A bold and practical proposal for the post-2015 framework

Joanna Wheeler

This post previously appeared on 22 March 2013 on the Participate blog. Subscribe to their blog for regular updates on the Participate initiative.

At the opening of the Advancing the Post‐2015 Sustainable Development Agenda conference in Bonn last month, Horst Kolher noted wryly in his opening remarks that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon asked the High Level Panel (HLP) to be ‘bold and practical’ in its recommendations for the post-2015 framework.

So far, it would appear that many of the proposals circulating are neither. Many are extremely technical, and seem disconnected from the realities of people living with extreme exclusion and marginalisation.

As the High Level Panel prepares the report of recommendations for the post-2015 framework, due to be finished at the end of May, it is an important moment to critically reflect on what these bold recommendations might look like.  One of the civil society declarations from Bonn aimed directly at the High Level Panel called for structural transformation that addresses ‘the failure of the current development model, which is rooted in unsustainable production and consumption patterns and exacerbates inequality as well as gender, race and class inequities.’ This is certainly bold in comparison to the current MDG framework, which leaves inequalities largely untouched.

Whilst the panel appears to be listening to civil society’s recommendations – for instance the recent Bali High Level Panel Communiqué released after the HLP meeting at the end of March, refers directly to the civil society declaration in Bonn, around the need for a new framework to ‘manage the world’s production and consumption patterns in more sustainable and equitable ways’ -  there is still too little being said about how to achieve the massive changes that would be required for sustainable development and social justice to be achieved on a global scale.  Skepticism and wariness characterize the views of many in relation to what is likely to be a protracted inter-governmental negotiation process. These have not had a good track record lately.

Here’s a bold and practical suggestion for the High Level Panel (and all those involved in trying to influence the post-2015 framework): citizen participation.  Not just citizen participation as in asking people living in greatest poverty to tell people in the UN what they want, but citizen participation as in creating opportunities for people to have a real say in the decisions that affect their lives. Not just citizens as in people holding passports for a particular national government, but people everywhere with the right to have rights, irrespective of their official status, gender, sexuality, disability, age, race, or religion.  Citizen participation is a bold approach for the post-2015 framework, because it turns much of received wisdom about ‘aid’ and international frameworks on its head:  it is not just about a small global elite ‘hearing the voices of the poor,’ but about creating sustainable and long-term mechanisms for citizens to be involved in decision-making at all levels (from local to global).  What is missing from all the talk about how to make the new global framework tackle the big problems facing all of us, is a focus on who needs to lead that transformation: citizens, themselves. Early findings from the Participate initiative show that top down policies and interventions frequently fail to respond to the everyday realities of those living in poverty, and increase their sense of powerlessness.

If it is done well, citizen participation would shake the very foundations of the current global power structure, getting to the root causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms.

Citizen participation is also practical in that there is already a long-track record of a range of approaches and mechanisms to citizen participation, and a large body of research that points to some clear ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ if you want meaningful citizen participation.  Consider where democracy is really flourishing at the moment:  while the US and many countries in Europe face financial crisis and political apathy, Brazil, India, South Africa, the Philippines, and others have been at the forefront of innovations in citizen participation.  There is a lot of evidence about how citizen participation can deliver better outcomes, in terms of citizens more capable of claiming their rights, states that are more accountable and responsive and societies that are more cohesive and inclusive.

According to the Participate initiative, the global framework could do at least two things to encourage meaningful citizen participation: strengthen the capacities of citizens to claim their rights (and of institutions to respond); and build in citizen-led processes of regulation and monitoring to really hold governments and agencies to account for their commitments in the post-2015 framework. (See Chapter 5 of ‘What Matters Most’ report).

This is not to suggest that citizen participation is a silver bullet.  It comes with its own potential problems and draw-backs, not least of which is the risk that it is used to keep people busy participating about relatively inconsequential questions, while the real power is exercised elsewhere.  It must be adapted to the particular circumstances and power dynamics in which it is used.  No global framework can really achieve a context-specific approach to addressing entrenched problems.  But a global framework can enable more opportunities for citizen participation that others can take up at local, national and regional levels.

