Monday Developments

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS

Chec Out O k ur

JS obs ectio n Page 3 2

!

The Latest Issues and Trends in International Development and Humanitarian Assistance

Developing Networks As Community Assets Payment for Environmental Services

Kidnapped! The Worst Possible Scenario

The Debate Over

Civil-Military Relations The 2009 DATA Report

August 2009 Vol. 27, No. 8 InterAction

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 5

Managing Editor/Art Director Chad Brobst Copy Editor Kathy Ward

20

Advertising & Sales Michael Haslett Communications Department Nasserie Carew, Public Relations Tawana Jacobs, Public Relations Tony Fleming, New Media Leslie Rigby, Writer/Editor Chad Brobst, Publications Michael Haslett, Publications Margaret Christoph, Admin Associate

21

8

Editorial Committee InterAction Communications Team InterAction 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202.667.8227 [email protected] ISSN 1043-8157

Monday Developments is published 11 times a year by InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations. With more than 170 members operating in every developing country, InterAction works to overcome poverty, exclusion and suffering by advancing social justice and basic dignity for all. InterAction welcomes submissions of news articles, opinions and announcements. Article submission does not guarantee inclusion in Monday Developments. We reserve the right to reject submissions for any reason. It is at the discretion of our editorial team as to which articles are published in individual issues.

August 2009 • Vol. 27 • No. 8

Features Cover Story: What’s the Story on Militarization? | 8 Lack of U.S. government civilian capacity hampers efforts to create the desired civilianmilitary balance in the U.S. presence abroad.

The Pentagon as a Development Agency | 11 The U.S. military’s increasing role as an aid provider.

Civil-Military Cooperation: An Opportunity for Women? | 13

The Worst Possible Scenario | 20 The second article in a continuing series covering a fictional kidnapping scenario and how an NGO might respond.

Liberating Nonprofits | 25

Quantum Blur | 15

ONE’s 2009 DATA Report reveals some donors keeping promises, others facing credibility crisis.

Articles may be reprinted with prior permission and attribution. Letters to the editor are encouraged.

Building the Bridge | 17

A conversation starter for formal information sharing between and among NGOs and the U.S. government.

Heard with One Voice | 19 Developing networks as community assets.

Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have much to do to meet the 2015 targets of the ICPD Programme of Action.

Changes in market demand and use of profit incentives are creating new opportunities to further human development and environmental protection at the same time.

A conversation with Dan Pallotta.

Bringing clarity to civil-military relationships in a ‘3D’ world.

Fifteen and Counting | 29

Payment for Environmental Services | 23

Recent developments present possibilities to improve participation by women.

All statements in articles are the sole opinion and responsibility of the authors.

A limited number of subscriptions are made available to InterAction member agencies as part of their dues. Individual subscriptions cost $80 a year (add $15 for airmail delivery outside the U.S.) Samples are $5, including postage. Additional discounts are available for bulk orders. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Advertising rates are available on request.

Contents

The G8’s Annual Report Card | 27

15

23 Departments Inside This Issue | 3 Letters to the Editor | 4 Step By Step Advocacy | 5 Inside Our Community | 6 Inside InterAction | 7 Events | 31 Employment Opportunities | 32

INSIDE This Issue

Civil-Military Relations: NGOs Must Shape the Debate

Photo: USAID

I

n recent years, debate has intensified about the use of the U.S. military to perform humanitarian and development roles that have historically been the responsibility of civilian agencies of the government and NGOs. While many recognize the military’s unique capabilities to support relief efforts, the rapidly expanding involvement of the armed forces in long-term development and reconstruction strategies, combined with the growing proportion of aid funding now channeled through the Department of Defense, has heightened the U.S. NGO community’s concern about the militarization of U.S. foreign assistance. Tension over this blurring of boundaries is felt not only where U.S. troops are carrying out military and humanitarian missions simultaneously but also where they have no presence or direct involvement in development and relief work. Increasingly, the face of U.S. foreign assistance is projected and perceived globally as a soldier in helmet and fatigues, and humanitarian workers everywhere confront firsthand the challenges and risks engendered by the apparent intertwining of U.S. military and humanitarian objectives. The appearance of counterinsurgency language in solicitations for development programs is of serious concern to the NGO community—especially against the backdrop of the Obama administration’s delay in appointing a USAID administrator in time to contribute to key interagency debates that will shape future U.S. engagement with the world, especially its most poor and those whose lives are shaped by conflict. In response to these growing concerns, InterAction has taken a lead role in facilitating a learning exchange to broaden military awareness of NGOs’ roles, principles and expertise and to reaffirm the appropriate parameters of military involvement in the humanitarian arena. As many readers know, one product of this dialogue was the publication of the “Guidelines for Relations Between U.S. Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations in Hostile or Potentially Hostile Environments” in July 2007. One of the InterAction website’s most popular downloads, the Guidelines have also been written into military doctrine as an appendix on how to work with other stakeholders on the ground—not only NGOs but interagency colleagues as well. More recently, the Army has sought the input of the NGO community on its Field Manual on Stability Operations, reflecting an awareness that it needs a better understanding of the actors in environments and activities that are wholly new to the military. This ongoing dialogue can also help the military understand that NGOs are key stakeholders in their own right. The military is used to working with contractors, and sees

U.S. military help to push a truck loaded with USAID-donated relief commodities for victims of the Dec. 2004 tsunami in Indonesia.

NGOs as such. But InterAction members do not rely exclusively on U.S. government dollars; they bring substantial private resources—almost $6 billion, more than twice what they receive from the U.S. government—and the support of a broad constituency of Americans. Military personnel are also often unaware that much of NGOs’ work is carried out by local staff, who play a vital role in designing and delivering effective development services and in strengthening NGOs’ ability to build trust and help maintain stability. On the flip side, the NGO community has learned through these discussions that many in the armed forces do not want to take on expanded humanitarian and development roles and share our community’s belief that NGOs are the best providers of these services. This issue of Monday Developments features a range of articles on civil-military relations, drawing on the experiences and perspectives of very diverse groups and offering a forum to encourage future discussion and debate. In addition, the issue looks at the use of profit incentives to encourage environmental protection. It also features an update on the G8’s financial commitments to Africa, as well as an investigation into the use of networks as community assets. MD

Sam Worthington President and CEO InterAction

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

3

Letters Defining PVO Space in Today’s Environment The May issue of Monday Developments contains the text of a letter to President Obama in which more than 90 InterAction member agencies call for the swift appointment of a USAID administrator, urge that the new official be given a place in the National Security Council and “look forward to partnering with your administration as you redefine the way America engages with the world’s poor.” The fact that American private and voluntary organizations are speaking out in support of U.S. foreign aid seems unexceptional, yet it has not always been thus. When Church World Service and Lutheran World Relief opened a joint office in Washington in 1976, they were, if memory serves, the first agencies to reach beyond a desire for grants and contracts to seek to influence broader U.S. policy. A comparison of the legislative agenda of InterAction with its predecessor American Council of Voluntary Agencies in Foreign Service would underscore the extent to which private groups have embraced broader advocacy goals, becoming major players in formulating U.S. humanitarian, development and human rights policy. American presidents and USAID administrators come and go, bringing with them changes in foreign policy and in relations with U.S. nongovernmental groups. However, this historical moment and this transition are especially momentous, recall-

SIT Graduate Institute International Development Programs • Education for Global Social Change Master’s degrees/concentrations

Sustainable Development/Development Management Conflict Transformation / Conflict and Development Management/Development Management

• NEW: Fall 2009 in the Sultanate of Oman Master of Global Management focus in Middle Eastern Studies, International Organizational Development, Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Scholarships and Financial Aid Available

www.sit.edu/graduate www.worldlearning.org

4

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

Send your letters to: [email protected] ing in some respects the period following the Reagan years. I remember writing in Foreign Policy back in 1988 of the challenge to policymakers and agencies at the end of the Cold War: “To identify the United States once again with humane values. Reaffirming the tradition of solidarity with humankind deserves centerpiece status in American thinking about national security and in the day-to-day conduct of American foreign policy.” No time should now be lost in implementing new directions, which in their proposed emphasis on human security and cooperative problem-solving resonate strongly with the views of many private agencies and their constituencies. Private voluntary organizations (PVOs) today are better positioned to influence U.S. policy than in earlier eras. During the second Reagan term, InterAction CEOs examined the extent to which, in the words of then President Peter Davies, agencies “need to match their well-known warm-hearted compassion with hard-headed professional and political expertise.” More recent experience has reinforced PVO awareness of the role played by political factors in creating human need and shaping public and private responses, although their traditional reluctance to criticize U.S. policy has not altogether vanished. The policy directions needed today, however, are far more debatable than the InterAction letter’s expressed desire for “partnering” acknowledges. There is no doubt that effective programs of humanitarian, reconstruction and development assistance contribute to a safer and more secure world. Nor is there any doubt that better coordination of U.S. government policies programs will contribute to the more effective use of available resources. The debatable issue concerns the place of nongovernmental organizations in that mix. Are they extensions of U.S. government efforts, independent actors in their own right, or some combination of the two? Should PVO programs, whether funded with private or government resources, be integrated into the tightly orchestrated national security policy which Presidential Policy Directive 1 envisions? Can PVOs engaged in humanitarian work be assured of the necessary space to implement U.S. government-funded programs of emergency assistance? How should PVOs relate to State Department-led reconstruction and stabilization programs and to the growing Pentagon role in civil-military affairs? Relationships with a succession of administrations have had varying degrees of mutuality, but the partnership that emerges is often that of horse and rider. When push comes to shove, U.S. national security goals, defined largely without reference to the human security needs of the world’s poor, generally prevail. While InterAction staff may continue to be vigilant in monitoring developments that erode PVO independence and integrity, agencies should be careful in formulating what they wish for. Rather than a blanket embrace of U.S. policy, greater wariness and selectivity, even with a sympathetically inclined administration, are clearly in order. The moment is propitious and the issues of critical importance. I wish InterAction and its members well in their important advocacy work. Larry Minear

Step By Step Advocacy

Advocacy Activities: Part 2 By John Ruthrauff Senior Manager of Member Advocacy, InterAction

Note: This is the sixth installment in a series of articles on developing an effective advocacy strategy. The series began in the March 2009 edition of Monday Developments, and the installments to date have examined selecting an issue, defining your goal and “asks,” conducting a power analysis, building strategic alliances, developing objectives and part one on advocacy activities.

A

dvocacy consists of a series of planned activities that organizations undertake to press for policy changes related to a specific issue. The activities are the steps you use in your advocacy campaign to influence key actors who can bring about your desired change. They should be based on a power analysis and designed to attain an objective. Advocacy activities can strengthen allies, increase pubic awareness of your issue, reduce the influence of opponents and/or convince undecided actors to join your effort. An advocacy campaign does not mean you need to take to the streets in protest or physically confront anyone; in fact, doing so is often counterproductive and can literally be dangerous. When choosing your activities for a particular campaign, make sure they take into account the local culture, religious practices, social norms and the political and security situations. They should also draw on and reflect the strengths and interests of your alliance members. Last month we explored: (1) building relationships; (2) email, phone calls and letter writing; and (3) meeting with individuals. Additional examples of possible advocacy activities include:

Photo: Haider Yousuf - Fotolia.com

Social Media

As evidenced by Obama’s groundbreaking 2008 presidential campaign, social media is an invaluable tool for mobilizing a broad network of supporters. Using social media is a quick and easy way to advertize campaigns, identify potential supporters, educate existing supporters, build relationships and communicate updates. The most popular sites for advocacy campaigns are Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, LinkedIn and YouTube.

