Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by Small International NGOs Group
Thank you for the invitation to make a further submission to the
International Development Committee (IDC). We hope that this will
be the continuation of an ongoing dialogue with both the IDC and
DFID.
We are encouraged by DFID's increased willingness
to consult with civil society; this we feel is all the more reason
to address those areas that can make a positive contribution to
DFID's own objectives as well as our own. Our wish to engage
DFID in a longer-term consultation process is a means to an end:
better and more effective development. In the response to our
initial report DFID stated that it was considering how Policy
Division could consult effectively with UK civil society. As a
diversified group pf CSOs we believe that we have a committed
group which can work with the Policy Division on this issue.
We have attempted in tabular form to contrast our submission with
DFID's reply (Refer Appendice A). In doing so, we do not intend
to repeat our earlier submission or the points in this table,
but wish to emphasise the main areas where we think we can add
value - areas in which SNGOs have special expertise enabling us
to make a positive contribution to international development.
We have confined the points in this submission to those that relate
to SNGOs, but would welcome the opportunity to explore some of
the other issues raised at a later date.
Statement
We have stated that DFID does not fully recognise
our collective contribution (Serial
2.) to which the reply has been to
state that the existence of CSCF bears testament to that recognition.
The CSCF is a relatively small funding mechanism with a narrow
remit. However, we feel that we can enhance the broader dialogue
on development policy and practice. It is towards this end that
we made the original submission. For example the DFID Departmental
Report 2004 (page 105 5.53) quotes the Development Awareness work
with faith groups and other organisations. This process could
be enhanced to a real consultative partnership rather than a way
to disseminate information on what DFID is doing.
Diverse Approaches
DFID may recognise the need for a broad approach
(Serial 5)
but this is not necessarily the same as a differentiated, contextualised
approach to development practice. The DFID Departmental Report
2004 quotes (page 21 box 1c) the objective to develop evidence-based,
innovative approaches to international development. We wish to
stress the importance of enabling poor people to articulate their
aspirations, and define the means for addressing them. We believe
that we are ideally positioned to ensure that this process takes
place and many SNGOs have examples of innovative approaches which
DFID could use to enhance its own innovative approaches.
We note in the Departmental Report (page 159)
the Diversity Action Plan. There are many small NGOs in the UK
based on the work of people from many different countries and
ethnic background. Their experience could be a factor of great
benefit to DFID in its aim of diversity.
Consultation
We have already acknowledged DFID's willingness
to consult with civil society (Serial
7) and stated our wish to establish
the due processes whereby consultation with civil society can
be institutionalised. We would like to move forward towards greater
regular consultation in future and believe that we could present
a good model for consultation with DFID. It is important to note
that BOND represents all NGOs (Serial
9), not just small NGOs, and therefore
its actions are sector specific. We feel that the specific value
we as small NGOs can add needs a separate mechanism affiliated
to BOND but with direct links to DFID to maximise the benefit
from the consultation.
Rights-Based Development
We recognise the importance of a rights-based
approach to development (Serial 15)
- confined primarily to the CSCF - whereas we would like to see
this applied globally throughout DFID's operations. At the same
time, we are concerned that rights are interpreted very narrowly,
which becomes very restrictive in practice. We have no argument
with the definition given in DFID's response (Serial
17) and, indeed, would regard its implementation
as best practice. Our contention is that this must be part of
a development process rather than a new funding dictate, if it
is to be community-based and community-owned.
Recommendations
We were not simply referring to the size of organisation
(Serial 21)
but to the quality of development work in general. Our point is
that SNGOs do excellent work; this is not given sufficient recognition,
because the tendency is for our work to focus on the local, rather
than effecting change at the regional or even national levels.
This is because we wish to work, at least initially, from the
community-level upwards (and because levels of funding do not
allow it). We were not wishing to confine this statement to CSCF-supported
projects. One of our strengths is that our contacts could for
example help DFID realise its objective, as stated in the Departmental
Report (page 95 Box 5f) to involve civil society in participating
in the monitoring and evaluation of PRSPs.
We do not feel that there is a reciprocal consultation
mechanism (Serial 22).
If one were in place we feel that we could add real value to DFID's
efforts to encourage civil society involvement.
We do not dispute that DFID policies are developed
with poor people in mind (Serial 23)
but this is not synonymous with developing policies with, and
for, poor people. This is by no means an easy task and a challenge
for all organisations working with the poor. Our point is that
we can make a contribution to getting this right.
We would be happy to participate in a formal review
of DFID's policy and practice (Serial
24) and would consider that an exercise
of this nature would be extremely beneficial.
We have been deliberately brief in this submission
and would welcome the opportunity to discuss these points in greater
detail. Most of them are substantive and fundamental issues which
predicate good development policy and practice.
June 2004
| 
