Development Calling - The Options - Operating Mechanisms (draft)
UNICEF (Obregon); The Communication Initiative (Feek)
Below is part of an overall paper called "Development Calling", which is the primary paper for consideration at the all-interested-parties meeting to be hosted by UNICEF on June 27th and 28th, 2017 in New York. The full Table of Contents is here.
As highlighted in the introduction, it was vitally important to commence this analysis of the development scenario, followed by the recording of the main worries, opportunities, and priorities identified through the consultation process. This led to the identification of the problems to be solved and the goals that could be adopted. The overall mechanism must support that work. It is always rather unwise (impossible!) to build a house without putting the foundation in place first. With these foundations, what kind of overall house could be built?
It is important to recall five principles that came from both the original brief for this work and the consultations to date.
a. Rather obviously the mechanism needs to be of a form and nature that will support positive action on the problems and priorities identified – some of below are more suited to some of those priorities than others. This is the main criteria.
b. This mechanism will not replicate or compete with what is happening at present. The key focus is on added value, not replication and duplication of existing processes.
c. The mechanism will need to complement or leverage existing processes – both networks and partnerships and activities such as reporting standards that WHO, USAID, UNICEF, and others are working on.
Below, there are three possible models for how this “mechanism” could be grounded and how it may operate. Three very different approaches to the mechanism question are outlined with a few examples of possible key principles and strategies. Some of the different assumptions that guided the identification and development of these options included:
Operation Mechanism Option 1:
A Standing Committee of the United Nations
The UN has a process of Standing Committees. These are established in order to advance work that cuts across the mandates of various UN agencies. They are mostly derived from and linked to the ECOSOC. Non-UN agencies can be centrally involved as associate members.
The major advantage of a Standing Committee is that it formally places this work within the UN system. That formal arrangement brings all of the advantages of such a position. The disadvantages could be the time taken to formally agree on and establish a Standing Committee on Communication and Media for Development and the possible “bureaucratic” requirements for how it operates. But for this field of work to be central to a decision-making process, have formal standing with governments, have organisations mandated to work together, be inside the system rather than outside, and have stability and longevity, then this option should be considered.
As a practical example, please consider the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition. For an insight into how it operates, please review here: https://www.unscn.org/en/about
It is easy to see how this would operate for this field of work. A UN Agency for instance, could adopt the secretariat role (FAO does this for nutrition). The Chair could rotate. A number of associate members could be invited. Strategic plans could be developed. Half-yearly meetings would then take place. Progress would be formally reported through various channels. There would be a process for raising significant issues. And our field would thus be in the consultation loop internal to UN decision-making.
The government part of this is really important. It would lock this field into a formal process with government representatives.
This formal platform would also provide an opportunity to both:
➢ Analyse and report on the very important issue of funding trends
➢ Engage major funders including governments, foundations, bilateral agencies and others to both increase financial flows to this field and improve coordination of those efforts – with a priority on Southern organisations.
Operation Mechanism Option 2:
A council of existing membership-based groups
The communication for development, media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change field of work includes a number of membership-based organisations. This initiative does not seek to compete with these organisations. That should be outside the mandate for the potential mechanism. Perhaps those membership organisations do provide a basis for the mechanism that could be created. Some of the membership-based organisations include, for example:
• Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
• Our Media
• CDAC Network (Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities)
• IAMCR (International Association of Media and Communication Research)
• International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE)
• Africa Media Initiative
• Social Marketing Association
• ICA (International Communication Association)
• UN Roundtable on Communication and Media for Development
• … and others.
Of course, these do not comprehensively cover the field of communication for development, media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change. However, building from the present base would make this a very solid process. Additionally, the existence of such a council may spur the development of other such membership-based organisations such as for child rights communication, entertainment-education, and many more.
This council could be formed and act of its own volition. Criteria would need to be established, such as a genuine membership base independent of any one specific organisation, membership across multiple countries in at least one region, primary focus being to advance a field of work within the umbrella of communication and media (and/for) development and social and behaviour change, and a minimum membership base at an agreed-upon number. No individual organisations could join.
