Roundtable Update 25 March08

							ANGOA Community and Voluntary Sector Roundtable


Wednesday 2 April 2008, 10am – Midday
Venue: 2nd Floor, James Smiths Building, Corner of Cuba and Manners Streets,
Wellington (Centre for Global Development Meeting Room).

Tena koutou katoa, nga mihi nui kia koe - All are Welcome. Feel free to forward this invite, and the
information that follows, to others who may be interested. ANGOA disseminates this information as part of
its effort to strengthen the Community and Voluntary Sector in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Any enquiries, to be added to the Roundtable mail list, or to be removed from it, please contact the
ANGOA Coordinator: dave.henderson@angoa.org.nz

Please consider the environment before you print this email.


Contents: In This Issue of the Roundtable Update
    1.  Meeting dates for 2008: Roundtable and Research Forum, including Auckland and Christchurch.
    2.  Agenda for the 2 April Roundtable
    3.  Notes from the 6 March Roundtable
    4.  Government to establish Ongoing Digital Forum
    5.  Climate change - A defining development challenge?
    6.  Setting the real bottom line: Current approach a “Blind Date with Disaster”
    7.  The community development challenge: Excerpts from the UK Report
    8.  Let's Change the Crime and Justice Landscape
    9.  Seasonal Workers Need Paid Parental Leave Too
    10. Time to Join ComVoices?
    11. Analysing the Value of Love: David Shannon, Strategic Pay Limited
    12. One-day conference: Using Blogs, YouTube and other cool tools to achieve your group‟s goals
    13. Basic IT System Administration for Non - Technical People
    14. Community Housing workshops
    15. New Zealand Relay Service introduces a speech to speech enhancement.
    16. New Website for NZ Council of Christian Social Services
    17. Australasian Association of Volunteer Administrators
    18. Next NGO-Ministry of Health Forum
    19. Research Request: Paul Prestidge
    20. BioFuels – Not that great an idea
    21. By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Non-governmental Organisations
    22. Items from CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation
             CIVICUS new Secretary General appointed: Ingrid Srinath to take over helm
             e-CIVICUS interview with CIVICUS World Assembly Manager
             The quiet rise of civil society in the Middle East
             Open letter to the Russian President Putin
             Online Philanthropy: Opportunities and Challenges
             Take Action: Coca-Cola - CLOSE Bottling Plants in India and Internationally
    23. ANGOA Membership and Contact Information


1. Meeting dates for 2008: Community and Voluntary Sector Roundtable and
   Research Forums (including Auckland and Christchurch)
Offers, suggestions or recommendations of presentations are welcome for all these events – please
contact dave.henderson@angoa.org.nz
Monthly Roundtable: 10am to midday on;
   First Wednesday each month: 2 April, 7 May, 4 June, 2 July, 6 August, 3 September, 1 October,
    and 5 November (ANGOA AGM).

                                                               nd
    Venue is the Centre for Global Development Meeting Room, 2 Floor, James Smiths Building, Corner
    of Cuba and Manners Streets, Wellington

Wellington Research Forum: Quarterly, 1pm to 4pm on Wednesdays;
   21 May
   20 August
   12 November

                                       th
    Venue is the Families Commission, 6 Floor, Public Trust Building, 117-125 Lambton Quay,
    Wellington.

Australia”New Zealand Third Sector Research Conference (ANZTSR)
18-19 November 2008, Waitakere, Auckland

Auckland Research Forum: 1-4pm on 23 April and on 22 October 2008
Venue to be confirmed

Christchurch Research Forum: Note these dates have changed;
   Next on Monday 22 September
   Venue is the Beckenham Service Centre of Christchurch City Council, 66 Colombo St, Christchurch.


2. Agenda for the 2 April Roundtable
Stephen Blythe, Project Manager, CIMS Project
A presentation on progress with the project, recent developments, and the opportunity planned by the
core group of organisations for more organisations to be able to join.

What’s Going On? A round-robin exchange of news about the current activities and plans of
everyone present.



3. Notes from the 6 March Roundtable
Present:
Email contacts for attendees are available from dave.henderson@angoa.org.nz

Special Guest Speaker: Ruth Dyson; Minister for Social Development and Employment, Minister
for Senior Citizens, Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and Minister for Disability
Issues.
After a round of introductions Ruth introduced the four main areas she wanted to address.

Charities Commission
Ruth acknowledges Advocacy as an essential part of most NGOs‟ role. There is a policy tension between
charitable purposes as defined and the advocacy role, but Ruth leans towards pragmatism in this. Ruth
supports the proposal to allow organisations who have submitted their application for registration to be
given interim tax status until the application is processed. Ruth is supporting the Commission to move to a
more efficient and practical process for considering applications, that will not involve so much legal review
of every application in fine detail.

Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship
Ruth is interested in Sector involvement in a robust review of the intentions of the document, its
implementation, effectiveness, and its delivery. Officials will talk to ANGOA about this - ANGOA first
proposed the review in 2006. Ruth acknowledges it may be hard to establish any clear measurement of
gains from the Statement.
The Future
There are three big areas that need research:
 Changing demographics have implications for the community and voluntary sector, including re the
     nature of work, and issues such as income support. Many services will need re-invention.
 Community Development, and how to link this with Social Development. There needs to be a link and
     a complementarity between where Government is at and where the sector is – this needs work.
 Professionalisation: there are vulnerabilities for workers and for the recipients of services. Training
     requirements and formal qualifications are part of it, but an evolution needs to happen, and it will need
     support - e.g. foster families and youth workers. There is a need to match individual aspiration with the
     professionalism need.
There is a need to strengthen links between DIA, OCVS and MSD in their work with the sector in the first
instance, and then involve Health and Education.
Ruth will not try and determine how the sector organises itself, but it is very convenient for the Minister to
have one point of contact that disseminates information - it seems ANGOA is ideally suited to grow into
this role, though it needs work in areas such as links with tangata whenua and areas such as sports.

Pathways to Partnership
The intention is to rapidly expand the concept to include Justice, Health and Education.
Moving to an outcomes focus in contracts, while taking account of the non-contracted relationships that
contribute to the outcome.
Ruth wants to move towards a genuine social development model, and this is just the first step.

Comments and Feedback
The following points were expressed to the Minister. Her response follows in the next section.
 The Charities Commission is too focused on its regulatory role, c.f. support and advocacy in support
   of a strong sector.
 SOGI: Lots of both the sector and government agencies are not aware of it – it needs practical
   demonstrations.
 OCVS‟ position in the public sector is too low in the hierarchy – it should be administered by MSD but
   not controlled.
 Many government agencies are over-policied, and there is a huge gap between the people who do
   that policy writing and the people with practical experience or the people (from community
   organisations) who have to face up to funding administrators.
 Government should give the SOGI – that we have in place – more priority and emphasis.
 The example was given of government agencies coming in to a city and offering subsidised training
   according to it‟s idea of what might help, but displacing an NGO from it‟s training provision.
 A heart-felt plea was made for there to be more community representation on the Pathways to
   Partnership group, plus resourcing to enable the representatives to report and consult back with the
   community.
 How can we do community development that goes beyond diagnosis that focuses on one particular
   issue, leading to multiple people and organisations intervening in a family with no overall plan or
   insight or understanding?
 Re professionalisation; the Health Workforce study and legislation are all focused towards practice by
   doctors and hospitals and are hardly relevant to NGO social workers. Where is the Research and
   Development, the growth of wisdom, that makes sense in a community environment?
 SOGI was supposed to be a Starting Point – it was aspirational, not a strategy with targets and
   measurables. It was intended that it would form a Statement of Principle for a strategy or workplan,
   but that work has never been done.
 SOGI is about Interconnectedness - Government‟s role is in enabling interconnectedness, but where
   are the government agencies when we get together in our own way?
 Research; we need more capacity – we have the Clearing House but it has no resources to do or
   commission research.
 Professionalisation; we need to distinguish between professionalism and bureaucratization, which is a
   dampener on sector innovation and responsiveness.
 ANGOA has a convening role for the sector – the Minister should know it has no power to tell
   organisations what to do.
   Many organisations have a commitment to community development, but find funding channels are all
    to prescriptive about how it will be done. Funding needs to fit the community need rather than the
    outcome created by the Department and its funding policies.
   The absence of tangata whenua organisations in the discussion was noted, and linked to the collapse
    of the relationship between the Community Sector Taskforce and Government, which undermined
    years of work on the links the Taskforce had built.

Ruth Dyson’s responses:
 This is the start of an ongoing discussion. We need to engage long-term on how to progress issues.
 Ruth agrees the lack of tangata whenua engagement is an issue we need to keep working on and try
   to resolve it.
 Ruth wants and intends to proceed with a SOGI review, with sector involvement.
 She wants also a review of accountability mechanisms – some ideas on how to integrate the learnings
   into the public service ethos would be helpful
 Re Pathways to Partnership, we need to mesh what has been put in place with community
   development and social development approaches – create a model of what will work – it‟s not just
   about the money.
 Ruth wants proposals that will move it towards a community development mesh.
 In that, we can take the risk that some of it will go off track – that‟s how we learn.
 Re DHB services for older people; some good work is happening in communities – it‟s a good model,
   working across an range of community-based services.
 Ruth emphasised:
            o The development of outcomes models is particularly important;
            o She sees Community Development as also particularly important;
            o It‟s not about the money.
Ruth was thanked by all those present, and departed.

