Partnership Against Poverty
Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke in the South: Changing the Focus in Personnel Assistance
Draft Policy Paper, MS, December 2004
Table of contents
Introduction
Partnership against poverty
A new strategic thrust
Poverty eradication
Political approach
Programme flexibility and personnel diversity
Problems and obstacles
Diversified personnel
North-South and South-South Personnel
Professional qualifications
Types of personnel input (based on contract length and mode of operation)
Recruitment
Preparation
Terms of service
Bridging and Information-sharing
Issues to consider
South–North personnel
Personnel assistance in terms of professional qualifications
Other issues:
Impact monitoring and evaluation
Recommendations and the way forward
MS Objectives
Political orientation
Programme flexibility and personnel diversity
Ways and means to introduce proposed changes to all stakeholders
This policy paper was approved by the MS Board on XXX 2005. The draft paper was written in a workshop held at MS-TCDC November 2004. The participants were: Ms. Dorothy Ngang’a (PAB, Kenya), Mrs. Josephine Kimaro (PAB, Tanzania), Mr. Tek Regmi (PAB, Nepal), Mr. Okech-Owiti (Kenya, facilitator), Mr. Steen Folke (MS Board, Denmark), Mr. Børge Nommesen (MS Board, Denmark), Ms. Helle Vibeke Hansen (The DW Contact Group, Denmark), Mr. Peter Sigsgaard (Programme Co-ordinator, MS Denmark).
Introduction
Currently, personnel assistance in the MS in the South (MSiS) programme has two main components, namely, posting of Development Workers (DWs) from the North to the South and Youth Exchange.
The personnel assistance programme has been debated for some time now at various levels in MS. The framework laid down in the MSiS policy document, Solidarity through Partnership (2001), envisages a more diverse and flexible use of personnel within the programme, apart from acknowledging the need to work in more explicitly political ways, itself a most important shift in the strategic thrust.
However, it is observed in the report of the evaluation of MS, “MS at the Crossroads” (2004) and other surveys, that the extent to which this has happened in practice is quite limited. Besides, MS has developed the Policy Paper on Intercultural Co-operation (2004) that clarifies the concept of intercultural co-operation and identifies diverse ways of achieving it.
Indeed, reviews of the personnel assistance programme as it is currently run have identified a number of problems and obstacles. They include lack of a clear poverty-orientation, flexibility and continuity; reluctance to change and try new innovations, and practical difficulties related to such issues as culture in general and language in particular, transparency, and clarity in roles and responsibilities.
All these point to the need for MS to develop guidelines which will assist it to experiment with new types of personnel and new ways of working so as to re-orient the entire programme.
In pursuit of this objective, MS established a Work Group on Personnel Assistance (WGPA), which analysed existing relevant documents, conducted study visits to countries in the South, sought and got written views from a number of stakeholders and drafted working documents on various aspects of the personnel programme. The WGPA then proposed a writing workshop for developing a draft paper on the personnel programme.
This paper was drafted by a writing group of eight people (4 from the South and 4 from Denmark) November 2004 at MS Training Centre for Development Co-operation (MS-TCDC) in Arusha, Tanzania. The participants in the writing workshop represented experiences from different stakeholders within MS, including the Policy Advisory Boards, the MS Board, MS institutional members, the Contact Group for development workers, and the International Department.
In summary, the paper has three major parts apart from this introduction.
The first part summarises the approaches, which form a framework for the new direction in the personnel programme. Within the context of the MS partnership approach, it argues for a focus on poverty eradication as MS long-term goal and discusses the concepts of poverty and the rationale and direction for a more political focus in MS work.
The second part proposes a diverse and flexible personnel assistance programme with North-South, South-South and South-North components.
The third and last one summarises the main recommendations for action.
Eight brief working papers written by the WGPA and contributions from other stakeholders in the programme have been used as background material and may also be consulted by those who look for more detailed information.
Partnership against poverty
The “MS in the South programme” is informed by the policy document Solidarity through Partnership (2001). This document specifies two interrelated and equally important overarching objectives, namely poverty eradication and intercultural co-operation.
There has been a debate regarding whether intercultural co-operation should be an overarching objective at par with poverty eradication, or a means in the fight against poverty. Having the two overarching objectives has, at the same time, created confusion, in some cases leading to a lack of focus. The issue of intercultural co-operation was also critically taken up by the evaluation report, MS at the Crossroads (2004).
As a consequence, it is now suggested that the fight against poverty be placed as the overarching objective in the programme, whereas intercultural co-operation should be seen as an important means towards achieving poverty eradication.
The partnership approach in MSiS has proven to be effective and was also strongly commended in MS at the Crossroads. The partnership approach is effective because it is needs-driven and leads to sharing of ideas, transfer of skills and mutual learning.
