Høringssvar af Bjarne Harder Larsen (3F)
Når danske NGOer arbejder i u-landene, bør de være meget mere opmærksomme på, om partnerne i Syd nu også reelt repræsenterer de fattige grupper, de siger de gør. Der er langt fra altid tilfældet, for der kan være meget langt fra eliten til landsbyerne.
Sådan lyder et af hovedpunkterne fra lederen af det internationale arbejde i Fagligt Fælles Forbund (3F) i høringssvaret til Danida om de mange danske NGOers fremtidige rolle og arbejde, den såkaldte civilsamfundspolitik.
3F skriver herom (på engelsk):
In the description of what Danish CSO’s must contribute to in relation to their partners we suggest to add “organizational capacity to represent poor and excluded groups”.
There are many CSOs that claim to represent these groups but do not organise and engage these groups and let their own voices be heard. Rather they are part of an educated elite very distant from the groups they claim to represent.
Høringssvaret i øvrigt:
3F generally supports the draft policy and its right-based approach.
We think it is very positive that the policy covers all Danish support to civil society including regional support programmes, support to multilateral and regional organisations, bilateral programmes implemented by embassies, multi-donor pooled funds etc.
We are especially satisfied with the fact that the draft policy explicitly (udtrykkeligt) recognizes the importance of labour rights and of the tripartite dialogue between the labour market parties which is highlighted in several sections.
We would however have liked if the policy included more on coherence (sammenhængen) between development- and trade policy in order to ensure a wider space for civil society and better protection of the human rights of the poor.
We think the unification of the two areas – development and trade policy – under one minister’s responsibility is an opportunity to emphasize this point, and to make it more explicit that trade policies should comply with human rights.
In addition to this point we have found room for improvement in the analytical approach behind the policy:
We believe it is too narrow to operate only with the invited space or the claimed space for CSO’s, while leaving aside the necessary assessment of different organisations’ legitimate right to be consulted as representatives of specific groups or interests.
Some are entitled to a space according to international standards. This includes the space of representative trade unions and employers’ associations or of indigenous people according to the ILO conventions.
We find the reference to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights very useful. Unfortunately, it misses some of the UNGP’s (FNs Global Compact) clarity when it comes to the different roles of different stakeholders (state, business and civil society).
We would have liked to see some reflections and more clarity of the different roles particularly regarding the role of the state in development assistance.
It seems that “Denmark /Danida” is assuming too many roles in this draft policy paper. Likewise the roles of South and North based civil society is not specified.
The policy misses the point that Danish citizens are very well organised, and that this gives Denmark a comparative advantage when it comes to supporting an independent civil society in the global South.
This comparative advantage is deeply rooted in Danish civil society and makes it relevant to support the development of civil society in the global South through Danish civil society organisations.
There is a tendency in the policy to measure quality of civil society on the number of small CSO’s (e.g. in the section “Shifting Balances of power”).
The number of civil society organisations should not be a goal in itself, but rather their capacity, representativity, legitimacy and capability to influence decisions.
Furthermore, the document keeps silent about the fact that there also exist conservative, repressive CSO’s who do not respect or promote human rights.
Specific comments:
1. Defining civil society
The definition of civil society is not completely stringent.
Section 1.1 contains a definition of civil society and states that Civil Society Organisations (CSO’s) are only a part of civil society which also contains e.g. informal networks, business associations and trade unions.
In section 1.2 the “CSO” concept seems to cover all parts of civil society (from informal movements, to trade unions and business associations).
2. Objective
The main objective of Denmark’s support to civil society should explicitly include “democratic development” (section 2.1).
Danish values should be expressed directly in the objective as this also prevents organisations to be able to support very conservative, traditional and repressive civil society groups that do not promote participation and democratic development.
There are organisations that may support excluded groups (for instance some ethnic groups), but in their ideology and nature are not democratically oriented, but rather traditional.
3. Target group
Women and children should be mentioned under special rights groups (section 2.2). Women’s rights are often violated, and their potential of contributing to positive development is enormous.
It could be more explicit that Denmark does not only support special rights groups, but also influences places where certain rights are particularly threatened, also by international actors, e.g. right to freedom of association and the right to form unions.
4. Poverty reduction
The document could be improved in focusing more on poverty reduction and empowerment of the poor, e.g. in section 2.3 Principles of engagement.
It could also be worth noting that poor people today in many development countries are now paid-up workers (whereas previously it was mainly subsistence farmers).
This affects how organisations need to address the need and rights of poor people.
5. Business and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)
In the positive approach to business and CSR (virksomheders samfundsansvar) (e.g. in section 3), the draft tends to forget the frequent clashes of interests between poor rights-holders and foreign duty-bearers.
CSR is almost presented as a goal in its own right, and we would recommend that that it was made clearer that it should not be solely up to the companies and CSR policies to abide with ILO conventions on worker’s rights.
It should be company policy to ensure the right to organize and form unions where they operate.
6. Theory of Change
While we appreciate the necessity to develop a clear theory of change, we find the presentation of the theory behind the civil society policy on page 13 confusing.
Among other things we believe it to be too narrowly focused on the effects of development assistance and capacity building while strengthening of the poor by extending their popular support and membership is partly forgotten.
It is however positive that democracy is part of the end-goal of longer-term impact.
7. Partnerships
In the description of what Danish CSO’s must contribute to in relation to their partners (section 5.1 p. 15) we suggest to add “organizational capacity to represent poor and excluded groups”.
There are many CSOs that claim to represent these groups but do not organise and engage these groups and let their own voices be heard. Rather they are part of an educated elite very distant from the groups they claim to represent.
8. Fragile contexts
It would strengthen the policy to include reflections regarding the role of the state as protector of all its citizen’s human rights (as well as guaranteeing democratic decision making, necessary infrastructure etc,).
Does fragile context also refer to states who are affected by and/or infiltrated in organized crime and thus unable or unwilling to protect their citizens’ rights?
9. Cooperation modalities
It is very positive that the importance of labour rights and tripartite dialogue between the labour market parties is specifically mentioned (section 6).
Bullet point number four on support to tripartite dialogue and bullet point six on support to Danish CSOs to develop the capacity to their civil society partners could however be combined, as the funding modalities to these two focus areas are the same.
Likewise promotion of tripartite dialogue also includes capacity development of the labour market parties.
Bjarne Harder Larsen er leder af fagforbundet 3Fs internationale solidaritets- og udviklingsarbejde.
Mere om 3F international på
http://forsiden.3f.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=SD&Dato=20060613&Kategori=INTERNATIONALT&Lopenr=60613012&Ref=AR&profile=2222&template=internationalt
Mere om Bjarne Harder Larsen på
http://www.u-landsnyt.dk/navnenyt/m-rkedage/solidaritetsarbejde-3f-i-25-r