Round-robin exchange of news about the current activities and plans of everyone present.
   Paul Gibson: A lot of what the Minister put on us as homework, we are already there – it‟s the
    Government agencies that need to come up to speed with us – accept our leadership.
   David Robinson: Re the Johns Hopkins University study, this is near its end, and where to go now?
    Lots of research is needed on issues that arose from the study; e.g. separation lines or definition
                   rd     th
    between the 3 and 4 sectors in the case of tangata whenua whanau, hapu and iwi organisations.
   Carolyn Cordery: Australia New Zealand Third Sector Research (ANZTSR) Conference, 18-20
    November, is an opportunity for linking academics and the community sector on research.
   Tina Reid: We need more forums where we hear back from the various Committees, Working and
    Advisory Groups that community sector is represented on.
   Victoria Quade: possibly a quarterly general report on what‟s happening might help. The re is an issue
    for ANGOA, whether it has the capacity to take this on.
   Ros Rice: NZCOSS National Conference will be hosted by Community Waitakere, which has created
    some good models for community development; 1-2-3 October 2008.
   Diana Suggate: OCVS is involved and looking at a reference group to identify how some of this work
    can go forward – there is an overlap with the accountability and SOGI work.
   Roger Tweedy: Re Ruth‟s comments on the future of work and the sector; we need a think tank
    funded by Government, but partnered, with support for sector leaders on it. We may need OCVS to
    help pick targets in Government agencies; work with DPMC who are overseeing the preparation of
    Cabinet Papers – they are the ones to question Departments about community inputs to policy reports
    and proposals.
   Ric Odom; the need is to try and instill behavioural and attitudinal change, permeating from the top, to
    the culture – how people work. There does not seem to be any sense that this should be part of risk
    management for any departmental CEO.


4. Government to establish Ongoing Digital Forum
The government has agreed to the establishment and funding of an overarching digital forum representing
the interests of the wider digital community and to address digital issues of national
importance. Representation in the forum is expected to come from the community and voluntary, cultural,
business, local government, ICT users, and ICT business sectors.
Providing a mechanism for members to interface and collaborate with each other and collectively with the
government on the implementation of the refreshed Digital Strategy, the forum is expected to be fully
operational by 1 July 2008.

This decision is based on the consultation and investigation carried out by MartinJenkins and Associates
since November 2007. MartinJenkins has been retained to progress the formation of the overarching
forum, including engaging with stakeholders on the design, terms of membership and mode of operation
by the end of April 2008.

A link to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology media statement is:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new+digital+super+group+announced

If you have any queries regarding the establishment process, please contact Doug Martin at
MartinJenkins and Associates on Doug@martinjenkins.co.nz.


5. Climate change - A defining development challenge?
Is it already destroying opportunity and reinforcing inequality?

Climate change may be the defining development challenge of the 21st century, Dr Indrajit
Coomaraswamy, Head of Economic Affairs at the Commonwealth Secretariat, said at a public lecture at
Philips College, Cyprus, on 13 March 2008. The event was organised as part of this year‟s global
Commonwealth Week activities, under the theme „The Environment, Our Future‟. Addressing high
commissioners, government officials, academics and students at the economics, business and finance
college in Nicosia, Dr Coomaraswamy stressed that „business as usual‟ was no longer an option if an
unprecedented reversal in the quality of life was to be avoided. But he said there was an important
window of opportunity for avoiding the most damaging climate change impacts:

“The world has about a decade to change course. It lacks neither the financial resources, nor the
technological capabilities to act. What is missing is the political will driven by a sense of urgency, human
solidarity and collective interest.” The Commonwealth, which cuts across a diverse range of developed
and developing nations, is uniquely placed to respond to the challenges presented by climate change by
bringing countries together on an equal footing to share knowledge, technology and expertise.

“Rich nations need to acknowledge their historic responsibility for the problem and to initiate deep and
early cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the whole of humanity needs to undertake prompt
and strong collective action based on shared values and a shared vision,” he said. Citing the Lake Victoria
action plan on climate change, agreed by Commonwealth leaders last November, he noted that work was
already under way. This was primarily focused on two areas: engagement of and awareness building
among key stakeholders, including youth; and capacity-building and technical assistance, particularly for
small states and least developed countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Dr Coomaraswamy said the
Commonwealth was harnessing its substantial and diverse network of civil society and professional
organisations to support its work in this respect, including the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,
to sensitise parliamentarians about climate change issues.

On a positive note, he ended by saying that there is evidence that in some countries, ordinary citizens
were leading the way and governments were being compelled to follow.
Full story: http:”“www.thecommonwealth.org”news”34580”34581”176592”170308cypruslecture.htm


6. Setting the real bottom line: Current approach a “Blind Date with Disaster”
“Since each of us has to be fed, clothed and sheltered, the collective ecological footprint of our species -
just from basic living - is now very large,”
Leading environmentalist Dr David Suzuki was speaking at the annual Commonwealth lecture held at
London School of Economics on 12 March 2008, organised by the Commonwealth Foundation, which
aims to strengthen and support civil society across the Commonwealth.
Although every human being is created by the four elements „earth, air, fire and water,‟ we are failing to
respond to the damaging effects our actions are having on the environment. He argued that these four
elements need to be seen as “sacred substances” because “whatever we do to [them] we do to
ourselves”. “We are embedded in a matrix of air - it is a part of us. As soon as we are born, the first thing
we need is air and we continue to need this until our dying day,” Dr Suzuki explained. With this in mind, Dr
Suzuki, who is the Emeritus Professor in Sustainable Development from the University of British Columbia
in Canada, questioned “why we use air as a garbage can”.

The annual Commonwealth Lecture was *Rapid growth in population* In 1900, the world‟s population was
1.5 billion and only 16 cities had more than one million inhabitants, Dr Suzuki said. But by the year 2000
the population had quadrupled and the number of cities with more than one million people had grown to
over 400. With this ever-increasing number of people spreading “toxic debris into the air, earth and soil”,
Dr Suzuki highlighted the collective impact of 6.6 billion people on the environment. “Since each of us has
to be fed, clothed and sheltered, the collective ecological footprint of our species - just from basic living - is
now very large,” he observed.

By continuing current living trends “we are using up the rightful legacy of our children and grandchildren,”
Dr Suzuki warned. It is essential, therefore, to look at “how we impact on the environment”. “What we eat,
how we move and where we live” are three areas highlighted by Dr Suzuki which need to be assessed, so
that this “rightful legacy” is not ignored. He gave examples of ways in which people can address these
aspects of their lives “ food, travel and home “ such as “eating as much locally grown food as we can”. Dr
Suzuki added that there needs to be a shift from linking the economy with progress, and that it is “suicidal”
to believe that the economies will continue to grow forever. “The economy is not the real bottom line,” he
said. “It is the environment.”
More at: http:”“www.guardian.co.uk”environment”2008”mar”12”conservation.climatechange:


7. The community development challenge: Excerpts from the UK Report
How can people rise to the challenges and opportunities presented by government‟s increasing emphasis
on community engagement? This is a huge task which needs politicians, managers of public services and
people who work in communities to think and do things in new ways. Government recognises that power
should be more widely shared and yet community development, the occupation that enables this to
happen, is partially and unevenly supported. At the same time, community development practice needs to
become more effective.

This report addresses these issues and suggests that:
 Many of the current reforms in local government and other major public services which depend on
    community engagement are unlikely to achieve their objectives, particularly in disadvantaged
    communities, without community development.
 There is not yet a clear national strategy for community development to match the growing
    requirements for community engagement in governance and public services. Instead, community
    development is often a late add-on to other policies. As a result, community development funding and
    implementation is patchy and inefficient
 Few local areas have an overall strategic approach to community development, linking efforts across
    sectors, agencies and policy areas, as recommended by the 2006 Local Government White Paper.
 Firm Foundations, the government‟s national community capacity building framework, can provide a
    starting point for co-ordinating local strategies and informing other national policies.
 There are some 20,000 professional community development workers in the UK, employed in the
    voluntary and community sector or in public authorities, but many are not working to recognised
    occupational standards, which themselves need to be reviewed. In addition there are many people
    carrying out unpaid community development work in their own communities.
 Community development practitioners avoid the limelight because their work is about enabling and
    empowering others rather than themselves. Thus community development does not have a high
    profile and there is little awareness of this specialist occupation devoted to tackling social exclusion
    and building community empowerment.
 In addition, community development has not been good at systematically collecting and disseminating
    evidence of its own impacts. New tools are emerging which can help address this, including
    evaluation frameworks and indicators.
   A step change is required in levels of recognition, resourcing, support, management and training to
    fulfil the potential of community development to contribute to building active, sustainable and
    empowered communities. Both government and the community development occupation itself have
    roles to play in achieving this.