In the partnership approach, the personnel component is of vital importance; hence a true partnership must entail relations between people working together to achieve common development goals and cannot simply be built on transfer of money, equipment or other material resources.
A new strategic thrust
If the MSiS programme is reoriented along the lines suggested in this policy paper, this would entail elements of continuity as well as change. Solidarity through Partnership will still remain in force, and in many areas it contains more detailed guidelines than the present paper.
However, the status and role of intercultural co-operation will be different and there will be added emphasis on certain other elements, notably the political approach to poverty eradication and increased use of South personnel. This policy paper will give the MSiS programme a new strategic thrust, which may be summarised in the following points:
– Poverty eradication as the overarching objective;
– A sharpening of the poverty focus;
– Intercultural co-operation seen as an important means with which to achieve poverty reduction;
– A more political approach to poverty reduction directed at the social, economic and cultural institutions and practices that reproduce poverty;
– An emphasis on empowerment, advocacy, networking and alliance building;
– A strengthened focus on capacity building of MS and partners ability to analyse and address gender inequalities;
– Diversity, reflecting a needs-based partnership approach;
– More flexible use of DWs (short/long term, serving one/several partners, clusters)
– Extensive use of South DWs (recruited nationally as well as from other countries);
– Expanded exchange programmes (individuals/institutions, interns and professionals)
– Links to the emerging international global civil society.
Poverty eradication
In referring to the fight against poverty, MS has used the term poverty eradication. This is the ultimate long-term goal in the MSiS programme. Poverty is understood in the absolute sense (below the poverty line/basic needs) since some inequality – and, therefore, in a sense, relative poverty – will continue to exist in the foreseeable future. In terms of the more concrete activities of the programme, the short-term goal is poverty reduction.
The MS Development Worker needs to be a central actor in MS’s pursuit of poverty reduction. It is necessary that each type of DW and each form of activity undertaken by DWs, both in the south and in Denmark, can find its logic in the policy of Partnership against Poverty.
Poverty is seen as the outcome of processes of impoverishment and deprivation rooted in the political, social, economic and cultural relations present in societies. Poor men, women and children:
– Have no control over and very limited access to productive resources;
– Are not able to cover such basic needs as food, shelter, health and education;
– Are often denied fundamental rights;
– Are often victims of social exclusion and discrimination;
– Lack protection and security;
– Are vulnerable to adverse circumstances and external shocks;
– Are constrained in their actions by lack of knowledge and information;
– Have limited or no possibilities of exercising choice, and
– Lack power.
There are many ways of conceptualising poverty and the fight against it. A suitable conceptual approach needs to take account of the different ways and means that poverty eradication and poverty reduction are pursued by partner organisations in MSiS country and regional programmes.
The means used to combat poverty cover a wide range, in terms of focus as well as of levels for implementation. Some means are clearly political and attack the root causes of poverty – locally or in wider settings as in national or global campaigns. Other means aim more directly at bringing about change in e.g. the livelihoods of groups of poor people – thereby facilitating that these people are better equipped to act on bettering their own situation.
The partners within the MSiS country and regional programmes are thus a blend of small and large organisations that ideally can work together and use each others’ strategic position at the different levels: Locally-nationally-globally. Development Workers, be they from North or the South can play a role in linking their organisations in networks that can engage in advocacy and other types of civic action for change.
The diversity can be reduced to two principal types of activities in which partner organisations, supported by DWs, are engaged: one set of activities directed at enhancing the capacities and capabilities of the individual members of the target group and a second set of activities directed at changing the social, economic, cultural and political context in which these members with their different forms of poverty are located.
The four areas of state, market, local community and household are the four areas in which change for poverty reduction is pursued. A partner organisations activities might be directed at only one or two of these and may be primarily directed at an individual’s capabilities; for example giving education to illiterate women or providing landless bonded labourers information on their legal rights.
A partner organisation pursuing advocacy to change the law of womens inheritance rights or to change community attitudes towards women rape victims is seeking to change the structural context in which poor groups find themselves trapped.
In each type of activity, both at the general level and in particular, a DW should be able to place the contribution of their existing work with MS and with a partner in a clear poverty reduction perspective. S/he should also be able to help identify new activities that can further enhance their contribution to this objective. For the DW it requires that s/he can understand the nature of poverty.
Two core elements in recent thinking on poverty and poverty reduction are that (1) poverty is multi-dimensional, and (2) poverty is relational. Based upon these two core elements, a framework for approaching poverty based upon a number of “capabilities” is proposed:
– Economic capabilities (ability to earn an income, to consume and to have assets, which are all key to food security, material well-being and social status);
– Human capabilities (health, education, nutrition, clean water and shelter, core elements of well-being as well as crucial means for improving livelihoods);
– Political capabilities (human rights, political freedoms, a voice and some influence over public policies and political priorities: powerlessness aggravates other dimensions of poverty since the politically weak neither have the voice in policy reforms nor secure access to resources required to rise out of poverty);
– Socio-cultural capabilities to participate as valued members of a community (social status, dignity and other cultural conditions for belonging to a society; geographic and social isolation is the main meaning of poverty for people in many local societies);
– Protective capabilities to withstand economic and external shocks (insecurity and vulnerability due to seasonal variations, natural disasters, economic crises and violent conflicts).
