Any option
chosen for the project should conform to these values, as should any partner
institutions. Beyond these consensus issues, however, there are differences.
In particular, there is scope for considerable divergence of opinion in at
least one of the factors discussed in chapter 1, namely partnership and collective
action. We have identified at least four alternative models as possible ways
of proceeding: comprehensive, donor, partnership, and facilitation. These
models or stylized approaches respond to the consensus within HDFNA and amongst
its potential partners on the key features of anticipated programs. In this
chapter, we discuss the pros and cons of the four stylized approaches in order
to recommend what appears to us to be the most fruitful course of action.
The choice
between the different models will rest on the criteria selected for judgment
and the weight to be placed on each. Each model offers different sets of strengths
and weaknesses. Based on our discussions with HDFNA and its potential partners,
and our own experience of working with NGOs in Pakistan and elsewhere, we propose the following
as the most relevant criteria:
v
Impact. What are the likely long-term impacts of the approach
on policies for and the practice of human development activities in Pakistan? What
level of influence is the project likely to have beyond its area of coverage?
v
Innovation. Will adopting this approach make a unique contribution
to the general arena of development action in Pakistan?
v
Cooperation. What will be the level of cooperation with other development
actors—including NGOs, other civil society, and government?
v
Mobilizing Non-Resident
Pakistanis (NRPs). What
level of motivation does the approach provide to HDFNA's constituency of non-resident
Pakistanis?
v
Leveraging Resources.
What is the likelihood of leveraging resources from sources other than HDFNA,
including government and international funds?
v
Coverage. How difficult is it to bring new regions into the folds
of the project? Can the approach be extended to large geographical units
(e.g., Tehsil, District, Province)?
v
Speed of Change. Over what time period can the approach produce demonstrable
results?
v
Management. How complex would the management system have to be?
v
Image. What image would HDFNA be projecting by adopting this
approach? What will be the nature of HDFNA's investment?
Our discussion
of the four options is organized around these nine issues and the questions
imbedded within them. Each of the four options has particular strengths and
weaknesses; each places particular demands on HDFNA and builds upon particular
characteristics of the organization. It is important to remember that the
choice of one option over the other relates as much to questions of management
and finances as it does to HDFNA's own vision and identity. The discussion
below, and the final recommendation of the Chapter, attempts to keep both
issues in perspective.
2.1 · The Comprehensive (or "Go it Alone") Approach
This approach
is based on the idea of HDFNA creating and supporting the activities of an
NGO that works on a comprehensive package of integrated human development
(i.e., community mobilization for health, education, and poverty alleviation).
In practice, it is very much a "Go it Alone" approach in that the
selected NGO will implement its comprehensive program alone with only the
minimal interaction with other NGOs.
This could
either be a new NGO created specifically for this purpose (similar to APPNA
creating APPNA-Sehat) or an existing NGO 'adopted' by HDFNA and 'upgraded'
from a mono-focussed to a multi-focussed human development NGO. The obvious
example is to ask APPNA-Sehat to expand the scope of its activities beyond
health to include education and poverty alleviation. However, other examples
could be chosen.
In terms
of the specific activities to be undertaken by the selected NGO, there is
a considerable body of knowledge and experience in Pakistan to provide guidance. Much of this experience is based on an
imitation or adaptation of the community based development model, first introduced
in then East Pakistan
by Dr Akhter Hameed Khan. In this model, the first step is a dialogue with
communities resulting in their agreement to host the activities of the NGO.
This is followed by agreements on community organization and external inputs.
A baseline survey accompanied by the community's own needs assessment and
prioritization will lead to a community-led human development program. The
project can use a number of entry points (Health, education, and productive
infrastructure) in order to convince community members of the benefits of
cooperation and self-development. The technical assistance provided by the
project staff may range from merely facilitating early community meetings
to providing a small credit window to paying for teachers and trained birth
attendants.
While the
precise mix of activities will vary by region and community, the overall goal
of the 'comprehensive' NGO under the 'go it alone' approach, as in all other
approaches, would be to facilitate community-led human development in the
areas where it works. Here, however, the NGO will work on its own without
any formal cooperation with other NGOs or government; with the possible exception
of obtaining some staff training (e.g., from NRSP, SPO).