Negotiations

During an advocacy campaign partners in an alliance often have the opportunity to undertake negotiations with people

and groups who represent differing positions and/or decision-makers. Negotiation entails exchange and compromise, so it is important to select your negotiating team and enter negotiations with the understanding that the team will probably not be able to secure every facet of your goals. The team will need to compromise on some or even many points. The following are key points to keep in mind: • Before each meeting or formal negotiation session, your team should hold a “pre-meeting” to review its positions and priorities for the meeting, and to make sure everyone is clear on who will be the leader for the team in the meeting and who will address each point you want to raise and each topic likely to come up. • Determine your fallback positions and bottom lines for each point before negotiations begin and make sure everyone on the team understands what they are. • Presentation matters. Make sure your negotiating team presents your alliance and themselves in a way that maximizes their potential to be effective. Not only should the membership of the team reflect the diversity and strength of your alliance (including its most powerful members), they need to present themselves in a way that puts their best collective foot forward. That includes the way they dress for meetings, being on time and presenting a disciplined and coordinated face in negotiations. • Make sure the team has clear instructions and a common understanding of its authority. For example, can it agree to a negotiated position on a particular point on its own or does it need to bring the best offer back to an executive committee, board or the membership of the alliance? • Know and understand the people and groups with whom you will negotiate. It is very important to do this bit of homework in advance and to use what you learn about your counterparts to determine your strategy and tactics. Who will represent the other party(ies) in the negotiations? What can you learn about their bottom lines and primary concerns related to the issues at hand? What other major concerns may they have before them on other matters that might influence their bargaining positions and abilities on the issue(s) of interest to you? Why have the groups and individuals they represent agreed to meet with you at this time? What are these people like as individuals and negotiators? • If your team at any point during the negotiations is unsure about what to do next or how to respond, the team can meet privately (caucus) to address those questions. Team members should never argue or disagree with each other during the meetings with the other party(ies). continued on page 7

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

5

INSIDE Our Community Honduras: Political Unrest Disrupts Delivery of Aid

The recent political unrest in Honduras is causing delays in providing valuable humanitarian aid for communities in one of the most disadvantaged regions of the country, reported the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA). ADRA is currently completing the implementation of the Development Assistance Program in Support of Subsistence Farmer Households, a food security project funded by USAID. “As we near completion of the project, to ensure project sustainability, we begin to transfer responsibilities to the beneficiaries, and local governmental authorities,” shared Roberto Brown, country Finance Director for ADRA Honduras. “Unfortunately, due to the current political situation, most of the mayors and government offices in our targeted regions are unavailable. It is a real setback in achieving our goals.” Country Director Claudio Sandoval also noted that other logistical challenges included getting aid to targeted regions, due to insecurity, political demonstrations and roadblocks. “We are trying not to put our staff and our commodities at risk, because our trucks cannot pass,” said Sandoval. “It’s not every day that something happens, but it is difficult, because we don’t know where it’s going to happen, or which day...this is causing problems for our staff in the region.” On June 28, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was deposed by the Honduran military, after months of rising

InterAction’s

Online Job Board! Visit: careers.interaction.org Talk about interacting! To compliment Monday Developments’ popular monthly job section, InterAction’s online job board instantly connects you to the latest international development jobs as they become available. Search by job sector, level, region and country—or post your resume and let the hiring managers come to you!

6

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

tension. Scores of demonstrations both in protest and support of the recent events continue, disrupting travel and encouraging many businesses to remain closed.

HealthRight International Appoints Mila Rosenthal as Executive Director

The Board of Directors of HealthRight International Inc. (formerly Doctors of the World-USA) recently announced the appointment of Mila Rosenthal as the organization’s next Executive Director. Rosenthal succeeds Tom Dougherty on Sept 8, 2009, as Dougherty completes his term of nearly seven years. “We were sorry about Tom’s decision to seek new challenges, but extremely pleased with the great strides we made under his tenure,” said Steven J. Berger, Chairman of the Board and Co-Chair of the search committee. “Thanks to Tom and his team, HealthRight has grown in size and impact, with an impressive record of success doing critical work building lasting access to health for excluded communities around the world. We are confident that Mila will help us continue and expand on this success.” Rosenthal brings 17 years of experience in international affairs and development to HealthRight. She is currently a Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA), responsible for research and policy. She has directed AIUSA’s advocacy addressing global human rights challenges, including overseeing an upcoming research report on maternal mortality in the U.S. and discrimination in access to health care.

Report Finds Climate Change a Driver of Migration

Unless aggressive measures are taken to halt global warming, the consequences for human migration and displacement could reach a scope and scale that vastly exceed anything that has occurred before, according to a report released during recent climate change talks in Germany. Climate change is already contributing to migration and displacement, the report from CARE, the United Nations University and Columbia University found. All major estimates project that the trend will rise to tens of millions of migrants in coming years. Within the next few decades, the consequences of climate change for human security efforts could be devastating, according to the report, In Search of Shelter: Mapping the Effects of Climate Change on Human Migration and Displacement. The exact number of people that will be on the move by midcentury is uncertain. The International Organization for Migration estimates that there may be 200 million environmentally induced migrants by 2050. ‘’While human migration and displacement is usually the result of multiple factors, the influence of climate change in people’s decision to give up their livelihoods and leave their homes is growing,’’ said Dr. Charles Ehrhart, CARE’s climate change coordinator and one of the report’s authors. MD

INSIDE InterAction InterAction Welcomes New Members

The Board of Directors in its July meeting unanimously voted for six new member organizations to join InterAction. InterAction welcomes the following new member organizations: AmericasRelief Team was formed by a collaboration of corporations and nonprofit organizations to expedite relief to the Caribbean and Latin America in response to natural disasters and human crises. AmericasRelief Team focuses on coordinating logistics through guidance, education and state-of-the-art techniques while planning and implementing effective distribution of humanitarian aid. Development GATEWAY provides web-based platforms to make aid and development efforts more effective around the world. It envisions a world in which the digital revolution serves people everywhere—creating opportunities through increased access to critical information; greater reliance on local capabilities; and more effective, better-coordinated international aid. International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) promotes an enabling legal environment for civil society, freedom of association and public participation around the world. ICNL has worked in over 90 countries, collaborating with civil society organizations (CSOs), scholars, government officials and representatives of the business community. Operation Blessing International (OBI) aims to alleviate human need and suffering in the United States and around the world. As a worldwide relief organization OBI has touched the lives of more than 209.3 million people in more than 105 countries and all 50 U.S. states. Its primary goals are to help break the cycle of suffering by providing hunger relief, medical aid, disaster relief, clean water, orphan and vulnerable children programs and other basic necessities of life that will make a significant, long-term impact on those in need. Rural Development Institute (RDI) works to secure rights for the world’s poorest people. RDI partners with developing countries to design and implement laws, policies and programs that provide opportunity, further economic growth and promote social justice. The Solidarity Center’s mission is to help build a global labor movement by strengthening the economic and political power of workers around the world through effective, independent and democratic unions. MD

Step By Step Advocacy continued from page 5

Media

Media attention to your issue can often be helpful, so if this seems to be the case in your situation, it is important to consider reaching out to relevant media outlets and members of the press. Sometimes this is easier in small cities and towns than in large cities like New York or Washington, D.C.—unless your issue already is or neatly ties into an issue already on the national press agenda, or unless one or more members of your alliance have close contacts with a member of the national press corps that your member(s) knows would be interested and able to take up your issue. In any event, media coverage brings your issue to the attention of a wider audience. Ideally, you obviously would like that attention to convert into greater support for the change you seek. But you cannot control reporting, so there is always a risk that the coverage you get might not take the track you want or, even worse, could come across as more sympathetic to your opposition. The bottom line is to remember that working with the media is complicated and requires careful research, consideration and often the involvement of people with particular experience in such outreach. This is a bigger topic than we can take on in this article, so just keep in mind that you will need to do more research if you want to explore this option.

Research and Publications

Having carefully conducted and well-presented research to back up your positions and ideas is important. This often takes the form of reports. But the reports used in conjunction with advocacy campaigns need to follow a couple of rules that aren’t always part of reporting in more academic environments. Reports used in advocacy campaigns need to be concise and begin with an executive summary. If you have lots of information you really feel you need to include (and which you have carefully vetted line by line), you can attach it in appendices. If respected universities, think tanks and experts with respected reputations are associated with the reports you use (either as the authors or as endorsers of the report), it can increase the credibility of a report. Publishing your research (or summary articles related to it) in respected journals can also increase the credibility of your findings and help you reach a wider audience.

Indirect Persuasion

Sometimes the most effective method for convincing a decision-maker to adopt your position is indirect and behind the scenes. Indirect persuasion can involve informal “off the record” meetings or discussions with officials and supporters. Or it can involve meeting with people whom the decision-maker respects and then letting those individuals carry your message forward to the decision-maker in a more informal manner. This sort of indirect persuasion is often conducted quietly and may never be something that can be discussed publicly, but it can, at times, be the most effective way to achieve your goals. MD Part seven of this series will continue to describe activities and will appear in the August edition of Monday Developments.

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

7

T

he sprawling, isolated desert town of Nema, 1,100 kilometers from the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott, has a new, U.S.-funded health clinic. But the clinic is unused. In fact, it never opened. Fully constructed, the clinic sits abandoned because people cannot get to it and because the Ministry of Health cannot support it. This sounds like the beginning of a story where the good intentions of donors are for naught because the host nation lacks the capacity for follow-through. Well, not exactly. The Ministry of Health can’t support the clinic because the Ministry was not consulted before construction began. Funds to build the clinic came from the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Special Forces soldiers who coordinated the construction worked through the Mauritanian Ministry of Defense. But this isn’t just a story about the militarization of America’s foreign policy. While a critic would say that if the soldiers had coordinated with USAID maybe this would not have happened, the problem is that there is no USAID office in Nouakchott. There is no USAID presence for the soldiers to coordinate their activities with. The Nema medical clinic is a monument to poor U.S. interagency coordination due to a staggering lack of civilian capacity in foreign affairs. So this is a story about the effect in the field that the absence of civilian capacity has on the recipients of our assistance and on American’s image in the world.

8

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

Photo: Jason Seagle

Militarization

M

Militarization

Lack of U.S. government civilian capacity hampers efforts to create the desired civilian-military balance in the U.S. presence abroad.

What’s the Story on

Militarization? By Ron Capps, Peacekeeping Program Manager, Refugees International

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

9

Militarization

The numbers are overwhelming. While there are over 2,300,000 uniformed service members, there are fewer than 6,800 Foreign Service Officers at the Department of State and about 1,400 Foreign Service Officers at USAID. The General Accounting Office claims nearly 30 percent of language-designated positions at American embassies are filled by inadequately trained officials, and a recent article in Foreign Affairs noted that American embassies in Africa are short 30 percent of their assigned staffs. Things are so bad the State Department has hired over 2,300 family members to fill embassy positions. Personnel numbers alone still don’t tell the whole story. A recent study by the Association for American Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center repeatedly cited a lack of program management skills at State and USAID. Congress has granted the Department of Defense authorities and funding for security and development assistance that should reside with State and USAID; and it did so principally because the civilian agencies cannot carry their load. A congressional report cites a waning of diplomatic effectiveness in representing U.S. interests as foreign officials “follow the money,” increasingly emphasizing defense relations over diplomacy. The RAND Corporation calls these discrepancies “a dysfunctional skewing of resources-to-tasks.” In 1971, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote in Foreign Affairs, “For over a decade it has been received as accepted truth in the highly charged political atmosphere of Washington that the role, power and prestige of the Secretary and Department of State in the conduct of foreign affairs have steadily declined.” Things have not gotten any better in the 38 years since Acheson wrote his article. For the past two generations, the Department of State and USAID have atrophied thanks to budget cuts and reductions in force driven by a misguided belief that American security is solely the provenance of the military and the intelligence services. But recently, Congress and the executive branch have begun to reverse the trend. In 2004, a presidential order gave the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stability (S/CRS) at State the task of coordinating a “whole

10

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

of government” approach to reconstruction and stability operations. At that time, interagency processes were strained by struggles over power and influence at the highest levels of government and staff were overwhelmed by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over time, the office produced a blueprint for civilian response. S/CRS has also created a Civilian Response Corps to serve as the civilian expeditionary capability the United States so urgently needs as a complement to its unparalleled military capacity. Once complete, it will include 250 active officers, 2,000 government officials on standby and 2,000 in a reserve corps. These officers will bring civilian

