CIVIL SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

CIVIL SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

TEACHING MATERIALS

Introduction

Concept and characteristics of civil society organizations

Civil society is the “aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens. It can also be defined as is the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. It also refers to the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations”. Civil society covers the whole sphere between the state and the family. As shorthand, it is the society minus the state.

Civil society exists wherever and whenever voluntary associations of any kind try deliberately to shape rules that govern society. The term “civil society” evokes many meanings in the modern era—a mediating realm between the individual and the state, the worlds of nonprofit associations and philanthropy, the network of international NGOs, social relations of mutual respect, and, many others. Common to all of these meanings, however, are two central ideas: pluralism and social benefit. Together these ideas reflect the myriad interests and identities present in contemporary society and the task of working to improve conditions in the world.

The concept of the “commons” is key to understanding civil society. It refers to a central tradition in Western thought: the shared sphere of communal life where collective goods reside. These goods include not only air and water, but also such public benefit ideals as social justice and civic commitment, and they cannot be achieved by individual decision-making alone. Rather, they are created and sustained by common action and by the frameworks of institutions and norms that make such action possible. The commons are critical to the well-being and ultimately the survival of the community.

The political economy of the modern society can be viewed in three basic sectors- state, business  (corporate) and a third sector defined by citizen self organization (civil society). The state’s distinctive competence is legitimate use of coercion. It is characterized by the concepts of power, authority, legitimacy and democracy. The business sector’s competence is market exchange. The concepts typical of the private sector are the markets, competition, profits, customership and consumerism. The third (civil society) sector’s competence is private choice for the public good. Civil society is, for its part, characterized by citizens’ spontaneity and activeness, participation and doing, public utility and autonomy, voluntariness and optionality, laymanship and professionalism, flexibility and independence, communality and locality, ethics and solidarity. Citizens mobilize through values they share with other citizens and through shared commitment to action with other citizens.

Civil society organizations are created in the public interest, and are:

• Driven by values that reflect a desire to improve lives
• Contain elements of voluntarism( i.e. are formed by choice, not by compulsion, and involve voluntary contributions of time and money;
• Have private and independent governance;
• Are not for any ones profit( i.e. they do not distribute profit to staff or shareholders);
• Have clearly stated and definable public purposes to which they hold themselves accountable;
• Are formally constituted in law or have an accepted identity in the culture and tradition of the country

Seven Key Concepts that define civil society

Nonprofit and voluntary institutions: A widely shared view identifies civil society with the set of nonprofit or nongovernmental organizations. Private voluntary associations have, since ancient times, played a vital role in achieving social purposes. The contemporary “nonprofit sector” refers to the realm of society inhabited by such voluntary organizations, in contrast to both public sector (governmental entities) and for-profit sector (businesses).

Individual rights: A second thread of broad agreement among contemporary theorists focuses on the rise of the individual and of individual rights as a distinctive characteristic of civil society. Civil society can be anchored primarily in the growth of a sphere of private action and individual rights that is defended against the state.

The common good: A parallel and, in fact, more ancient stream of thought is the conceptual tradition of the “common good.” modern theorists stress the significance of this component and emphasize the central importance of civic norms aimed at achieving communal ends. The various civil society traditions can be viewed as sharing a commitment toward the solution of problems in the public realm.

The rule of law: Inextricably connected to both the defense of individual rights and the pursuit of the common good is the “rule of law.” the rule of law can be emphasized as a defining characteristic of civil society in its capacity to establish fair and predictable rules for the exercise of public authority. Although laws are set and enforced by governmental bodies, they require a pre-political legitimacy that inheres in civil society and transcends the authority of a given regime. The rule of law is essential to guarantee other elements of civil society, especially the protection of individual rights, from the arbitrary exercise of power.  

Philanthropy: Philanthropic values and practices have critical significance to the constitution of civil society. Closely related to the tradition emphasizing individual action on behalf of the common good, philanthropy becomes an essential vehicle to realize this intention. Philanthropy can be viewed as the central value of civil society.

Free expression: The concept of free public communication has flowed into the stream of the development of civil society since the early modern period. This concept is a prerequisite for the free formation of public opinion that enables civil society to function effectively, i.e., to create a “reasoning public. A definitive characteristic of early modern civil society is the emergence of a system of free expression.

Tolerance: Not as frequently invoked, but nevertheless widely understood as essential to the gestation of the civil society idea, is the norm of tolerance. An outcome (albeit unintended) of the religious wars of 16th and 17th century Europe, this normative element is implicit in the growth of idea of civility. Tolerance is at the center stage in the development of civil society (contrasted with “fanaticism”), describing its emergence in 17th century philosophical theories as “the essential, defining virtue of civil society.”