Operationally,
HDFNA's role will be to provide guidance and raise funds for the activities
of this NGO. The relationship will be very similar to that between APPNA
and APPNA-Sehat. HDFNA will have direct 'ownership' of the NGO and its image
will be linked directly to the NGO, which will be its subsidiary just as APPNA-Sehat
is a subsidiary of APPNA. The HDFNA Board and its individual contributors
will, therefore, have ample opportunity to mould the NGO's activities according
to their own vision of integrated human development.
2.1.1
Key Characteristics
The key characteristics
of this approach under each of the criteria listed earlier are as follows:
v
Impact. HDFNA will provide a comprehensive human development
package to the area where this NGO operates and, in doing so, seek to validate
the benefits of integrated human development as opposed to sectorally focussed
initiatives. If successful, the long-term impact of this approach would be
to encourage other NGOs to adopt a similarly multi-sectoral approach to human
development. However, the impacts are likely to be local to the area of operation
and without much influence beyond the project's coverage area.
v
Innovation. This approach is not particularly innovative or unique.
Other multi-focus NGOs are already operating under a similar model. Examples
that come to mind include initiatives such as the Orangi Pilot Project.
v
Cooperation. In some ways the "Go it Alone" model is an
isolationist model. There is little room for formal cooperation with other
NGOs or with government (beyond the provision of certain training and monitoring
services). While this might make management easier, it also means that the
multiplier effect of the project is likely to be less than it might be under
a more collaborative framework.
v
Mobilizing Non-Resident
Pakistanis. The sense of
ownership of the NGO is likely to be a major motivation for non-resident
Pakistanis, particularly Pakistani physicians in North America.
Once the project has demonstrated some success and has established itself
as the 'identity' of HDFNA in Pakistan, it is likely to assist HDFNA in mobilizing a higher
level of resources from NRPs.
v
Leveraging Resources.
Since HDFNA, as an organization of Pakistani physicians abroad, is viewed
by many in Pakistan as a
donor organization (and a rich organization at that) some donors may feel
reluctant to provide additional funding to an NGO that is identified as a
direct extension and subsidiary of HDFNA. It might be argued that HDFNA can
itself raise substantial funds for its project while the limited funds available
elsewhere would be better used in supporting other projects and groups which
do not enjoy this sort of backing.
v
Coverage. The approach is quite flexible in relation to coverage.
It would be relative easy for the project to extend its services to new regions,
given the desire of donors, the availability of resources, and the institutional
capacity of the NGO. However, a strategy of very rapid diversification is
likely to run counter to operational efficiency and efficacy and should be
embarked upon with some care. It is unlikely for the project to cover large
geographic units (such as a full District) on its own in the foreseeable future.
v
Speed of Change.
The approach can deliver relatively quick results.
This is partly because it does not face the challenge of cultivating functional
collaboration between different partners. While the potential for achieving
results over the short-term will endear it to donors and help mobilize NRPs,
the cumulative long-term results may actually be less impressive under the
"Go-it-alone" approach.
v
Management. The approach requires a comparative ease of management
as far as collaborating with other NGOs or government is concerned. However,
a multi-focussed program with multi-skill teams will require a sophisticated
system of internal management.
v
Image. HDFNA and its members will have direct 'ownership'
of the NGO established or supported under this approach. HDFNA's image will
be linked directly to the NGO, which will be its subsidiary just as APPNA-Sehat
is a subsidiary of APPNA. Under this approach HDFNA would be investing in
the strengthening of one NGO.
2.1.2
Assessment
The pros
and cons of the Comprehensive, or "Go it Alone", approach that emerge
from the discussion above are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: The Comprehensive (or "Go it Alone")
Approach—Pros and Cons
| |
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
Impact
|
|
· Impacts are likely to be local without much influence
beyond the project's coverage area.
· Investment will be put to good use but without much
of a multiplier effect.
|
|
Innovation
|
|
· Offers little that is new; other organizations are
already involved in similar activities.
|
|
Cooperation
|
|
· Little opportunity to influence work of other NGOs
or to build a movement.
|
|
Mobilizing NRPs
|
· Sense of ownership is likely to motivate NRPs and
improve fundraising.
|
|
|
Leveraging Resources
|
|
· Outside donors likely to feel inhibited.
|
|
Coverage
|
· Relatively easy to start program in new areas (depending
on donor interest, resources, and institutional capacity). Geographically,
likely to be moderately diversified.
|
· Limited scope for fully covering large units (e.g.