A memorandum of understanding would need to be developed between the organisations. It would cover questions such as mandate and role, process of joining, attendance (Presidents or Chairpersons), roles (Chair, etc.), and provision of Secretariat (an organisation hosts or an independent base).
The clear advantages of this approach to the possible mechanism are “buy-in”, commitment, equity, future development, and foundations. It builds from what exists, in an inclusive manner. Because these entities are all at the table, they control their own destiny. They have made the decision to be involved. They can relate to their members on key decisions. Involvement in this process would strengthen their goals and mandates. Others may be motivated to develop their own membership-based organisations for their discrete sectors in order to join. There would be no one organisational vested interest at the table. All present at the table would be equal. And the Chair of this council could be the go-to person for organisations seeking the input of the communication and media (and/for) development and social and behaviour change field into their policies and strategies.
Of course, there are also downsides to a mechanism such as the one outlined. It would be freestanding, not located within or connected to any existing system or institutional process, as would be the case in the option above. Rather than being “naturally in”, this approach would need to work hard to be “invited in”.
An important focus for this council would be related to funding, including:
➢ Advocating with governments, international agencies, foundations, bilaterals and other major funders for increased levels of funding, with a particular emphasis on Southern organisations
➢ Working with the major funders to ensure improved coordination of the resources that are available.
Operation Mechanism Option 3:
A federation of issue focused networks
There is a long and important track record within development of issues based networks that seek to advance development action by gathering people together across organisational, role and geographic boundaries in an attempt to advance action on their issue of interest. For example, local, regional and global networks of people directly affected by HIV/AIDS, climate change, urbanisation, environmental degradation, challenges to their rights, violence against women, absence of quality education, media freedoms, child rights, gender rights, and the advancement of indigenous populations – to name just a few.
For a number of reasons including the growth of social media, increasingly open societies (though not everywhere of course), changing role of government and expansion of civil societies these networks will play an increasingly important role in development action. So, it could be important and useful, for advancing key priorities in relation to the problems that have identified, to implement a mechanism that builds an alliance with and supports these mechanisms.
From the perspective of this field of work there are four important reasons why it is important to consider basing an operational mechanism in this approach:
1. Clearly the work of these networks is almost exclusively communication, media, social and behavioural change in nature.
2. Many organisations in this field have played key roles in building these networks – just two concrete examples – the children’s clubs and networks in South Africa (Soul City) and the anti-violence against women networks in India (Breakthrough) - but there are many more.
3. This would provide this field work of work with considerable leverage. It would not be this field of work arguing for itself. It would be this field of work allied with and supporting these increasingly important networks.
4. This would provide a focused lens for handling issues related to standards, for example.
Such a mechanism could look like this:
➢ The identification of regional and global networks and other processes that directly engage the people most affected by the issues that are the focus of local, regional, national, and international development.
➢ The convening of the key communication and media people from within those identified networks. Regional and global forums could be established in which these groups and networks can gather to:
• Share communication and media experiences, strategies, and perspectives;
• Develop partnerships and working relationships;
• Highlight and promote policy ideas; and
• Organise and undertake joint research.
➢ The role of the communication for development, media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change community would be to organise and coordinate this process. In so doing, through the perspectives and ideas of people directly affected by development issues, communication perspectives on key development issues would be developed, other actors in development could be engaged in that policy dialogue, and the staff skills and knowledge required for effective action would be highlighted, as would the requirements related to evidence, funding, standards, and other key issues.
➢ An important part of this role would be to ensure that increased levels of financial resources are attracted and allocated to these issue focused networks and the communication, media, social and behavioural change organisations that are engaged in this work.
***
The next section in this paper is Structural and Funding Base - and Conclusion.
The previous section in this paper is The Options - Specific Problems on Which to Focus.
Editor's note: Above is an excerpt from Rafael Obregon's and Warren Feek's 18-page paper "Development Calling".
The full table of contents for this paper follows:
Introduction, Purpose, Stimulus, Consultation
Worries, Opportunities, Priorities, and Core Question
The Options - Specific Problems on Which to Focus
Image credit: Centre for Communication and Social Change, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Comments
Focus on ground-level impact & high-level policy heft
Dear all - very brief thoughts from me.