These are dynamic concepts that help to understand the main dimensions of poverty and as to how people move in and out of poverty. They can be linked to the discussion of two types of poverty reducing activities: the individual and the structural.
At the same time these capabilities are inter-connected and are inter-twined with the cross-cutting issues of gender and the environment. Special emphasis has to be put on gender inequalities resulting in men and women not having equal economic, human, political, socio-cultural and protective capabilities. Gender imbalances in these areas put women at a much higher risk of becoming poor. In a number of countries, particularly in Africa, these capabilities are also linked to the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
In their activities, MS partners can strengthen the capabilities of poor men, women and children in diverse ways, but – given the new strategic thrust – with a special emphasis on doing this through a political approach that includes greater emphasis on the structural aspects of poverty.
Political approach
A more “political” approach will make the programme more effective in achieving its objectives or, in other words, to produce a greater impact towards eradication of poverty.
In more concrete terms, a political approach to fighting poverty may entail a range of different activities by partners, supported by development workers (DWs), including:
– Supporting/mobilising/training poor people individually and collectively;
– Creating political space for the activities of the poor;
– Strengthening and building capacity in CSOs for political activities;
– Engaging in issue-based advocacy and lobbying ;
– Providing linkages from the local to the national and international levels;
– Building alliances between different actors in civil society;
– Getting involved in broader social movements, and
– Providing links to the emerging global civil society (for example, the World Social Forum).
MS is well equipped to address such an agenda. Its great comparative advantage is that it has a significant presence that reaches from the grassroots level in fairly remote parts of a number of South countries to the national capitals. Moreover, it straddles the South-North divide, with a focus on Denmark but also with links to other parts of the North, through networks and alliances.
Evidently, how to work with such a political agenda will vary from country to country, depending on the context, the needs and, not least, the partners’ views and capabilities. In cases where loosely structured social movements are identified as partners, this may entail a less formal and rigid approach to the partnership (in terms of agreement, organisation, etc.).
A more “political” approach does not entail that MSiS should begin to get involved, in any way, in party politics in the programme countries. But it takes as its point of departure an understanding of poverty as being rooted in unequal and unjust social, economic and political structures. Poverty can be reduced by concrete interventions of a service delivery nature, and there should still be room for such interventions in the future MSiS.
However, the impact of these is necessarily limited and localised, and hence they must be linked to advocacy in order to produce a greater impact. In the future, the main thrust of MSiS must be directed at attacking the structural causes of poverty, the societal factors that keep the majorities in the programme countries in poverty and powerlessness, while at the same time enabling a minority elite to be rich and powerful. Control over resources is central to power and wealth.
Obviously, the structural factors behind this are not restricted to the local and national levels. The historical developments leading to todays situation began in the colonial epoch, and the inequalities produced then have since been reinforced through unequal trade, the accumulation of a crippling debt burden, and processes of globalisation that marginalise poor people and, in some cases, entire countries. Thus, MS should undertake international political activities to address such issues.
In the future, MS will be even more carefully seeking collaboration with organisations that are able and committed to contribute to the fulfilment of the programmes overarching objective of poverty eradication. Many partners are already working in this direction, and some also inspire and influence the strategic thinking in the country programme. Others have a strong potential and may want to work effectively with poverty eradication with MS assistance.
The partnership portfolio does not reflect a certain political conditionality imposed by MS. Both actors influence each other in a partnership, and the idea is that MS and the partners jointly explore the possibilities for working on poverty eradication.
However, it is the partners that must be doing the actual work in attacking poverty, whereas MS and the development workers (DWs) typically contribute to strengthening partners through organisational capacity development. If coupled with advocacy or other political activities, service delivery can contribute to giving legitimacy to the political activities.
Partners will typically be civil society organisations (CSOs), either non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or community-based organisations (CBOs). But they could also be, for example, trade unions or social movements. Strengthening of civil society will remain central to MSiS, but with added emphasis on strengthening those actors involved in more “political” activities.
State institutions at, for example, local government level, may also in the future be selected as partners, but on the prerequisite that they aim at contributing to poverty eradication.
As part of a political approach, MSiS must aim at improving poor peoples ability to fight against poverty, injustice and powerlessness. Access to resources, improved livelihoods, enhanced knowledge and secured rights can all be seen as elements in the fight against poverty.