The Department of State plans to hire 700 new officers this year, while USAID wants to bring in 300. These numbers are insufficient to meet the needs. expertise from State, USAID and the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Agriculture and Justice. In 2008, Congress funded the active response corps and hiring began. RAND, among others, has called for a multiagency National Security College to address interagency planning and management shortcomings. In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense offered to turn the National Defense University into a university for national security professionals. The National Security Council (NSC) approved a management system for interagency operations in March 2007. So now we have a civilian expeditionary force, an education and training program and an interagency management system. Is this the happy ending? No, the story isn’t finished yet. The officers in the civilian response

corps are an expeditionary force. They don’t increase the staff of the Department of State or USAID, only rearrange it. The Department of State remains critically short of personnel, particularly in the mid- and senior-level ranks. USAID is embarrassingly understaffed. State plans to hire 700 new officers this year, while USAID wants to bring in 300. These numbers are insufficient to meet the needs. The interagency management system approved by the NSC and the supporting structures of S/CRS and the Civilian Response Corps remain substantially untested. As of late May, there were only about 35 active response corps officers on the job. Training programs at the Foreign Service Institute were scheduled to begin in July. At a recent war game at U.S. European Command, officials stated that the military officers involved seemed reluctant to cede authority over reconstruction and stability activities to the civilians. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is often lauded for his public calls for increased civilian capacity. However, in October 2007 he laid down his marker on the expanded role of the Department of Defense: “All these so-called ‘nontraditional’ capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning and strategy—where they must stay.” Once the Department of State regains the personnel strength and capacities to lead America’s foreign affairs enterprise, Congress should pass the funding and authorities it has granted to the Department of Defense back to State. The real story here is that America has just passed the outermost point of one of our regular foreign policy pendulum swings and we are headed back to a more centered approach. Right now, we in the development, humanitarian assistance and advocacy communities have an opportunity to influence the political story line. Now is the time to press for greater funding for civilian personnel, more training to increase civilian capacity and a return of authorities and funding and oversight of development and security assistance to the Department of State and USAID. MD To learn more, please visit www. refugeesinternational.org.

Pentagon Aid

The Pentagon as a Development Agency The U.S. military’s increasing role as an aid provider. By Gerald Martone, Director of Humanitarian Affairs International Rescue Committee

Photo: DoD\Master Sgt. Ken Hammond, U.S. Air Force

W

ith mounting concern, NGOs have been watching the U.S. military take on more direct service activities for disaster, poverty and conflictaffected populations. These relief activities were traditionally the domain of civilian agencies including USAID, the Department of State, United Nations agencies and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This expansion of the military’s role is as much a result of policy directives aimed at reducing the impoverished environments that nurture extremism in the global war on terror as it is an inevitable response to the need to fill the void left by chronically underresourced civilian agencies. On a daily basis we confront the obscene disparity of resources between the U.S. military and civilian agencies. The International Rescue Committee (IRC), for example, operates in over 40 countries and resettles refugees in 23 U.S. cities. Its 10,000 staff members around the world assist more than 16 million conflict-affected people each

year. The IRC’s extensive global services are provided on a lean annual budget of only $285 million. It is hard to believe that IRC’s budget for the entire year would run the U.S. military for a mere 3.5 hours. The Pentagon, with $600 billion a year in funding and over 1.5 million uniformed personnel, also dwarfs the Department of State, which has an annual budget of only $30 billion and less than 7,000 permanent employees. During frustrating budget discussions within the State Department, some employees cynically refer to their modest accounts in measures of “FJEs” (Fighter Jet Equivalents). The U.S. federal budget allocates about 1 percent for critical foreign assistance and policy initiatives compared with 22 percent for military defense and weapons. Since the State Department’s ability to carry out effective, long-term strategies to rebuild countries recovering from conflict is underresourced, the U.S. military has stepped in to fill the gap. The USAID budget has

also shrunk over the past few years. As a result, the proportion of assistance funding that the Department of Defense controls has grown dramatically to as much as 20 percent all of U.S. official development assistance. We have arrived at a situation where the Pentagon is now one of the largest shareholders in U.S. foreign policy. In more than a couple of countries, the face of U.S. presence abroad is a soldier in camouflage fatigues carrying a rifle. Humanitarian assistance has become a weapon of war. Even the U.S. Army Field Manual No. 3-24 states that counter-insurgency “operations can be characterized as armed social work.” Rather than politicizing the humanitarian agenda, we must humanize the political agenda. It is unfortunate that the leading edge of U.S. foreign assistance is increasingly of a military character. What does it say to our detractors abroad when the armed forces occupy the highest profile of American engagement outside our borders? When questions of American motives arise, we face the burden of trying to explain away fears that our nation’s actions are driven not by largesse but by a desire to dominate others. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged this when he stated, “the U.S. military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns.” Assistance delivered by the military is often skeptically perceived as the “instrumentalization” of aid that serves U.S. national interests. It would be naïve to assume that relief assistance delivered by armed forces would be seen as anything other than a pretext for military adventurism. Civilian-led efforts on the other hand are more likely to be viewed as a collective manifestation of America’s commitment to help others. Of course, civilian disaster relief agencies do not hold the monopoly on responding to populations in crises. Armed forces have provided assistance to civilian populations since the very beginnings of organized armies. In the time of Alexander the Great, commanders viewed relief assistance as not only a humane gesture but a way to win public loyalty of the vanquished populations to their conquerors. Ancient Chinese Moguls used relief aid to “soften” resistance. Marcus Aurelius reminded

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

11

Pentagon Aid

his generals that “benevolence is a great weapon of war.” And throughout the American Revolutionary War, army physicians routinely helped civilians such as settlers, trappers, hunters and even Indians at frontier posts. We must acknowledge that the U.S. military has a particular competence to offer in sudden-onset natural disasters due to its colossal logistical capacity. Its ability to deliver quality engineering capabilities, transport personnel and materials and provide emergency telecommunications is unmatched by any civilian agency in the world. Its contributions to affected populations after the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake were invaluable. But even in these dramatic examples, the U.S. military’s efforts were most effective when they were coordinated with civilian agencies on the ground, such as USAID, the United Nations and NGOs that are experts in disaster relief. Many of the IRC’s relief workers, like other NGO workers, spend their careers cultivating the craftsmanship of aid delivery that emphasizes empowerment and participation of local communities, capacity building of national institutions, gender equity and self-reliance of individual beneficiaries. Stateof-the-art relief interventions emphasize evidence-based projects that are empirically informed by past successes. Minimum operating standards, evaluation and monitoring and data-driven projects are among the “best practices” in our arsenal of relief technology. Both the military and civilian agencies should each focus on what they do best. For the military, that is providing security and conducting war operations. For civilian agencies, that is caring for civilians and providing assistance to those in need. As Gen. William E. Ward, Commander of AFRICOM (the U.S. military command for Africa), suggested in a meeting with NGOs, we should each “stay in our lanes.” The civilian humanitarian community is often critical of costly and paternalistic military relief projects as they tend to emphasize high-profile and high-visibility projects such as rebuilding roads, wells, schools and hospitals rather than promoting community involvement. This urge to build imposing monuments of goodwill—cynically referred to by one

12

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

colleague as the “edifice complex”—is harshly criticized by many professional aid workers. In Iraq, some field staff mockingly referred to military relief projects as the “re-painting” of Iraq since some rehabilitated schools had no students, no teachers, no curricula and no community support. These superficial and unsustainable projects were intended more to win the “hearts and minds” of people than to provide meaningful solutions to deprivation and underdevelopment. This type of activity may meet short-term goals of outreach to local populations and harvesting public opinion, as well as an exercise in team-building and troop morale, but it is not a good use of taxpayer money. What we have repeatedly heard from the very people whose hearts are trying to be won is that if you want to win their favor, protect them. By making people safe from rebel attacks, lawless environments and sectarian violence, the U.S. military can gain more confidence from local communities than it can by implementing ill-conceived aid projects. When the U.S. military conducts assistance projects, it can compromise the security of NGO staff by blurring the lines between military and civilian humanitarian personnel. NGOs become vulnerable to accusations that we are agents of the global war on terror rather independent humanitarian workers. The unfortunate and stinging characterization of NGOs as “force multipliers” by the U.S. military in Afghanistan still lingers. This problem is exacerbated even further in those instances when the U.S. military has chosen to conduct aid projects while driving civilian vehicles and dressed as civilian aid workers—a dangerous practice referred to by field staff as “cross-dressing.” One of the most crucial components of NGO staff security is our acceptance by local communities. We cultivate acceptance through a deep understanding of local custom, cultural sensitivity, long-term commitment, employment of high numbers of local community members and projects designed to involve people in the very projects from which they will benefit. The best remedy for ensuring separateness and maintaining a firewall between military activities and inde-

pendent, impartial NGO efforts is the Guidelines for Relations Between U.S. Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations in Hostile or Potentially Hostile Environments, jointly published in 2007 by InterAction and the U.S. Department of Defense.  The Guidelines provide practical recommendations on how NGOs and the military should conduct themselves in terms of dress and appearance, institutional visibility protocols, transportation, field activities, communication, joint meetings and coordination. The legitimacy of foreign aid depends on the extent to which our efforts are perceived as credible and morally unambiguous. The solution will not be found in covert propaganda disguised as assistance projects. The military experiment in do-good projects lacks the dedicated ethos of the humanitarian and development guilds—tenacious, professional, long-term aid programs that build trust with communities and cultivate ongoing relationships with affected populations. As Secretary of Defense Gates stated, “We cannot kill or capture our way to victory.” Might does not make right. We are learning that the fight against extremism will not be won on the battlefield. The enemy is not terrorism. The enemy is poverty and ignorance. The remedy is development and education. In this war, the pen is truly mightier than the sword. We must build people’s capabilities and shape the security environment in ways that obviate the need for military intervention. Poverty reduction and state building are the keys to reducing external threats to U.S. security. The Department of State and USAID— our Departments of Offense—must be supported at rates greater than those of the early 1990s. They must have ample financial resources, an enhanced cadre of experienced personnel and a surge capacity of civilian staff ready for deployment on short notice to trouble spots around the world. America’s moral leadership in the world must be earned. It can only be advanced when we secure our reputation as a benevolent power, not an imposing force. The recent trend of militarization of foreign assistance is counterproductive. And it must be changed. Questions and comments can be sent to the author at [email protected]. MD

women

Civil-Military Cooperation: An Opportunity for Women? Recent developments present possibilities to improve participation by women. By Lyric Thompson, Policy Analyst and External Relations Officer Women for Women International

Photo: Women for Women International

I

n her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented an image of an egalitarian relationship between civilian and military actors: “First, civilians complement and build upon our military’s efforts in conflict areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, they use diplomatic and development tools to build more stable and peaceful societies, hopefully to avert or end conflict that is far less costly in lives and dollars than military action.” We in the development community welcome the idea of an equal partnership after a period of time in which funding for defense assistance has exponentially trumped that of development assistance; we welcome the call for a “civilian surge.” As the Obama administration looks to define itself in the world generally and in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, a new opportunity is emerging to redefine civil-military cooperation as a true partnership in which both communities participate fully. The administration’s evident emphasis on women’s issues (President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law his first day in office, created a White House Council on Women and Girls on International Women’s Day and has created the new position of Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues in the State Department) coupled with recent developments in the mandate of civil-military mechanisms such as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) indicate an opportunity for the engagement of women as leaders and partners in the quest for global security and development. While this assertion may seem a bit of a stretch within the traditional

realm of civil-military cooperation, there is some evidence that this is not only possible but already an emerging reality. The PRTs provide an interesting case study.

Originally designed as a forum for equal partnership between civilian and military actors engaged in the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the PRTs quickly became military-dominated. Inability to fill civilian positions on the PRTs meant that the men and women of the armed services were increasingly called upon to perform development tasks for which they often lacked necessary expertise. Troops were tasked with such tradi-

Women are engaged in much of the reproductive work that rebuilds societies after conflict, and can be key partners in reconstruction efforts.