Dimensions of civil society

Institutions: Under this category you will find the rule of law, are structural patterns that address and regulate specific areas or tasks. For example, an institution for political decision-making would be democracy, although there are different ways in which democratic decision-making can be organised, as is the case for parliamentary or presidential democracies. In the case of justice, the institution would be the legal system and the rule of law; in the case of social inclusion, a central institution would be citizenship; for reproduction, the family; and for information and communication needs, the media.

Organisations: These would be voluntary associations, and non-governmental or non-profit organisations, social movements, networks and informal groups. These organisations make up the infrastructure of civil society; they are the vehicles and forums for social participation, “voice” processes, the expression of values and preferences, and service provision.

Individuals: This are citizens and participants in civil society generally. This would include people’s activities in civil society such as membership, volunteering, organising events, or supporting specific causes; people’s values, attitudes, preferences and expectations; and people’s skills and in terms governance, management and leadership.

N/B. As regards objectives, it is possible to argue that civil society actors can pursue either conformist, reformist, or transformist aspirations

CSOs have shown considerable ability to:

• Advocate on behalf of nature and environmental protection
• Develop and test new models and tools in environmental management
• Increase awareness of the need for sustainable development and environmental management
• Mobilise local communities to get involved

The essential characteristics of civil society

• It is voluntary in the sense that citizens cannot be coerced to civic activity; it requires a conscious decision. Voluntariness is one of the most central characteristics and strengths of the civil society. The willingness to help and to use one’s free time in a productive manner motivates people to participate in voluntary activities.

• It is not for profit, meaning that its main motive is not personal material gain. This is not identical with altruism. The expectation of personal gains can well be part of the motivation but it is not done for return on investment. In civil society activities are provided and services produced for members and customers in a non-profit making ethos (culture or philosophy). One ideological cornerstone of civil society is the charitable nature of its activities. It is on this basis that the actors of civil society receive public financial support.

• It embodies a direct or indirect contribution to the common good. Civil society operates in a communal context. The activity can take place in status-based, operational, or mental (symbolic) communities. The erosion of the traditional communality which was based on qualities such as status and descent, has not served to diminish the communal essence of civil society, because new kind of symbolic communality has emerged alongside the status-based communality. Civil society is advanced when citizens share a social right of access to the commonwealth of resources produced, used, and exchanged through natural and social economies in a community and through a society. Access, in this context, includes the abilities both to contribute to the resources and to benefit from them. Broad, community-based civic engagement in economic activities occurs in the arena of what is historically called “the Commons,” as in the Greek agora and the English market. As citizens participate in the open exchange of commonwealth resources, they can form and strengthen social connections and networks with others.

• Civic engagement is situated in the public sphere. It includes activities that take place among people outside the private sphere of the family.
• Connected with publicity, it is usually carried out with others. In that sense it is often collective and cooperative.
• In civil society people are at the same time actors and objects of the action. The members use decision-making power in defining the domain of civil society. Civil society is not stamped by customership or consumerism.

• The spontaneity and activeness of citizens stem first and foremost from the willingness to participate and act. People are motivated by an interest in some subject matter. The willingness to participate, to take part and to obtain experiences brings substance to people’s lives. Spontaneous activity acts as a good counterbalance to work and brings variety to one’s life. Through participation the person can make new friends and break the circle of loneliness. The desire to learn but also to help others encourages many people to be active and participate in the activities of civil society.

• Participation offers the opportunity and ability to have an influence. Civil society provides numerous occasions for influencing, especially in the spheres of political and trade union activity. The possibility to have an influence offers an important dimension to citizens’ spontaneous activities within the contexts of civil society.

• Autonomy remains as an essential characteristic of civil society. Civil society is advanced when citizens have the right to be involved in all aspects of political governance and the authority to make decisions and perform actions affecting all levels of public life, without the institutions of public life being “captured” by the interests of specific groups or individuals. The presence and legitimacy of community-based civic authority through systems of political governance increase the ability of citizens to exercise sovereignty over policies and programs that can positively affect their lives and the quality of life in their community

• Civil society is based on an individual’s freedom of choice. Force or sanctions do not characterize civil society.

• The special feature of civil society is in the combination of laypersons and professionals. The peer support of those with similar life experiences forms an important part of the activities in organizations. This is unique to the sector of civil society. The know-how of the members and volunteers is at use alongside the know-how of paid professionals. The soft and hard knowledge, the empirical and professional knowledge complement one another. Laypersons and professionals, voluntariness and paid work coexist in civil society.

• Civil society is able to adjust to the hopes, needs and desires of people as well as the changes of the surrounding environment. The lack of official duties and responsibilities eases adjustment and makes room for reactions. Neither can the heavy investments or the profit responsibilities of shareholders dictate the activities of civil society. There is room for creativity and new innovations. Many ways of action have in fact emerged in the sphere of civil society and have consequently become general working practises or responsibilities of the public sector. Civil society has also a role in patching up the gaps between the public and private sector. Ultimately the actors of civil society can decide for themselves whether to act, to what end, and how.