The powerlessness epitomises the plight of poor people. Empowerment of poor men, women and children – individually and collectively – is a crucial means to bring about change. Empowerment entails developing capabilities, challenging injustices and engaging in political struggles. Moreover, empowerment is a non-provocative term for working in a more political way, and MSiS is already working with this to a considerable degree.
On a more global level, MS is also involved in an “Alliance for Poverty Eradication” that aims at strengthening civil society in a number of South countries in efforts to combat poverty. This is being done in a broad alliance that includes a range of Danish NGOs from different parts of the NGO “landscape” (for example, development NGOs, trade unions and organisations of persons with disabilities).
With a gender and advocacy focus, the concrete activities aim at capacitating and supporting civil society actors that try to get involved in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) processes or alternative approaches to poverty eradication. MS-Central America, MS-Zambia and MS-Nepal all take part in this programme which can be seen as an example of a political approach.
Some NGOs have adopted a “rights-based approach” to development and development assistance (for example, ActionAid and Danchurchaid). In many ways, this can also be seen as a more political approach, and it certainly overlaps with what has been presented above. However, it is a somewhat more narrow approach, and it contains an ambiguity between the political and legal dimensions.
Nevertheless, a focus on human rights can, indeed, be seen as one way of politicising development interventions, and many MSiS programmes already contain strong elements of this (for example, training of ordinary, poor people as paralegal workers in order to defend their rights).
Successful advocacy necessitates existence of at least three pre-conditions.
Existence of specified issues:
This is, by nature, the most important pre-condition for successful advocacy. A lot of advocacy initiatives do, however, fall on this factor. Either they actually do not have an issue at all (but are “running for the money” in advocacy), or they have not defined it adequately. Partners that enter into partnership with MS need to have one or several issues around which they are determined to provoke change.
Determination to change:
Most often, people do not easily give up their positions. They have to be convinced in some way or other to change praxis. Such processes often require a large amount of commitment, stubbornness and willingness to take risks – in other words, determination.
Capacity:
Advocacy processes often entail activities in areas like policy analysis, documentation and research, working with the media, establishing networks and producing campaign materials. Thus, there is a need for different capacities, which will not always be present.
Working together will strengthen advocacy capacity on both sides. It is not just partners who may lack certain capacities. MS generally – at country office level as well as at headquarters – may also need to develop its own capacity.
Moving MSiS in a more political direction will put new demands on the efforts and qualifications of DWs. To some extent, this can be seen as one step further in a direction which MSiS has taken long ago. In recent years, the focus in the programme has been on facilitation, advice and capacity development. Gradually the recruitment of Danish DWs has shifted in the direction of a majority with academic backgrounds.
With the outlined political approach, facilitation, advice and capacity development will remain important elements in the activities of DWs, now subsumed under the heading “empowerment”. In many cases, a relevant academic background will be an advantage, but practical working experience and organisational capabilities (however acquired) will be useful. In any case, it is important that qualifications, personality and commitment match partner needs.
Evidently, a more political approach also entails certain risks for partners, DWs and MS. Partners risk being accused of doing what they do at the instigation of foreign actors, and this may undermine their legitimacy. DWs risk harassment – and ultimately being thrown out of the country – if their activities in the view of authorities are too visibly “political” and informed by a critical position vis-a-vis the government.
The same applies to MS as such. National activists risk being prosecuted or jailed. Of course, a more political approach has to be pursued responsibly and with a degree of caution. Clearly, the partners must be in the “drivers seat”. There are already good examples of this in some programmes, for example, in Kenya. It is a question of finding the right balance.
Programme flexibility and personnel diversity
MS wants to work with a partnership programme in the fight against poverty. A precondition for an authentic partnership programme is that both MS and partner organisations are physically present where the work is done. Personnel, therefore, are an important element for facilitating such a partnership.
Development is about people and co-operation between people. Mutual learning is enhanced through dialogue, learning by doing, and joint reflection on the nature of poverty. Creativity and innovation are enhanced when people with different backgrounds meet. In this context, MS is committed to putting a strong emphasis on personnel and intercultural co-operation as important means in the combat against poverty.
It is important to see the emphasis on a political approach as a means to fight poverty and not as an end in itself. Political awareness, empowerment and action in the partnerships are tools which can help address some of the structural causes of poverty and personnel can be very instrumental in this.
Problems and obstacles
The partnership programme has now been in existence for more than a decade. This approach has produced a number of positive outcomes, not least a qualitatively different relationship between North and South, between MS and the partners. But there have also been shortcomings and problems related to the personnel programme.
The more important challenges that need to be addressed are the following:
– Lack of flexibility;
– Lack of a clear poverty-orientation in practice;
– Organisational reluctance to change and try out innovations;
– Inconsistency in policies on MSiS as a personnel programme;
– Difficulty in streamlining policies within the MSiS programme;
– Country programmes not using the full potential of MSiS for South-South networking;
– Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities in relation to DW placement;
– Half-hearted political support (by some governments, partner organisations and communities) for placement of Danish DWs;
– Lack of continuity, with DWs often starting afresh;
– Differences in matters such as language and culture in general between Danish DWs and colleagues, and
– Lack of transparency about resources attached to a DW.