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

13

women

In post-genocide Rwanda, a constitutional quota for women’s parliamentary participation has paved the way for the country’s current achievement of 56 percent, the world’s greatest female representation in government. tionally civilian-run projects as constructing schools and hospitals, often with less-than-ideal results. Women for Women International Afghanistan country director Sweeta Noori recalls one example: “[The PRTs] built a hospital in Jalalabad, a fine hospital, and were eager to see it put to use. But they forgot to communicate this to the Ministry of Health, which had no plans to support a hospital in that location, and the building stands empty to this day.” Noori shakes her head as she recalls the confusion. “Any mother or caretaker in the community could have told them this was not the proper place to build a hospital. We know where our sick and our injured have need for medical facilities. It was unfortunate.” In this instance, consulting community stakeholders— especially women, who care for the sick and infirm—would have quickly made clear the actual needs surrounding the

14

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

proposed hospital-construction project. The conflict/post-conflict context in which much of civilmilitary cooperation takes place has proven a unique opening for advancing the status, participation and rights of women. Quotas for women’s political participation are possible in new constitutions, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. In post-genocide Rwanda, a constitutional quota for women’s parliamentary participation has paved the way for the country’s current achievement of 56 percent, the world’s greatest female representation in government. (The country, one might add, is an island of socioeconomic stability amid a tide of insecurity and conflict throughout the Great Lakes region.) Also in Rwanda, women led the way forward in the country’s reconstruction and recovery efforts, organizing to adopt children orphaned by conflict and participating fully in new structures for democratic governance at all levels. This is an encouraging body of evidence pointing to the critical role women have to play in the construction of stronger communities and nations. Remarks by Secretary Clinton at an April 2009 town hall meeting of Iraqi PRT leaders demonstrate a renewed commitment to women’s development, empowerment and full participation in civil-military efforts. She said, “I believe strongly that supporting and empowering women is good for countries … I believe that Iraq will be much stronger if women are educated and empowered to participate on behalf of themselves and their families, particularly their children, as Iraq makes a new future.” There are heartening indications that these words will be translated into practice within the existing civil-military framework. Noori reports encouraging conversations with PRT representatives in Afghanistan who are newly interested in engaging women in their efforts to rebuild the fractured and poverty-stricken country. “I had a wonderful conversation with the PRTs, who are looking to support and learn from Afghan women moving forward. I’m very excited by the idea that women might access the opportunity to develop their own potential as leaders and participants in Afghanistan’s social, political and economic realms, and, in so doing, contribute to a stronger, more stable Afghanistan.” Noori is hopeful that this and other developments signify a genuine indication that progress is being made toward a new era of balanced civil-military cooperation that leverages the distinct knowledge and capacities of women toward the twin goals of security and development. “I think that we can help each other to achieve our common goals. In a recent survey we conducted among 1,500 Afghan women, the women identified the inseparability of security and development: 66 percent identified security as the primary challenge facing the state, and 81 percent identified the need for commodities, job opportunities and services as primary challenges they faced on a daily basis. We need the military to provide a secure environment in which we can do our work. And the military needs us to sustain that stability and cement peace through the creation of opportunities for social, political and economic participation. I’m looking forward to working together for a more peaceful, stable Afghanistan, of which women are going to be an integral part. And in my conversations with the PRT representatives in Afghanistan, they’re equally excited about us and ready to support our work with women.” MD

quantum Blur

Quantum Blur

Bringing clarity to civil-military relationships in a “3D” world. By Lisa Schirch, Director, 3D Security Initiative and Professor of Peacebuilding, Eastern Mennonite University

I

n today’s world, the line between the military and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is blurring at exponential speed. Here are some of the reasons for the civilmilitary blur and what NGOs can do about it.

The Security-Development Nexus

Research on the links between economic inequality and conflict are creating a new breed of theories explaining the complex nexus between security and development. Every humanitarian or development project or transfer of resources can be done in a way that exacerbates political conflicts between groups or helps to ease the divisions and build consensus and stability between groups. Whether an NGO intends to have a political impact or not, nearly every move an NGO makes has an implication for civil-military relations.

Photo: USAID

Local Politics, Armed Guards and Impartiality

Local armed groups interpret the political interests of NGOs based on whom they interact with and where resource transfers end up, for example. Armed groups increasingly tend to lump NGO workers and U.S. military personnel together. Sensing this danger, some NGOs in turn ask for military or armed escorts. This reinforces

the perception that NGOs and military personnel work together and have the same goals, further complicating civilmilitary relationships.

Security Terminology

NGOs simultaneously warn against the “securitization of aid” (where military personnel administer one-fifth of U.S. development dollars for short-term hearts and minds efforts) and make the case that development contributes to long-term security. The terminology to describe the distinction between shortterm and long-term security goals needs further elaboration. Some scholars such as Reuben Brigety offer terminological clarity to the civil-military blur by distinguishing between “fundamental” development assistance aimed at reducing poverty and “instrumental” development assistance aimed at achieving short-term political goals. Articulating the different functions of development helps to clarify the conversation. More specifically, short-term, political or “instrumental” development assistance refers to helping the U.S. achieve goals related to the counterterrorism, geopolitical power and securing access to global resources. In this approach, counterterrorism still largely means hunting down and killing, topdown control of civil society, and using

development funds for winning over local populations rather than addressing root causes. On the other hand, an increasing number of policymakers are articulating U.S. national interests in development-oriented human security through efforts that build stable, participatory governments that respond to the needs of their citizens. The human security approach seeks to prevent terrorism and destabilizing violence by addressing root causes of economic disparity and political exclusion. Both approaches to security address terrorism, but the goals and tactics are significantly different. Where the U.S. uses development to promote political stability, participatory governance, human rights and the rule of law, many NGOs can and do share those values and goals. In a situation of shared vision, closer coordination and communication between the 3Ds of development, diplomacy and defense may be possible and desirable to achieve long-term human security goals. But where U.S. military forces are given short-term goals of hunting down and killing, securing natural resources or projecting geopolitical power, the goals of NGOs and the military are often seen as irreconcilable. In the growing number of places where policymakers make the case for both approaches (in Iraq, for example), civil-military relations are understandably confused.

The Politics of Security Budgets

Underfunding for civilian-led human security efforts contributes to difficult civil-military relationships. Diplomats and military leaders knock on congressional doors over and over to ensure that the purse-holders know the need for a significant increase in funding for development and diplomacy. Yet the spring 2009 budget process shows that only modest increases for foreign assistance are possible even when the stars align with the White House, the Defense Department, the State Department, USAID and NGOs all singing from the same sheet of music about the need for more funding for the civilian agencies. The growing consensus on the need for more development and diplomacy cannot translate into a budgetary reality for two reasons. First, while Con-

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

15

quantum Blur

gress now widely accepts the contributions development and diplomacy make to security, members of Congress do not think constituents understand this new security narrative, even though polls show the public does support greater funding for development and diplomacy. Second, Congress plays a central role in the highly wasteful military-industrial complex, demonstrated by this year’s fight over funding for the F-22, a warplane the Defense Department does not want or need, but which Congress continues to fund because it means jobs for constituents. The development community simply doesn’t have the lobbying clout of the defense industry. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is operating under a directive to build military capacity to perform traditionally civilian tasks such as conflict prevention, development and other “theater shaping” nonkinetic activities. Insiders whisper that the Defense Department is building its own version of USAID internally since Congress will not fund the real one adequately. Even Afghan NGO workers admit that they prefer working with the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds the military can give out quickly to local NGOs rather than the slow and administratively burdensome funds available through USAID.

Toward Civil-Military Clarity

In this new era of civil-military relations, NGOs would do well to help focus U.S. interests on human security. The civilmilitary balance will never be right until there is a consensus that the American way of life that U.S. foreign policy seeks to

16

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

protect has to do with human rights and participatory governance, not cheap oil and exploitative trade relations. Human security requires a foundation of sustainable development, backed up by diplomacy and defense. NGOs could take several steps to help achieve this goal. Strategic planning. Broad consultation and strategic planning among local and international NGOs are needed to develop joint strategies for proactive responses to civilmilitary challenges and addressing the political and security dimensions of working in conflict regions. It may be helpful for NGOs to develop more precise language to address the new security-development nexus, to set criteria to assess the nature of U.S. military interventions as per the diagram above, and to distinguish different levels of civil-military communication appropriate depending on the local context. Long-term engagement. NGOs know that long-term engagement and relationship building pays off in their development programs. Likewise, NGOs should invest in making sure their staff have funds to participate in conferences, trainings, meetings and simulations alongside government and military personnel. If Congress eventually does fund civilian agencies at significantly higher levels, the next challenge will be how to dismantle or transform the dual structures that the Defense Department felt it had to create in these interim years when the interagency rhetoric does not match the severely lopsided budgeting. Long-term commitment is needed to ensure that authentic NGO voices with real on-the-ground experience represent their perspectives and make their case for long-term, human security-oriented U.S. policies. Conflict assessment. Aid effectiveness and NGO impartiality require increasing political awareness about the relationship between development assistance and local conflicts. Conflict assessments such as Mary Anderson’s Do No Harm approach should be fully integrated into NGO planning so that NGOs themselves become aware of how they are blurring the civil-military line. Local and international NGOs should be part of the new U.S. Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF) processes to help determine the local resources and resiliency that can be supported to address the key drivers of conflict and instability in failing and fragile states. Policy planning. Recognizing the long-term presence and cultural intelligence of the many local and international NGOs that already exist in every region of the world, new U.S. interagency planning processes should ensure that both local and international NGOs can participate in the policyplanning process, particularly for regions in which both civilian and military personnel are present. This could help prevent the undermining of long-term poverty alleviation goals by short-term political objectives. Operational communication. Finally, further efforts need to be made in creating more neutral spaces for communication between civilian and military personnel at the operational level in country. The humanitarian NGO community and the Department of Defense successfully negotiated a set of principles on civil-military engagement with the help of the U.S. Institute of Peace. NGOs involved in development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding should create a similar process to lay out principles for engagement in these more long-term programs. MD

Info Sharing

Building the Bridge A conversation starter for formal information sharing between and among NGOs and the U.S. government. By Colonel David W. Tohn, U.S. Army, National Security Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

S

hrinking resources, growing need and deteriorating security place future humanitarian and development assistance at risk. These three dynamics threaten the good and important work of helping people and communities to survive and thrive. America’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are a critical element in maintaining progress in many of the darkest places around the world, but many may soon face agonizing decisions to curtail operations where they cannot operate due to cost or risk. The impact on the global community would be dramatic and unfortunate. Further complicating the outlook, the international security environment implies an even greater potential of interventions. As U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair noted, “[R]ising unemployment and reduced welfare spending are leading to political instability in many countries, with a growing danger of civil unrest and violence.” Of all interventions, military interventions are perhaps the most dramatic and potentially problematic. They are disruptive by definition; and they are specifically disruptive to relief and development efforts. As Gen. David Petraeus commented at the Munich Security Conference in February 2009: [T]o be effective… A nuanced appreciation of local situations is essential. Leaders and troopers have to understand the tribal structures, the power brokers, the good guys and the bad guys, local cultures and history, and how systems are supposed to work and how they do work. [Emphasis added] The same holds true for interventions by the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and others. Yet never before have the needs and interests of the government, the nongovernmental sector and the private sector been so keenly arrayed to support one another. So, within this crisis, there is opportunity to match capability with need: a formal information-sharing program between the U.S. government and the NGO community. What could be called the Information Sharing Program (ISP) would provide guaranteed government resources and in-kind support to NGOs, ranging from funding to logistics to operational and security support. In exchange, the NGOs

would provide basic cultural and infrastructure information on a periodic basis. This information would be posted to an open, Wikipedia-style database, available to the global NGO community, international agencies and organizations, hostnation governments and the U.S. government. In short, the ISP would provide digital infrastructure, standards and operational incentives for the NGO community to share basic information amongst its members and with the larger audience. Of course, whenever this type of arrangement is raised even casually the NGO community rightly rises in defense of its core values of independence, neutrality and impartiality. The problem is twofold: determining what kind of information, if any, it is acceptable to provide; and determining what kind of assistance, if any, it is acceptable to receive. The conversation never gets started because of long-standing fears of the potential cost of formally associating with the U.S. government. Hard-nosed bureaucrats who dismiss these concerns miss the point. The U.S. NGO community performs critical work for humanity while gently promoting America’s reputation and standing globally. Facilitating greater effectiveness and cooperation between and among the NGO community supports these noble goals and greatly serves America’s long-term interests. Conversely, the NGO community has a vested interest in more informed, capable and nuanced government interventions. On a larger scale, the community has an interest in opening channels to promote practices that contribute to sustainable development interventions beneficial to all stakeholders. The U.S. government shares the very same interests. The trick to forging this relationship is finding the areas of common interest and mutual advantage. By adhering to certain key principles—preserving values, transparency and mutual respect—the ISP would serve this function.