• Most of the activities of civil society take place locally and at grass roots. Locality characterizes civil society, not only its activities but its essence, too.

• Civil society is generally seen to include the dimension of ethics and solidarity, although the goodness of civil society should not be overemphasized.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens can exercise their civic duty of self-governance by participating in political structures that exhibit decentralized power and authority. Community-based civic engagement in political governance exists when community members have the opportunity to hold positions or “offices” of public decision-making and leadership.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens can openly and voluntarily participate in diverse social affiliations, groups, networks, and structures for self-governance and social transformation. “Association” refers to those social places where people gather and interact with others to exchange ideas, offer support, and receive a sense of belonging. Community-based civic engagement in systems of social exchange exists when diverse social groups and gatherings are present and permeable.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens hold decision-making power, work to strengthen and improve local and regional economies, and exercise sustainable and socially transparent stewardship of societal resources (e.g., human, social, material, and ecological) on behalf of the “common good.” Community-based activities of civic responsibility in systems of economic development exist when citizens enjoy the legitimate authority of resource trusteeship.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens, acting through community-based groups and associations, are able to use basic civic freedoms and rights (e.g., fair elections, free speech, a free press providing access to information, freedom to organize in groups) to hold economic and political actors responsible for the outcomes of policies, programs and patterns of resource distribution, and the exercise of political power.

• Civil society is advanced when each citizen is given equitable access to and use of resources required for constructing a satisfying and satisficing life. A moral condition of equity forms the foundation of activities that expand and strengthen economic conditions for all community members. Economic equity of resources is necessary for producing and sustaining an improved quality of life for all people, especially the poor.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens pursue social justice by (1) consistently and compassionately using the “rule of law” in fulfillment of their civic obligations, and (2) advocating for those excluded from the political process and harmed by unjust laws. In classical Greek thought, justice was accomplished by having people serve the city-state according to their status by birth. Gender, merit, rank, and wealth all were criteria for the role one was expected to play in the society, whether citizen or non-citizen. If the social order became disrupted, “justice” was accomplished by restoring people to their former positions of power and status. Unfortunately, the practice of justice according to this particular “rule of law” allowed previous inequalities to continue. The disenfranchised remained excluded after the work of justice. Contemporary views of citizenship and justice reflect these classical ideas in their adherence to a rule of law that is based on the ethical norms of society, but the particular ethical norms have largely shifted. In the United States, the bases of citizenship and political participation have changed. Heredity, wealth, and social position have given way to the unalienable right of common citizenship legitimized by the Constitution. A law or policy is considered unjust if it is unconstitutional or contrary to the democratically formed rule of law.

• Civil society is advanced when citizens (1) pursue social transformation through reciprocal, mutually dependent collaboration with others, and (2) negotiate, mediate, and resolve conflict through peaceful, nonviolent means. The nature of civic environments requires that social relationships in communities be limited and conditional. Not everyone in a society is invariably viewed as a legitimate member and given equal access to its resources. The term reciprocity highlights two interrelated moral issues of social relationships: how people to treat one another, especially when conflict exists; and how group boundaries are defined and transcended.

Principles of Civil Society

The three principles–participatory engagement, constitutional authority, and moral responsibility–are found in all civil societies regardless of cultural context.

Participatory engagement indicates that members of the society (1) enjoy access to and governance of resources used for the common good, (2) are free to be involved in civic action and social change, and (3) are free to participate in group affiliations that provide a sense of belonging on a community level.

Constitutional authority protects the rights and privileges of citizens in a civil society. Under the rule of law, citizens and social groups are constitutionally legitimized and empowered to hold economic and political actors accountable for their work as community servants and trustees. Local and national decision-makers, motivated by the common good rather than self-interest, are expected to design and implement public policies that strengthen the vitality and welfare of the community.

Within this social context, all community members have moral responsibility to use their civil liberties in ways that do not violate the human rights of others. The practice of equity, justice, and reciprocity produces social order and stability

Broadly, two sets of functions are performed to varying degrees by different types of civil society organizations:

1. Advocacy: consists in influencing authorities and impacting their policy making process by expressing cultural, spiritual, political, social, environmental, and ethical concerns. Advocacy takes the form of counter-power actions and protests. Most of advocacy of CSOs define their ultimate goal around the concept of democracy building which mainly consists in giving voice to the people and create a citizen’s governance.

Advocacy can be:

1. Articulating citizens’ interests and demands; Articulating citizens’ interests and demands is an important function performed by CSOs. Particularly when state policies and the programs of government agencies do not take account sufficiently of needs of the poor or of some other vulnerable sections e.g rural women, hand-capped, CSOs can step into this breach and help to represent their needs and interests.