Diversified personnel
MS has mainly been sending personnel from North to South on fixed contracts of two years with a possibility of extension. This inflexibility of the programme does not suit the diverse needs of the partner organisations.
MS believes that development workers are among the most effective input in assistance. However, the input needs to be developed further to suit partners diverse needs. It is recommended that a personnel programme characterised by diversity, opening up of new types of development workers, flexibility in length of input and new constructions be implemented in the coming years.
The categories of development workers envisaged are briefly described below.
A Danish/Northern DW – comes from Northern Europe. Coming from outside with different cultural and political experiences and knowledge must be regarded as a comparative advantage in relation to:
– bringing in new ideas;
– suggesting alternative modes of operation;
– permitting strange questions;
– fostering critical discussion;
– raising political consciousness;
– promoting dialogue and ensuring that minorities are heard;
– offering some organisational protection;
– facilitating access to institutions and authorities;
– creating linkages, also internationally;
– enhancing resource mobilisation, and
– furthering development education in Denmark/the North.
A South DW working in the South comes from a neighbouring or another country in the South, – not necessarily a South country, where MS operates. The DW could have experience from a like-minded organisation, which has overcome similar types of problems in similar political environments, which must be regarded as a comparative advantage.
In most other ways, s/he has the same advantages as the North DWs (cf. above) with the important qualification that s/he brings in a different Southern perspective. Thus, s/he offers inter-cultural co-operation in the form of South-South co-operation.
A National DW comes from the same country as the partner organisation. Thus, it is easier to get political support of her/his activities at all levels. A National DW has an intimate knowledge of culture, language and society, which makes the facilitation processes easier.
A national DW possesses especially knowledge on the political context of the country or other specific issues, which must be regarded as a comparative advantage. The DW is familiar with working in a political setting, for example, with lobby and advocacy. The DW knows which channels to use for putting a message through to the public and for lobbying at the political level, which can be beneficial to the partners.
Also, experience and learning acquired in the course of working with MS partners remains in the country even after s/he finishes her/his work.
One interesting possibility could be to place a Southern and a Northern DW with different qualifications in the same job (twinning), either serving one partner or several partners. Another option is a (national) DW working together with community-based volunteers (as tried out in Nepal).
Both national and other Southern DWs stand out as different from ordinary staff employed by a given partner in several ways:
– They have ideally, qualifications going beyond the professional skills needed and they bring with them working methods that are special to MS (including values, commitment, and personal integrity). Southern DWs will have received a preparation and training that is at least at level with Danish/Northern DWs’ training.
– They execute a more facilitating role than, for example, a consultant or an employee.
– They will often be utilised as “roving DWs” or be placed a bit outside the formal structure of the partner organisation.
A South DW working in the North in many ways has the same advantages as a North DW working in the South (cf. above). However, the overall objective is different in as much as it does not focus on poverty eradication. The purpose is to foster better mutual understanding, shared learning and general awareness raising about development issues.
Recruiting people from the South going to the North is not a new idea. Around 1990, MS had a “reverse volunteer” programme focusing on themes such as media and culture, which proved to be highly useful and relevant.
North-South and South-South Personnel
Professional qualifications
MS and the partner have to consider carefully what types of professional assistance the partner organisation needs within roughly the following five categories.
Lobby and advocacy for creating structural change at a higher political level through the assistance of a DW that can foster political consciousness about power relations, structures of inequality and institutional dynamics: The DW facilitates the partner in developing methods for advocacy usable for either very local activities or bigger campaigns and strategic use of the media. The aim is to make lobby and advocacy more effective, in close co-operation with linkages and networks.
Specific professional input to support poor peoples livelihood by bringing in technical skills, and capacitating the organisation within specific areas, such as agriculture, natural resources management, local democracy, human rights: The aim is to build technical skills into the partner organisation, so they are able to support poor people with relevant tools in order to sustain their livelihood.
Organisational development especially for enhancing accountability to poor people: This demands a facilitating and advisory role. The DW can bring in new ideas regarding transparency in decision-making, a more horizontal organisational structure, motivation and involvement of staff, volunteers and members.
One qualification is an ability to analyse the organisation and suggest changes. The aim for the DW is to assist in developing a well-functioning organisation, which is able to reach its goals.
Linkages and networking with like-minded organisations nationally, regionally and internationally: Facilitating a broader South-South and South-North co-operation is an important tool for creating mutual learning and synergy between partners. The aim is to set a common agenda targeting poverty reduction, for example, through lobby and advocacy activities creating structural change.