Congrats on some hard work and interesting ideas. As I understand, this mechanism has been concieved to give C4D a stronger platform - to strengthen standards and rigour, put quality assurance on a global footing and provide more fundraising muscle in our ever more measurement-addicted donor climate. All necessary and important.
Like some others who have commented, and as a veteran negotiator of strategy agreements btwn govts and aid actors, I'm leery of sucking up time and money trying to hammer down agreement around terminologies, and debating structures that don't in the end change much at ground level. In principle the idea of global standards is a good one - but what would it change, practically? When push comes to shove, the women and men implementing C4D strategies will often have to learn their trade from scratch. Turnover in local organizations is high - and even where it isn't many people face restrictions on their literacy, their ability to move around, their freedom to say and do what global best-practice suggests they should. Perhaps I'm biased, from only ever having worked in extremely poor and fragile settings. I'd also think very carefully about trainings and how they work. We are up to our knees in C4D trainings here in Lebanon - and while I'm sure some are worthwhile, we know that only repeated, systematic, tailored trainings for frontline workers themselves backed up by mentoring and supportive supervision makes a real difference to someone's ability to consistently deliver a good job. A significant part doing a good job in C4D is simply practice and confidence, and of course a deepening relationship with the beneficiary.
So, practically, these would be my suggestions. I support the idea of a loose global network of C4D leaders to continue to formulate ideas around standards, impact evaluation (which in my view should be integrated into overall programme evaluation, with tools developed to define the degree to which C4D interventions affected outcomes), quality assurance and advocacy with policy-makers. Structurally, this could work in ways I've seen integrated multi-party units work at country level. For example, in Iraq we had an Integrated Analysis Unit to which agencies contributed staff time and funds, hosted by the RC/HC. The IASC provides similar models. One organization would have to take on an organizing/secretariat type role - I think that's unavoidable.
At country level, instead of the siloed approach of issue-based networks (one HIV network, one polio network, one eduation network etc) which creates headaches for beneficiaries, competition among agencies and wastage for donors, I'd look at how local actors can be better helped and better trained to invest in household relationships rather than pushing single-issue C4D. Of course we all have our local agendas, be they vaccines or girls' ed - but bitter experience teaches that these issues are usually inter-related and it doesn't help anyone except our ear-marked funders to approach them all separately. Instead a C4D network in each country could define some key priorities: which people, which issues - and pool thinking on how to tackle them in an effective and more integrated way.
I wish I could come to NYC - but for those that do, have fun! Looking forward to the outcomes.
Operating mechanisms - Social Marketing position
Operation Mechanism Option 1: A Standing Committee of the United Nations
The iSMA and its member associations do support this option.
Operation Mechanism Option 2: A council of existing membership-based groups
In general, the iSMA and its member associations do not support this option.
Operation Mechanism Option 3: A federation of issue focused networks
The iSMA and its member associations do support this option as a supplement to Option 1 above, but recommend that the networks find ways to cut across issues to ensure that the networks do not funnel people back into their silos (e.g., one network for gender-based violence, another network for food security, etc.).
USAID (initial): Mechanism
Operating Mechanism
If this goes forward the most practical operating mechanism is the Standing Committee within the UN and the influence that may provide with country governments.
C4D Network - Operating mechanism
C4D Network Response Part B: ‘Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries & what are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action.’
Operation Mechanism Option 1: A Standing Committee of the United Nations
• We would support this option.
• Whether it is feasible or not however is another issue.
• We also wish to highlight the need to acknowledge and work within the existing UN Round Table on C4D structure. This mechanism has been on-going for two decades and has great value, and strangely is missing from the Options Paper.
• We would also note that this option addresses the UN level of C4D coordination, but not the C4D practitioners level on the ground; that requires other solutions, possibly ones that simply need better coordination between existing social/knowledge/platform/thematic focus networks such as CI, AMARC, CDAC, C4D Network and others.
Operation Mechanism Option 2: A council of existing membership-based groups
• We might support this option, based on fuller information.