Tehsils or Districts) in the foreseeable future.
|
|
Speed of Change
|
· High probability of demonstrable achievements in the
short-term.
|
|
|
Management
|
· Relative ease of management because there are no coordination
problems with or NGOs or government.
|
|
|
Image
|
· HDFNA will have strong and direct influence.
|
· HDFNA remains a donor/implementer of relatively small
scale projects.
|
This is,
in fact, a minimal risk strategy which essentially extends what APPNA has
been doing with APPNA-Sehat to a broader mandate of integrated human development.
However, of the four options this offers the least multiplier effect. Not
only is it unlikely to leverage too many resources from sources outside HDFNA
(especially in these times of geo-political unease) but it also does not offer
the network for quick replication that a more collaborative approach would
provide. Although the approach offers the prospects of quick returns in the
short-term, its influence beyond the project area is likely to be limited.
Our overall
assessment of the Comprehensive (or "Go it Alone") approach is that
it may be selected only if a minimal-risk strategy is desired. It is unlikely
to leverage HDFNA's relatively limited resources into the type of large-scale
social change that is desired.
2.2 · The Donor (or "United Way") Approach
This option
is modeled after the United
Way approach in the
United States. Under this option HDFNA would become
a financial intermediary, or a conduit for resources from nonresident Pakistanis
to NGOs and CBOs in Pakistan working
in the general area of human development. To those NGOs and CBOs, HDFNA would
provide a new source of funding. To its constituency of NRPs, HDFNA would
provide a mechanism for choosing reliable and effective NGO initiatives to
contribute to.
HDFNA's role
will be to match the resource generated from expatriate Pakistanis to the
most appropriate groups in Pakistan. Individual contributors will have
the option to make 'unassigned' contributions to the general pool (which will
be used at the discretion of the HDFNA Board) or 'assign' their contribution
to specific a geographic and/or substantive area or to a particular partner
organization. For example, one person may 'assign' his contribution to be
used in the NWFP for education related activities while another might say
that her contribution should be used for poverty eradication programs without
specifying a particular geographic region.
It is to
be expected that the bulk of the contributions will fall in the unassigned
categories. The choices available to the individual contributor would, obviously,
have to be carefully selected and will depend largely on the availability
of suitable NGO partners. In the beginning, it is expected that fairly few
choices would be available. Targeted fundraising drives may also be undertaken
where HDFNA adopts a particular initiative (for example, raising a particular
amount for the Prime Minister's Literacy Commission) and seeks contributions
specifically for it.
HDFNA will
screen the NGO and CBO partners who apply for these funds, define the parameters
for funding, evaluate proposals, and manage the disbursement of funds. Where
necessary, HDFNA may also negotiate with a partner NGO to begin operation
in areas where no existing NGO operates but donor interest has been expressed.
HDFNA may want to gain some leverage by insisting that it will only provide
matching grants that have to be supplemented by funds generated from other
donors. Since not all NGOs funded under this approach may already be working
on integrated human development, HDFNA could use its funds as an incentive
to influence NGOs toward that direction. Similarly, HDFNA can establish policies
that encourage collaborative project proposals.
A number
of NRPs who want to contribute something back to their homeland and communities
are unable or unwilling to do so because they feel that a) their individual
contributions, even when significant, are not large enough to bring about
an appreciable change, b) it is difficult for them to screen the many NGOs
that have mushroomed and determine where their dollars will bring about the
most meaningful results, and c) they would prefer their contributions to be
used in areas and on issues that are dearest to them. This approach addresses
these issues by a) pooling the contributions, b) screening potential recipients
and ensuring constant quality control and improvement, and c) giving individual
contributors a choice as to where, on what, and by whom their contribution
will be used. While the first two benefits are, to varying extents, also
derived in the other three models the third directly addresses the parochial
instincts of expatriate Pakistanis and can result in significantly increased
resource mobilization.
2.2.1
Key Characteristics
The key characteristics
of this approach under each of the criteria listed earlier are as follows:
v
Impact. The objective of the Donor approach is to support a
"thousand points of light" and encourage grassroots organiztions.
The impact will be dispersed over the many projects funded by HDFNA and there
is likely to be some influence beyond the projects being funded directly because
of the relationships developed with particular NGOs and CBOs. However, the
very real risk of occasional bad choices will dilute the impact of good ones.
Moreover, the overall impact is likely to be limited because, compared to
other donors, HDFNA's resources are very small and its influence is likely
to be proportional.
v
Innovation. This approach is only mildly innovative and unique.