The policy context
The role of government is changing. Government necessarily remains the central accountable point for
decision-making in society, but it needs to foster greater empowerment in local and other communities
(particularly those most disadvantaged, who are the least engaged with government) to complement its
own role.
Change has to take place largely through empowerment from the bottom up. Society relies on community
development to facilitate this, yet the occupation is not well known. Government invests in it unevenly
through a number of funding streams but has no co-ordinated overview of it. Yet social policies and
programmes repeatedly come back to community development as they grapple with the problems of
overcoming disadvantage, engaging with local residents and making public services work better.

The recommendations -
The report makes five headline recommendations:
 A strategic approach to community development should operate across each local area, with
    strengthened regional community development networks and appropriate national links.
 Community development funding should be adequate to achieve and maintain a major step change in
    the level of community strengths and empowerment across the nation and especially in
    disadvantaged areas.
 Community development should be managed and delivered to the highest standards.
 Community development should be promoted as a nationally recognised occupation with a clear basis
    in values, methods and outcomes.
 High-quality community development training should be available in each region at all levels and in
    different ways to suit the needs of new and experienced practitioners, and talented new entrants
    should be recruited.
Detailed recommendations for local, regional and national policy makers, community development
practitioners and organisations are included in the full report.

About the report
The Community Empowerment Division of the Department for Communities and Local Government
commissioned the report, and the Community Development Foundation facilitated its production. The
working group producing the report is unique in bringing together practitioner groups, public bodies and
academics to develop a set of strategic recommendations for community development. The group
included local, regional and national perspectives, and drew on new and existing research as well as
practitioner expertise „on the ground‟. The group met over 11 months. The three lead authors of the report
are the key national c i unity development organisations in England: the Community Development
Foundation, the Community Development Exchange and the Federation for Community Development
Learning.

Further information
The Community Development Challenge by Community Development Foundation, Community
Development Exchange, Federation for Community Development Learning, and the Community
Development Challenge working group is published by DCLG, priced at £15.00 and is available to buy
from CDF, Unit 5, Angel Gate, 320-326 City Road, London EC IV 2PT, tel: 020 7833 1772, email:
publications@cdf.org.uk or can be downloaded free of charge at www.communities.gov.uk and the
addresses below. This summary is also available online at the addresses below.
www.cdf.org.uk www.fcdl.org.uk www.cdx.org.uk


8. Let's Change the Crime and Justice Landscape
Prison Fellowship 25th Anniversary Conference, May 16-18, 2008
The New Zealand Justice System is at the crossroads. There is growing public realisation that prisons do
not reduce criminal offending, and that we need alternatives to imprisonment, without compromising public
safety.
There is a policy gap that needs filling. Community groups and politicians are grappling with this gap by
proposing an array of programs and services that they believe will make a difference. Some of the
proposed programs are supported by research, others are not.
Prison Fellowship has gathered together independent, authoritative voices who can call on national and
international experience to flesh out the public discussion, and provide bread for the journey. There will be
ample opportunity for participant discussion and dialogue.

And, as evidence the system is badly in need of change:

Shameful rating in International Crime Survey
The Family Party says a European based International Crime Victims Survey that has New Zealand
ranked third highest of 30 countries for conventional crime rates should serve as a wake up call to
government and community. New Zealand scores poorly on burglary, assaults, robbery, and sexual
assaults. It was the highest for thefts from cars, second highest for burglary, fifth for assaults and threats,
10th for robbery, and 11th for sexual assaults against women.
http:”“www.scoop.co.nz”stories”PO0803”S00199.htm


9. Seasonal Workers Need Paid Parental Leave Too
Rural Women New Zealand says the Government‟s ongoing review of the Paid Parental Leave scheme
should focus on removing barriers to eligibility for an important part of the rural workforce.
 “Seasonal workers do not meet the current eligibility criteria, which requires six months‟ continuous
service with the same employer,” says RWNZ National President, Margaret Chapman. “Rural Women
New Zealand is calling for Paid Parental Leave to be extended to include seasonal workers.”

There are already difficulties finding enough workers for the horticulture and viticulture sectors and
excluding seasonal workers from accessing Paid Parental Leave exacerbates this situation.

The report „Parental Leave in New Zealand 2005”06‟ reveals „well educated, higher earning women in the
core labour market are the group most likely to be eligible for Paid Parental Leave.‟ “Any eligibility barriers
related to the socio-economic grouping or the educational status of the mother should be removed,” says
Ms Chapman. “Nor should there be any differentiation in eligibility criteria between those who work full
time or part-time, on contract, who are self-employed or in seasonal work.”

Rural Women New Zealand is also calling for an extension of Paid Parental Leave to achieve Ministry of
Health guidelines that would enable six months‟ continuous breastfeeding, up from the current fourteen
weeks. “We welcome the Government‟s review of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and believe our
recommendations will remove some of the anomalies that add to the difficulties for rural women in
qualifying for Paid Parental Leave and in participating in the workforce.”

For further information contact: Margaret Chapman, National President, Rural Women New Zealand
(03) 697 4869, Mob: 027 207 6008, Email: mgchapman@farmside.co.nz, www.ruralwomen.org.nz


10. Time to Join ComVoices?
ComVoices is a coalition working designed to ensure there is a strong collaborative voice reflecting and
promoting the value and common concerns of the sector through information, advocacy and dialogue.

It has been going for two years, and nineteen national organisations were involved last year. The work is
based on an annually reviewed communications plan – which has involved communications with:
 The sector – through media updates, workshops and information on website
 The media – through promoting and pushing stories, seeking interviews and initiating joint press
     releases
 Government - meetings with parties and Ministers about common ComVoices identified messages
     and cross parliamentary breakfasts

We expect that 2008 will include a similar range of initiatives – we have two media planning workshops
planned for April.
Sector organisations can engage in ComVoices on two levels:
Update list – there is a list of about 300 organisations who receive daily media alerts and occasional
notices and updates by email – a good way to stay in touch with the work of ComVoices
The Working Group is for national organisations that are committed be being involved in the coalition –
this involves a monthly meeting, taking a leadership role in the range of ComVoices activities and a
financial contribution – this involves 4 – 5 hours a month, see attached letter of engagement which is the
basis of this relationship.

We will be gearing up this year‟s activities at our April meeting. We have taken our last two meetings for
some reflection and evaluation – and are now ready to make practical plans for the year ahead – and this
is a good time for organisations to consider getting involved.

We would love to hear from any organisations interested in joining the working group - our next meeting is
on Thursday 3 April from 9.30 – 11.30

Please contact Tina Reid to discuss your interest -


11. Analysing the Value of Love: David Shannon, Strategic Pay Limited
When it comes to paying staff in the Not for Profit Sector, it is essential to analyse the value of what we
call the “Love Factor.” That is that gap between the pay of employees in this sector and the pay of
employees in the general employment market. In our 2007 survey, we found that gap running around
15% to 17% across the sector.

For employers in the Not for Profit Sector it is crucial to understand that gap and keep track of it, for when
it reaches a certain level, employees may find that love alone isn‟t quite worth it and they will leave for
better-paying work in that broader market. Our „feel‟ for the market is that 20% is the maximum value
employees are willing to sacrifice for that love. This makes it more crucial for these organisations to have
access to reliable information on current market rates for the roles they employ.

Analysing the value of the Love Factor is a key objective of the Strategic Pay Survey of Remuneration in
the Not for Profit Sector. This survey is the largest, most authoritative survey of pay levels in these
organisations, providing an in-depth picture of that pay market and the gap that exists between it and
other sectors. Participation provides the following advantages:
 A means of establishing the internal relativities of jobs and thereby maintaining an internal reward
    structure that is seen as fair and equitable by staff.
 A means of comparing the organisation‟s roles with those in other Not for Profit agencies in order to
    ensure equitability across the sector.
 A means of comparing the organisation‟s roles with comparable roles in the Public or other
    employment sectors in order to understand any difference that may exist in pay levels and make
    sound decisions on how to address that gap.
 A means of tracking direct comparisons with counterpart employment groups in the Public Sector (or
    other funding sources) in order to conduct effective contract negotiation which will provide for on-going
    equity in remuneration levels.

Data packs will be send out to over 500 non-governmental, not-for-profit organisations in March 2008. To
ensure your organisation is included in this mail-out, contact either of the following:
Catherine Battersby, Survey Manager, DDI: 09 303 4057, catherine@strategicpay.co.nz
David Shannon, Senior Consultant, DDI: 09 303 4053, david@strategicpay.co.nz


12. One-day conference: Using Blogs, YouTube and other cool tools to achieve
    your group’s goals
Only 30 places left for internet conference
The opportunity for community groups to get hands-on learning about how to make the internet and
communication technology work for them has already attracted more than 80 registrations for the Engage
Your Community Conference.
Workshops about having virtual meetings, podcasting, using blogs and virtual office systems are among
those on offer at the conference being hosted by the Waikato 2020 Communications Trust and held at the
Waikato University Management School, Hamilton on April 22.

Trust Chair and Professor of Management Communication, Ted Zorn, said venue size meant that
conference numbers have to be limited to 120. “This is the first conference of its kind to be held - including
practical workshops to help people learn skills and develop confidence - specifically for tangata whenua,
community based organisations and voluntary groups. Places are filling fast because people obviously
see it as a great opportunity. Registrations have also been received for people employed in local
government and the health sector”.