The conversation never gets started because of longstanding fears of the potential cost of formally associating with the U.S. government.

What kind of information can be provided?

The key to effective interventions is to have key information in place in advance: infrastructure, cultural, demographic and political/social information at a level of detail that reaches down to neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities. The tone and perception of an intervention are set early on, yet the information critical to determining the tenor and image is least likely to be available in those early stages. But Principle 4 of the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programs addresses the heart of the issue of deliberate collaboration with the U.S. government for this information: We shall endeavor not to act as instruments of government foreign policy. …We will never knowingly—or through negligence—allow ourselves, or our employees, to be used to gather information of a political, military or economically sensitive nature

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

17

Info Sharing

for governments or other bodies that may serve purposes other than those which are strictly humanitarian, nor will we act as instruments of foreign policy of donor governments… Clearly, this is perhaps the starkest obstacle to an ISP-like relationship. The key terms are “political, military, or economically sensitive nature” and “instruments of foreign policy.” Yet Principle 4 is not an impermeable barrier to cooperation and information sharing. It frames the problem and establishes the points of discussion. Rather, the ISP would seek to formalize the mutual benefits while preventing inadvertent confusion or conflict. How NGOs approach cooperation might be described as a spectrum of tolerance. At one end, any overt and premeditated cooperation may be so anathema that an NGO would not consider any relationship. However, many more find cooperation and collaboration acceptable, and even desirable. Indeed, much of the proposed cooperation already occurs at the discretion of NGO field workers and their government counterparts. Finding the right level of acceptable information sharing, in detail and subject area, is the first challenge. Information of utility to the entire community might include: • Road/infrastructure information; • Ethnic/tribal affiliations and disposition; • Leaders and key social and humanitarian issues; and/or • Critical infrastructure improvement requirements. This is information NGOs have access to in the course of their normal operations. While providing information on the general picture on these issues might work, NGOs may feel that providing more detailed information on these topics could raise greater concerns for them. In addition, some may perceive certain types of information or characterizations as offensive or inaccurate. For example, an ISP entry describing a host-nation medical or education program as failing or underresourced due to graft or mismanagement could easily run afoul of the local leaders running the program. The ISP proposal would offer a pre-established set of procedural controls to manage expectations and address these concerns: • Strict transparency and open access of the information; • Pre-established data fields, levels of detail and standards of information; • Funding through USAID or the Department of State; and • A board of ombudsmen and robust editorial standards and editorial standards. Arguments that the U.S. government ought to rely on its own resources (intelligence agencies, embassies and field offices) to gather this information fall flat in the face of decades of experience. If one focuses solely on military interventions, which arguably draw on the most capabilities available, multiple military reviews reveal a pattern of failure through every major intervention from Grenada to Somalia to Afghanistan to Iraq, with no realistic prospect of improvement. The State Department and USAID are even less capable of filling this function. For example, USAID’s Knowledge Services Center and its “Global Development Commons” initia-

18

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

tive do not yet serve as a clearinghouse. Moreover, neither supports systemic deliberation or crisis planning. The information-sharing benefits of the ISP are clear on two levels. First, more accurate information supports a more effective response and the wider policy. Second, more effective cross-NGO and international cooperation helps all parties, improves the global condition and perhaps mitigates the need for disruptive interventions to begin with.

What kinds of services can be accepted?

A list of what support an NGO might find valuable might include: • Funding; • Security support, such as briefings, incidental or dedicated convoy escorts, dedicated protection, landmine mapping and/or clearing, and input into military priorities to emphasize areas of focus; • Emergency evacuation support; • Medical evacuation; • Communications support; • Logistics support; and/or • Infrastructure repair. The specifics would be subject to negotiation and the nature of U.S. government presence in the region. The benefits are clear. Direct funding relieves pressure for fundraising through other means. Services in-kind free up resources and simplify contingency planning and responses in fast-moving crisis. Finally, guaranteed access to medical evacuation and emergency extraction may reduce the cost of insurance and provide reassurances to exposed workers in the field. All of these combine to make an NGO more effective and capable than otherwise.

The road forward

Currently, there is a lot of distance between “now” and a fully functioning ISP. The challenges begin with different institutional cultures and ethos and extend to the most basic details of implementation. Yet, if the past and present are any indicators, the future holds more government-NGO cooperation as they try to accomplish their respective missions efficiently and effectively. Given these dynamics, the U.S. government and the NGO community should expand their conversations to include an ISP initiative. The first step would be hosting a leadership conference to identify the spectrum of tolerance and to describe the “realm of the possible.” Based on the outcome, the two communities can lay out the road ahead. Carefully planned and implemented, the ISP would provide the NGO community access to critical resources without compromising basic values or endangering ongoing efforts. It would also offer cost-effective access to the information necessary for all parties. Clearly, the ISP can be a win-win for all involved. So let’s get the conversation started. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Harvard University, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. MD

Networking

Heard with One Voice Developing networks as community assets.

By Rajyashri Waghray, Director of Education & Advocacy for International Justice and Human Rights, Church World Service (developed the ‘Water Network’ concept); Dawn Murdock, Nonprofit Management & Fundraising Consultant; and Deborah Katina, Director, YANG’AT, Kenya

A

sset-based approaches to poverty reduction are much talked about these days. People typically consider tangibles such as housing, savings and incomegenerating resources as assets. Yet a group of Kenyan nonprofit organizations is spearheading a water resource strategy—Water for All—that incorporates developing networks as assets at the community, district and national levels. Their experiences illustrate on a practical level how networks effectively generate other resources to fuel poverty reduction. These Kenyan examples also demonstrate the value of integrating support for network development with programs aimed at creating assets to meet basic needs.

Photos: Jefferson Shriver

Maji kwa Wote / Water for All Network

Nine Kenyan agencies formed Maji kwa Wote/Water for All Network to spearhead the national segment of the global Water for All campaign with the support of Church World Service. These organizations work in dry rural areas, facilitating a process for communities to create sustainable access to safe water, thereby transforming a scarce natural resource into a community-owned asset managed by a local committee. Specifically, the network’s objectives are to: • Promote implementation of community rights to water; • Link local partners with governmental water boards and other stakeholders; and • Advocate for and leverage public resources for community-based water resource development projects Thus, while international aid may fund specific community water resource development over a 12 month period, the ability of communities to register with the Kenyan government as water pro-

viders and access a range of resources including government funding helps ensure the continued viability of the water systems beyond the limited life of an international grant. The Co-Chair of the national network, Deborah Katina, is the Coordinator of Yang’at, a nonprofit dedicated to the empowerment of girls and women in the Pokot district. Katina facilitated the formation of a district-level water network comprised of community water associations, the government water board and representatives from government ministries and other nonprofits, building on lessons from the regional Water for All Network. Waghray and Katina shared these in a workshop sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Ford Foundation, and a related Brookings study on the asset-based approach in 2007, and tested the approach in relation to their Water for All Network and experiences in the region since 2005. The network provides training in participatory water development and management and works to solve common problems and access resources. The water resource management officer commented that teamwork through the network “helps us work on protecting our catchment areas and empower the Water User Associations.” By collaborating, these organizations and

the Kenyan government have begun to tackle system-level changes related to water in this district.

How does a network function as an asset?

At the workshop for the national network formation, Kenyan nonprofit representatives identified values of being in a network, including the following: • Amplifying a unified voice; • Sharing a common vision and dream; • Gaining power in numbers; • Gaining a sense of belonging and identification; • Sharing essential skills and expertise; • Sharing common challenges and problems; and • Pooling resources. These ideas reflect what Caroline Moser identified in her 2007 piece for Brookings, Asset Accumulation Policy and Poverty Reduction, as secondgeneration asset accumulation: creating psychological, social and political capital. As communities living in poverty acquire first-generation assets to meet their basic needs, they can leverage that experience and continue the development process.

Psychological capital

At the local community level, the capacity-building and organizing process augments the potential of people accustomed to the isolation of poverty to develop their own voices and their ability to dialogue with others. Through the accomplishments of developing and managing their own water systems, community leaders gain selfconfidence and skills they put to use in their wider networking.

Social capital

The networks strengthen civil society and provide a vehicle for communities and NGOs to work effectively with other stakeholders. As the networks make tangible progress in the water sector, they use their skills and experience to tackle other needs and meet the requirements of larger donors to support the work. Partner organizations learn from peers and are empowered continued on page 32

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

19

Continuing Series: Kidnapped!

The Worst Possible Scenario By Josh Kearns, Associate Security Coordinator, InterAction

This is the second in a four-part series detailing a fictional kidnap scenario. The purpose of the series is to highlight appropriate and inappropriate responses that organizations might take, and resources that are available, when faced with the kidnapping of staff. The scenario is based on a recent hostage incident management training conducted by the InterAction Security Unit, in conjunction with InterAction’s Security Advisory Group. All events and characters are entirely fictitious, as are all organizations with the exception of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Overseas Security Advisor Council.

20

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

T

ony, Wali, Sally and Hamid had been missing for 24 hours. NGOs Alpha and Bravo have both been able to confirm that their staff members are missing; however, they have not been able to confirm “proof of life.” Jack, the Chief of Party for Alpha, is out of the country, leaving his team on the ground to handle communications. Bravo’s Chief of Party, Billy, is taking the lead incountry for his team. The kidnappers have demanded $1 million for the safe return of all four victims, threatening to execute them if their demands are not met. Meanwhile, headquarters for both NGOs are mobilizing their responses. “Tony and the girl will die unless one million dollars are paid.” The words echoed through Billy’s mind as he awaited further instructions from NGO Bravo’s headquarters. Bravo had told the kidnappers that it did not negotiate. Bravo headquarters had told Billy it was in contact with NGO Alpha headquarters, a much larger organization with a full complement of options for this type of contingency. Billy did not like the idea of relying on Alpha for his people’s safety. He was worried that Wali, his

Somali interpreter, might be used as an example by the kidnappers to force his organization’s hand. He knew the ruthlessness of criminal groups in impoverished Somalia, where a cottage kidnapping industry generated revenue for a range of bad guys operating around the capital. He picked up the phone to get in touch with Wali’s family. Alpha’s field staff was scrambling to respond in the absence of their Chief of Party. Abdi, the Somalia security focal point for Alpha, stepped in to fill the vacuum and took the lead in organizing the staff to cope with the crisis. He made a call to Aziza, Hamid’s wife, and assured her that Alpha was doing all it could to get her husband (the family’s sole breadwinner and father of five children) back safely. He assigned Laila, Alpha’s administrator, the task of handling communications with headquarters until they were able to get organized. He knew that until then, fielding calls from New York from a half-dozen different people would only slow things down. Once New York got organized and assigned a single point of contact, communications could be streamlined and Abdi would take over. For now, he knew that establishing proof of life was the priority. But when he called the satellite phone number the kidnappers had provided, there was no answer. Abdi began to worry. At headquarters, both NGOs were now racing against the clock. In New York, Alpha’s management went about setting up a crisis management team (CMT). Upon the advice of their security director, they had gone through annual crisis-response drills in which they practiced setting up a CMT. This afforded Alpha several advantages. First, since it had been practiced, it gave the staff a familiar procedure to fall back on in uncertain times. Second, the CMT created a clear chain of command, crucial during a crisis when quick decision-making is essential. Third, it provided a buffer between the intense emotions experienced by the staff and the job that needed to be done. Finally, it removed the CEO from incident management; more than ever, her managerial skills would be needed to make sure the rest of the organization’s operations ran smoothly. The CMT included a mix of personnel

Illustration: Bibanesi - Fotolia.com

Kidnapped!