A number of attempts have been made by donors to establish 'clearinghouses'
for small grants to NGOs and CBOs. The Trust for Voluntary Organizations
(TVO), for example, is already operating in Pakistan under a similar model, at least at the disbursement
end. The approach is, however, unique at the resource mobilization end in
its focus on mobilizing resources from non-resident Pakistanis.
v
Cooperation. While there is no requirement for NGOs being funded
under this approach to collaborate in their activities, such cooperation could
be encouraged for NGOs working in the same area. NGOs may also be encouraged
to submit collaborative project proposals. Generally, however, the level
of cooperation facilitated by this approach is limited to improved links (of
a donor-recipient nature) between HDFNA and selected NGOs and CBOs.
v
Mobilizing Non-Resident
Pakistanis. An extended
menu of choices and the ability to assign one's contribution to particular
regions or issues is likely to be a major motivator for increased resource
generation from non-resident Pakistanis in North America
and elsewhere. The approach is particularly adept at capitalizing on the
parochial preferences of individual donors.
v
Leveraging Resources.
This approach does not allow HDFNA to leverage resources from other donors
since HDFNA would now become a direct competitor to them in the disbursement
of funds. However, some indirect leveraging may be possible in cases where
an NGO gets part of its funding for a project from HDFNA and raises the rest
from elsewhere on its own. Overall, the leveraging potential is limited.
v
Coverage. This option offers the greatest flexibility of coverage.
Dispersed activities can be undertaken wherever donor interest matches the
availability of a suitable local partner (including the willingness of a partner
NGO to begin operation in that area). While the approach allows for sporadic
activities to be undertaken all over the country, it is not possible to launch
a systematic program at the scale of a large geographic unit.
v
Speed of Change.
The approach can deliver relatively quick results, especially
when it is funding already mature projects. While the potential for achieving
visible results over the short-term will endear it to donors and help mobilize
NRPs, the cumulative long-term results are unlikely to add up to a systematic
and directed movement towards rapid social and economic change.
v
Management. HDFNA will require a fairly strong presence in Pakistan to monitor
and evaluate a large pool of NGOs and CBOs. Key management tasks will include
screening potential NGOs and CBOs, defining parameters for funding, evaluating
proposals and managing disbursements. Although the management system will
be simple, it will be high-risk management because it is difficult to gauge
the sincerity and efficacy of organizations (there are too many ineffective
and outright corrupt NGOs). Occasionally, bad choices will be made.
v
Image. HDFNA will be seen as a pure 'donor' organization or
a financial intermediary. Because of the traditional image of international
donors, adopting a donor persona without an actual implementation agenda will
weaken HDFNA's legitimacy as a truly Pakistani entity. Its investment will
go towards strengthening of grassroots NGOs in general.
2.2.2
Assessment
The pros
and cons of the Donor, or "United Way",
approach that emerge from the discussion above are listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: The Donor (or "United Way") Approach—Pros
and Cons
| |
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
Impact
|
· May be able to influence funded NGOs beyond the funded
projects.
|
· Impacts are likely to be local and even if spread
over the entire country are unlikely to add up to a systematic movement
for change.
|
|
Innovation
|
|
· Offers little that is new; other organizations are
already involved in similar activities.
|
|
Cooperation
|
· Possibility of partially influencing the work of a
large number of NGOs.
|
· Donor-recipient relationships tend to be tentative
and fraught with distrust rather than genuine partnership.
|
|
Mobilizing NRPs
|
· Responds to preference of NRPs and enables greater
fundraising from them.
|
· Donor wishes may not match community needs.
|
|
Leveraging Resources
|
|
· No prospects of direct resource mobilization from
other donors.
|
|
Coverage
|
· Easy to start program in new areas (depending on donor
interest and availability of suitable NGOs). Geographically, likely
to be highly diversified.
|
· Coverage across country will be sporadic depending
on donor whims and availability of suitable partners.
· No possibility for full coverage of large units under
a systematic program.
|
|
Speed of Change
|
· High probability of demonstrable achievements in the
short-term.
|
|
|
Management
|
· Management tasks are essentially routine and simple.
|
· Quality control is difficult. It is not easy to gauge
the sincerity and efficacy of recipients. Risk of bad choices is very
real.
|
|
Image
|
|
· HDFNA is seen as a (small) donor.
|
The most
important strength of this model is that it directly responds to the preferences
of nonresident Pakistanis and is, therefore, likely to help HDFNA in mobilizing
greater funds from this constituency over time. In addition, it offers relatively
easy access to new locations and regions. The two most important limiting
factors relate to the availability of suitable NGOs and of adequate funds.