The remaining registration places can be booked on-line for $100 per person and $50 per person for
second and further registrations from the same group”organisation.
http:”“engageyourcommunity.eventbrite.com and more information about the conference is available on
the conference web page www.webguide.net.nz”engage-your-community.

Waikato 2020 Communications Trust is a voluntary organisation dedicated to helping the community
benefit from computer technologies. For further information contact: Waikato 2020 Communications Trust
Director Janet Leggett, director@wainet.org.nz and phone 07 825 9984
Chairman Prof Ted Zorn, Waikato Management School, Office: (07) 838-4776 tzorn@mngt.waikato.ac.nz


13. Basic IT System Administration for Non - Technical People
Presented by Stuart Campbell and co-hosted by Social Service Waikato‟s own Charl Du Plessis, this
workshop is for all people who wish they knew more about their IT system administration- managing
backups, antivirus, firewalls, folder management and user access etc but don‟t know where to start.

Thames: Wed 2nd April 2008 Thames Apostolic Centre, Thames 10am -1pm
Tokoroa: Wed 9 April 2008, TCoSS Training Room, Tokoroa. 10am-1 pm
Hamilton: Wed 16 April 2008, Western Community Centre, Hamilton. 11am-2pm
Te Kuiti: Wed 23 April 2008, Te Kuiti Community House, Te Kuiti 10-1pm

Cost: Members of NFP community organisations $25 Others $50
Book now, places are limited. Tea and Coffee provided. See you there

Please Send Payment & Registration to: SSW Po Box 391, Hamilton
Any queries please call Sally 8381583 or sally@ssw.org.nz


14. Community Housing workshops
Community Housing Aotearoa are running a series of workshops in Wellington, Tauranga, Christchurch
and Auckland:

Development Funding in March
Risk & Project Management in June
Property Development in September

These are open to any interested voluntary organisation - check out www.communityhousing.org.nz for
details or contact them on support@communityhousing.org.nz


15. New Zealand Relay Service introduces a speech to speech enhancement.
On 1 March 2008 New Zealand Relay, which manages services that enable deaf people to communicate,
or be communicated with, via the phone system, introduced an email pre-call to enhance its Speech to
Speech service. This will give users of NZ Relay the opportunity to email New Zealand Relay sending
information to the Relay Assistant on:
 the name of the person they wish to call
 the phone number
 any specific instructions
The pre-call email is sts@nzrelay.co.nz . The service is available Monday – Friday 7.30am – 9.00pm and
Saturday 9.00am – 5.00pm.

You can contact the NZ Relay helpdesk at any time if you have any queries or would like training on how
to access and effectively use Speech to Speech.
For more information:
Phone: 0800 4 715 715 (Voice)
Fax: 0800 4 329 697
Help Desk email: Helpdesk@NZRelay.co.nz
Information email: info@NZRelay.co.nz
Website: www.nzrelay.co.nz


16. New Website for NZ Council of Christian Social Services
Please see www.justiceandcompassion.org.nz

The Useful Resources page includes a link to many relevant organisations.

If you have any feedback and”or could provide a reciprocal link or mention of the 'new' website to your
member networks in the course of your regular communication, NZCCSS would be most appreciative.

Regards,
Communications Projects Advisor
NZ Council of Christian Social Services
Email: communications@nzccss.org.nz
Website: www.justiceandcompassion.org.nz


17. Australasian Association of Volunteer Administrators
AAVA have proudly issued their first newsletter for the year. Enjoy the reading and remember if there
are any issues or stories you might like to see in the newsletter to pass these on to AAVA at PO Box
2131, Surfers Paradise Q 4217, www.aava.asn.au



18. Next NGO-Ministry of Health Forum
The NGO Working Group would like to give you advance notice of the next Forum which will be held in
Auckland (at Alexandra Park) on 14th May from 9.30-3.30pm. Put the date in your diary now and keep an
eye on these updates for information about how to register closer to the time. Further information about
the agenda will also follow in the coming weeks.

You can sign up to receive a regular free e-newsletter from the Ministry of Health NGO desk, which you
can pass this email onto your own networks or encourage them to sign up by forwarding their name,
organization and contact details, including phone, address and email address to ngo@moh.govt.nz.


19. Research Request: Paul Prestidge

I am doing some research on the discourses of relationship between government and community
organisations This will look at and beyond the rhetoric - frequent themes coming from government in
recent times of 'partnership' and 'collaboration' juxtaposed with a history of one-sided contractual
arrangements and potential loss of charitable status for advocacy organizations.

 I am looking to gather comment from community groups and networks, such as media releases,
conference or workshop presentations, comments in newsletters, e-zines, discussion boards and such
media -at both a local and national level to use as texts, or data to analyse. I am looking for material that
is already published (however informally).
If material is available electronically I prefer to receive the email version (prestidge.paul@gmail.com);
otherwise a hard copy sent to my New Zealand address: Paul Prestidge, 35 Hankey St, Mt Cook
WELLINGTON.

I expect to develop some articles and conference presentations later in the year, or next year as I start to
draw conclusions from this research, and am happy to share these through existing community networks
and forums.


20. BioFuels – Not that great an idea
Sometimes the trade-off is stark: filling the tank of an SUV with ethanol requires enough corn to feed
a person for a year.

Each day, 820 million people in the developing world do not have enough food to eat. Food prices around
the world are shooting up, sparking food riots from Mexico to Morocco. And the World Food Program
warned last week that rapidly rising costs are endangering emergency food supplies for the world's worst-
off.

How are the wealthiest countries responding? They're burning food. Specifically, they're using more and
more biofuels--alcohol made from plant products, used in place of petrol to fuel cars. Biofuels are billed as
a way to slow down climate change. But in reality, because so much land is being cleared to grow them,
most biofuels today are causing more global warming emissions than they prevent, even as they push the
price of corn, wheat, and other foods out of reach for millions of people.

Not all biofuels are bad--but without tough global standards, the biofuels boom will further undermine food
security and worsen global warming. Click here to use our simple tool to send a message to your head of
state before this weekend's global summit on climate change in Chiba, Japan, and help build a global call
for biofuels regulation. But not all biofuels are bad; making ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is vastly
more efficient than US-grown corn, for example, and green technology for making fuel from waste is
improving rapidly. For more: http://www.avaaz.org/en/biofuel_standards_now/9.php?cl=60983305



21. By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Non-governmental
    Organisations
The International Council on Human Rights Policy International Meeting on Global Trends and Human
Rights Before and after September 11, Geneva, January 10-12. Hugo Slim, Senior Lecturer, Oxford
Brookes University.

Introduction
In September 00, the IMF and the World Bank were preparing for their annual meeting. The meeting was
to be in Prague but the memory of the “Battle of Seattle” was fresh in everybody‟s mind, not least that of
the Czech police. The week before the meeting, “The Economist” ran a special issue on globalisation
which included a long article on Anti-Capitalist Protest. The piece examined the nature and tactics of the
groups that loosely form the vanguard of the backlash against globalisation, distinguishing between small
activist groups and mainstream NGOs. In a backlash against the backlashers, it went on to question their
credentials: The increasing clout of NGOs, respectable and not so respectable, raises an important
question: who elected Oxfam, or, for that matter, the League for a Revolutionary Communist
International? Bodies such as these are, to varying degrees, extorting admissions of fault from law-abiding
companies and changes in policy from democratically elected governments. They may claim to be acting
in the interests of the people but then so do the objects of their criticism, governments and the despised
international institutions. In the West, governments and their agencies are, in the end, accountable to
voters. Who holds the activists accountable? [1]

One of the ways that “The Economist” makes a profit, pays its journalists and rewards its shareholders is
by selling advertising space. As a result, on the facing page of this article, there was a full page
celebratory statement by the large multinational company, Bayer, announcing a first half rise in sales of
22% to EUR14.8bn and a 31% increase in operating income to EUR 2bn. Much of this growth came from
their pharmaceutical group, particularly its cholesterol-lowering and anti-hypertensive drugs treatments
that seem to be essential for combating the stresses of globalisation! Below the blurb, in the bottom right
hand corner, the Bayer logo sat proudly on top of the company strap-line: “Expertise with Responsibility”.
Here was corporate accountability at its most glowing, informing existing and prospective shareholders of
large profits growth while also reassuring them of the company‟s moral respectability. If expertise is what
gives Bayer their competitive edge, the company‟s sense of responsibility resonates with the newly
espoused business values of corporate social responsibility.

Such values have been encouraged by the likes of Oxfam whose own credibility was being so seriously
questioned on the facing page. Here, within a staples breadth, were two competing claims about the
legitimacy and accountability of two different types of international organisations the transnational
corporation and the transnational NGO. Both types of organisations are distinctive features of today‟s
mainly capitalist, neo-liberal and globalised world system. Both are under pressure to be increasingly
accountable. Human Rights organisations have also regularly come in for questioning on their legitimacy
and have by no means been immune to the kind of criticisms leveled at Oxfam and others.