• A council of existing networks seems somewhat exclusive; what is the joining criteria, who are the gatekeepers?
• If it did proceed it would need to be independent of any existing network/organisation.
Operation Mechanism Option 3: A federation of issue focused networks
• We would not support this option.
• It is our view that there are already networks and structures that work in this space, bringing together others in the C4D sector.
We would like to propose a fourth option:
Operation Mechanism Option 4: A Global Association
• We would propose a Global C4D Association, that is a professional association for those working or engaged in communication for development in its broadest definition.
• This Global Association will have its mandate from voting members. The membership would be composed of dues-paying individuals and institutions.
• The mission of the Association would be the promotion of C4D as a respected and resourced area of practice in development.
• The outputs of the Association would be: (i) A set of global ‘standards and definitions’ about what C4D is: the principles, the definition(s), the description. (ii) A set of global resources about C4D: a compilation of C4D research & evaluation theirs and frameworks; a compilation of C4D training courses and resources etc. (iii) An accreditation system for C4D curricula and training.
• The representative structure of the Association would be a bi-annually changing two/three person ‘Global Representative Team’ voted for by the membership. This Representative Team would be the prominent focal point for C4D advocacy and lobby.
• The Global Association will be guided by a Board, composed of member organisations, voted for by the whole membership.
• The Representative Team and the Association would be supported by a small Secretariat, providing administrative support. This would be cyber-based or based in the South.
• Support would include a) responding to inquiries, and directing inquirers to the most relevant members regarding information or connection, b) synthesis research – collating C4D experience, c) managing accreditation system, d) collating resources, e) producing core materials regarding standards and definitions.
Thank you. We welcome the forthcoming discussions and look forward to working together as a community in addressing these issues for the betterment of the C4D field.
[For those who may not know the C4D Network is a professional social network of people engaged in communication for development (from academia, civil society, public and private sector) around the world; with over 3,000 members and emerging country chapters in locations such as Nairobi, Bangkok, Brisbane, London, Barcelona, Kampala, Harare etc. Our emphasis is on meeting, learning and exchanging with the goal of improving C4D practice, with a strong focus on in-country expertise and C4D capacity development. www.c4d.org].
IFRC - Mechanism?
We will feedback on the operating mechanisms at the meeting next week.
Jo - Mechanism - over-bureaucratizing?
The mechanism… is bureaucratising this really the best way forward? To be quite frank, my concern would be that this would channel funds and efforts away from where they should be – I support investing in local organisations and groups, local networks who can and should speak for themselves, not rely on an external mechanism that in effect provides further hoops for them to jump through, tells them what has been universally agreed, despite what their own expertise and experience tells them – it risks silencing them.
(Rafael, our recent workshop in Malawi demonstrated clearly to me where the expertise is, the deep knowledge and real excitement for the future of C4D as well as ideas for innovative approaches – it is among local actors, even though, amazingly for me, there is a perception of lack of capacity from development brokers… extraordinary situation, that shows how important the ‘Regional Alliance’ ideas that came initially from you Rafael, are, that we are currently implementing and which chime with some parts of this document, but conflict with others).
I’d probably, if I were present in NY, argue against creating said mechanism ☺, or at least steer very much towards option 3, which is the only feasible option in my honest opinion. I think networks like CI and C4D network are doing a sterling job, and loose networking that reaches out and embraces local networks, expertise and experience is good. We all should encourage local dialogue on this, and hopefully local voices are represented through your consultations. My main point is that a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be useful and will end up being merely a bureaucratic exercise.
I like the focus on civil society engagement, its more important than standards and universal codes etc.
Cleofe - Overall
Kudos to your team for the effort and commitment to move beyond rhetoric. The specific and concrete plan of actions you diligently worked on to address the issues re: communication for development and/or behaviour change is highly commendable.
Rain Barrel - Which Mechanism?
b. Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries.
• While Option 1 – creation of a Standing Committee of the United Nations -- is attractive in many ways, we fear that it could bog the field down in political and bureaucratic structures and procedures, stifling vital creativity, critical independence and dynamic participation by civil society and media organizations. Also, in the current global political climate, with the rise of nationalist movements and populist governments, moving towards establishment of a UN Standing Committee might even be counterproductive for the interests of our field.