Kidnapped!

with decision-making power and subject and area expertise. At its head sat Stan, Vice President of Emergency Operations. The highest-ranking employee working in Alpha’s humanitarian response wing, Stan had years of both field and management experience, as well as the trust of his CEO. Dave, the security director, brought knowledge and experience with security incidents to the table. Ellen, Alpha’s in-house counsel, was familiar with the organization’s risk management policies and liability exposure. The director of Africa programs, Vivek, oversaw Somalia operations and was the chief of party’s direct supervisor. Natalie, Alpha’s communications director, would handle press calls. An administrative aide was seconded to the headquarters team for support. The CMT’s primary goal is to facilitate the resolution of the crisis. Its means of doing this is communications, both within the organization and with external actors. Dave was given the job of briefing the CEO on a regular basis. At some point, the CEO would be asked to brief the board of directors on the situation.

22

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

Dave would be at her side to help explain events and what the likely outcomes could mean for the organization. Messages to the rest of Alpha’s staff would be tightly controlled, and would emanate from Stan’s office. Communications with the staff in Mogadishu and with staff in Nairobi who might also have a role to play were to be handled by Vivek and, where appropriate, Dave. Vivek was also tasked with communicating with the victim’s families. As mentioned, media calls were to be handled by Natalie. Bravo headquarters, though smaller in size than Alpha, proved less nimble in responding to the kidnapping. Vijaya, Director for Programs, also served as Bravo’s security focal point. Though she took the responsibility seriously, she simply did not have enough time to devote to the role. As a result, Bravo’s CEO, sensing a gap, stepped in and began handling communications with the field himself. Vijaya busied herself by calling Bravo’s insurance company. She was reminded that Bravo had not opted for kidnap and ransom insurance with their policy. This concerned

her, as she recalled that Bravo also had a “no negotiation” policy when it came to kidnappers. By Vijaya’s estimation, Bravo’s hands were tied. Their best bet was to rely on Alpha to get all four hostages back. Back in Mogadishu, as Abdi sat in his office awaiting instructions from Alpha headquarters on how to respond to the ransom demands, his phone rang. On the other end was Aziza, in tears and barely coherent. Hamid’s dead body, riddled with bullets, had been left in the street in front of their house with a note in his pocket: “No negotiation policy.” Abdi felt sick. He knew that Alpha was prepared to negotiate to get the four victims back safely. Something must have happened on Bravo’s end, and whatever it was, it had gotten his friend and colleague killed. Now he knew he would have to handle complicated negotiations with Hamid’s family, while also trying to negotiate Sally’s safe return from a group of proven killers. It was the worst possible scenario. MD Next month: Dealing with the families; setting up an incident management team.

Environment

Fidencio Antonio Gutierrez, cacao farmer in Waslala, Nicaragua.

Payment for Environmental Services

Changes in market demand and use of profit incentives are creating new opportunities to further human development and environmental protection at the same time.

By Jefferson Shriver, Chief of Party, Nicaragua, Catholic Relief Services

Photos: Jefferson Shriver

P

overty alleviation programs have long championed the goals of food security and raising the incomes of the poor as pillars of their missions. Yet environmental destruction is often seen as a necessary trade-off for social programs to succeed. This pro-poor versus pro-environment split has serious environmental consequences. More forests have been destroyed in the last 50 years than in the previous 500, as millions of hectares are cleared for pastures and farms. Earth’s natural sponge or “sink” forests absorb and store greenhouse gases such as carbon. Surface water

often originates in forests, and groundwater is recharged there. Increased water scarcity and desertification can be directly attributed to deforestation. Pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, which have been misused and overused in commercial and family farm agriculture, are contaminating the soil, food chain and water table. The pro-poor, pro-environment dichotomy is no longer viable. We need new paradigms to bring the know-how, innovation and resources of development professionals and environmentalists under one umbrella. An alternative already exists. Land users are beginning to respond to a con-

cept called payment for environmental services (PES). The concept of PES is simple: pay the land users (e.g. farmers) for the environmental services they provide, which creates a direct incentive for the land users to include these services in their land use decisions. PES capitalizes on the fact that rural farmer families make decisions about their livelihoods based on profit motives. Their choices can either destroy or protect the environment. The concept harnesses the power of the market to achieve both poverty alleviation and environmental protection. It has the potential to be a major driver to alter our current direction. To work, PES mechanisms need both an environmental service provider and buyer of these services. One PES mechanism, sustainable agriculture services, is providing a series of environmental and social services, including: • Incorporating organic, nonchemical fertilizer and pesticides to prevent contamination of the water table, soil, air and aquatic species and reduce health risks to the farmer and consumer. Organic fertilizers have a cumulative effect on topsoil and fertility, producing sustained increases in soil fertility over the medium to long term, and require fewer inputs; • Promoting genetic diversity of seed and species varieties, and prohibiting the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); • Managing pest, disease and weeds using crop rotations, green manures, mulching and integrated pest management; • Employing water and soil conservation practices that reduce erosion and sedimentation; and • Using agroforestry systems, such as integrating trees and tall woody plants on farms and enhancing biodiversity within the farm ecosystem. For producers to profit from sustainable agriculture services, the services need to be packaged and commoditized to the consumer. Such packaging of environmental services is beginning to happen through third-party certifiers

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

23

Environment

such as Organic, Rainforest Alliance and the Smithsonian’s Bird-Friendly (certified shade-grown crops) that provide an objective guarantee that the farmer is employing sustainable agriculture practices. Such certifications are applied and add environmental value to a wide variety of products, and fetch a price premium of 5 to 30 percent above market price in a rapidly expanding market. My book Reaping Profits While Restoring the Environment: Lessons from Central America (VDM 2009) highlights one potent example of how PES works. Germany represents the largest and fastest-growing market in Europe for organic certified products. The German chocolate company Ritter Sport is paying farmers who grow organic-certified, shade-grown cacao twice what they would pay for other cacao. That has translated into a business opportunity for small farmers in Nicaragua. Cultivating cacao is so profitable that it is becoming as economically viable for locals as cattle-grazing and logging. Thousands of farmers in the area are now rehabilitating abandoned cacao plantations or reforesting land that was deforested in the past 20 years in order to create shade for cacao using diverse fruit and forest tree species. Beautiful diverse plots of forests of hardwoods, fruit trees and cacao are now being erected in areas that only five years ago were barren cow pastures. Cacao growers in Nicaragua are among the numerous farmers in Latin America, Asia and Africa that have turned to organic production. The number of hectares of organic crops worldwide has increased from 7.4 million in 1999 to 31.5 million in 2006, with Latin America, Asia and Africa account-

ing for almost 10 million of that total. Certified organic products are by far the leading market for sustainable agriculture services. Certified organic products went from a $27 billion global industry in 2004 to a $40 billion industry in 2008, representing 15 percent annual growth. The market in the U.S. went from $1 billion in 1990 to $12.3 billion in 2007, and in Europe from $13 billion in 2003 to $25.5 billion in 2007. While such growth is significant, the market is still only 2.5 percent of the total global food market. Moreover, these products have been marketed primarily based on their health benefits to the consumer. Retail companies are leading the way in demonstrating to consumers that such products are also protecting ecosystems where they are grown and in some cases also helping to mitigate climate change. PES, however, is not limited to agriculture. Another PES mechanism is recreation and landscape beauty services, packaged to the consumer in what is commonly called ecotourism. Ecotourism as a global industry is growing by 20 percent annually, as travelers are increasingly looking for “life enhancing” travel involving environmental and cultural connections. Many are seeking isolated wilderness and opportunities to learn about the environment and culture. Creature comforts and accommodations are not the primary criteria used when deciding on the travel destination. This provides a window of opportunity for poor people who may be the inhabitants of pristine environments. In Costa Rica, which has branded itself as an ecotourism destination—and to a lesser extent in Nicaragua—ecotourists are beginning to pay local inhabitants directly in ecotourism venues for maintaining the rich biodiversity found there. Many poor communities receiving assistance from international NGOs live on or near natural reserves, on organic farms, in sustainable villages or on cultural heritage sites. If the host country is promoting a tourist-friendly climate with safe access and decent infrastructure to these areas, there are promising opportunities for community—NGO collaboration to establish ecotourism businesses owned and operated by the poor. Watershed protection services represent a third PES mechanism holding profit potential for impoverished communities. Properly managed watersheds protect water quality, regulate water flows, prevent floods, control soil salinization and sedimentation and maintain aquatic habitats. They provide waterspring protection and potable water for human consumption and for agriculture. They also provide business opportunities. Potential and current consumers of such services include hydroelectric companies, beverage companies, water companies or local water authorities, local and national governments interested in natural disaster prevention and users of potable water for human consumption and irrigation. Sustainable agriculture, recreation and landscape beauty, and watershed protection services are just a few of a number

PES capitalizes on the fact that rural farmer families make decisions about their livelihoods based on profit motives.

continued on page 30

24

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

Interview

Liberating Nonprofits A conversation with Dan Pallotta.

Interviewed by Donna Stokes, Managing Editor, World Ark, the magazine of Heifer International

DS: What are the right questions to ask nonprofits? DP: Some of the right questions for charities are: 1. What are your goals and what progress are you making toward those goals? 2. What challenges are you facing and how are you trying to overcome those challenges? 3. How do you know that you’re being effective? Tell me what you know about the effectiveness of your work. The answer to the overhead question tells you nothing about those three things.

I

n his latest book, Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential, published in December 2008, Dan Pallotta argues that society’s separate rulebook for nonprofits limits their capacity to address the world’s problems in an effective way. An author and entrepreneur, Pallotta has a degree in development economics from Harvard and has organized fundraising events for AIDS, breast cancer, urban poverty and suicide prevention. His company, Pallotta TeamWorks, has raised $556 million for charity over nine years. Donna Stokes of Heifer International recently interviewed him about his views on the need to change the way donors decide which nonprofits deserve their support. DS: In your book Uncharitable, you say donors are told to ask the wrong question when deciding which nonprofits to support, namely, “What percentage of my donation goes directly to programs and not to overhead?” Why is this the wrong question? DP: It’s the wrong question for many reasons. The questions we should be asking are: “How do you intend to solve this problem?” and “What are the things you’re doing toward that end?” High overhead doesn’t mean there’s waste-

ful overhead. Investing in leadership, educating donors and marketing events to raise money greater serve the end cause. If as a donor you demand that your favorite charity keep overhead low, you may very well be demanding that the charity be less effective for it. Charities can’t solve long-term problems if we hold them to this higher moral standard and refuse to allow them to use the same tools of capitalism that allow forprofit businesses to succeed. The overhead question is also the wrong one because it doesn’t tell you anything about the quality of the charity’s programs. You may learn what percentage of your money is going to the cause but not what long-term result or effect it might have. For instance, you can put two soup kitchens side by side and one has lower overhead on paper, but it serves rancid soup. The second soup kitchen reports slightly higher overhead but buys quality ingredients and serves a healthful meal to more people. We’re taught to give to the option with lower overhead, with no further questions. But which one is more effective and more useful to those who need it? You don’t ask about overhead when you buy a new pair of shoes; you’re interested in the quality of the shoes. Why should that be different when you’re talking about donations to charity?