Some of the most articulate questioning has come from within the human rights movement itself. Chidi
Odinkalu has criticised the elite nature of much of the human rights movement and in doing so called into
question their legitimacy. Talking about human rights groups in Africa, Odinkalu has observed how they
are seldom part of inclusive and participatory struggles for justice but that they appear almost by design to
exclude the participation of the people whose welfare they claim to advance. Most human rights
organisations are modeled after northern watchdog organisations, located in an urban area, run by a core
management without a membership base (unlike Amnesty International), and dependent solely on
overseas funding. The most successful of these organisations only manage to achieve the equivalent
status of a public policy think-tank, a research institute, or a specialised publishing house85Instead of
being the currency of a social justice or conscience-driven movement, human rights has increasingly
become the specialised language of a select professional cadre with its own rites of passage and methods
of certification. Far from being a badge of honour, human rights activism is, in some of the places I have
observed it, increasingly a certificate of privilege. [2]

The focus of this paper will be on international NGOs mainly humanitarian, development and human rights
organisations. But it is important to recognise that accountability is a central issue for all forms of human
organisations and that it is not just a matter for voluntary organisations. However, as groups who make it
their business to demand accountability in others, it could be said that NGOs and human rights
organisations have a particular responsibility to lead by example in this area and shine as beacons of
legitimacy and accountability.

This paper is in three main parts. First, it reviews the changing understanding of NGO accountability as it
has developed in the last ten years. Secondly, it sets out a framework for identifying the main tangible and
intangible sources of NGO legitimacy, specifically identifying the question of whether organisational
democracy is necessary to NGO legitimacy. Finally, it examines the mechanics of accountability,
emphasising stakeholder analysis and involvement as central to accountability methodology alongside an
appreciation of context and a commitment to transparency and responsiveness.

Redefining Accountability in the 1990s
The two pages of “The Economist “cited above, saw both Bayer and Oxfam called to account on two
fronts: who they represent and how they perform. For Bayer an example of “The Economists” group of
law-abiding companies there is a very traditional mercantile formula for accountability. The company
represents the interests of the shareholder and its performance is measured in profit and growth. This
mercantile tradition of accountability has long roots in western capitalism but has now been challenged by
progressive business people, NGOs and others who demand that corporate accountability become
deeper and broader. Moving beyond a single financial bottom-line, companies are now being urged to
account for a triple bottom-line that also encompasses social and environmental accounting. Ethical
business is increasingly being understood in terms of corporate citizenship that makes companies
explicitly responsible for wider public goods [3].

Their legitimacy increasingly depends on doing this or, at least, being seen to try to do it. Also in the
western tradition, charities have a well-worn way of accounting that has long historical precedent. Many
western charities have traditionally reported in a similarly minimalist vein to the business enterprises of the
numerous merchant philanthropists who founded or supported many of them. In broad terms, charities
have mainly been asked to report on the money raised and spent, the number of poor people reached,
and the administrative cost of raising and spending the money. This last measure is the notorious fund-
raising and administration ratio that has become the peculiar benchmark of organisational probity and
efficiency in the voluntary sector. Strangely, this ratio has always attracted far greater scrutiny than the
actual effect of the expenditure on poor people. Such is the pecuniary focus of the protestant ethic and the
spirit of capitalist charity. But like commercial companies, NGOs are also forcing themselves, and being
required by others, to broaden and deepen their notion of accountability. Their legitimacy also depends on
this.

With the rise of NGO advocacy as a mainstream strategy in alleviating poverty and working for social
justice, issues of accountability and legitimacy have become critical in recent years as NGOs speak out to
challenge corporations, governments, armed factions and other non-state actors. Long before it reached
the pages of “The Economist”, discussion of NGO accountability was already well advanced amongst
NGOs themselves. Throughout the 1990s, on paper at least, international NGOs working in the
humanitarian and development fields had staked out the key issues fairly well. Their policy makers and
resident thinkers had long recognised that to be credible and legitimate they were required to meet two
main requirements.

First, they had to justify the voice with which they spoke in their campaign materials, press conferences
and private lobbying. Secondly, they had to prove the effectiveness of the things they actually did in
slums, villages and refugee camps around the world. And, of course, all of them realised that one of the
best ways to justify the former was by relating it directly to the latter. The corridors of many a relief and
development NGO embarking on major advocacy work echoed with the mantra that: we must always be
seen to be speaking from our own practical experience. NGOs knew instinctively that their authority came
essentially from their presence in that mysterious place they call the field.

Performance Accountability
In the 1990s, therefore, the challenge was set within the NGO community to be more accountable for what
NGOs actually did. In the community of humanitarian agencies, this call to account for agency
performance achieved a new urgency in the wake of criticisms of some NGO response to the Rwandan
genocide. To their credit, humanitarian NGOs came together to try and put their house in order. In so
doing, they overtook their development colleagues and emerged at the end of the decade with several
mechanisms to try and achieve this: a Code of Conduct; a Humanitarian Charter and a set of technical
standards [4] a not-quite Ombudsman called the Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP); a new
emphasis on the quality and transparency of evaluations [5]; an active learning network gathering and
sharing the lessons learnt from humanitarian operations (ALNAP), together with initiatives to explore
quality models and professional accreditation. [6]

On the development side, moves were rather slower with less immediate results in the form of new
overview institutions and standards. Nevertheless, things happened. Many NGOs realised that they too
had a multiple bottom-line in their development work. It was no longer acceptable to simply report in terms
of programme outputs like a well dug or the distribution of a tonne of improved seed. The quest for
outcome monitoring and impact assessment began. [7] The practice of social audit was also actively
explored by several NGOs not least because they were also urging social and environmental audit on
commercial corporations. From the late 1980s onwards, most international NGOs also adopted strategic
planning and logical framework analysis that enabled them to set specific objectives across their whole
organisation (from Board level to project level) and account for them corporately. [8]

But none of this has proved to be easy. New managerialist modes of working have been difficult to roll out.
Most NGOs have found that profit or outputs are much easier to show than more nuanced questions of
outcome, impact and attribution. Creative accountants have a long tradition of complicating financial
reporting to make profit a matter of interpretation. But the current art and science of social and
environmental accounting is truly complex on occasion. Accounting for the impact or outcome of NGO
work can be uncertain, is usually contested and can border on pure speculation at times as NGOs try to
track cause and effect between their actions and the personal, social, economic, environmental and
political change around their projects. In the UK, the five biggest international NGOs (British Overseas Aid
Group BOAG) took the lead from the SPHERE humanitarian standards and the new emphasis on quality
frameworks in the UK voluntary sector to explore the idea of quality standards in development work. [9]
The subsequent report cautioned against the tendency of standards to proliferate and further
bureaucratise organisations with an overly procedural mind-set. However, it did recommend the idea of
organisational definitions of quality, a commitment to continuous improvement and a core set of around 10
key organisational standards, making the point that several of these (like a participation standard) could
be drawn directly from existing human rights standards. A number of humanitarian and development
NGOs are continuing to pursue a quality and standards approach. World Vision International has ten
ministry standards for its 65 member agencies. Oxfam International has agreed common programme
standards between its 11 organisations and, most recently, Caritas International has begun its own
attempt to set quality standards across its many member organisations. Mike Edwards of the Ford
Foundation has also put forward the development of light but firm quality standards for NGOs, an
independent development Ombudsman, certification and agreed complaints procedures but with no result
as yet. [10]

But the risks involved in standardising development are not just bureaucratic but also relational. The
BOAG report warned against an over-zealous adoption of a business quality model in particular: The
world of development is not the world of business and may not want to be subsumed into a
quintessentially business-like contractual relationship of manufacturer and consumer or service provider
and client. In its more charismatic form, western development discourse still talks of a relationship of
solidarity, accompaniment and partnership between NGOs and poor people. An overly business-like
application of quality and standards could distort such relationships forever. [11]

Mike Edwards has similarly pointed out that the problem with elaborate systems of accountability is that
they professionalise still further a relationship between NGOs and poor primary stakeholders that should
be continuous, immediate and human. [12] More technical accountability mechanisms may mean less
relationship *Voice Accountability* If in the last 10 years, NGOs realised they had to account differently for
what they did, they also had to account for what they said. This sort of voice accountability had to respond
to two areas of interrogation: the “veracity” of what they said and the “authority” with which they spoke.
Although obviously linked, questions of veracity were essentially empirical (can you prove it?) while
questions of authority were essentially political (from where do you derive your power to speak?).
International NGOs have tried to respond to both. In the 1990s, many of the big NGOs have significantly
increased their own research capacity or made strategic alliances with academics and think-tanks to
assure the quality of their research. But they have also kept firmly to their mantra of experience-based
advocacy. Much of what they advocate, lobby and campaign on uses detail drawn from their own projects.

