New Zealand Partnerships for International Development Christian World Service Comments on NZPfID Christian World Service has a long interest in good quality ODA programmes that meet the needs and aspirations of local communities and therefore welcomes the opportunity to comment on the New Zealand Partnerships for International Development proposal. The new proposal has picked up some of the issues raised on the Sustainable Development Fund but there are still areas of inconsistency and lack of adequate detail. The expansion of the fund to include the state and private sector creates some tensions that we do not believe are adequately resolved in the documentation. In the first section CWS picks up some of the general issues and in the second will focus on more specific items. CWS wants this scheme to help more people out of poverty and to realise their UN mandated human rights. To do this such a scheme needs to be flexible enough to take in a variety of context and approaches as well as providing certainty to allow for long term planning and implementation. Good NGOs have a strong track record in this process. Their deep networks and knowledge of their own contexts mean that they are well placed to take advantage of opportunities for sustainable development but also to respond to shocks whether they be economic, environmental or disaster related. In considering the new proposal CWS has thought specifically about the effective partnerships we have and whether or not they might fit the funding window. We do this in a global context where aid effectiveness is increasingly discussed and the importance of local ownership and community resilience are recognised as core components of the development process. Good outcomes will happen when NGOs and others involved in aid have adequate time to plan, consult and prepare with some degree of certainty around funding. The High Level Forums on Aid Effectiveness most recently last year in Busan recognise the critical role of aid in making sure more people are on the road to development rather than impoverishment. Human rights, democracy and good governance were identified as integral to development efforts. i For a number of developing countries these remain a challenge and so we were pleased to see that NZPfID will have a strong focus on meaningful and lasting partnerships. Such partnerships will enhance sustainable development and also provide the resilience necessary for an uncertain future something that we are very aware of as a Christchurch-based agency. The importance of incountry ownership to good development outcomes cannot be over-emphasised. New Zealand has an obligation to be a good global citizen by meeting its UN commitments and contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals at the very least. The proposed expansion of what was an NGO-oriented fund to the private and state sectors makes for some difficulties that run through the proposal. The capacities of the different sectors varies considerably and at times the document suggests that the priority of the fund is about creating more opportunities for NZ business (including in the state sector) than improving sustainable development in developing countries. The requirements on each sector are different meaning that the process for allocating the grants is not transparent. Further, the document does not set out how those making the decisions will balance what can be competing priorities: government, business sector, NGOs, families relying primarily with subsistence lifestyles and vulnerable people who cannot meet their
basic needs. Understandably the fund identifies the importance of getting good value for ODA money, but CWS believes the primary purpose of the fund must be to enable people to get out of poverty rather than distorting a local economy in the interests of the few or extracting resources from developing countries for the pecuniary gain of New Zealand interests. Finally, CWS would like to raise the matter of the costs of accessing the funds. The application process requires considerable financial outlay with no certainty of the likelihood of funding, and the possibility that the whole process may be reshaped in a subsequent round. For example CWS has existing relationships in some Pacific countries that could form the basis of innovative and effective partnerships for sustainable economic development. To develop these would require considerable investment of time and money on our part but also would increase capacity and heighten expectations among the potential beneficiaries. In the past we have been able to build such relationships with some degree of confidence that government money is available for what would be sound development programmes. The new fund as proposed has no provision for developing those relationships and programmes, gives us no confidence that we will be able to access the additional funding for the work and involves a high level of risk for local partners and CWS. Specific Concerns 1. A dedicated fund or sub fund be set up for NGO activity in recognition that most work undertaken by NGOs is done with the more vulnerable communities. 2. In the Pacific focus in noting the susceptibility to climate change and natural disasters, add the importance of building disaster preparedness into the development process. 3. In the sections on priorities we note that the fund is available for the rest of the world whereas in addition to the Pacific on page 2 it specifically states only South East Asia, Africa and Latin America. CWS supports the rest of the world, and suggests the scope of the fund be expanded to include South Asia and the Middle East, noting for example that 410 million Indians live below the poverty line ii and New Zealand s long standing connection with the region, including those living in New Zealand. 4. The Sector focus could also acknowledge the skills of development agencies in responding to a variety of challenges and providing educational and other opportunities. The provision of some basic social services in differing contexts may be more appropriate as part of a bilateral programme, eg funding private schools through PfID could have a distortive effect especially when the state schools system may be severely underfunded because of enforced staff and resource cuts. 5. Environment, gender and human rights are core to good development and ought to be factored into all applications. 6. There needs to be more vigorous requirements than setting up a NZ head office for those applying under the private sector to protect the fund from misuse by opportunists. Some track record and the submission of annual accounts seem to make good sense. 7. Given the vulnerability of the Pacific, the second priority on page 4 should include specific mention on disaster preparedness and mitigation.
8. We support a larger percentage (perhaps 20%) being available for smaller programmes which would allow for pilot programmes as well as for smaller programmes in the Pacific where $100,000 a year would be distortionary. 9. On page 5 we propose that New Zealand s expertise and comparative advantage be a prerequisite to any activity. 10. CWS supports the capacity for joint applications and asks that rather than MFAT having the right to determine the lead agency, that this be a subject of negotiation. 11. CWS suggests some constraints be laid down for state sector applications to make sure that the fund is driven by developing country interests. Our expectation is that normally development activity involving government departments would be part of a bilateral programme. 12. Matching Funding we believe that the different funding ratios are a significant disincentive to working beyond the Pacific, and ratios should not be used as a way of prioritising the Pacific. Significant and effective development programmes in other parts of the world are likely to be disadvantaged. We recommend a return to a 4:1 ratio for NGOs for all regions, with the priority being on effective development. 13. We also believe that good development is based on sound and trusting partnerships, and to this end suggest that a portion of the budget be set aside to support NGOs (and others) to visit partners and potential partners to establish such relationships and to engage in the process of developing a programme and concept note. Such a fund could be accessed by simple application and each organisation could have a ceiling on the funds granted within each year. 14. We note that the examples of Sustainable Development Activities beginning on page 6 seem at odds with what would normally be the scope of NGO activity. We ask that these be rewritten with a greater development focus. Our examples would include microcredit schemes, training and setting up of small businesses, improving working conditions and promoting access to the means of production eg water for irrigation. The focus in this section seems to start at a level or two beyond much of the work that we have been involved in which is community level economic development. Our partners have organised workers to improve their rights, protect their environment and to sidestep exploitative middlemen. The development of labour and environmental standards would belong with government. The references to trade facilitation and market access need to be about the developing countries access. 15. We note an apparent contradiction between promoting or engaging in political activities which appears to contradict Theme Four in the policy statement. Voter registration and education are political activities that are recognised in UN instruments. Greater differentiation would be helpful. NGOs have been able to undertake such political activity when the New Zealand Government cannot. The Movement for Human Rights and Democracy in Tonga is a long term CWS partner and has played a key role in making change happen in that context, primarily through education and awareness raising programmes.
16. The document does not specify an agreed administration component or availability of funding for the necessary scoping work once the concept note has been accepted. CWS asks that these be specified. 17. CWS supports the CID submission, in particular the need to designate the majority of funding for NZ NGOs and the 4:1 ratio for NGOs.
i Point 3 http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/images/stories/hlf4/outcome_document_- _FINAL_EN.pdf ii http://www.worldbank.org.in/wbsite/external/countries/southasiaext/indiaextn/0,,contentmdk: 22888405~menuPK:50003484~pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK:295584,00.html