First, HDFNA may not always find suitable NGOs and CBOs working in areas and/or
on issues identified by its clients. More importantly, HDFNA's financial
resources are very small in comparison to other international donors and its
influence in this role will also be severely restricted. Consider, for example,
that the donor commitment to the Second Social Action Plan (SAP-II) is to
the tune to $2 billion over 5 years, the World Health Organization's Basic
Minimum Needs Program has an outlay of $425 million over 3 years while UNICEF
has a program budget of $100 million over the same period. No matter how
successful HDFNA's fundraising amongst NRPs might be, it is not likely to
reach these proportions in the foreseeable future.
In addition,
quality control is a serious problem under this option because it is very
difficult to screen for suitable NGOs and CBOs, especially since a number
of organizations are either ineffective or outright corrupt. Finally, there
is the danger that donor whims may not be in line with the felt needs of the
beneficiaries. Arguably, this options places much more importance on the
interests of the donor than of potential beneficiaries.
Our overall
assessment is that HDFNA will significantly limit its own impact if it chooses
the Donor (or "United Way") approach. As a donor, HDFNA can simply not compete
for influence against other international donors who have far greater resources
at their disposal.
2.3 · The Partnership (or "Collaboration") Approach
This approach
calls for HDFNA to act as a catalyst to forge a collaborative partnership
between existing NGOs with a proven track record of achievement. HDFNA's
role will be to set up and provide resources for an association of partner
NGOs for a joint program on integrated human development. All partners (including
HDFNA) will agree to collaborate on the project as a 'partnership' and make
the requisite resources and expertise available. Much of the effort will
go towards establishing a system of collaborative governance and decision
making which involves all partner institutions as well as community leaders.
This will require a very high degree of operational collaboration between
the various partner organizations (including HDFNA) and a system of periodic
and regular contact with government, especially at the local and Provincial
levels.
The resulting
organization will be viewed as a genuinely Pakistani entity--with clearly
defined national, regional and local systems of governance--established with
the support of HDFNA. Once the partnership has demonstrated itself to be
a true and lasting collaboration it should be able to raise significant resources
from different national and international sources to substantially leverage
the investment from HDFNA. The success of the initiative will also assist
HDFNA in mobilizing greater contributions from NRPs.
Operationally,
the approach calls for pooling together the experience and expertise of the
partners and establishing a joint initiative which builds on the synergies
of the partnership. The partners are to be chosen for the similarities of
their approaches and a common commitment to community-driven, large-scale
social change. The approach will adopt a modular system, working in units
of around 1000 households each. After establishing Field Offices at the Tehsil
level, the project will seek communities willing and able to host the work
of the project.
Beginning
with community mobilization and needs identification, the project staff will
work with community organizations to establish initiatives in the area of
health, education and poverty alleviation in each unit. At the Tehsil Field
Office level, the staff will work closely with partner NGOs and local civil
society to devise and implement the most appropriate systems for community-led
social change. A national office and a strong Advisory Board will establish
a visible and distinct Pakistani presence for the project. The Advisory Board
will be responsible for programmatic decisions, and will be comprised of roughly
equal numbers of resident and non-resident Pakistanis, including the heads
of partner institutions and other leading civil society representatives. Its
members will be the principal champions of the project in Pakistan as well
North America, responsible for preserving and protecting the vision of the
project and raising funds for its growth.
2.3.1
Key Characteristics
The key characteristics
of this approach under each of the criteria listed earlier are as follows:
v
Impact. The Partnership approach would demonstrate a replicable
model of operational collaboration between NGOs and highlight the synergies
of such collaboration. Not only is this a niche area where no one else is
currently investing but it promises to have significant long-term impacts
in terms of encouraging greater collaboration between development NGOs in
Pakistan.
v
Innovation. Practitioners and scholars have been arguing for the
more collaboration between NGOs and its efficacy has already been demonstrated
in North America and Europe. Although there is consensus in Pakistan on the
need for more collaboration between NGOs working in the same area and on related
issues, the approach has not been put to actual practice because many NGOs
are afraid of management complexity not to mention personality conflicts.
More importantly, collaboration cannot take place without proper investment
and incentives and no one has yet been willing to make that investment or
play the catalytic support role. The approach will be unique in Pakistan and
will provide an important innovation with possibly far-reaching consequences.