Cross-cutting issues: Assisting and facilitating that partners become aware of the importance of working with for example gender, where the DW can facilitate and strengthen the ability to analyse and address gender, which is important, if both women and men should be able to benefit from empowerment and a reduction of poverty.
Types of personnel input (based on contract length and mode of operation)
It is recommended that a flexible programme consists of different types of personnel contracts and exchanges, where long terms DWs can operate within three different frameworks.
A long term DW working with one partner can be beneficial, when entering into a new partnership, in order to establish good working relations and confidentiality, provided that the task demands it. For some partners, securing continuity and stability may also call for a long-term DW. In other cases, the long-term DW may at times be under-utilised by the partner organisation.
A roving long term DW collaborating with two or more partners seems to be a good choice for a specific input, for example, concerning NGO management and advocacy, which a number of partners could benefit from. The advantage is a specific focus, joint courses together with the possibility of continuous follow-up by the DW.
A cluster is a group of long term DWs with different but complementary qualifications, who co-operate with more than one partner. A cluster would be ideal for assisting partners with different inputs together with building strong networks, where partners can exchange ideas and approaches, participate in training and work closely together to achieve common goals at a higher political level.
A short term DW is best suited for a very specific, time-limited assignment, such as exploring a new area or a new partnership. It can also be to capacitate a partner within a specific, professional area.
Medium-term volunteers are young persons with little work experience who volunteer to work in an institution in the South. A partner with MS-Uganda has good experiences with placing such personnel.
Interns coming from the institutional members of MS and educational institutions are also a possible component. Interns are students who stay with a partner, as part of their professional education for up to 6 months carrying out a specific assignment.
Exchange personnel: Exchange goes from North to South, South to North and South to South. Exchange can secure mutuality in the programmes and in itself promote a strong platform for Intercultural Co-operation for change.
There are numerous good examples (e.g. the former MS study tours to Palestine/Israel) of how personnel exchange has changed individuals fundamentally in relation to awareness, knowledge, and commitment linked to the combat against poverty.
This commitment also spills over in mobilising others for the cause. It is also important to point out that the intercultural contact and the existence of a well-planned and politically meaningful activity can impact strongly on a local community and trigger mobilisation for action against poverty.
There are at least the following possibilities:
– Youth exchange could consist of work camps, seminars, conferences, and campaigns with a specific theme, such as HIV/Aids or establishing youth committees within established organisations which a group of young people from different countries participates in.
– Exchanges up to a few weeks, including “reality tours” and visits, combining aeminars and exposure of different groups in Denmark to the issues of poverty and development. This could be a specific group, such as pensioners, schoolteachers and students and interest groups.
– Exchange programmes/twinning between Denmark and the South or between two South countries: Partners, especially larger ones or those networking within a specific component, could benefit by being part of a professional exchange. A professional individual from the partners could see how things are working in a different context, network with/create/contribute to solidarity/understanding/development and receive an exchange professional who can learn from the partner and his or her country upon return.
North–South exchanges have to be partly paid by participants themselves, whereas MS and others, for instance institutional members, should fundraise for the exchanges going from South to North.
Recruitment
It is presently of a comparatively high quality and also screens candidates with respect to values and personal commitment to MS policies. This will continue with respect to Danish personnel.
Recruitment of SDWs, will necessarily take place in the South. Such a process is difficult to outsource. It is therefore recommended that each CO employs a Human Resource Officer. This person will have many functions in relation to personnel issues, but a main task is to recruit suitable SDWs.
In some instances recruitment will take place in countries where MS is not present (e.g. MS Mozambique recruiting a Brazilian). In such cases the recruiting HR officer preferably should work together with a likeminded organisation where a candidate can be identified.
MS in DK will work out a framework and guidelines for a simple and effective selection procedure. It is foreseen that all programmes as much as possible use this framework. Given the fragility of the selection system – especially when it comes to assessing value orientation and commitment – it is recommended that a probation period of three months be introduced for all DW contracts.
Preparation
Preparation of DWs will probably soon undergo reforms. There are some indications that it will be conducted as a much more individualised training in the future. Planning will be done in a dialogue between the candidate, training institutions like MS TCDC, and the partner/Country Office.
The preparation and training needs of SDWs may differ from those identified for Northern DWs. An important component is, however, an introduction to MS and the policies of MSiS. The training for SDWs should qualitatively and in scope be at the same level as that invested in the DDWs.
Terms of service
Possible systems, not least on remuneration, have been investigated during the last years. Experience has proved that it is very difficult to reach a decision on what should be enforced. It is expected that MS will make an effort ending with a decision that can be implemented and described by the Administration Department.