1. Defending citizens’ rights; defending citizens’ rights is an important theme in another group of cases that deal with post-conflict situations.

1. Service provision: It means providing goods and services directly, without recourse to state agencies. It consists in acting as a socio-economic agent by providing concrete services to the population, businesses or governments and international institutions. This includes in particular welfare services to the population (education, recreation, health), humanitarian support, development projects implementation, and advice and expertise services to business, government and international institutions.

Civil Society Organizations and Service Provision

• The most critical issues relating to CSOs in service provision concern accountability, quality and access
• CSOs are now major players in bringing about social and economic change in many developing and transition countries
• Providing social services has been a critical role that CSOs have traditionally played, both in industrialized and developing countries.
• CSOs are no longer just providing services to people that the state has failed to reach, but they are now far more in the mainstream of development activities.
• CSOs have had an important role in advocating on behalf of local people for improved state services
• In most extreme cases where countries are experiencing complex political emergencies and where the state has collapsed in conflict zones, such as Southern Sudan, Afghanistan and Somalia, CSOs, especially international NGOs, are the only providers of social services, notably water supply and health care.
• CSOs are widely perceived to be more effective than the public sector at reaching the poorest in developing countries
• A central justification for increasing the involvement of CSOs in service provision is that they are perceived to be more efficient and effective than the state sector. four commonly advanced arguments for the greater efficiency of the CSO sector include; specialist experience, more appropriate management structures and systems leading to leaner cost structures, sectoral flexibility and staff motivation
• CSO projects can be more cost effective because they tend to be small and focused on a single sector.

In nearly all cases of CSOs’ involvement in poverty reduction activities worldwide, there is usually a concern for providing some goods or services directly, i.e., without recourse to the state. Quite often it is the case that CSOs start out with the objective of serving some basic need, such as drinking water or medical assistance that is being poorly served by state agencies. It is usually true, however, that even when they start out with such limited objectives, CSOs get drawn into a wider arena, articulating interests on behalf of their members and/or defending their rights vis-à-vis the state. The more CSOs get involved in mediating the relationship between citizens and the state, the more heavily they get drawn into articulating demands and defending rights.

What civil society is not

• Specifically, civil society is not synonymous with the more general term ‘society’. A society includes economy, market, judiciary, family and other institutions as well as civil society; in other words, civil society is part of the larger society.
• It is not identical to the non-profit sector, or other terms like third, voluntary or NGO sectors, however defined. The third sector and civil society overlap in terms of organisations, and it would be fair to say that civil society includes large parts of the third sector, even though some non-profit organisations can be close to market firms or state agencies in constitution and behaviour.
• It does not include the market and market firms, even though some earlier theorists and neo-liberal thinkers see the market economy and its self-organising and self-regulating capacity as an essential component of “non-state” society. What is more, some institutions like the media, while essentially based on market organisations, nonetheless have significant civil society elements.
• Further, civil society does not include the state and public agencies even though, through its judiciary and regulatory function, the state upholds the rule of law, social order and other essential components of society and civility. However, aspects of the legal system and specific laws dealing with civil society institutions and organisations can be included.
• And finally, it does not include the family. Cross-cultural family forms vary significantly and tend to imply different demarcation lines between the private sphere of the family however defined and the public sphere of the wider society. In either case, the family as an organisational unit (e.g., households, extended family systems, dynasties) will be excluded from the nexus.

Importance of civil society organization in development and environmental management

• They contribute huge sums of money to developing countries.
• Many NGOs have demonstrated an ability to reach poor people, work in inaccessible areas, innovate, or in other ways achieve things which are difficult for official agencies.
• Many NGOs have close links with poor communities (many of them represent poorer people.). Some are membership organizations of poor or vulnerable people. Others are skilled at participatory approaches.
• Their resources are largely additional, they complement the development effort of others.
• They can help to make the development process more accountable, transparent and participatory.
• They not only “fill in the gaps” but they also act as a response to failures in the public and private sectors.
• Civil society organizations play a role in promoting and protecting democracy
• CSOs are important for mobilizing social capital to serve development objectives. Social capital has been defined as those aspects of social organization, including networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Communities and groups that are more closely united by bonds of trust and networks of mutual assistance are more likely to achieve superior development performance compared to other communities and groups where such bonds and networks are weaker. Social capital in this reckoning has both a cognitive dimension – consisting of norms, values, attitudes and beliefs that predispose people toward collective action – and a structural dimension, composed of formal or informal organizations that facilitate collective action for achieving some common objective.
• CSOs have the ability for developing innovative solutions through undertaking pilot projects on a small scale. State agencies tend over time to develop standardized and uniform responses that are implemented with relatively little local adaptation across entire regions and countries. Especially since they work on a small scale, CSOs usually provide excellent laboratories for pioneering new methods and strategies in a relatively efficacious and cost-effective manner.