It will enable HDFNA to occupy a niche role and fill a critical national gap.
v
Cooperation. The entire approach is premised around operational
cooperation between NGOs. It will involve close and ongoing collaboration
between partner NGOs, cooperative interaction with other NGOs working on similar
issues and regular contact with government, especially at the Provincial and
local levels. It is very likely that partner institutions will continue collaborating
beyond Project Pakistan.
v
Mobilizing Non-Resident
Pakistanis. A large-scale,
visible and focussed project can be used effectively to motivate and mobilize
non-resident Pakistanis. The approach is structured to highlight the 'Pakistani-ness'
of its sponsors, which should be a source of motivation for NRPs. This approach
provides a higher profile and a distinct Pakistani identity to the project,
and therefore to inputs from non-resident Pakistanis. Although the approach
needs to be concentrated in a few selected areas, those areas can be strategically
selected to represent the preferences of potential NRP donors.
v
Leveraging Resources.
An important component of the project is a resident Pakistani mechanism for
raising additional resources from outside donors to leverage HDFNA's contribution.
Moreover, the distinct Pakistani identity of the project, its joint ownership
by a set of already established and well-respected NGOs, and the uniqueness
of its intervention philosophy are all likely to contribute to a much greater
interest from outside donors than might otherwise be expected.
v
Coverage. The approach will work best if it is concentrated in
a few areas with the requisite long-term commitment from all partners to ultimately
cover a large administrative unit (e.g., a Tehsil). The approach can be extended
to large geographic units and is replicable at large scales. The decision
to enter a new region will depend on the ability and willingness of all partners
to work in that area and would require significant planning, resources, and
a long-term commitment from all partners.
v
Speed of Change.
Time for 'learning how to collaborate' will need to
be built into the project design and a significant investment (of time as
well as resources) in the early phase will go towards facilitating collaboration.
This may translate to fewer 'demonstrable' results in the early phase. However,
such results will begin to emerge in the medium-term and accumulate quickly
over the long-term.
v
Management. Collaboration between groups with different histories
and style can be difficult and will require adequate investment in fostering
collaboration. The management structure will also have to provide ample space
and opportunities for community participation and a role for selected government
representatives. Moreover, the approach calls for a visible and distinct
Pakistani presence, including a national office and a high-quality Advisory
Board. All of this will translate to a fairly complex management structure.
v
Image. HDFNA will be seen as a catalyst for long-term social
change. Its image as an organization of Pakistanis, working actively with
other Pakistani organizations, and interested in investing in and bring about
long term social change in Pakistan will be strengthened. HDFNA will be investing in fostering
a new and replicable model of operational collaboration between NGOs.
2.3.2
Assessment
The pros
and cons of the Partnership, or "Collaboration", approach that emerge
from the discussion above are listed in Table 2.3.
The most
important strength of this approach is that it champions a new and innovative
model of collaboration between NGOs. If successful, the approach can have
far-reaching impacts on how NGOs working on community development operate
in Pakistan. The approach builds on the known
achievements of reliable partners and brings together some of the best experience
in the country. In doing so, it will demonstrate the synergies of adopting
a multi-sectoral; multi-partner approach to integrated human development.
The project can become a catalyst for large-scale and long-term change and
it can be hoped that the positive example of this project would encourage
these and other NGOs to collaborate elsewhere on similar projects for integrated
human development.
Table 2.3: The Partnership (or "Collaboration")
Approach—Pros and Cons
| |
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
Impact
|
· Demonstrates a replicable model of large-scale social
change.
· Will encourage greater collaboration between NGOs
and can have long-term policy impacts.
|
|
|
Innovation
|
· Demonstrates an innovative approach for operational
NGO collaboration.
· HDFNA occupies a niche role.
|
|
|
Cooperation
|
· Builds on the known and demonstrated strength of reliable
partners.
· Partner organizations likely to also collaborate beyond
this project.
|
|
|
Mobilizing NRPs
|
· Provides NRPs with a strong Pakistani presence and
a high-profile project with significant long-term benefits.
|
· NRP donors may be impatient with slow pace of results
in the early phase or the concentration of the project in a few locations.
|
|
Leveraging Resources
|
· High prospects of leverage resources from other donors
outside of HDFNA.
|
|
|
Coverage
|
· Can be expanded and replicated at large geographical
and administrative units.
|
· Starting activities in new regions will require substantial
planning, resources and a long-term commitment.