This micro case-study approach is then added to the more macro analysis of academic and policy
researchers to produce an advocacy discourse of personalised facts which claim to illustrate trends. If this
is a research technique that seeks to guarantee veracity, the question of authority is more complicated. It
is on this point that “The Economist” and others have sought to pin down NGOs and it is here that many
NGO people have felt vulnerable. This vulnerability is not just technical around issues of representation, it
is also very personal because not many people in international NGOs are or have been poor themselves.
Their experience of poverty and suffering in war or disaster is indirect and mediated through their projects.
The issue of class is therefore critical to discussion of NGO voice. Being mainly middle class, people in
international NGOs can feel, or be made to feel, somehow fraudulent in speaking out about poverty. The
British Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, does a particularly good line in
tormenting the white man with his burden. She often lashes out at this Achilles heel when being cornered
by British NGOs but has few reservations about her own right to boss governments around in Africa and
Asia. At the time of the G8 summit in July 01, she observed “Who is better placed to speak on behalf of
the poor, middle-class white people in the north or the elected representatives of the poor of Africa
themselves?” [13]

This question of voice is perhaps the most contested area of NGO accountability and legitimacy. It seems
to have replaced the old fundraising and administration ratio as the critical criteria of NGO legitimacy in
the new century. And curiously, like its predecessor, this new voice ratio also bears very little relation to
the actual effectiveness of an NGO in the lives of poor people. Most NGO critics are still not primarily
concerned with whether or not NGOs do any good in the struggle against poverty or human rights
violations. What matters, it seems, is their class and their politics. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the
fundraising ratio determined the key question of charitable probity. In the 21st century, the voice ratio
looks set to determine the key matters of NGO legitimacy and credibility.
NGO discussions of voice accountability have been serious and thought through not least because of the
criticisms they receive from critics in rich and poor countries alike. The questions NGOs have asked
themselves concentrate on how their voice relates to the people they are primarily concerned about the
poor, people whose rights are violated, and the victims of war. These debates about NGO voice might be
summed up as follows: “do NGOs speak as the poor, with the poor, for the poor or about the poor?” As so
often in life, it is the little words in the debate that are complicated rather than the big ones. Arguments of
NGO voice accountability are essentially prepositional and hinge on the nature of their relationship with
the poor or the victims of human rights violation. How NGOs answer this question determines the precise
nature of their legitimacy. If they are an NGO or CBO (community based organisation) that is made up of
poor people or the victims of human rights violations then they can be regarded as “speaking as”. If an
NGO is working very closely with such people and speaks with their consent, then they can be said to be
“speaking with”. If as much NGO rhetoric declares the poor and the oppressed are effectively unable to
speak out and so are somehow voiceless then NGOs could claim to be “speaking for” or on behalf of
them. However, this last form of voice must be treated with great caution as it can be argued that it is in
the organisational interests of middle class NGO people to keep lower class people voiceless. In other
words, some voiceless-ness may be the result of NGO oppression as well as government or other violent
oppression. The problem of northern NGOs capturing the agenda and taking over the voice of southern
NGOs is well known. [14]

Finally, if NGOs are not strictly speaking as, with or for a particular group of poor or victimised people, or
are speaking so generally as to make specific relationships meaningless, then they may claim to be
“speaking about” poverty or oppression. Many NGOs will not have one uniform form of voice. Depending
on the situation, an NGO will be “speaking with” in one place and “speaking about” in another. But some
NGOs and CBOs will always be “speaking as” while others at the more policy end of the spectrum will
always be “speaking about”. But even in the most rooted and apparently representative of membership
organisations, certain power dynamics may mean that the voice of the group may also be captured by a
section within the group and skewed accordingly. It is obviously important for NGOs and human rights
groups to be clear about where their voice comes from in a given situation and to be transparent about it.
The precise nature of their legitimacy will change depending on which mode of voice they are using. But
they will lose all legitimacy if they are found to be masquerading as a sort of ventriloquist to the poor and
oppressed.

Sources of Legitimacy
As seen from the above review of the new accountability challenges to NGOs, legitimacy and
accountability are not the same thing, but they are closely related. Without indulging the academics
tendency towards protracted definition, the rest of the paper will use a single sentence summary definition
of legitimacy and accountability. It will then try to unpack each term a little further and identify some
principles which NGOs and human rights organisations might use to develop and argue their
accountability and legitimacy.

For our purposes, legitimacy might be defined as “the particular status with which an organisation is
imbued and perceived at any given time that enables it to operate with the general consent of peoples,
governments, companies and non-state groups around the world.” From this working definition, it can be
further observed that an NGO or human rights group‟s legitimacy is both “derived” and “generated”. It is
derived from morality and law. It is generated by veracity, tangible support and more intangible goodwill.

Moral and Legal Sources
At a fundamental ethical level, an organisation derives its legitimacy legally and morally. NGOs are
essentially self-mandating. In the international arena, by definition, they do not operate in accordance with
specific mandates given to them by states under international law. This is in contrast to specifically
mandated organisations like the ICRC and United Nations agencies. Their legality and their moral
recognition must therefore be argued more from first principles than from specific international statutes.
NGOs gain legitimacy simply from claiming their legality within international law and by their being law-
abiding. The fact that they operate legally, nationally and internationally in accordance with government
legislation thus contributes to their legitimacy. Internationally, NGOs can also claim to operate legally as
NGOs recognised in Art.71 of the UN Charter. As importantly, NGOs and human rights groups can claim
to work in support of international law because in their human rights, humanitarian or development work,
they operate with reference to human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law. Under
international humanitarian law, the staff of NGOs operating as impartial humanitarian organisations are
recognised as protected persons in an armed conflict. [15] Protection by these laws increases their
legitimacy. But the legitimacy of human rights groups and development NGOs does not come as a result
of simply recognising human rights law. As organisations of concerned people, such organisations can
actually claim legality, legitimacy and protection from these laws because of the importance these laws
place on human duties alongside human rights. [16]

Key articles of human rights law emphasise the individual‟s responsibility to promote respect for the
human rights of others and to limit their actions when they may violate the rights of others. [17] These are
duties that people must actively take on. Such duties and responsibilities have been spelt out in further
declarations relevant to NGOs and human rights groups. In 1986, the General Assembly adopted a
Declaration on the Right to Development. This makes clear that all human beings have a responsibility for
development, individually and collectively. [18] Building on this principle of responsibility, the UN General
Assembly also adopted a specific Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in 1998 that affirms the right of
individuals and groups to promote and protect human rights. [19]

So, in an important way, an organisation‟s duty or responsibility to promote development and human
rights can be argued from international human rights law. In much of their advocacy work with
governments, armed factions, corporations and the public, NGOs and human rights groups can be seen
as reminding people of these duties and, in so doing, meeting their own responsibilities and duties under
human rights law. But legality is only a small part of an organisations fundamental legitimacy. An NGO or
human rights group‟s wider legitimacy is morally derived. An organisational mission to challenge and end
human rights violations is derived explicitly from a moral case based on the values of human equality,
dignity, impartiality, justice, freedom and personal and collective responsibility. This moral case gives
human rights organisations and NGOs an ethical legitimacy that resonates with the moral reasonableness
of people across the world.

Expression and recognition of this fundamental morality is essential to organisations‟ legitimacy. This is
particularly important because simply being part of the new sacred space of civil society is not enough to
guarantee an NGOs legitimacy. As Alan Fowler has pointed out, there are many groups who exist in the
space made by civil society who cannot claim moral legitimacy. He gives the example of the Klu Klux Klan
in the USA but there are many other civil society organisations around the world who are distinctly uncivil
in their mission and values and cannot claim moral legitimacy. [20] “Tangible and Intangible Sources of
Legitimacy”. If legitimacy is thus “derived” legally and morally from first principles, it is also actively
“generated” tangibly and intangibly in practice.

Tangible Support
An organisations most tangible form of legitimacy probably comes in the form of direct support from the
people it seeks to help, its members, its supporters and its admirers. Perhaps the most powerful form of
tangible support for a human rights organisation comes if it has the strong support of the people whose
rights it is trying to protect and to realise. The fact that an organisation has their consent and they feel that
it is working with them in pursuit of their interests is a strong source of legitimacy. Similarly, if an NGO has
an extensive and representative membership, their legitimacy is enhanced considerably because they can
show the precise extent of their support and identify it as essentially democratic. But most NGOs are non-
membership organisations. Yet they can still make a strong case around the tangible support they receive
albeit in a way that it is not explicitly democratic and vote-based. For example, the financial support that
Oxfam receives from the public from 600,000 committed monthly givers, thousands of other additional
occasional givers and from governments gives it a large claim to both popular and official legitimacy. In
the UK, Oxfam gets massive voluntary support from around 20,000 volunteers. Such contributions in time
and in kind are another hugely important element of support. So too is the kind of support that can come
from the media, from opinion-formers and academics who support Oxfam‟s arguments or disagree with
them from a position of recognition and respect. This kind of tangible support that is made manifest in
money, time, intellectual agreement and shared conviction has to be actively generated by NGOs and
human rights groups. It can reveal that a broad base of people and governments back an organisation as
a morally important and practically effective operation, and one with which they actively seek to ally
themselves. In Oxfam‟s case, such support generates a very tangible asset in Oxfam‟s legitimacy. But
such support must be linked to real and transparent accountability mechanisms. If Oxfam‟s publicity
material and supporters briefings give a completely different view of Oxfam‟s programmes to that which
actually exists on the ground, then their legitimacy on this score would be fraudulent. Direct support does
not of itself create legitimacy but only when the supporters are properly informed about what they are
actually supporting. Popular consent for Oxfam‟s activities, therefore, must be informed consent if Oxfam
is to be truly legitimate on this count.
Tangible Relationships, Knowledge and Expertise
An organisation‟s legitimacy is also generated from its knowledge and its relationships. What an
organisation knows and whom it knows is a major source of its legitimacy. That a human rights group
knows certain facts about human rights law and patterns of human rights violation is extremely important,
giving it a legitimate expertise. Because NGOs know people who experience human rights violation,
poverty and extreme suffering (like IDPs in protracted war), or people who are in a position to do
something about it (like politicians, military leaders and TNCs) also gives these organisations legitimate
contacts. The fact that an NGO has relationships with people at some or all levels of a problem of human
rights violation means that it generates legitimacy from knowing such people directly. In this way, precise
knowledge and the right relationships are an important and quite tangible source of legitimacy. These
legitimacy assets might be summed up as valuable expertise and connections.

