions that, based on our direct observation on the ground, we may feel is particularly relevant. In other situations of short-term emergency response, our advocacy should be based on appropriate UN Charters and Conventions, and on the Sphere Standards and Code of Conduct of the Federation of the Red Cross. Long-term Presence In long-term programmes, there is time available and we can, in being consistent with the advocacy principles, consult with our target groups and acquire comprehensive knowledge through collaboration with civil society organisations on how the interests of the extremely poor can be advanced though policy change. This process of consultation will, we presume, lead us to advocate particular aspects of macro-level policy with regard to issues such as debt, globalisation and environment, or it may lead us in an altogether different direction to advocate issues that are less popularly advocated by Northern NGOs. In advocacy, we remain open to the priorities of those in whose name we raise our funds. As mentioned with regard to short-term presence, we can continue, independently of this process of consultation, to campaign for ethical changes within our Northern State and civil societies that are relevant to our objectives, such as an increase in the quality and quantity of official development assistance that goes to people living in absolute poverty. We can also argue for, and campaign for, governments of the North to encourage Southern governments to adhere to the full range of Conventions on Human Rights. But, without research of the type we propose here, we cannot speak authentically on particular ways of prioritising the multitude of rights in the context of scarce resources. In circumstances of long-term presence, more options are open to us than in short-term interventions and so we can develop a more situation-specific response, in line with our fourth policy. Policy Four: The preferred means of initiating advocacy activities in countries where we have a long-term presence is through consultation with our target group, as outlined in Policy One. Until such time as we have developed a substantial portfolio of advocacy positions in this way, we will continue to operate the current nonparticipatory advocacy approach. 3.4 Roles Depending on the circumstances, we can choose to take various roles within policy advocacy. We can, for example, choose the role of lobbying politicians directly, or we can principally choose a role of targeting the policy-formulators who influence politicians, or we can mobilise public support by campaigning, or we can educate the public so that they question the objectivity of their sources of information. We can also carry out any combination of these. The targets for advocacy are never as obvious as may appear at first sight. For many development issues, the locus of decision-making is often not in Development Cooperation Ireland or DfID: it may be in Finance or Treasury or Foreign Affairs or Foreign Office that decisions are made with regard to national positions on debt (IMF), on aid conditionality (World Bank) or on international terrorism (EU and NATO). Decisions on other issues may involve Ministries of Health (for AIDS) and Trade (for AIDS and pharmaceuticals) or Agriculture (Trade). And, while our nations formally vote in the UN system, the quasi-independent agendas taken by the executives of UN bodies also make advocacy in these bodies an attractive option. Equally, in Southern advocacy there will be a wide range of ministries, public and international bodies, as well as private sector companies, who may determine policy. 5
Until feedback comes through from field research, it is not clear what advocacy roles will be required or where they will be located. Our survey of advocacy activities throughout the organisation showed that a considerable amount of advocacy work was carried out at national level and is different from organisational advocacy. Further exploration may well show that the principal problems for the poorest groups in Least Developed Countries are attributable to their own government s policies and that much of the policy reform required is not in the hands of industrialised countries. If this were so, the key question would then be whether we take a conspicuous advocacy role for ourselves, or advocate through local organisations, or say nothing whatever about internal Southern politics. As we explore the rights-based approach, we will encounter arguments for adopting each of these stances. At this point, all we can say is that the precise role or roles that we will take in advocacy will depend on listening to our target group and in matching this with our capacities and capabilities. While realising that the agency most suited to carrying out advocacy will depend on the particular circumstances, we will analyse each situation to ascertain how far the poor can do advocacy. In order to maximise the effectiveness of groups of the poor and other advocacy partners, we will apply the principles and approaches of our capacity building work in our advocacy work with them. 3.5 Mechanisms and Responsibilities The Overseas Director will be responsible for the development of advocacy positions in each country where we have a long-term presence. Advocacy needs and opportunities will be considered in the design of all our new development projects and monitored through the Project Cycle Management (PCM) process. Our fifth policy caters for this. Policy Five: Country Directors are responsible for preparing project proposals that include consideration of the need for changes in power structures that arise from consultations with people living in extreme poverty in the country for which they are responsible. As part of the normal PCM process, any proposal to undertake advocacy will be sent for approval through the appropriate Regional Director to the Overseas Director. When advocacy issues are raised that have some probability of having a significant negative impact on the organisation s other activities, the Overseas Director will seek the approval of the Chief Executive who may, in some cases, seek the approval of Council or its appropriate committee(s). This ensures that advocacy activities are fully integrated into our programme of poverty elimination and are covered by a sixth policy. Policy Six: Advocacy activities will be designed and presented in the manner of normal overseas projects and will be monitored using the same process and procedures. 3.6 Budgets All new project proposals from countries where we have a long-term presence may in future include two advocacy budget lines one to cover the costs incountry and another to cover the costs of undertaking advocacy activities at Headquarters. If an advocacy issue, arising from one or more projects, leads to the need to develop an international advocacy action that cannot be performed within the normal workloads of existing staff, it may be necessary to create an independent project, including budget, for it. In other words, there is no fixed constraint on spending in the advocacy area other than the normal one applicable to all countries of operation that project proposals pass through the procedures of the Project Cycle Management and compete with one another for the finance available on the basis of the impact that they are likely to have on extreme poverty. Any cross-organisational advocacy initiative 5 will have to be presented in project form and compete for 5 Any such project will, of course, arise from in-country PLAs. 6
funding with other projects. This gives rise to our seventh policy. Policy Seven: Decisions on whether or not to undertake advocacy will depend on the impact that it is likely to have in comparison with the impact of the other forms of programmes we undertake. Accordingly, the proportion of resources to be allocated to advocacy will not be pre-determined but will arise out of the normal programme budget development process. 3.7 Concern s Competence to Carry Out Advocacy Based on experience to date, Concern can claim to have a degree of competence, but this has been vested in individuals rather than in widely agreed formal principles and guidelines. As we implement advocacy in a more formal way, it will be necessary to further develop our competence. Resources will be made available as approved in specific advocacy proposal budgets. It will be practice to train in advocacy methods according to needs rather than blanket training of all staff. 4. Policy Monitoring and Review Process The implementation of this policy will be monitored through a range of instruments, such as programme, country and sector evaluations. Concern recognises that both internal and external environments change. Such change may have a bearing on the scope and content of this policy. Consequently, it will be reviewed periodically. The review process will be consultative and participatory in nature. The responsibility for initiating the policy review process rests with Concern s Senior Management and Council. 7
General Policies Approved Structure and Policy of Concern August 2001 How Concern Targets Countries for Poverty Elimination August 2000 Concern s Approach to Emergencies March 2002 Security April 2003 Programme Approach Policies Capacity Building April 2001 Human Rights March 2002 HIV/AIDS April 2003 Advocacy April 2003 Equality (including gender equality) Under preparation Programme Sector Policies Microfinance March 2004 Health March 2002 Basic Education June 2003 Livelihood Security June 2003 Resource Policies Finance Various. Refer to Finance Director Human Resources March 2003 Logistics Under preparation Marketing Under preparation Programme/Project Management Policies Project Cycle Management December 2002 Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Under preparation
First printed in 2004 Concern Worldwide Place of registration Dublin, Ireland. Registered No 39647. Registered Charity number CHY5745 Dublin: +353 1 417 7700 Belfast: +44 48 90 33 1100 London: +44 207 73 81 033 Glasgow: +44 141 221 3610 New York: +1 212 557 8000 Website: www.concern.net