· Because the project's activities will be concentrated
in a few regions, so will the risks.
|
|
Speed of Change
|
|
· Demonstrable results are unlikely to be produced in
the short-term.
|
|
Management
|
|
· Fostering collaboration between different organizations
can be difficult and expensive. Division of responsibilities and resources
between partners can cause stress. A complex management system will
be required.
|
|
Image
|
· Highlights HDFNA's and the project's strong Pakistani
image.
· Highlights a commitment to large-scale, long-term
social change rather than small development interventions.
|
· HDFNA shares the "ownership" of project
with other NGOs.
|
However,
the approach does require a significant investment in collaboration to overcome
the challenge of making different organizations with different histories and
style to work together. For this, HDFNA will have to make a long-term commitment
to fostering collaboration.
Our overall
assessment is that the Partnership (or "Collaborative") approach
is well suited to HDFNA's goal of launching a movement for long-term social
change and will provide the organization with a strong presence and legitimacy
in Pakistan. The approach allows HDFNA to mobilize
much more than its own direct investment by leveraging significant funds from
other donor and building on the experience and expertise of its partners.
2.4 · The Facilitation (or "Alliance") Approach
This is the
most ambitious of the four options and seeks to facilitate government-NGO-community
cooperation in providing quality services at the level of a reasonably large
administrative unit (e.g., a Tehsil). HDFNA's role would be to champion a
new and innovative model of local governance that brings together the various
actors relevant to human development to work under one coordinated system.
In compartmentalizing these various actors (government, NGOs, communities,
other civil society actors, etc.) the current system disperses their energies,
often against each other. The Facilitation approach aims to channel these
energies towards a larger common purpose.
Under this
approach, HDFNA would use its goodwill to negotiate with Provincial and local
government to assume management coordination responsibilities for a selected
set of human development related services (e.g., health, education, income
generation, community development, environment, etc.) for a given administrative
unit (e.g. a Tehsil). HDFNA would then invest in nurturing a mechanism of
local governance based on coordination between government line agencies, NGOs,
CBOs, and other civil society actors. An important goal would be the replication
and scaling up of the innovations and successes of NGO and community initiatives
within government programs and beyond. This approach can only be facilitated
by an organization that is undisputedly 'Pakistani', has broad political legitimacy
at the national and provincial level, and is not seen as a 'competitor' by
NGOs or government agencies. HDFNA—as a representative of overseas Pakistanis,
particularly the highly respected community of non-resident Pakistani physicians—is
uniquely placed to play this role.
The Facilitation,
or "Alliance", approach will seek to upgrade the quality of services
provided by the government system, iron out management inefficiencies, ensure
direct community involvement in the provision of these services, and expand
the services (through both governmental and non-governmental means) to fully
cover the entire Tehsil. This will be achieved not as much by "taking
over" the government infrastructure as shepherding an "alliance"
between governmental and non-governmental actors involved in the same activity
and working with both to erase duplication, enhance efficiency, upgrade quality,
and mobilize citizen involvement in community services.
This approach
is different from the Partnership approach in a number of significant ways.
Not only is the scale of intervention much larger but it would also involves
a larger number of partners. Notably, it seeks direct cooperation with government
agencies. Structurally, it is different in that instead of committing to
a formal and contractual partnership with a small and select group of partners,
it seeks to form a broader coalition of development partners that would include
governmental, non-governmental and civil society representatives.
The challenge
of this approach is to manage a process of coordination between disparate
actors used to operating under very different institutional conditions and
often apprehensive of each other. Many in government and some in NGOs might
see the approach as a threat to their institutional autonomy. They will have
to be convinced that far from being a threat such cooperation is both an opportunity
and a necessity. While NGO and community initiatives have demonstrated impressive
success in Pakistan, the human development challenge faced by the country is so huge that NGOs
alone simply cannot address it. On the other hand, a chronic shortage of
resources, inefficient and outmoded systems, a pervasive lack of motivation,
and eroding public confidence place government agencies in a similar quandary.
While the
operating styles of the government and NGOs may differ, the ultimate goals
are often the same—providing education, improving health, alleviating poverty.
To NGOs, this approach offers a canvas bigger and broader than they can ever
hope to operate upon on their own; to government line agencies, it offers
a chance to upgrade skills, overhaul management systems, and above all to
regain public trust and confidence by actually providing quality services.
If one thinks about it carefully, the match is an obvious one and will have
to be made sooner or later if truly large-scale change is to be brought about.