DS: How do you answer the questions about trust that arise from arguing that nonprofits be allowed to use the tools of capitalism, such as higher CEO salaries and more spending on marketing and advertising, to be more effective? DP: Trust is a completely different issue from the rules by which the game will be played. People who are untrustworthy are that way regardless of where they are. I don’t think we as a society, despite all the problems we have right now, are saying let’s jettison capitalism. We’re still trying to bail out auto companies, still buying laptops, groceries, clothing, etc., all produced by the wheels of capitalism. Because we cling to old ways of thinking, some people will look to examples such as Bernie Madoff to find reasons to not donate to charities. One has nothing to do with the other. People will be greedy; people will bend the rules. That’s not an argument for denying nonprofits equal access to the tools that can help them better achieve these ambitious world goals. We’re never going to solve big problems until we apply equal standards of economics to nonprofits. DS: You said that your book is about dreams, not management. What are your dreams and goals for the future of nonprofits and for the causes you care about? DP: I think our dreams ought to be outrageous. End AIDS in 10 years. Make poverty obsolete. If you say let’s end hunger within the next decade, it cre-

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

25

Interview

ates a whole different urgency. You start to see that to end AIDS in 10 years, you’re going to have to consolidate these hundreds or thousands of groups to get this done. A whole set of plans comes together that’s completely different than not setting a definite goal. On a plane ride back from Toronto recently I watched the DVD Moon Machines on the building of various pieces of the Apollo space program. I’ve always been a huge fan of Apollo, the last truly great thing that America achieved. And what’s interesting and distinctive about Apollo is that President Kennedy in 1962 set the goal in time; he said we will see a man on the moon before this decade is out. The nonprofit sector has lots of seductive phrases like “let’s find a cure” or “we won’t stop walking until AIDS is over” or “let’s end poverty” but no one puts their rear end on the line and says by when. When you listen to the Apollo engineers and see how they turned that nine-year deadline into reality, it’s awe-inspiring. When I talk about dreams, I mean solidifying them

26

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

in space and time. Nonprofits need to assert real leadership and set goals in time for the eradication of these great social problems, take our cues from the Apollo program. Apollo offers amazing lessons for anyone trying to engage some huge, vexing problem. And isn’t it time we find inspiration in something that’s happening now? DS: What other steps are necessary? DP: Educating and challenging donors. We have to educate donors about what we need to solve these problems. We live and breathe that stuff so we should be holding big workshops and seminars to change the perspective instead of cowering when they say our overhead is too high. Nonprofits need to say, “Investment in our future is necessary and produces results and let me show you why.” Charities need to stop following what donors want and start leading donors. That’s our real responsibility— to set bold goals and educate donors. Which is more inspiring to a donor: to say that we’re on a campaign to end

poverty in the next seven years, or that our overhead is less than 22 percent? Educate them about spending money, and you’ll find a powerful new understanding and more willingness to give. DS: And do the donors have a role? DP: The donor’s responsibility is to just show up. It is the charity’s responsibility to figure out how to get more donations, and the donor’s role is to listen to what the charity has to say. I think we’ll find donors already brighteyed and open-minded about doing what it takes to make the biggest difference. I’ve found from my talks that all it takes is 45 minutes and they say, “I’m with you.” People are anxious to make a change, to make donations smarter. The nonprofit sector and America’s compassion have so much more potential than we’ve allowed it so far. I believe if we take the shackles off charities, we can reap benefits the likes of which we can never imagine. MD For more information please visit www.uncharitable.net

DATA report

The G8’s Annual Report Card ONE’s 2009 DATA Report reveals some donors keeping promises, others facing credibility crisis. By Joshua Lozman, Deputy Director, Global Policy, ONE

I

n 2005 at the Gleneagles Summit, the G8 made a host of historic promises to Africa. In an effort to help the continent reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the G8 (excluding Russia) pledged to double official development assistance (ODA) by 2010, promote increased trade and investment, achieve universal primary education by 2015, cancel debt and improve access to health care, clean water and sanitation. On June 11, 2009, at simultaneous events held in London, Berlin, Rome and Washington, D.C., ONE released its fourth annual DATA Report, its in-depth look at how the G8 are progressing toward these targets. With the 2010 deadline quickly approaching, have the G8 lived up to their important promises? According to the Report, the past year’s efforts call for both applause and alarm.

Development Assistance

By the end of 2008, the G8 had delivered only a third of the ODA increases promised by 2010: just $7 billion of the committed $21.5 billion. While the G8 is collectively at fault for this disappointing progress, some countries deserve more of the blame. Three countries are on track to meet or beat their modest targets: a significant increase in ODA to Africa between 2007 and 2008 meant that Canada surpassed its modest Gleneagles commitment; Japan exceeded its 2010 target with a significant increase in 2008 and for the first time in three years, it significantly increased its global ODA and its ODA to Africa; and U.S. ODA rose by 26 percent in 2008, placing it solidly on track to surpass its 2010 commitment. Two other countries are making progress toward much more ambitious targets. In 2007 and 2008, Germany significantly increased ODA to Africa, and while it has budgeted for further increases in 2009, it remains a bit offtrack to meet its significant 2010 goal. And despite small increases in ODA to Africa in 2008, the United Kingdom’s recent budget called for historic global ODA increases, which, when achieved, will make it the first G8 country to meet its goal of spending 0.7

percent of national income on ODA. Italy and France threaten to drag down the entire G8’s efforts. Despite an increase in global ODA in 2008, France’s ODA to Africa fell from 2007 to 2008, making it far offtrack to meet its 2010 commitment. Italy has utterly failed to act on its aid promises, delivering just 3 percent of its increases to date. As host of July’s G8 Summit, Italy must quickly reverse its course if it hopes to maintain credibility with African countries and its G8 partners. ONE also undertook a review of 2009 G8 budgets and likely disbursements. Looking ahead, ONE estimates that by the end of 2009, the G8 will have delivered only a half of their commitment to Africa; and 80 percent of the 2009 shortfall will be due to France and Italy. That means that in 2010, the G8 must deliver the entire other half to reach their target. Regarding issues of aid effectiveness, the 2008 Accra Aid Forum revived efforts to improve and monitor the quality of ODA, and while significant advances have been made—in large part by recipient country governments—much more must be done in order to reach the 2010 target. Critical to the overall agenda is the need for increased transparency and reporting, aid predictability, use of national systems and untied aid. In terms of how the G8 countries rank in terms of ODA effectiveness, the U.K. ranks first and Italy last. Of particular note this year is Canada’s announcement that it will untie all of its aid (including food aid) by the 2012/2013 budget year.

Debt

The G8 has largely delivered on its Gleneagles promises on debt cancellation. By the end of 2008, Africa had been relieved of over $92 billion in obligations. Freeing up these funds has allowed African countries to invest in underfunded sectors, such as education, agriculture and health. But the global financial crisis threatens to unravel much of the progress made in recent years. Eleven of the 20 African countries that have had their debts cancelled and have reached “completion point” now risk falling back into debt. And a new report by the IMF warns that 31 low-income countries are at high risk of debt distress. Moving forward, to help African countries avoid reaccumulating unsustainable debt,

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

27

DATA report

* Since Japan’s commitment to SSA was only bilateral ODA, this was all ONE considered when monitoring the percentage increase to the region. To generate a 2010 target, ONE assumed a flatlined, multilateral 2009-2010 ODA. ** Because multilateral contributions are often disbursed in lumps, ONE combined 2004 and 2005 to establish a baseline for progress.

the G8 must issue more grants instead of loans, cancel debt for more poor countries, and move more countries from decision point to completion point in the debt-cancellation process.

Trade

On trade, the G8 is falling far short of their promises. In 2005, the group pledged to “make trade work for Africa,” and there have been small steps in the right direction. African exports more than doubled between 2003 and 2007 and for the first time in 45 years, the continent’s growth exceeded 5 percent for five straight years. But the bad news persists. Africa’s share of global trade (3.5 percent) remains the smallest of any region in the world and the global economic crisis has meant a decline in remittances, a decline in global demand for exports and a major blow to foreign direct investment (FDI). While FDI inflows to Africa grew 78 percent from 2005 to 2007, global investments were down 15 percent in 2008 and are expected to drop further in 2009. In order to make trade work for Africa, conditions must improve in five key areas. Africa must be given enhanced access to developed country markets, increased aid for trade to help countries produce and deliver goods, a reduction in agricultural subsidies by the G8 countries, stronger regional

28

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

integration and, finally, greater flexibility to allow African governments the space to implement and evaluate trade policies. In 2005, the G8 also made specific commitments tied to the completion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round. These talks, begun in 2001, were meant to help integrate poor countries into the global trading system. But eight years later, the talks are largely stalled. As long as they falter, African countries will have trouble breaking into the world global market and earning sustainable income through exports.

Investing in People: Health, Education, Agriculture and Water

At the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, the G8 not only promised to double ODA to Africa by 2010, but also committed to use this aid to help African countries achieve specific development outcomes in health, education, water and agriculture. Unfortunately, the G8 are seriously off track in delivering support to reach for some of these goals. Progress in particular sectors has been frustratingly slow; the number of people with access to clean water and sanitation has only improved by 9 percent over 16 years; and though the number of hungry are expected to rise due to the food and financial crisis, the amount of aid offered for agriculture in Africa

remains extremely small. Slow progress does not mean that lives aren’t being saved. In areas where targeted smart aid was delivered, remarkable results have been achieved. An estimated 3 million Africans were receiving AIDS treatment at the end of 2008, up from just 50,000 in 2002. Thirty-nine percent of the people at risk of malaria in Africa were covered by insecticide-treated bed nets in 2007, up from just 3 percent in 2001. Thirty-four million more children were enrolled in primary school between 1999 and 2006; and deaths among children less than five years old have decreased from 12.7 million in 1990 to 9.2 million in 2007. In order to build upon these successes, the G8 must honor all of their commitments, in each and every sector.

Looking Ahead

By the time this article is published, the G8 will have met in L’Aquila, Italy. We hope that the group will have strongly reconfirmed their 2010 commitments to Africa and will have begun to set the stage for a bold, new partnership post-2010. With the global food, climate and financial crises, it is hard to imagine a more important time for the G8 to keep their critical promises to Africa, and for the trust between North and South, East and West, and rich and poor to be strengthened. MD

ICPD update

Fifteen and Counting

Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have much to do to meet the 2015 targets of the ICPD Programme of Action. By Laura Zaks, Public Affairs Coordinator, International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region

Photo: kreefax - Fotolia.com

F

ive years remain for governments to fully implement the Programme of Action agreed upon at the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994. Known as the ICPD, this United Nations conference was the first population conference to move away from setting demographic targets toward emphasizing people’s needs for, and right to, sexual and reproductive health. At this historic meeting, 179 governments came together to affirm the inalienable rights of women and men to make free and informed choices regarding reproductive health. The ICPD Programme of Action was the first document in which the international community explicitly recognized reproductive rights as human rights. In addition to its emphasis on rights, the ICPD also notably stressed the importance of women’s empowerment as a key component of development. For these reasons, the ICDP created a significant paradigm shift and became a milestone in the protection of human rights. The ICPD Programme of Action set 2015 as the deadline to achieve the targets established in 1994. These targets include universal access to primary education, reduction of infant and child mortality, reduction of maternal mortality and access to sexual and reproductive health services including family planning. Reviewed in five-year intervals, 2009 marks the 15th anniversary of the ICPD. Although progress has been achieved, the experiences and outcomes of the last 15 years indicate that both much more attention and greater resources are needed to

accomplish the intended goals. Latin America and the Caribbean, a region plagued by inequality, still has far to go to achieve the ICPD Programme of Action targets, particularly with regard to maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS and the accessibility of reproductive health services. The ICPD Programme of Action set out to reduce the maternal mortality levels of the 1990s by half before the year 2000, and to reduce those levels by another half before 2015. According to data from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), there was only a 3 percent improvement in maternal mortality levels on average for the region. According to UNFPA, while more than half of the countries for which data is available saw an improvement in maternal mortality levels, nearly all of the countries that were categorized as having high maternal mortality rates in 1994 saw further deterioration by 2008. While often overlooked within the global perspective, the Latin American and Caribbean region is at a crucial tipping point where prevention efforts and access to treatment for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases could determine the future of the epidemic in the region. The increase in the number of women living with HIV in Latin America and the Caribbean is particularly alarming. In 21 out of 23 countries in the region for which UNFPA reports data, the number of women 15 and older who are living with HIV has risen, and in some instances this rate has nearly doubled. Throughout the region, where abortion is still legally restricted in most instances, harmful, clandestine prac-

tices have damaging health effects and claim the lives of thousands of women, particularly poor women, each year. Although some progress has been made, in many countries abortion is still criminalized in most circumstances. This hardly paints the picture envisioned under the ICPD Programme of Action 15 years ago where, by 2015, all people would have access to crucial sexual and reproductive health services. The data on teenage pregnancy rates and contraceptive use in 1995 and 2008 does indicate progress in the region. However, aggregate country data often mask issues of poverty and inequality within a given country. While a country may report progress on average, further analysis often reveals stark contrasts between the richest and poorest quintiles of the population. Undeniably, poverty is a crosscutting issue, relevant to each of the ICPD targets. Access to sexual and reproductive health services is inextricably linked to poverty reduction and sustainable development because, without access to such services, other targets such as universal access to primary education, reduction of infant and child mortality and the reduction of maternal mortality are difficult to attain. According to the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, an estimated 32 percent of maternal deaths could be averted through family planning—one of the most cost-effective interventions in public health. To this end, it is urgent that all governments implement the following recommendations: • Institute comprehensive programs and policies to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality; • Recognize the sexual and reproductive rights of adolescents and young people; • Ensure youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services; • Incorporate comprehensive sexuality education at every educational level and ensure that it includes a gender perspective and is rightsbased; • Diversify and update the supply of contraceptives to ensure that the