Classification of civil society

The commission on sustainable development responsible for implementing Agenda 21classifies civil society into the following major groups;

Farmers         Women, children and youth       Indigenous people and communities       Business and industry

Non-governmental organizations          Workers and trade unions    Scientific and technological community

CSOs in Kenya can basically fall into six (6) broad categories:

• Social movements at different levels, that is, people coming together to pursue political , economic empowerment purposes, local grassroots organizations ,trade unions, cooperatives;
• Relief type organizations;
• Development service providers;
• Organizations involved in Conservation;
• Advocacy/policy interventions at local and national level and on global policy issues;
• Private sector associations e.g. Federation of Kenya Employers, which represents the private sector interest but is not for profit.

AREAS IN GREAT NEED OF IMPROVEMENT WITHIN CSOs

• Governance structures: Many CSOs are literally controlled and exist for as long as the founder does; the founder is everything to that organization.
• Local resource mobilization strategies: Numerous CSOs precariously rely on one donor, with hardly any strategies for alternative sources of fundraising
• Transparency and accountability: Lots of CSOs run their business shielded from public scrutiny, raising doubts about what they stand for, where they get their funding from, how they spend the funds and so on.
• Lack of a learning culture: Few CSOs have integrated systems that embrace organizational learning. For example, there has been a lull in the governance and democracy NGOs, since the new government came in. They were not able to shift gears in light of a new government that articulated their rhetoric. They had become too accustomed to doing things a particular way.

The Relationship between the State and civil society organizations

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are major contributors to development processes. In a number of countries, NGOs are weak or play more of an oppositional rather than operational role and governments are highly suspicious of them.

There are three forms of relationships that can occur between NGOs and the government:

1. The first form of relationship is where NGOs are in a dependent-client position vis-a-vis the government. Here NGOs implement state-prepared programs and/or receive funding through the State (a dependency of money, ideas and resources). Examples include, Tanzania (especially during the 1980s) and China.

1. The second type of relationship is adversarial in which there are no common starting points and no wish from either side to search out areas of agreement. Examples include, Zaire, Kenya and Pinochet’s Chile.

1. The third and most constructive relationship emerging in certain liberal democracies is a collaborationist one; a genuine partnership to tackle mutually agreed problems, coupled with energetic but constructive debate on areas of disagreement. Examples include India and Brazil.
2. A Healthy State-NGO Relationship

A healthy relationship is only conceivable when both parties share common objectives. Supporting the growth of a healthy NGO sector is an important contribution to development.

If the government’s commitment to poverty reduction is weak, NGOs will find dialogue and collaboration frustrating or even counter-productive. Likewise, repressive governments will be wary of NGOs which represent the poor or victimized. In such situations, NGOs will probably prefer to chart their own course, giving all instruments of the state as wide a berth as possible.

Where the government has a positive social agenda and where NGOs are effective, there is the potential for a strong, collaborative relationship.

However, with closer collaboration comes increased risk of corruption, reduced independence, and financial dependency. The planning of projects and policies can be strongly influenced by inviting NGO leaders to serve on government commissions or by holding public consultations in which grassroots organization are able to voice their concern and experience.

Once the question was ‘How can development agencies reach the poor majority?’, now it is ‘How can the poor majority reach the makers of public policy?'”

World Bank experience drawn from a survey of 25 Bank-financed projects indicates a strong correlation between project success and the participation of grassroots organizations.

More recently the Bank has been deriving important insights from the public consultations included in Environmental Assessments in which NGOs often plays a major role. Such consultations are effective when all parties are prepared to be objective and to learn from each other.

Where NGOs use selective reportage or distortion in order to heighten criticism of the government, or where the government is not receptive to outside advice, “consultations” are likely to be no more than confrontations.

Government policy instruments that influence the operational environment for NGOs

1. Nature and quality of governance (pluralism, accountability)

Good Governance is achieved by good social policies which encourage a healthy civil society and public accountability of state institutions. Of relevance are issues of plurality (rights of association, rights to organize interest groups) and information (public access to information about development programs). Governments might reduce implementation problems and enhance public support for their programs by easing access to information and allowing affected communities the opportunity to voice their concerns. NGOs can play an important role as interlocutors and facilitators of public consultations, and can catalyze public debate, and contribute to improving governance.

1. The legal framework (registration, reporting requirements, auditing and accounting requirement)

Do registration and reporting requirements hinder NGO growth? How might they become less restrictive while guarding against corruption and other malpractices within the sector?