2.4.1
Key Characteristics
The key characteristics
of this approach under each of the criteria listed earlier are as follows:
v
Impact. The Facilitation approach will demonstrate a model
of collaborative governance that brings together government and non-governmental
actors and ensures citizen participation at all levels of decision-making,
while improving the quality of services. This would be a truly path-breaking
achievement with far reaching policy implications and will provide a new and
replicable model for large-scale social and economic change.
v
Innovation. This approach champions a unique and innovative experiment
in governance that can have national as well as international implications.
If successful, it will make Project Pakistan a major
breakthrough and one that will be closely studied and possibly replicated
all over the country and the world. HDFNA will be occupying a niche role
and filling a critical gap.
v
Cooperation. The approach is premised around operational cooperation
between government, NGOs and citizens. HDFNA will make the necessary investment
and play the lead role in establishing and facilitating a system of formal
and informal coordination between different development actors. It will negotiate
with government and NGOs to set up the system and will manage the various
forums for collaborative decision-making that will be established as part
of the project.
v
Mobilizing Non-Resident
Pakistanis. The high profile
and the large-scale change that the approach sets out to achieve should be
a source of strong motivation for NRPs. Like the Partnership approach, this
approach is also structured to highlight the 'Pakistani-ness' of its sponsors
and should give NRPs associated with, or contributing to, it a sense of being
part of "something big." The need to concentrate the project in
a few (possibly only one) region in the beginning may, however, be a concern
for those who wish to only invest in "their" particular region.
v
Leveraging Resources.
HDFNA is likely to achieve maximum leverage for its resources under this approach.
In assuming management responsibility for tasks performed by government agencies,
the project will also incorporate the resources allocated for those tasks.
It is reasonable to assume that these resources could be used more efficiently
under this approach than they are under the current bureaucratic system.
Moreover, the distinct Pakistani identity of the project and its unique and
challenging design (particularly its cooperative intent) are likely to arouse
the interest of large donors including the World Bank and UNDP.
v
Coverage. Given the requirement to adopt an existing administrative
unit—since that is the scale at which government line agencies operate—it
would be unwise to initiate activities in too many dispersed areas. In fact,
the most realistic scenario would be to select only one Tehsil for the first
3 to 5 years and cover it fully before venturing into a new region. Adding
new regions will not only require the willingness of partners (including the
government) but would also require high investment in planning and a long-term
commitment on the part of HDFNA and all its partners to that region. Once
proven successful in one Tehsil, the approach can grow rapidly.
v
Speed of Change.
The challenge of coordinating disparate actors and establishing
the requisite trust and confidence amongst them will require significant resources
and will translate to fewer 'demonstrable' results in the early phase. However,
such results are likely to emerge rapidly once the partners have learnt how
to work together and will add up to large scale change over the long-term.
v
Management. Coordinating government agencies and NGOs with different
histories and style can be very difficult and expensive. Time for 'learning
how to work together' will need to be built into the project design. HDFNA
will have to invest in a management system that all actors are comfortable
with, which enables a true sharing of ideas and learning, and allows ample
space and time for citizen participation. A number of coordinating forums
will have to be developed at various levels to enable the different partners
to learn to work with each other. HDFNA, as the facilitating partner, will
have to establish a strong and visible presence in Pakistan. All
of this will translate to a complex management structure with greater HDFNA
involvement than in any of the above.
v
Image. HDFNA will be viewed as a facilitator bringing together
various actors involved in human development—government, NGOs, and civil society.
Its image as an organization of Pakistanis, working actively with other Pakistani
organizations, and interested in investing in and bring about long term social
change in Pakistan will be strengthened. HDFNA will be investing in the
improved quality of human development services and in a fresh and novel approach
to local governance.
2.4.2
Assessment
The pros
and cons of the Facilitation, or "Alliance", approach that emerge from the discussion above are listed in Table
2.4.
Table 2.4: The Facilitation (or "Alliance")
Approach—Pros and Cons
| |
Pros
|
Cons
|
|
Impact
|
· Demonstrates a replicable model of large-scale social
change.
· High potential for long-term, large-scale policy impacts.
Will be a path-breaking achievement with high multiplier effects.
|
|
|
Innovation
|
· Provides unique model for local governance.
· HDFNA occupies a niche role.
|
|
|
Cooperation
|
· Fills a critical gap by facilitating coordination
between various development actors.
|
|
|
Mobilizing NRPs
|
· High-profile project gives NRPs sense of being part
of 'something big'. Provides NRPs with a strong Pakistani presence.
|
|