Tangible Performance
As discussed above, legitimacy is also generated by good performance. An NGO is more legitimate the
more it can show that its actual performance positively affects human rights, poverty and suffering.
Effective performance gives added value to a group‟s legitimacy because it means that it not only knows
about human rights violations and oppression but can really do something about them. Tangible action by
an NGO which delivers a good performance and enables real benefits to people is thus a major source of
legitimacy. It means that an NGO does not just care about human rights violations, know about human
rights, know both victims and powerful people, raise money for the cause but also actually achieves
things. Proven good performance can transform an NGO from being a morally good idea to being a very
practical moral pursuit. The fact that it works in practice makes it a more legitimate enterprise. As a
tangible asset of organisational legitimacy, performance and impact are extremely significant. Come the
crunch, they may act as something like the asset of last resort in any contest over an organisation‟s
legitimacy. However, results are not everything. In any performance, the means to the end are vitally
important when it comes to generating legitimacy. Notions of NGO performance and impact must be
properly nuanced and take full account of human rights in their means as well as their ends. A good
performance is not simply one that gets the obvious result. For example, an all-male team of surgeons
and nurses may well conduct a successful operation on a woman that saves her life. But they may do so
in such a way that they fail to discuss her illness with her, make sexist remarks about her body, give
precedence to male patients who turn up after her, operate without administering an anaesthetic and send
her home immediately. This is a result but it is not a good performance. So it is with human rights work,
NGOs must be able to show evidence of a well-rounded performance that resonates with the values of
human rights, not simply a result.

Intangible Sources of Trust, Integrity and Reputation
But there are also more intangible aspects of an NGO‟s legitimacy. Qualities such as credibility,
reputation, trust and integrity are critical to an organisation‟s legitimacy. Although they are closely
dependent on the tangible sources of legitimacy support, knowledge and performance, they are unusual
because they can take on a life of their own. They thrive on perception to function more like belief than
fact. They can rely on image rather than reality and may not require any empirical experience to influence
people one way or the other. For example, I might easily have a strong sense that Organisation X is a
really good thing even though I have never given it my money, seen its work, read its books or met
anyone that works for it. But I feel that it is good and legitimate because I have a sense of its credibility, its
integrity and its reputation. And so, I feel able to trust it and regard it as highly legitimate. These intangible
qualities generate what an accountant might call goodwill on her balance sheet. Classicists might describe
them as determining an organisations aura (literally its breeze or breath) or establishing the particular
kudos of an agency (its glory or renown). Whatever we call it, these more intangible assets of legitimacy
are hugely important because they are the basis on which most people perceive and value an
organisation of which they have little or no direct experience.

Legitimacy without Democracy?
The question asked of Oxfam by The Economist “Who elected Oxfam?” implies an assumption that only
democratically elected organisations are truly accountable and legitimate. The easy retort to such a
question is obviously “Who elected “The Economist”? But the democracy issue requires more thought
than this because it will be a determining point for NGO legitimacy and requires NGOs to have a solid
answer to it. There are perhaps two possible answers. Either NGOs could agree that only democratic
structures are truly accountable and legitimate. This would require them all to transform themselves into
democratic organisations. Or, NGOs could make a strong case for non-democratic accountability. This will
require them to shape the case and prove it. Either answer requires some pretty massive change in the
NGO sector. Opting for democracy would require major reorganisation. Opting for the second position
would require the elaboration of some very considered argument alongside some accountability
mechanisms to prove it. Alan Fowler has observed that: Most NGOs do not have a civic constituency of
governing members. The Greenbelt Movement in Kenya and the Landless Rural Workers Movement in
Brazil NGOs with mass membership are not typical. More usual is a self-perpetuating, self-selected set of
directors or trustees. [21]

This is obviously the case in the great majority of human rights organisations and NGOs and the onus on
such organisations is to show that they can still be legitimate without being democratic. A key part of this
argument will be determined by the claims they make for themselves as to whether they speak as, with,
for or about oppressed people. Different claims will require different accountability hurdles to be jumped to
claim their legitimacy. Alan Whaites of World Vision feels strongly that most NGOs of the kind described
by Fowler can be most legitimate if they specifically position themselves as critics and experts: The
special contribution of civil society has often been the art of critique or the negative campaign rather than
the promotion of a real vision for change. Landmines, debt, slavery, civil society, particularly in the rich
world: an NGO usually knows more clearly what it wishes to abolish than to build. [22] He concludes that
real change will and must really be brought about by political society, its parties and its politicians but that
as a key part of this process “civil society has a real and legitimate role in the education of political society
on issues in which it has expertise”.

This expert and educational role may be enough for some NGOs. But it may not be enough for some
human rights groups and NGOs who want to be a specific part of political society and to be as one with
some of the parties and politicians within it. As part of their efforts to argue their legitimacy, all NGOs will
have to be transparent about the precise nature of their activism. Yet, the idea of activism still remains
strangely unexplored in development circles. *Methods of Accountability* If these are some of the main
sources of an NGOs legitimacy, they are intricately connected to specific mechanisms of accountability. If
performance is critical to an NGOs legitimacy, it must then find convincing and transparent ways of
proving the quality of its performance. If goodwill and trust are critical, the same NGO must find ways to
gauge such intangibles. If an NGO claims that it gains part of its mandate from the people that support it
and work with it, then it must be able to show that it is engaged in a meaningful relationship with these
people which ensures they are informed about the organisation and influential in its operations. And
beyond just proving and gauging these things, an NGO must also be able to show that it is acting on
them. In other words, that it is acting positively on what it learns about its performance and the levels of
trust in which it is held then reporting its new actions back to its supporters. [23]

A working definition of NGO accountability has, therefore, to involve the three aspects of reporting,
involving and responding. In this way, we might define NGO accountability as: “the process by which an
NGO holds itself openly responsible for what it believes, what it does and what it does not do in a way
which shows it involving all concerned parties and actively responding to what it learns. “The fact that
accountability is primarily a process means that applying it is all about designing and operating practical
mechanisms to make it a reality. NGO thinking and experience on accountability to date suggests a
number of key factors that are critical to designing the right kind of mechanisms. The great thrust of
evolving thinking on accountability has centred on the need to recognise a much broader range of people
(living and not yet born) to whom any human organisation must be accountable. In order to identify these
people, the methodology of stakeholder analysis has become one of the key tools of NGO and other
organisations accountability. The first step in any accountability process is to map and analyse an NGOs
various stakeholders in a given situation. Even an initial mapping usually reveals certain conflicting
interests between stakeholders. An NGO must then find ways to prioritise these stakeholders in some way
as primary, secondary etc. This stakeholder analysis then becomes the key document with which to
design the right accountability mechanisms whether they be social audits, evaluations, external regulation,
complaints procedures, membership systems, environmental impact assessments, specific stakeholder
surveys etc.

Contextualising Accountability
A key part of the process of tailoring the right accountability mechanism to the right stakeholders is
recognition of context. The context in which human rights organisations and NGOs operate is by no
means uniform. For example, the right accountability mechanism for a human rights organisation working
on labour rights in a European country with high levels of literacy and well developed unions is not likely to
be appropriate for one working on labour rights with working children in South Asia where literacy rates
are low, child labour remains non-unionised and where obvious activism may carry extreme personal
risks. In other words, accountability procedures cannot be realistically expected to be uniform across a
wide range of NGO activity. Accountability methodology will have to be developed imaginatively in any
many contexts where off the shelf mechanisms may be unworkable. Accountability mechanisms must be
open for all to see. While this is a given in current accountability doctrine, it may pose certain problems for
human rights organisations who may not always be in a position to reveal their sources and contacts -
some of the how of their operations.

Nevertheless, any accountability system must recognise transparency as primary and identify specific
(and transparent!) criteria for reserving certain information on occasion. *A Basic Framework* Several
people in the NGO world have produced simple accountability frameworks. [24]For most NGOs, only a
small part of this accountability is legally required but increasingly the bulk of it is more professionally,
commercially, politically and morally demanded. Although the predominant metaphor of accountability is
financial, the actual demands of NGO accountability today are much wider than a financial procedure that
ensures that figures tally. Accountability is much more about reporting on relationships, intent, objectives,
method and impact. As such, it deals in information which is quantitative and qualitative, hard and soft,
empirical and speculative. It records facts and makes judgements. Also, current orthodoxy in
accountability is as keen to embrace failure and so learn from it, as it would be to celebrate success and
repeat it. The simple frameworks to date might be summarised as having four main dimensions to them.