1. NGO incentives (including taxation policies on income or local fund-raising, imported goods, local philanthropy, duties on imports, subsidies for NGOs. Do these stifle NGO initiative or provide incentives? Do they make it difficult for NGOs to receive foreign funds and donated goods? Do they hamper or encourage local philanthropy or income generating activities of NGOs? Is there a perceived arbitrariness or bias in the awarding of these incentives? Are there tax exemptions for NGOs operating in priority sectors? Might tax exemptions increase the risk of corruption?
2. Collaboration (use of NGOs in program/project implementation)

In what sectors/projects does the government collaborate with NGOs? What is the attitude of the relevant central and local government officials to such collaboration? What is the attitude of the major NGOs to collaboration? How much encouragement, guidance and training is provided for such collaboration? How are the NGO partners selected? At what stage is collaboration sought (e.g. with projects: at identification, design, appraisal, implementation, service delivery, monitoring, or evaluation stages)? What different types of collaboration are practiced? How does collaboration influence changes within government structures (e.g. greater openness to the opinion of local communities, increased preparedness to share information)? How does collaboration influence changes within the NGOs (e.g. more attention to strategic planning, deflection from their traditional constituencies and purpose, altering the relative sizes and strengths)? When NGOs are engaged to make development programs participatory, are they able to represent a broad cross section of stake-holders or only certain interest groups? As governments move towards contracting out services that were previously provided by public employees, it is important to learn from experience what has worked and where pitfalls lie. What are the public sector management implications of expanded NGO collaboration, if both the NGO and public sectors are to avoid damage?

1. Public consultation, education and information (policy impact of NGOs)

It involves involvement in policy-making (serving on committees, assisting with public consultations). Does the government use NGOs for these purposes, encourage, permit, or resist such activities? In which sectors is the informational and educational work of NGOs most valuable (e.g. AIDS prevention; environmental awareness; combating gender/ethnic/caste bias; promoting family planning; adult literacy)? In which sectors/projects have NGOs played an important role in public consultations (e.g. environmental assessments, assessing social impact of projects, identifying needs for resettlement and rehabilitation)? In which policy areas have NGOs played a significant role (public consultation, information, or implementation)? Do NGOs serve on government commissions or other official bodies? In what capacity do they serve?

1. Coordination (role for governments in coordinating NGO activities)

What structures exist for coordinating NGO activities? What role does the government play in these? Are there State-NGO consultative or coordinating committees? What agenda does the government take to these (e.g. does the government use such fora: simply for informational purposes, to control or influence NGO programs, to avoid overlap or gaps, to root out bad practices, to identify needs to which it can respond such as for training, etc.)?

1. Official support (government funding, official contracts).

Does the government finance NGO activities directly, and if so, what mechanisms does it use? What impact does this have on the work, constituency and autonomy of the NGO sector? Are NGO representatives involved in such funding decisions? Similarly does the government offer contracts directly to NGOs? Does the government seek to control the funding of NGOs by official aid agencies or Northern NGOs? What is the role of donors in improving or worsening the State-NGO relationship. Donors can over-fund indigenous NGOs, or cause international NGOs to start operations and eclipse indigenous ones.

1. Public disclosure of information (NGOs serving as a conduit to inform the public about development schemes which effect them).

N/B. Voluntary sector may be better placed to articulate the needs of the weak, to provide services and development in remote areas, to encourage the changes in attitudes and practices necessary to curtail discrimination, to identify and redress threats to the environment, and to nurture the productive capacity of the most vulnerable groups such as the disabled or the landless. Where the interaction between voluntary sector and public and private is high the climate is most favorable for poverty reduction and other social priorities.

Ways in which the voluntary sector can influence main-stream development

1. Encouraging official aid agencies and government ministries to adopt successful approaches developed within the voluntary sector;
2. Educating and sensitizing the public as to their rights and entitlements under state programs;
3. Attuning official programs to public needs by acting as a conduit for public opinion and local experience;
4. Operational collaboration with official bodies;
5. Influencing local development policies of national and international institutions; and
6. Helping government and donors fashion a more effective development strategy through strengthening institutions, staff training and improving management capacity.