The most compelling reason for taking citizen participation seriously in the post-2015 framework is not the view of a researcher at IDS (or anywhere else), but rather that it is a demand being made by people living in extreme poverty and marginalisation in over 100 countries. The Participate initiative has found that many of those living in the greatest exclusion and marginalisation believe that their meaningful participation can make development more inclusive and sustainable. People want to have a say in the actual decisions that get made about them.  If the international community were to listen, it would be truly bold.

Read other recent blog posts from Participate:

• What matters most? Participate Initiative presents research to post 2015 High Level Panel
• ‘Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow’
• Post-2015 civil society consultations: our shared perspectives
• Participatory visual processes in Nairobi’s margins

What Matters Most? Participate Initiative presents research to post 2015 High Level Panel

Catherine Setchell

This post previously appeared on 24 March 2013 on the Participate blog. Subscribe to their blog for regular updates on the Participate initiative.

The High Level Panel (HLP) of Eminent Persons appointed by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon met for the fourth time at the end of March in Bali, Indonesia to debate the future global development agenda after 2015, when the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire.

The Participate initiative, co-convened by IDS and Beyond2015 was there to present the findings of its synthesis research report, ‘What Matters Most? Evidence from 84 participatory studies with those living with extreme poverty and marginalisation’

Participate presented the early findings of their research synthesis at the second HLP meeting in February in Monrovia, Liberia to panel members and their advisors. Since this meeting, Participate has completed the analysis of 84 participatory research studies, and aims to inform the post-2015 policy discussions with evidence from people living in extreme poverty. The findings will be shared with the High Level Panel, civil society organisations and policymakers as part of a ‘town hall’ session on Citizens’ Voices for the Post-2015 Agenda at the Bali meeting.

The key messages that emerged from the research include the following:

• In 83 per cent of the studies, social inequalities were identified as persistent and perpetuating exclusion at all levels of development.
• A recurring message appeared in 63 per cent of studies that the very poorest are unable to access the infrastructure, services, support and opportunities that others who are less poor can.
• 73 per cent of the studies identified the need for meaningful participation of marginalised people in development which will lead to local ownership and the sustainability of development approaches.
• 44 per cent of the studies highlighted that poor governance reinforces poverty for the poorest and most marginalised.

Based on the findings from the research, Participate will be highlighting to the HLP in Bali that the success of the future post-2015 framework rests on its ability to respond to:

• Highly dynamic contexts                     

The landscape of poverty is increasingly characterised by crisis, shocks, conflict, uncertainty and volatility. Policies and approaches need to be more adaptive to continuously changing environments and circumstances.

• Social norms that discriminate

Systems and institutions that support people’s claims to rights can be undermined by intolerance and prejudice. Challenging unfair power structures that entrench inequalities is critical for positive change in people’s live.

• Complex relationships between different problems.

Answering one part of a problem does not produce sustainable outcomes for the poorest unless all interrelated issues are simultaneously addressed. Policies need to be underpinned by a deep systemic understanding of people’s everyday lives. Agile learning and processes for generating feedback are required at local, national and global levels.

The research shows that people living in greatest poverty and those most marginalised want a different kind of development, where interventions and public policies enact principles that are inclusive and sustainable.

Participate’s key recommendations, based on the findings of the research are:

• The post-2015 framework should aim for the eradication of extreme poverty and reduction in inequalities.
• The post-2015 framework should strengthen the individual and collective capacities of people living in greatest poverty and marginalisation
• Participation should be prioritised throughout the post-2015 framework.

Read other recent blog posts from Participate:

• ‘Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow’
• Post-2015 civil society consultations: our shared perspectives
• Participatory visual processes in Nairobi’s margins
• Time to Listen

‘Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow’

Lisa Van Dijk

This post previously appeared on 7 February 2013 on the Participate blog. Subscribe to their blog for regular updates on the Participate initiative.

لقراءة النسخة العربية من لهذا المقال يرجى الضغط هنا

Young people’s participation in planning and decision-making.