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

29

ICPD update

full range of methods are available to every segment of the population; • Decriminalize abortion and provide access to safe and legal abortion services; • Integrate policies that eradicate violence against women, including sexual violence; • Guarantee universal access to prevention, treatment, care and support for HIV/AIDS; • Strengthen political will and financial commitments to reach the most vulnerable sectors of the population; • Create and strengthen mechanisms of permanent dialogue between governments and civil society in decision-making and accountability; and • Collect accurate and disaggregated statistics and data related to sexual and reproductive health. The significant progress made to date in Latin America and the Caribbean proves that governments can make an impact when they prioritize

30

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

health and sexual and reproductive rights on the public agenda. Unfortunately, however, the progress made is insufficient and varies between countries. To improve its accomplishments, governments in the region must make it a priority to enact and implement laws, policies and programs that protect sexual and reproductive rights in the next five years. MD For more information on the ICPD+15, visit www.ippfwhr.org and www.15andcounting.com

PES continued from page 24

of PES mechanisms surfacing today. As payment mechanisms for carbon sequestration develop, all three of these PES mechanisms could fully incorporate carbon sequestration. While pioneer initiatives such as Carbonfund. org, TIST (The International Small Group & Tree Planting Program) and Sustainable Travel International are leading the way on a small scale, a global, functional mechanism for car-

bon offset credit trading is still under development. The proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, now under review in the U.S. Congress, could serve as a major boost to unleash the potential of carbon offset trading over the short to medium term. Payment for environmental services provides an opportunity for partnership among those who have formerly thought not to have much in common: greenhouse gas-emitting companies from the Global North with rural families in the Global South, conscious consumers with organic farmers, ecotravelers with burgeoning rural entrepreneurs. It represents an opportunity for communities in watersheds to do business with beverage and hydroelectric companies, water-spring owners with water companies, and yes, international development agencies with environmental organizations to work toward the common objectives of raising incomes of the poor and protecting and restoring the environment. What could be more important and timely? MD

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS M

A

G

A

Z

I

N

E

YS MON A D N O M Y T A DEV EVELOPMEN D ELO DAY S T N OND PM ME Check Out Ou

JObsr sectio n

M LOP DEVE The Late

st Issues

and Tren

ds in In

tern

Develo ational

tion’s InterAFcorum 2008 hts

Highlig

Page 30

and Hu pment

t Issues and The Lates tance rian Assis manita

Trends in Internation

al Development and Huma

Emerging Trends

in Development

The Five Stages of Foreign Aid Reform Grief

nitarian Assistance

The La

test Is

sues an

!

d Tren

ds in In

Usin g for D Sport e and P velopme nt eace

ternat

ional D

evelop

USAI D Anti- /MTV t Cam rafficking paign The Militarization of Aid

Yout Meet h The P Addressing the Global Food Crisis

Linking Human Rights nt and Developme

Security Guard Management

Climate Change and Conflict Prevention

2008 June 6 , No. Vol. 26 tion InterAc

ENTS

ment an

oten tial ir

d Hum

anitar

ian As

sistance

e 42

Glob a Emp l Youth loym ent: C Oppo risis or rtunit y? Crea ting CH on C ANGE ampu s Dow nsizin g for Deve lopm ent

July 2008 Vol. 26, No. 7 InterAction

Augu st Vol. 26 2008 , InterA No. 8 ction

Subscribe online today! Monday Developments Magazine provides in-depth news and commentary on global trends that affect relief, refugee and development work. It features the latest information on the work of InterAction members around the world and keeps readers up-to-date on legislative action in Congress that could impact U.S. foreign assistance to poor countries. Monday Developments Magazine also describes new resources for relief and development workers, professional growth opportunities, upcoming events and employment listings.

Visit www.InterAction.org/monday to subscribe

C O hec

JOubt Ourk s Pag tion

sec

!

MONDAY Developments

EmploymentOpportunities Program Director for Financial Education Washington, DC

Microfinance Opportunities, a microenterprise resource center with a focus on the consumers of financial services, is seeking a Program Director for Financial Education. Key responsibilities include: expanding the Global Financial Education Program by reaching new markets, exploring new avenues of dissemination, supervising and managing multiple large-scale grant and fee-for-service programs, leading a team of 5 – 10 professional staff and consultants, and developing and implementing a comprehensive marketing and communications plan. Requirements: experience managing large multi-year projects/grants, budgets, and deliverables, proven track record in successful proposal development, 5+ years experience working internationally in microfinance, finance, and/ or non-formal adult education preferred, fluency in at least one foreign language, and an advanced degree. Please send CV and cover letter to [email protected]. US Citizenship or work authorization required.

Manager Public Sector Business Development Baltimore, MD

International Youth Foundation (IYF) is a global nonprofit organization that prepares young people to be healthy, productive and engaged citizens. This position is responsible for securing resources from public sector sources, both bilateral and multilateral, for development of new programs that support IYF’s strategic priorities. REQUIREMENTS: 3-5 years experience in fundraising, program development and/or program management in the international development sector; strong network of relationships with USAID and other bilateral and multilateral development agencies; strong proposal writing, editing, & budget development skills for USAID & other bilateral & multilateral donor agencies; advanced degree in a relevant field; second language fluency preferred. To apply go to: http://www. iyfnet.org/ and click on the Jobs link.

Networking continued from page 19

through South-South exchanges, gaining skills related to best practices and knowledge management.

Political capital

Leaders from the most marginalized communities, particularly women, gain advocacy skills and recognize and leverage the assets of their networks to secure rights and resources. The focus is on constructive engagement with the government and corporate sectors and strategies for collaboration that meet community needs and assist the ministries to achieve their mandates. Government services are very limited in remote, rural, semi-arid areas such as West Pokot. By organizing a network, many communities are able to work with government representatives to find practical ways to access health, education, environment and other services. Often the nonprofit organizations serve as the service delivery mechanism when traveling to these areas.

Investing in an upward spiral

When we combine implementation of community-managed safe water systems—a first-generation asset-accumulation strategy—with network development it reinforces the continued creation of both tangible and intangible resources. Networks serve as “working” capital, fueling actions that contribute to meeting the basic needs of communities in poverty 32

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

Executive Director Berkley, CA

Seva Foundation is seeking a leader who is eager to join a team in guiding the organization in the work it does internationally and domestically. This person should have proven operational management skills, and a proven nonprofit fundraising record. Experience with medical/public health/development programs in low income and/or international populations and a desire to work in a partnership/network mode to support the long term development of self-sustaining programs is desired. If interested, please contact: Steve Okano, Okano Associates, Executive Search Consultants, 1209 Solano Avenue, Suite B, Albany, CA 94706. (510) 647-8770. steve@ okanoassociates.com. www.okanoassociates.com.

US Gov’t Grants Manager Seattle, WA

World Concern is looking for someone with experience with USAID and institutional fundraising plus direct proposal creation, submission, compliance & reporting. This person will be responsible for building organizational commitment to programs excellence by establishing and communicating standards and procedures for monitoring and evaluation. To apply, go to www.worldconcern.org/employment/index.htm and fill out our online application.

Development Director Beirut, Lebanon

Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch. To be based in Beirut. Fundraising, advocacy and outreach efforts in the region. Immediate vacancy. Please see full description and application guidelines on our website: www.hrw.org/jobs.

as they accumulate financial and other assets. However, network development requires separate funding, apart from the community development projects that typically receive grants and donations. As Katina noted, “The main challenge is the sustainability of the water systems. The networks contribute in many ways to overcoming that challenge: NGOs learn more effective approaches to working with communities, communities are empowered to be selfreliant and we can speak with one voice on water issues.” As this work in the field continues to develop, international NGOs and others in the aid community need to collaborate with Southern NGOs in three key areas: • Documenting how networks function as assets in poverty reduction, from the point of view of both the participants and development theory and strategies; • Identifying best practices in network formation and functioning and in peer learning among Southern NGOs; and • Developing an outcome measurement process for network development, capacity-building and advocacy work. Networks can create assets in the form of knowledge, skills, financial resources, political leverage, connections and access to other resources. These assets fuel a dynamic process of community development and organizational growth that can have long-term impacts. The network development process ensures that communities not only manage their own resources, but also are able to increase their asset base, yielding long-term returns in the form of empowerment and poverty reduction. MD

To advertise, call 202-667-8227 ext 548 or email [email protected]

Preservation Director, Cultural Heritage Program Baghdad, Iraq Director, Finance and Administration Mosul and Baquba, Iraq Deputy Director, Infrastructure Arlington,VA Monitoring and Evaluation Team Leader Kabul, Afghanistan

Job Openings 1621 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Arlington,VA 22209 P: 703.248.0161 F: 703.248.0194 www.ird.org

For more information, contact Christine Dalpino at 703.248.0161 or visit www.ird. org and click on “careers.”

34

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

To advertise, call 202-667-8227 ext 548 or email [email protected]

Senior Marketing Associate Washington, DC The Senior Marketing Associate reports to the Senior Publications Manager and is responsible for sales and marketing of InterAction publications, communication outreach, promoting the Monday Developments Magazine brand and other multi-media marketing materials. This person will also assist the Senior Director of Public Relations and New Media Manager in creating ways to use media and marketing to help InterAction achieve its strategic objectives. Basic Functions: • Manage all aspects of publication and online advertising, including sales, order processing, ad design and pursuit of new advertising leads. • Manage InterAction’s online job board. • Cultivate relationships with current advertisers and identify new ones. • Develop strategies for increasing revenue. • Coordinate circulation/distribution for Monday Developments Magazine and other publications. • Develop a standardized system for tracking sales calls and monitoring their effectiveness. • Respond to inquiries for general information, publication sales, and advertising. • Build and maintain communications databases, contact lists and publications inventory. • Work with communications team on enhancing the InterAction brand. • Plan and coordinate InterAction’s participation in relevant conferences and fairs to promote the organization, its goals and its collateral. • Perform outreach to students and others entering the development/humanitarian sector by organizing/attending job fairs and other career-related events. • Write/compile regular columns in Monday Developments Magazine, including career development pieces, book reviews, etc. • Provide editorial assistance, as needed, including research, copy editing and writing. • Perform other duties as assigned. Qualifications: • BA/BS in marketing, communications, or related field. • 3-5 years experience in a fast-paced marketing environment. • Ability to work under pressure and manage multiple deadlines. • Excellent relationship-building skills are required. • Strong organizational skills. • Demonstrated commitment to team work. • Superior written and oral communication skills. • Excellent knowledge of word processing, database and spreadsheet programs • Knowledge of InDesign, Photoshop and multi-media software preferred, but not required. • Experience or interest in international development and humanitarian issues. Salary & Benefits InterAction provides competitive salaries and excellent benefits. To Apply: Please email a cover letter, resume and salary requirements (required) to [email protected] by July 31, 2009. All applicants must be able to provide documentation that they are legally eligible to work in the United States for an extended period of time. The position will remain open until filled. No phone calls please.

To advertise, call 202-667-8227 ext 548 or email [email protected]

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS August 2009

35

1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 667-8227 Fax: (202) 667-8236 [email protected] www.interaction.org

InterAction is the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations. With more than 170 members operating in every developing country, we work to overcome poverty, exclusion and suffering by advancing social justice and basic dignity for all.