Barriers to a Healthy State-NGO Relationship

The following are the major factors which impair the relationship between governments and NGOs

1. A highly political policy environment – NGOs often fall in the opposition camp and the government or ruling party may see itself as the sole legitimate voice of the people.
2. NGOs preference for isolation hence unwillingness to dialogue with government and poor coordination with one another. Some NGOs prefer to keep well separated from the government orbit to avoid drawing attention and therefore outside control, to their activities. However, by keeping a low profile they may actually be making themselves more vulnerable to government attack.
3. Jealousy of civil servants towards the NGOs’ access to resources.
4. Pressure on successful NGOs from major donors to receive more funds, leading to a decline in performance. For example, the Voluntary Agencies Development Assistance Organization of Kenya was deflected by donor pressure from its original institutional development function to acting as a funding intermediary. This has been at the expense of both its original agenda and its relationship with NGOs. This has consequently undermined its advocacy effectiveness towards the government.
5. The NGOs constituency. If as frequently is the case it is a narrow constituency (such as one kinship group, or even just the poorest farmers) the government may consider it too selective since it must consider the common good. Similarly, NGOs have the “luxury” to pick one or two issues which dominate their attention, while governments must juggle with a multitude of concerns.
6. NGOs capacity. NGO projects may not be as effective as claimed, the professional skill of NGO staff, the accountability of NGOs to the grassroots, and strategic planning poorly developed.
7. The public sector’s capacity. The government’s commitment to improving services, eradicating discrimination and poverty may be weak; there may be a shortage of competent staff especially at local level; corruption and nepotism may be rife. In countries riven by strife there is often a legitimacy issue when much of the country is not under government control.
8. Political jealousy. Governments may not want to foster a healthier NGO sector for fear of bolstering the political opposition. In some countries they have been crushed, but elsewhere they have thrived on controversy.
9. Dependence on foreign donors. A government might be more suspicious of NGOs which are highly dependent on foreign funds and therefore might impugn (censure) their motives as “guided by a foreign hand.” Conversely, an NGO which derives a considerable proportion of its funding from its members has maximum authenticity. When the NGO sector is dominated by foreign or international NGOs there can be problems between the government and the NGOs.

Relationship between civil society and United Nations notes

United Nations is an international intergovernmental body.

NGOs have been making a serious contribution to the United Nations since 1945, including a very active early role in the decolonization process. Over the years, they have served as UN partners in a wide variety of program areas and they have brought valuable information and expertise to many UN bodies. The UN General Assembly has on many occasions invited NGOs to participate in the work of its committees and some NGO leaders have been invited to address plenary sessions.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participate vitally in the international system. They contribute valuable information and ideas, advocate effectively for positive change, provide essential operational capacity in emergencies and development efforts, and generally increase the accountability and legitimacy of the global governance process.

Civil society has been a key actor for the United Nations as both work towards shared goals and objectives. It contributes in bring the work of UN closer to the situation on the ground and insert voices and practice from the national and grassroots level into inter-governmental debates.

UN-civil society relationship in essence concerns participation. Handled well, it enhances the quality of decision-making, increases ownership of the decisions, improves accountability and transparency of the process and enriches outcomes through a variety of views and experiences. But – handled badly – it can confuse choices, hamper the inter-governmental search for common ground, erode the privacy needed for sensitive discussions, over-crowd agendas and present distractions at important meetings.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participate vitally in the international system. They contribute valuable information and ideas, advocate effectively for positive change, provide essential operational capacity in emergencies and development efforts, and generally increase the accountability and legitimacy of the global governance process. The involvement of civil society actors underpinned every activity of the United Nations

The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations, commonly referred to as CONGO, remains in close touch with UN representatives involved in addressing access issues. In addition, the NGO Working Group on the Security Council in New York has maintained periodic, albeit informal, dialogue with accredited NGOs

NGOs partner with or are contracted by the United Nations on specific programs, primarily humanitarian service delivery. More recently, however, NGOs have sought a greater role in governance and decision making.

Contracting CSOs and sector wide approaches

A major trend in the CSO sector over the last decade has been the awarding of contracts to CSOs by governments and international donors for the delivery of services. This is a fundamentally different form of funding relationship than the long-term partnership agreements that Southern CSOs have traditionally had with Northern NGOs. The contract approach is controversial and has had a significant impact on the CSO sector in developing countries.

Three main concerns about this new funding trend are:

• These newer CSOs were unwilling to engage in politically controversial issues and had little contact with voluntary, grassroots networks;
• Some of the more established CSOs had become much more bureaucratic and professional as a result of undertaking contracts (a concern raised among some CSOs)
• This had resulted in their distancing themselves from their original constituencies based on popular support at the grassroots level.

Negative impacts of the contract approach

• CSOs are not given an opportunity to engage in policy dialogue and advocacy with the Fund Board, but are seen only as implementers. In undertaking contracts to deliver services, CSOs meet the policy objectives of donor agencies, rather than developing their own ideas and agendas and seeking funding for them.
• The problem of dependence on contracts jeopardise sustainability of many CSOs. Small local CSOs, which were originally set up on a voluntary basis by committed individuals, get completely absorbed in undertaking contracts for the Fund Board and struggle to fulfill the requirements of their contracts. The current dependence encourages competition between CSOs for contracts, rather than co-operation within the sector.
• CSOs are under pressure to become increasingly professional in order to implement their contracts efficiently, and this has conflicted with their desire to spend time developing close, long-term relationships with communities. It may also make it difficult for CSOs to prioritize the most marginalized people and communities, given the rigid requirements on community cash contributions to the contracts.
• CSOs are given a blueprint that they have to follow for project implementation at the community level. This means that the primary obligation for these CSOs is to deliver all the outputs required by the contract. They are not given the freedom to adapt their approach in response to local situations that are necessary to ensure local ownership and sustainability.

