EuropeAid organised a consultation meeting in June on the second Strategy Paper of the 2007–2013 European Union (EU) programme, the European Partnership for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Currently in draft form, this paper will provide the basis for European Community (EC) multi-annual programming and annual action programmes for the period 2011–2013. The European Commission (EC) identified specific changes in the new strategy as including: a stronger emphasis on difficult countries as apposed to difficult situations; a higher number of countries eligible for increased support; greater decentralisation of decision-making to EC delegations; a greater focus on links between thematic and geographical instruments; and more clarity on EC human rights priorities and their link to political dialogue. The Commission noted, however, that it does not plan to provide details on the draft EIDHR strategy ahead of its publication and, while written civil society submissions are welcome, only minor changes would be made at this stage since the EC considered it premature to undertake an evaluation of the programme.
Governance and participation in health
The author, on behalf of CIVICUS, expresses deep concerned about certain restrictive aspects of the Non-governmental Organisation (NGO) Bill of 2009, which the Zambian government is planning to introduce in Parliament. Some of the concerns raised by civil society in the 2007 version of the Bill have been addressed, but key provisions of the Bill restrict the independence of NGOs and subject them to excessive and unwarranted controls which serve to impede rather than enable the freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution of Zambia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, to which Zambia is a party. If passed in its present form, the Bill will seriously restrict the activities of NGOs. Key areas of concern include problematic registration procedures, excessive government control and unnecessary curbs on independence through forced self-regulation and peer monitoring.
This study attempts to distil lessons learned by a handful of African civil society coalitions on the dynamics of demanding improved governance of governments that are often averse to governance reform. The project admittedly tackles an ambitiously formidable subject, largely due to the dearth of compelling, contemporary African examples of civil society leading noteworthy policy or social change. Governance and policy reform in several African countries continues to be driven by African governments, through initiatives such as the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), as the South African Institute of International Affairs’ (SAIIA) six years of research into the APRM suggests. As such, the study broaches a subject starved of compelling material. However, it creates an accessible set of lessons from civil society activists, academics, diplomats, representatives of donor agencies and civil society experts that have played leading roles in a few – but notable – episodes of civil society-led policy reform.
Climate change and the current global economic crisis bring an unprecedented opportunity to transform global governance, which must start giving priority to human development and citizen engagement, civil society organisations said at the launch of Platform HD2010 in New York on 5 June, a partnership that will include civil society in addressing the current global crises in the poorest countries. The partnership’s recommendations will contribute to the 20-year review of the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Report. Civil society representatives have called on the UNDP to create and expand opportunities for citizen engagement in development initiatives and to work together in addressing the concerns of the poor, who have been the hardest hit by the current economic and climate crises. The partnership will also contribute to the ten-year review of the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals, both of which are taking place next year.
Non-state actors (NSAs) are systematically neglected in European Union (EU) development assistance programmes, according to this report. It identifies EU practices that are violating its European Consensus on Development policy statement. It found that, despite the European Community’s (EC’s) attempts, NSAs' involvement has been limited and falls short of the sustained and structured dialogue envisaged by the EU legislation and the Commission’s own guidelines. The EC often does not commit enough time and resources to ensure that its delegations involve relevant NSAs throughout the whole process. EC's development aid programmes are reported to often engage NSAs solely as service providers or short-term consultants, without the follow-up and impact needed for sustainability and effectiveness.
Thirty-two delegates participated in the global workshop that marked the first research phase of the Global Development Network’s (GDN’s) UK Department for International Development-funded project, ‘Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability’, in Washington DC on 18–20 May. For the first year of the project, partners will conduct programme budget and benefit incidence analysis in the three programme sectors: education, health and water. Next year, partners will receive technical training on the subsequent programme analytical activity – cost effective analysis – and start implementing their communication plans in order to inform policymakers on their findings and budget reform proposals. Participating in the meeting were fifteen partner institutions, including from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
The Global Development Network (GDN) and the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) jointly organised a workshop for their United Nations Development Programme-funded project in Cape Town, South Africa, on 7–8 May 2009: Institutional Capacity Strengthening of African Public Policy Institutes to Support Inclusive Growth and the Millennium Development Goals. This was the third event for the project, following the workshop in Kuwait (February 2009) and the initial planning meeting held in Accra (June 2008). The objective of the project is to provide support to enhance knowledge management capacity for African Policy Research Institutes and networks with a particular focus on tackling the issues of poverty and hunger within the global Millennium Development Goals framework. It will seek to strengthen multi-disciplinary research capacity on poverty analysis and contribute to bridging the gap between research and policy on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Papers from the workshop are expected to be finalised by the end of July 2009. Policy briefs, based on the final papers, will be produced by the relevant institutions. The group also chalked out a dissemination strategy for the project. A concluding workshop has been scheduled for Kenya, in September 2009.
This brief explores the relevance of civil society budget analysis and advocacy and its potential as a tool to hold governments accountable for their maternal mortality reduction commitments. It discusses three recent examples of civil society groups engaged with budget analysis and advocacy, including Women’s Dignity in Tanzania. Lack of real progress in reducing maternal mortality is unquestionably linked to the failure of governments to make maternal health a budgetary priority. Even though resources to address this issue exist, they are not necessarily being allocated correctly or spent effectively. Governments need to prioritise funding for family planning and prenatal care, skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, and essential lifesaving interventions. In addition, citizens must actively monitor government spending on maternal health.
The past two decades have seen dramatic shifts in power among those who share responsibility for leading global health. In 1990, development assistance for health – a crude, but still valid, measure of influence – was dominated by the United Nations (UN) system (the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations Population Fund) and bilateral development agencies in donor countries. Today, while donor nations have maintained their relative importance, the UN system has been severely diluted. This marginalisation, combined with serious anxieties about the unanticipated adverse effects of new entrants into global health, should signal concern about the current and future stewardship of health policies and services for the least advantaged peoples of the world.
How can the recent change in global health policy to provide ‘health for all’ be translated into action, in order to achieve some real and sustained impact on the ground and successfully reduce inequities in health? The authors have three suggestions. Ask what is needed: the answers to what is really needed cannot be found in Geneva or Washington, but ultimately lie with the people and communities themselves. Put the money where the needs are: if we know what people are suffering from and match available human and financial resources accordingly, even a little money can go a long way. Work together: initiatives like the recently launched International Health Partnership aim to strengthen health systems and to ensure that resources invested are spent in equitable and sustainable manner. This represents a shift from vertical, disease-specific models of funding, to horizontal system-building according to long-term strategies.