Accountability for What?
An accountability process should start by identifying the rights involved in any NGO programme, the
relevant rights-holders and duty-bearers related to that right and the content of the duty in the situation.
From this rights-duties analysis, an NGO can then identify its own specific duty and set out to account for
it, while making clear the responsibilities of others. It can then account for what it does by being able to tell
as true a story as possible about the piece of work that it did in a given situation. This story will involve an
angle on all the different people involved, their experience of the work, the relationships that emerged, the
quality and standards expected, the money that was spent, the things that it was spent on. From these
perspectives, it should then be able to report on the overall impact that this combination of people,
relationships, money, things and time had on the rights concerned.

Accountability to Whom?
In any piece of work, an NGO will need to account to different groups of people as stakeholders. These
will be the targeted rights-holders, the various duty-bearers and those secondary and tertiary stakeholders
beyond the primary stakeholders who operate as interested or critical observers.

Accountability How?
Different stakeholders will require accounting to in different ways. Some people will require figures alone.
Others will require figures and impact. Some will be literate, others will not. Some will want to know a lot of
detail. Others will want to know the main points. So accountability will require diverse media.
Accountability processes must also involve key stakeholders through representative meetings, research,
representative assemblies or voting systems. But virtues common to all NGO accountability mechanisms
must be veracity and transparency. What an NGO is saying about itself, or what it reports others as saying
about it, must be reasonably true, easily available and accessible to all.

Accountability to Improve
NGO accountability mechanisms must show clearly how the agency is responding to what it has learnt
and what its stakeholders are telling it. The mechanisms chosen must demand and show responsiveness
by informing people about, and involving people in, new action taken.

Conclusion
This paper has tried to give an overview of some of the key themes in the current discussion of NGO
legitimacy and accountability. At the end of the day, questions of NGO legitimacy and accountability can
only really be answered by an organisation once it has decided what kind of organisation it wants to be. In
other words, once it has defined the exact nature of its activism. Some will opt to become democratic
social movements. Others will remain as accountable expert organisations. Ironically, those NGOs who
choose the latter course might then do well to adopt the Bayer Groups strap line “Expertise with
Responsibility”! Or, more ironic still, both expert groups and social movements could agree to come under
the joint banner of Price Waterhouse Coopers global strapline “Together We Can Change the World”!
Such is the mad rush for respectable global citizenship.
22. Items from CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation
ANGOA is a member of CIVICUS, and a member of the ANGOA committee is on the CIVICUS Board.
Established in 19”, CIVICUS nurtures the foundation, growth and protection of citizen action throughout
the world. CIVICUS seeks to amplify the voices and opinions of ordinary people. For effective and
sustainable civic participation to occur, citizens must enjoy rights of free association and be able to
engage all sectors of society.

Vision:
CIVICUS‟ vision is of a worldwide community of informed, inspired, committed citizens engaged in
confronting the challenges facing humanity.

CIVICUS new Secretary General appointed: Ingrid Srinath to take over helm.
Ingrid Srinath; currently Chief Executive of Child Rights and You (CRY) in Mumbai, India, will take over
from Kumi Naidoo and assume the position of Secretary General-Elect of CIVICUS on 1 May 2008. “The
CIVICUS Board believes that Ingrid possesses all the right skills to develop the organisation in the years
to come. She brings valuable experience and a fresh perspective to this global family of civil society and I
am convinced she will energise the movement we began.” said Anabel Cruz, CIVICUS Board Chair. Kumi
Naidoo, who has served as Secretary General since 1998, will step down as Secretary General at the end
of July following a 3 month hand over period. Kumi will remain highly involved in the work of CIVICUS as
the new Honorary President. With the arrival of Ingrid Srinath, the CIVICUS Board is convinced that they
have found a leader with the experience to ensure the continued growth of CIVICUS. For more
information, click here.

e-CIVICUS interview with CIVICUS World Assembly Manager
Ms. Margaret Fish
The World Assembly will take place from Wednesday 18 June to Saturday 21 June. This year‟s theme is
“Acting Together for a Just World”, which has been our overall theme since 2004. The Assembly will be
explored through the focus theme, “People, Participation and Power”. During the series of World
Assemblies in Scotland, we have taken time in the closing plenary to ask our delegates to choose the
focus theme for the next World Assembly. For 2007 the theme was Accountability, and for 2008 there was
a preference for Governance, which we have developed as People, Participation and Power in order to
focus not only on how people can influence and monitor governments, but also how they go about
influencing the policies that affect their lives, whether this is through campaigning, mobilising, consultation
or community organising. For more information on the interview, click here.

The quiet rise of civil society in the Middle East
By Mark MacKinnon
One of the most inspiring developments seen over the past few years in the Middle East has been the
quiet rise of civil society. Non-government organisations dedicated to quiet, but revolutionary change have
sprung up in countries that were long ruled by authoritarian governments, and where the political
opposition, where it existed, was weak, ineffective or dominated by Islamists that scared Western
governments into the short-sighted policy of backing the tyrants they knew and understood. The
breakthrough came three years ago in Lebanon, where a civil society organisation known as
Independence 05 brought hundreds of thousands of Lebanese into the streets of Beirut. To the
astonishment of the old guard, they demanded, and got, an end to Syria‟s 29-year military presence in
Lebanon and an investigation into the assassination earlier that year of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
For more information, click here.

Open letter to the Russian President Putin
By Sergei Kovalev
A prominent Russian human rights activist, and former Soviet dissident and political prisoner, Sergei
Kovalev in his Open Letter to President Putin says, "… in a country where the democracy was only
budding forth, we once again have no elections - the main criterion for a democracy. Gentlemen, I have
no doubt that you are well aware that the free expression of the will of free citizens via free democratic
elections can never result in 99.4% of the votes being cast for one party with a turnout of 99.5% of the
voters". For more information, click here.
Online Philanthropy: Opportunities and Challenges
Source: www.KeystoneAccountability.org
Two new articles in the Financial Times touch on two of the issues that are explored in the recently
published Keystone study „Online Philanthropy Markets: From Feel-Good Giving to Effective Social
Investing?‟, which discusses the wide variety of opportunities that the online world offers for transforming
the way people engage in philanthropic activities and the challenge of giving with both hearts and heads.
Sarah Murray, in a piece titled „The age of cyberspace offers aids for giving‟, reviews the rising
phenomenon of online giving and the opportunities that it presents for revolutionising philanthropy. The
article identifies that beyond offering a means for making donations easily, online philanthropy platforms
enable knowledge exchange among different actors that facilitate „a more “open source” approach to
finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems. For more information, click here.

Take Action: Coca-Cola - CLOSE Bottling Plants in India and Internationally
Support the communities of Kala Dera and Mehdiganj by sending the free fax below to the Chief
Executive Officer of Coca-Cola and join the growing community resistance in India in demanding that
Coca-Cola STOP Destroying Lives, Livelihoods and Communities in India and Internationally. The Coca-
Cola company is in crisis in India. A massive community led movement has emerged all across India to
challenge the company for its crimes in India. One of Coca-Cola's single largest plants in India, in
Plachimada in Kerala, has been shut down since March 2004 because of community opposition. Take
Action Now! Send the fax to the Chief Executive Officer of Coca-Cola and join the communities in India to
hold Coca-Cola accountable! Click here.


23. ANGOA Information
ANGOA is an independent nonprofit incorporated society, supported by an anonymous Family Trust. We
receive no direct funding from Government, and we sincerely thank the Trust for the independence it gives
us. Other contributions for specific projects have been gratefully received from the JR Mackenzie Trust.

ANGOA Membership – If you are an NGO you are Welcome to Join!
Subscriptions are an important component of support for ANGOA‟s work, helping us remain independent
of Government. An Application and Renewal form can be requested from the Coordinator, or printed from
the website. Membership is open to any NGO supporting the objects of ANGOA and willing to pay the
specified fee ($50). Organisations and individuals who do not qualify as members but who support
ANGOA‟s aims are welcome to make a donation, and may receive some of the materials ANGOA
produces. We thank you warmly for your support.

Website, and Postal Address
More information is available from the ANGOA Coordinator, dave.henderson@angoa.org.nz or from the
website www.angoa.org.nz The site includes back issues of Updates for the Community and Voluntary
Sector Roundtable and the Community and Voluntary Sector Research Forum.
The ANGOA postal address is PO Box 24 243, Manners Street, Wellington.


This newsletter is produced as part of ANGOA‟s efforts to strengthen the Community and Voluntary
Sector in Aotearoa” New Zealand and all information in it is gathered and included to assist that purpose.
The accuracy of information reprinted here is not guaranteed, but we do our best.
See you at the next Roundtable; 2 April 2008, 10am to midday. Cheers!