• Options 2 and 3 -- a council of existing membership-based groups and a federation of issue focused networks , respectively – are worth considering. However, the uneven current organizational landscape, the diversity of large and small players from North and South, and the reality of competition among them for scarce contracts and funds constitute a major challenge for both options. Even with the best-intentioned commitments to act in unity to advance the field of C4D, it is unlikely that a single highly-structured organization – whether council or federation -- could operate on behalf of all its members without coming up against the vested interests of some of its constituents. Therefore, given the overlap between membership-based and issued-based organizations in regard to the use of communication approaches and target audiences, we recommend exploring the viability of a combination of the two options, some form of association of like-minded individuals and organizations to raise awareness and advocate for public and private support. Many models exist, as we all know, from the IUHPE to the International Association of Facilitators and the International Association of Human Resources Managers.
Claire on loose networks and silos
So, practically, these would be my suggestions. I support the idea of a loose global network of C4D leaders to continue to formulate ideas around standards, impact evaluation (which in my view should be integrated into overall programme evaluation, with tools developed to define the degree to which C4D interventions affected outcomes), quality assurance and advocacy with policy-makers. Structurally, this could work in ways I've seen integrated multi-party units work at country level. For example, in Iraq we had an Integrated Analysis Unit to which agencies contributed staff time and funds, hosted by the RC/HC. The IASC provides similar models. One organization would have to take on an organizing/secretariat type role - I think that's unavoidable.
At country level, instead of the siloed approach of issue-based networks (one HIV network, one polio network, one eduation network etc) which creates headaches for beneficiaries, competition among agencies and wastage for donors, I'd look at how local actors can be better helped and better trained to invest in household relationships rather than pushing single-issue C4D. Of course we all have our local agendas, be they vaccines or girls' ed - but bitter experience teaches that these issues are usually inter-related and it doesn't help anyone except our ear-marked funders to approach them all separately. Instead a C4D network in each country could define some key priorities: which people, which issues - and pool thinking on how to tackle them in an effective and more integrated way.
I wish I could come to NYC - but for those that do, have fun! Looking forward to the outcomes.
Jyotika - the best mechanism
On global mechanisms, option 3 is best—less top-down.
Mechanism -
I would support the second option. It could be a virtual enterprise using the power of the internet to create a virtual team, thus bringing in the groups that may have limited access to travel funds etc. The more flexible the mechansim and open to change the better. I was luck to attend one of the first meetings of the roundtable on development communication in Ottowa, which was a very rewarding exercise. But as the roundtable sought to formalize its structure it lost some of its creative input as well. If the goal is to have more visibility for the dev comm sector at the top levels of the UN, then more than a federation might be needed. But I quite frankly would not know where to begin on that one. All the best for the meeting in New York which alas I cannot attend. Let me know if it is being livestreamed or facebook live or pericsope and happy to join
PCI Media Impact - Best mechanism
Question 2: Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries?
For all three options, it will be important to be transparent that the platform is for C4D practitioners across issue sets, including health, environment and social justice.
A council of existing C4D membership-based organization is an option, as is a federation of issue focused networks. Implementing a standing committee of the United Nations might add a lot of bureaucracy into the mix. Ideally, the mechanism allows us as a field to set and implement holistic development agendas, leverage program resources and learn from each other.
Center for Development Communication - Mechanism?
I would support the second option. It could be a virtual enterprise using the power of the internet to create a virtual team, thus bringing in the groups that may have limited access to travel funds etc. The more flexible the mechansim and open to change the better. I was luck to attend one of the first meetings of the roundtable on development communication in Ottowa, which was a very rewarding exercise. But as the roundtable sought to formalize its structure it lost some of its creative input as well. If the goal is to have more visibility for the dev comm sector at the top levels of the UN, then more than a federation might be needed. But I quite frankly would not know where to begin on that one. All the best for the meeting in New York which alas I cannot attend. Let me know if it is being livestreamed or facebook live or pericsope and happy to join
- Log in to post comments