Characteristics of good Partnerships between Civil society and UN

. Good partnerships have the following qualities:

• Mutual recognition of participation
• Transparency
• Inclusion
• Neutrality and integrity of actors
• Diversity
• Mutual respect amongst partners

The general experience is that when inter-governmental decisions are informed by civil society, when actions involve their contributions and sense of ownership, and when monitoring is a joint effort, the results are more sustainable and tangible. The benefits of participation appear to greatly outweigh the counter-arguments. Some factors that make the process succeed well may include:

• Providing timely information to civil society about the inter-governmental process
• Aiming for meaningful interaction and dialogue, not just public relations
• Emphasizing both informal and formal interaction for learning and trust building
• Acknowledging the diversity of civil society and seeing benefit in bringing this diversity into the inter-governmental decision making process
• Working with and respecting self-organized mechanisms of civil society
• Interpreting flexibly UN rules on participation and making them better understood by civil society
• Developing an attitude of openness within the secretariat staff
• Allocating human and financial resources for enhancing participation
• Encouraging secretariat staff and leadership to interact with civil society directly and listen seriously to their ideas, experiences and criticisms
• Seeing participation as an enhancement of the inter-governmental process.

Concerns raised by Civil Society Actors

• Civil society actors feel they are not heard or taken seriously by governments and the UN secretariat. At UN meetings – even with dialogues, hearings and special events – they are made to feel marginal to decision making and their diversity is not recognized.
• They feel that the rhetoric of governments and the UN secretariat regarding participation is not matched by action. Access to UN buildings and meetings is more restrictive than a few years ago. Civil society expects the UN to be more proactive with its information dissemination and outreach, and to welcome the newer types of civil society actors such as social movements into its work. The UN is also expected to ensure balance in access of civil society and the private sector (the latter is perceived to have privileged access).
• Civil society’s formal access to the UN (accreditation) is seen as politicised, lengthy and bureaucratic. The UN is expected to coordinate and streamline accreditation procedures as well as to clarify the rules of engagement across the multiplicity of bodies and organs. The requests for access to the General Assembly and the Security Council continue and there is a concern that serious discussion of this issue is postponed by yet more studies and reports. Access to documentation is inadequate and needs a complete overhaul.
• The UN is expected to empower, support and build capacity of Southern civil society organizations given its mandate to prioritise the needs of the poor. Southern organizations need funding, training and information to participate and contribute effectively to the UN’s work.
• Civil society actors perceive government or secretariat calls for its accountability as a veiled threat to their participation and assert that they are fully accountable to their own constituencies. In response to proposed codes of conduct, they feel transgressions by a handful of NGOs should not lead to sweeping and potentially restrictive codes.

Concerns raised by the UN Secretariat

• Senior secretariat officials mostly think that the organization is lagging behind the rapid global changes when it comes to its relationship with civil society. Despite innovations, the UN would benefit from more civil society contributions on substantive issues. Statements at inter-governmental meetings by civil society actors are increasingly artificial with too little time allocated to them to allow meaningful contributions.
• There is a need for considerable attitude shift in-house with respect to civil society. Both outreach and in-reach need to be strengthened if civil society is to fulfil its role as envisaged in the UN Charter.
• Civil society participation in conferences and special sessions is seen to suffer from being ad hoc and confusing. The complex (and widely differing) accreditation hurdles conflict with the welcoming messages the UN seeks to give to civil society. The rules of engagement are not clear and much depends on the discretion of individual Chairs or other political leaders of inter-governmental processes.
• Secretariat staff assigned to civil society matters work under huge resource constraints and without tangible support from the leadership. Relationships with civil society organizations from developing countries need significant improvements, which requires human and financial resources. Secretariat staff often go beyond the call of duty to open doors for CSOs, but this rebounds negatively if a few civil society participants “disgrace themselves”; this makes it difficult to continue the openness.

Ways to strengthen the partnership among the United Nations and civil society

• Need for civil society engagement at all levels and the need for improved access to the United Nations.
• Need for cross-UN system work on thematic issues to avoid silos and generate innovative and sustainable solutions.
• civil society and its full integration into the process was essential to the success of the SDGs
• civil society play important role in development, especially in elaborating indicators, developing minimum standards, and implementing them at national level, as well as monitoring the implementation of the SDGs
• Flexibility that allows for initiative
• Accountability