Protecting Those Most Vulnerable ICAR Certificate Program Hosts Development Discussion
International development work has undergone a series of changes in recent years—not since the signing of the foreign assistance act, in 1961, has so much happened so quickly. Most acutely felt is the shift towards “country ownership” of development funding—a change that puts recipient countries in a position to direct development programming within their own borders. This is a vital shift, and far too long in coming, but in its current conception it contains great difficulties. On April 1st, ICAR's Certificate Program hosted an event bringing together Certificate, Masters, and Ph.D. students which was itself a shift in format—convened around a question rather than an issue—and which produced a robust dialogue around those difficulties.
The definition of “country” within “country ownership” is currently to be read as “the national government of a country,” and thus we are presented with an acute problem: How do we protect vulnerable populations within the recipient countries when the national governments’ relationship with those populations may range from apathy to antagonism? This question speaks to process and a cross-cutting implementation of conflict resolution thought and methods on two fronts: for the benefit of those vulnerable populations and within the dialogue around policy direction here at the source.
Jeremy Konyndyk of MercyCorps, a US-based NGO, presented the viewpoint of development implementers, drawing on long experience from projects across Africa. Todd Shelton, of InterAction, spoke to policy and politics on the domestic side. The picture that emerges is both fascinating and daunting—the role of the NGO is to protect those most vulnerable, and the local populations; but who feels marginalized by what appears to be entirely situational. Gender-based violence programs in Sudan are approved of by the national government, but resisted by local governments as a source of shame. Programs in Northern Uganda are resisted by the government, while those in the South are not. Aid documents in Haiti are written in French while the country’s neediest population speak only Creole.
Development implementers make every attempt to be apolitical, but it is the nature of the work to be inherently political. Relationships with power structures at national, local and community levels must be maintained in order to allow continued presence in-country. The benefits of development work alter power and relationships on the ground, as well as within and among communities. What a particular community sees as being in their best interest may be seen by the national government as an erosion of their sovereignty. Thus, even working on behalf of vulnerable populations isn’t free of risk, as that work may increase the risk from other quarters and potentially cause disruption within the community itself.
The question posed at this event was, therefore a pressing concern, reflecting on more “classical” conflict resolution work as well as on the development implementation at hand—we are tool users, and involved with the same manipulation of power in the field. The mechanisms may differ but the fundamental issue is one that both fields must face.
Mr. Konyndyk pointed out that many NGOs target their efforts toward times of transition, providing the best chance of building productive change within a structure. We are in the same transitional time here—it’s rare that a window opens within which a discourse as massive as that of foreign assistance can be significantly shifted—but that window is open now. As the discourse moves forward, vulnerable populations worldwide will feel the effect, and for their sake it is vital to move quickly building the discourse and methodology as we seek answers to the question posed. Questions such as this are pressing, and help to illuminate a process through which the needs of the recipients may stand or fall.
Through these speakers, ICAR is provided with a line to policy makers at USAID and on the Hill, as well as to implementers in the field. The immediate advantage to ICAR’s involvement in questions such as this is our ability to see outside both the policy and implementation viewpoints, integrating and expanding upon them. We are not constrained by a particular programmatic specialty, as development implementers tend to be. Our work, as it translates into that field, is most often one which overlays all programmatic sectors, officially or unofficially; we are in a unique position to make use of that open window, and we are looking forward to continuing that interaction.