In a complex system as MSiS, one cannot expect that any terms of service will be accepted 100 per cent by everybody. It is unrealistic to expect consensus even though the system strives for it. It is recommended that the following guiding principles be used when setting up a system for terms of service:
Salaries and other benefits: Standard conditions are developed based on the following model for all types of DWs:
– Cost for practical preparation (luggage allowance and the like) based on cost level in country of origin;
– Salary and benefits during the contract period based on levels in country of work;
– Home country supplement for maintaining family, house and similar conditions based on home country levels, and
– Repatriation of benefits at the end of contract based on home country levels.
Salary and employment conditions for DWs should be in line with equivalent employment in the country. Economic objectives should not be the predominant motive for a DW candidate. Motivation should rather be based on the candidates personal commitment to solidarity and the partnership approach.
Equity: Conditions pertaining to SDWs cannot just be copies of what is in force for DDWs. However, the terms should clearly be equitable compared to the DDW system. For example, remuneration must take into account the living conditions in the country of service as well as the level of remuneration in the country of origin.
Transparency: The terms of service must be known by partners and other stakeholders.
Employer/DW relationship: It is still being discussed whether the DW is fully or only partly employed by the partner. Irrespective of the conclusion reached in the future, the S DWs should be employed in the same way as DDWs.
Relevant legal matters related to employment: Terms and conditions required by law, including tax, have to be investigated and followed both in the country of service and in country of origin.
Bridging and Information-sharing
An important role of the DDW is to bring information and contacts back to Denmark. Extensive use of SDWs will require that a country programme looks for ways of compensating for the South-North contacts hitherto made by DDWs.
Alternatives include making more use of internships, facilitating international exchange, and intensifying the work of the information DWs. Using SDW adds an advantage to the programme in terms of enhanced South-South networking. The SDW should be obliged to relay information about the country of service back to the country of origin.
Issues to consider
Priority of partners needs:
The stated partner need for a given type of DW should be followed. There will be no quota setting on how many of which category a country programme should recruit. The numerical balance between different types of DWs needs to be monitored, not least for planning purposes.
If the unexpected happens that an unacceptable imbalance is noted, the country programme will have to negotiate with partners about the types of DWs that they request. Where there is “twinning” between a DDW and a SDW, it is recommended that very clear job descriptions outlining roles and responsibilities form a basis for the work. Whenever possible, both DWs should be involved in adjusting the job descriptions.
Political support:
DDWs are covered by a government agreement. Externally recruited SDWs are seen as expatriates seeking work in the country programme. This makes them vulnerable and it can be difficult to get work permits. MS needs to negotiate with the governments in question. One way to solve the problem could be that the SDW will be formally contracted by MS-DK (and thereby covered by the existing government agreement).
Potential unfamiliarity with the SDW:
Most partners are familiar with the concept of a Danish DW. The SDW is a new concept; both partners and the communities may not be very conversant with it. Therefore, there is a potential for misunderstanding, caution or reservations. MS should make a very thorough and proper introduction of the concept when it is to be implemented.
Potential political risk:
For National DWs, there exists a potential risk for the DW if s/he is very outspoken in political matters. This risk is bigger than that pertaining to a DDW or a SDW from another country.
South–North personnel
In a working relationship people are dependent on others living up to responsibilities and agreements. Much is gained when people of different cultures work together. It will often mean a confrontation with established habits and be an inspiration for new practises.
An inter-cultural working relationship will provide many people with an opportunity to know about living and working conditions in another culture, which becomes relevant by the fact that they work in the same field or sector.
The institutional members of MS are a big potential for the South-North exchange. Their membership varies in size and background. They represent many aspects of the Danish society from big national organisations to interest groups and different types of educational institutions.
To promote the South-North exchange MS will conduct an awareness campaign among the institutional members, since there are a number of unexplored possibilities. This will link the institutional members closer to MS and promote the opportunities for linkages in alliance projects.
Short term Professionals: Based on requests by MSs institutional members and others, these could be twinning exercises, including, for examples:
– Roving short-term professionals teaching at Danish Folk High Schools or “free schools”.
– Labour Unions with international work.
– University, e.g. Department of Anthropology and Literature.
– Small NGOs working with development issues, e.g. concerning project preparation.
– Interest groups focusing on specific issues, e.g. environment, gender or HIV/AIDS.
An intern:
This is a young person from the South coming to Denmark to work in an institution or organisation to learn and experience, e.g. practices, management and administration. This person may also work within one of MS institutional members.
They may also be attached to the MS regional associations and learn about democracy in Denmark at grass-root level. Small Danish NGOs are given the opportunity to connect to the next generation of committed young people, who will get hands-on experience in working with their Danish partner.
Personnel assistance in terms of professional qualifications
In terms of input South-North personnel could be based on the following capacities:
– Professional qualifications, such as transfer of knowledge about specific issues and on Southern countries that the short term professionals posses;
– Lobby and advocacy in Denmark for political support within MS policies, for example, poverty eradication and other development issues.
– Facilitating shared learning between organisations and individuals on each other’s experiences and knowledge.