Young people in Egypt have been credited with igniting the fundamental change process demanding a more inclusive government which is responsive to their needs and aspirations. However many youth living in poor and informal areas are facing double marginalization. Apart from their existing level of poverty, they are facing a lack of opportunities, social exclusion and often there is an ingrained lack of trust towards the local administration. The Center for Development Services (CDS)  is working with young people across Egypt to build the capacity of the youth to implement community initiatives and enable them to actively participate in the planning and decision-making processes at the local level.

Youth PARTICIPATE is a research initiative within the Participate initiative which facilitates a process whereby youth groups provide a reflection of the reality under which they and their community live as a basis for their action. This youth-centered participatory action research is aimed to engaging youth and their peers in research to create positive social change. While we will be documenting and sharing the results of the initial assessment phase with the Beyond 2015 Participate Research group, the youth groups will use this inquiry to decide on community interventions in their communities and start a process of reflection and action.

Sharek  (Participate Song)

Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow
Come, and give your hand, so that you would not regret
Join us and say it out loud, and let’s change the mindsets
Come and let’s make us towards the road of change and love
It is a call for him, her and me! Let’s all dream for the days to come
Dream to see our country changing, and never surrender to reality or fate
Do you have an idea? Say it! Express it! And quit saying “I can’t”
Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow

(Song translated from Arabic, ‘Sharek’  means participate, contribute or share).

An initial workshop took place in Cairo where 35 youth researchers from urban informal slum and rural areas came together to share and discuss their research questions and develop an initial plan for their inquiry.

The youth were supported to use visual art research tools such as graffiti, participatory videoing and photography, and to think through how to make use of these tools in expressing themselves and to draw the research findings from the community. During the workshop young (peer) art facilitators worked with the youth research groups to introduce the art forms. The art facilitators will support the youth groups in the use of the different art research tools while doing their research. In this workshop the youth researchers developed a research slogan and song to motivate themselves and mobilise the communities interest in what they are doing.

‘Share an idea so that you and I can change tomorrow.’

Currently the youth groups are conducting the research in their communities. A reflection workshop has taken place in the first week of March to bring together all the art work developed and reflect on the peer and community discussions around the art work. The reflection is forming the basis for the youth led initiatives to promote social inclusion and civic participation. During the reflection workshop we were working with a youth network called Whats Up Youth. We would like to the share art tools produced through their WUPY social cafe, a social online forum for youth, to get input from youth all over the country and feed this into the reflection.

Lisa Van Dijk is a partner researcher working on the Participate initiative, based at the Participation, Power and Social Change team at IDS

What were the PPSC blog’s Top 10 posts of 2012?

Stephen Wood

On behalf of the IDS Participation, Power and Social Change research team, I’d like to welcome back our readers to what we hope proves to be a fascinating year for our blog. Reflecting the outputs from several research projects and a number of pressing global debates and issues we are engaged in, the PPSC research team have some really interesting pieces in the pipeline in the next few months.  I hope you’ll continue to read and engage with the debates and discussion that arise from our articles.

However, in case you missed some of our blogs last year, I thought you might like to look at our Top 10 most popular pieces, as well as some of our articles that you might have missed! Please do share these with your networks, add comments if you haven’t already and as always, encourage others to subscribe to the blog!

Top 10 blog posts of 2012:

1. “Just do women’s empowerment”  by Naomi Hossain
2. “On having Voice and Being Heard: Participation in the Post-2015 Policy Process”  by Elizabeth Mills
3. “Spring uprisings calling spring academics: #bring books out to the streets” by Maria-Josep Cascant Sempere
4. “Global development: the new buzzword?” by Maria-Josep Cascant Sempere and Alex Kelbert
5. “Eleven predictions for Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood (if they continue to remain in power” by Mariz Tadros
6. “Post 2015: What do policymakers know about poverty?” by Joanna Wheeler and Danny Burns
7. “No gong for Cameron’s Hunger Summit” by Naomi Hossain
8. “Challenging attempts to silence civil society in Uganda” by Stephen Wood
9. “Are we ready for an ‘academic spring’?” by Danny Burns
10. “Digital activism in post-revolution Egypt: How relevant is online dissidence in the marathon for democracy?” by Hani Morsi

Excellent blog posts you might have missed in 2012:

• “Participatory visual processes in Nairobi’s margins” by Thea Shakrokh
• “States of Exception, A Tragedy in Unceasing Acts: Development Encounters” by Patta Scott-Villiers
• “Putting pleasure into safer sex interventions” by Stephen Wood
• “Can the North hear?” by Tessa Lewin
• “What keeps unpaid care off development agendas?” by Rosalind Eyben

Stephen Wood is a researcher on the Sexuality and Development Programme within the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS and can be found on Twitter as: StephenWood_UK

Read other recent blogs by Stephen Wood:

• The stark realities lying behind the Ugandan Anti-Homsexuality Bill
• Putting pleasure into safer sex interventions
• Diversifying our strategies for sexual equality
• Challenging attempts to silence civil society in Uganda

Participation and voices everywhere, but going nowhere (post-2015)?

Joanna Wheeler

Consultations, surveys, on-line polls, social media posts, campaigns, forums, blogs, protests in public squares—everywhere there are claims to know what people really want, claims to represent poor and marginalised people.  As interests coalesce and the politics heat up around the questions of what a future framework for development should look like post 2015, everyone wants to claim that they represent the authentic‘voices of the poor’. Everywhere there are claims to legitimate participation, meaningful consultation  and a stated intention to represent citizen voices. The High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda met recently in London, and the co-chairs as well as several members called for the perspectives of those affected by poverty to be heard. Yet, all the talk about participation is not adding up to real influence or engagement between decision-makers with the diverse perspectives and realities of those living with poverty, marginalisation and injustice.

In a recent session for some NGOs on how to apply participatory approaches to working in conflict contexts, a government representative told me with excitement that she really believed in the value of participation:  ‘I always talk to my driver in any country I go to,’ she said. Is talking to the poorest and most marginalised really participation?  In fact, most of what is being labeled as ‘participatory’ at the moment is really no more than this:  a conversation in which the questions are framed by someone else, and the answers are used for an agenda that the‘driver’ never agreed to.

A major shortcoming of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has been their lack of legitimacy in the eyes of those most affected by development.  As Francess Fornah said in her blog last week, the MDGs are largely irrelevant on a daily basis to those most closely engaged with improving the lives of those living in poverty.  A related and serious flaw with the MDGs is the lack of any provision for the poorest and most marginalised to hold governments and international aid agencies to account for the goals that have been set.

The track record of global agreements is not encouraging—the participation of ‘the poor’ is most often sought when it legitimates the decisions of the powerful, or when there is a political need to be seen to listen to them.  Previous attempts to use participatory approaches to bring the perspectives of those most affected by development to bear on its direction have had mixed results at best. Many global participatory consultation processes have been experienced as extractive listening projects, as opposed to on-going negotiations – with people left feeling that their contributions have been used for political ends which are not their own.  Failure to ensure meaningful participation has occurred in the past because 1) so-called participatory consultations can be highly exclusionary in terms of the voices and perspectives that are edited out or never make it to the table in the first place, 2) the purpose of people’s participation is often pre-determined in a very narrow way, so that any decisions affected by people’s participation are not the ones that really matter; and 3) there has been a lack of mechanisms for holding decision-making to account for the way that policies that have been shaped through participation are implemented (or have failed to be implemented). In sum, many attempts of large-scale participation to influence the direction of development have been a failure.  They have failed to truly connect the realities, experiences and priorities of people living in poverty, marginalisation and injustice in a meaningful way with the decisions that are made on their behalf.

Yet the impulse to hear from those most affected by decisions is not wrong.  When done well, participatory approaches can have huge potential to show unexpected and essential insights. Participatory approaches can provide fresh perspectives into intractable problems, demonstrate the complexity and interconnectedness of issues in people’s lives, and challenge assumptions about how change happens and what development interventions work.  For example, Reality Checks – a participatory initiative developed in Bangladesh – showed how legislation to curb the abuse and harassment of girls led to increasing bullying of boys and issues of low self-esteem. In Nigeria, a citizen score card exercise on the national economic empowerment strategy found that despite a new scheme to allocate farmland to youth, family and women’s groups in the Area Councils, a third of those people involved felt that access had worsened, and accessing farmland through the government was perceived as very difficult. As the rate of change accelerates in many contexts, participation is even more important to shed light on rapidly shifting realities.

