Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
‘The Accidental Aid
Worker’
A Mapping of Citizen Initiatives
for Global Solidarity in Europe
Overview presentation
Subject & rationale How it was approached Main findings
– Concept & characteristics– Governmental policy– Funding of CIs– Support of CIs– Representation & monitoring of CIs
Conclusions & way forward
What? Working definition of CI
“Small-scale initiatives or projects, set up by private persons in the North, aiming at improvement of standards of living of people in the South, and not sorting under other known classic or new development actors (bilateral & multilateral agencies, established NGDOs, corporations, societal institutions)”
Entry point for mapping
Why this study?
New players in the field of development aid Mainstreaming & socialisation Passive and active role of the citizen Studied in Netherlands & Belgium – but what about
elsewhere in Europe?
How? The approach
Gathering facts & contacts First step / incomplete Countries representative for EU & Europe Observation grid (concept, taxonomy, policy,
funding, support…) Sources: interviews, documents, research
work
Where?
EU or/and OECD-DAC ODA figure Pragmatism 17 countries
Common concept, common category?
Concept, labels & names Legal status Size Volunteers only? Non-specialists? NGDOs-in-the making or voluntary sector for
the South?
How many?
Databases Counts, extrapolations & estimate Overall second order estimate: 100.000 to
200.000 citizen initiatives
CI characteristics
Different roots Type of projects: DEAR & tangible projects Target groups: children, vulnerable groups Life cycle
Governmental policy: input
Hind-laying goals: public support, diversification Implementation level: decentralised and local Instruments:
– financial support (sub-granting)– nonfinancial support (training, capacity building)– fiscal policy
Government policy: limiting factors
Aid budget Considerations: aid effectiveness, scale of
operation, right-based approach, ownership Promotion of alternative deployment of
citizen engagement (volunteering)
Private funding
Most important (diversified) source of income Informal networks Dependent on giving behaviour attitudes Churches / parishes Foundations Specialised (funding) organisations NGDO support
Public funding
Strict criteria Registration / partnerships / co-funding South- and DEAR activities mixed Focus on professionalisation, not pluralism Provided at different government levels
National public funding
Least common level Many schemes abolished Aimed at supporting established NGDOs
– Effectiveness discussion– Transaction costs
Sub-granting system Tax system
– Donations tax deductable– 1%
Regional and local public funding
Extent depends on degree of self-government Criteria /conditions vary per region Coexisting with national funding windows Small (symbolic) amounts Funding reduced substantially over the years Increasing focus on private sources
Nonfinancial support
Many umbrella organisations, but;– Focus on established NGDOs– Not many CIs are member
Regionally organised Specialised organisations Also by NGDOs Focus on training, capacity building, DEAR Combination with financial support
Representation & monitoring
Representation almost non-existent;– CIs not a distinct category– Ad hoc nature of CIs
(Central) data monitoring absent Monitoring fundraising: seal of approval CI project databases in few countries Scientific research limited
Conclusions
CIs are common but different Focus on tangible projects Strong local embedding Variety of policies facilitates CI activities Public funding difficult to get access to for CIs Nonfinancial support emerging Research still in its infancy
Which way forward?
Active, prominent citizens: part of the aid landscape
Need for recognition of CIs– Added value: weaknesses and strengths– Mutual learning– Scientific research
Thank you
Ignace Pollet
HIVA - KU Leuven
Rik Habraken
CIDIN - Radboud University Nijmegen