– Creating linkages and networking with like-minded organisations in Denmark for the sake of entering into long term co-operation based on mutual interests.
Other issues:
CO office staff may facilitate the exchange by:
– Identifying and selecting the short-term professional or intern in accordance with the request from Denmark.
– Conduct a short preparation for the short-term professional or intern.
– Assist in practical matters.
MS in Denmark may facilitate the exchange by:
– Co-financing the exchange or assist in fundraising.
– Assisting in practical matters.
The short-term professionals and interns should be made familiar with the values of MS and respect these as is the case with DWs.
For any exchange a contract or agreement between the short-term professional or the intern and the Danish organisation/institution should be signed.
Impact monitoring and evaluation
The evaluation MS at the Crossroads (2004) pointed out that MS is in dire need of a stronger monitoring and evaluation system. There is little documentation on what MS and the partners are actually doing and what comes out of it.
There are three strong reasons for MS to strengthen its M and E. The most important is that MS and its partners need to visibly be accountable to the people that are targeted (the “beneficiaries”). Furthermore, MS or partners should also be accountable to donors. Finally, effective organisational development and learning presuppose that monitoring is part of the organisations activities.
MS is now furthering a participatory impact monitoring system, which in itself contributes to organisational capacity building and joint learning. It is based on two very simple tools: The Quarterly Monitoring Chart (QMC) and The Most Significant Changes (MSC) approach.
The experiences so far are promising. It is expected that partners will now be able to assess how well they actually contribute to poverty reduction or poverty eradication. The methods put an emphasis on continuous reflection on how the organisation’s activities make a significant difference for the people that they work with and for.
The systems – necessarily coupled with other monitoring and evaluation techniques – also make the individual country programme able to monitor its effects in relation to its country programme strategy (“Policy Paper”).
There is a need for identifying and implementing other simple systems in the future. For example, MS needs to monitor and document the effects of placing MS Development Workers and to monitor how the present policy paper is implemented. MS should be prepared to outsource the more resource demanding parts of such work.
Recommendations and the way forward
A number of recommendations have been suggested in various parts of the preceding sections. Here the most important recommendations are pulled together and some practical ways of moving forward are also suggested.
MS Objectives
– Poverty eradication should be MSs overarching objective. Intercultural co-operation should be an important means of fighting poverty.
Political orientation
– There should be a sharpening of poverty focus. Issue based advocacy is a crucial means of achieving this. Sharpening the poverty focus demands the following:
– Dialogue with existing and potential partners who can further this in the context of poverty eradication;
– Engaging with and supporting partners whose poverty reduction activities are likely to have a positive impact on poor men, women and children – taking a gender mainstreaming approach into consideration;
– Tailoring political work to the needs and circumstances of each country;
– Identifying and engaging personnel who have not only professional qualifications (facilitation, advice, and capacity development) and working experience and organisational abilities but also personality and commitment to MS vision and values.
Programme flexibility and personnel diversity
A diverse personnel programme should have the following components:
– Northern DWs working in the south;
– Southern DWs working in the south;
– National DWs working in the south in their own countries;
– Southern DWs working in the north;
– Volunteers working in the south ;
– Exchange personnel;
– Interns.
– The personnel should have qualifications and capabilities which enable them to:
– Engage in issue based lobbying and advocacy;
– Give professional input in their area of expertise;
– Participate in organisational development;
– Contribute to creating linkages and networks at local, national and international levels;
– Strengthen the ability to analyse and address gender.
– The programme should be flexible enough to allow for a variety of personnel including:
– Long term;
– Roving;
– Cluster;
– Short term;
– Medium term volunteers;
– Interns;
– Exchange personnel.
– Recruitment and preparation should be based on professional qualifications, values and commitment to the MS vision and policies.
– MS Denmark should recruit Northern DWs while Country programmes should recruit Southern DWs.
– MS Denmark should work out a framework and guidelines for recruitment
– Preparation of personnel should be based on more individualised training based on partner needs, apart from introduction to MS and its policies, which should be done with respect to all personnel.
– Terms of service should be based on the current system but take account of equity and transparency.
– Whatever employment relationship between MS and personnel is developed should be the same for both Northern and Southern personnel.
– Terms should comply with the legal requirements of each respective country.
– In respect of Southern DWs, alternative ways of bridging and information-sharing between North and South should include use of internships, international exchange and information DWs.
Ways and means to introduce proposed changes to all stakeholders
– Circulation of draft policy paper to COs and PABs
– Travelling Topic Team
– Workshops with partners, DWs, and COs
– Producing inspirational guidelines
– Raising issues at various meetings or fora (Annual Meeting, PDM, APM etc.)
– Cross-country workshops with COs
– Regional workshops
– Creating or generating a demand amongst partners by identifying concrete placements
– Identifying good examples of use of SDWs
Kilde: www.ms.dk