If the post-2015 process to agree a future framework for development does not get the participation of those most affected right, it will fail. To avoid the mistakes of the past, it is essential that the participation of those living in poverty is used to question established ways of looking at social, economic and political issues. Participation must help frame the debate, and not just provide sound bites to justify the decisions of politicians. This time, talking to the driver will not be enough.

This article was originally published in the independent online magazine www.opendemocracy.net

Joanna Wheeler is a Research Fellow within the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS.

Read other recent blog posts from Joanna Wheeler:

• You have 9 minutes to talk to the High-Level Panel: what would you say?
• Post 2015: What do policymakers know about poverty?

 

Time to Listen

Danny Burns

The Participate team spent much of last week preparing for and engaging with the High Level Panel. The panel was very open and responsive to our message, and a number of panel members filled in the postcards that we provided, asking them to indicate how they might engage with Participate. These are all positive signals, but apart from the usual worries about how whether politicians and other decision makers will really listen, or retreat back into long held political positions and entrenched development assumptions, I have a concern about how the process itself might undermine the possibilities for real engagement.

Since we started this process ‘time’ has been an issue. It was raised again at the High Level Panel meeting.

Participate has always seen itself as working to three separate time frames.

(1)  We are trying to support the deliberations of the panel through meaningful engagement with participatory research with the poorest and most vulnerable, but we are also aware that there is only so much that can feed into this process because it is proposed that the draft report is already written by February 2013 which is just after their second meeting.

(2)  So our second key milestone is the September Special Session of the UN on the future of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). We are planning to have both of the big synthesis reports (of past and current participatory research), our participatory video and the documentary film, ready before then to provide strong evidence from the ground about how poverty really plays out.

(3)  But the real underlying agenda is the longer term. If we accept the premise that participatory research should be feeding into the policy making process, then it follows that it should be built into every stage of the development process  – from program development, to implementation, to evaluation and accountability processes. In other words if those living in poverty and those who are most marginalized are to really be listened to, participatory processes need to be embedded into the development programmes that follow from the new framework.

In many respects (3) is the most important of all of these. This was highlighted by a number of panel members on Friday and is reflected in the work of  ‘the Participatory Research Group’ projects which are at the heart of the Participate process, as these will continue beyond the lifetime of this decision making process.

Given the short time line for the panel it is my view that this sort of framing for the future of development is more important than arguing for the inclusion of this new goal or that new goal.  Establishing the principle of meaningful stakeholder participation at every level of the process might also be something that the panel could agree on.

But there is an even more fundamental question about time that I think it is important to reflect on. If the panel is reporting in February, panel members will quite literally have only just begun to get to know each other.  The panel meets three times (November 2012, late January/February 2013 and probably March 2013). At the first of these sessions they were only in dialogue with each other for just one day.  With 26 people present, this hardly gives them time to offer each other their own experience let alone to bring in what is necessary from outside.

Participatory research takes time. We and all of our participatory research partners can do good work over the next eight months or so, but it is important that time is allowed for the right conclusions to be drawn, for these to be tested in other contexts, and to be validated by the communities from where the knowledge was generated. The same is actually true for the UN Development Group (UNDG) 50 country consultations which have been rolled out on a punishing time scale which will lead inevitably (in most cases) to rapidly cobbled together reports – the driving force behind which is meeting the time table.

It is not enough to affirm the importance of listening to the voices of those living in greatest poverty when we know that the decision-making time-table will not allow this to happen as it should.  I think that we collectively need to have the courage to say that it is more important to get this right, than to rush headlong in to a process that doesn’t have real ownership, because the time which is needed to listen hasn’t been given.

Danny Burns is a Co-Director of the Participate initiative and Team Leader for the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS. 

Read other recent blog posts from Participate:

• Learning Partners: Participate and the High Level Panel
• Post-2015 High Level Panel to prioritise the perspectives of voiceless people
• You have 9 minutes to talk to the High Level Panel: what would you say?