International Day of Peace has been observed around the world on 21 September every year since 1982. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly established this day to coincide with its opening session, which is held on the third Tuesday in September. According to the UN General Assembly, September 21 commemorates “devotion to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples.” In 2001, by unanimous vote, the General Assembly established September 21 as an annual day of non-violence and cease-fire.
The theme of this year’s commemoration, “Partnerships for Peace – Dignity for All,” aims to highlight the importance of collaboration between all segments of society and to strive for peace. The theme also highlights a shift in the way the UN and other international organizations view the sources of foreign assistance. Over the last 30 years, private giving has surpassed ODA and now accounts for nearly 80% of development assistance. The work of the UN would not be possible without thousands of partnerships between the private sector and civil society.
Following this year’s International Day of Peace, several major multinational corporations from a variety of industries partnered with the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) to help raise awareness about the vital role that food assistance plays in creating a more peaceful world. These companies donated digital and television network time for a 30 second advertisement that shines a spotlight on WFP’s work. The advertising campaign, currently airing in 38 countries, is meant to show consumers how they can support the refugees and displaced people who are struggling to feed their families. According to WFP Executive Director Ertharin Cousin, “Food assistance plays a powerful role in times of conflict by saving lives and alleviating suffering. Food brings and keeps families together. Food security gives families hope during desperate times while eliminating the need for families to resort to extreme and harmful measures as the only option for survival.” The WFP’s emergency response fund will use the money raised by this effort to help its most critical operations, like those in Syria, Iraq, South Sudan and Yemen.
McDonald’s is spearheading the multi-million dollar Peace Day. When the fast food corporation approached the UN to discuss a potential partnership, UN officials asked the company to raise awareness of the refugee crisis and encourage people to donate to the WFP. McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook did not hesitate and issued a statement: “If anyone can help an international effort to help feed refugees and the fight against hunger, it’s us.” McDonald’s went on to enlist the support of global philanthropy leaders like Google, Facebook, DreamWorks Animation, United Airlines, MasterCard, OMD, and Twitter, as well as other food and beverage giants like Cargill, McCain Foods, and Burger King.
The WFP has been outspoken in its praise of McDonald’s and its partners for their efforts in the Peace Day campaign. Jay Aldous, WFP Director of Private Sector Partnerships, noted that “The private sector has a significant role to play in ending hunger and promoting peace…And this global effort is a powerful example of brands coming together with one voice to make a tangible impact in the lives of vulnerable people.” As conflicts in the Middle East escalate the refugee crisis and stretch humanitarian resources, McDonald’s can be commended for both the timeliness and scale of its campaign.
In collaboration with WFP, McDonald’s and its Peace Day campaign partners illustrate the ever-growing need and impact of private sector philanthropy in global humanitarian assistance. As Ms. Cousin noted, “Humanity has one future together. This effort provides a great example of people and companies joining forces to make sure we achieve the goal of a zero hunger future.”
The Brookings Institution and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently partnered to present a talk on utilizing public-private partnerships (PPPs) in order to effectively implement the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The SDGs are a list of goals, proposed by the UN, that target issues related to health, poverty, hunger, inequality, education, and climate change. According to the expert panel, partnerships connect decision-makers at the global level with the private sector, local governments, and civil society in an effort to capitalize on their specific strengths and balance their weaknesses.
For example, Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, is a PPP that provides access to vaccines in developing countries. The major players in this alliance consist of the World Health Organization, UNICEF, The World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Together, these organizations have successfully contributed scientific research, vaccines, and financial tools. According to Gavi, “Since its launch in 2000, [the alliance] has helped developing countries to prevent more than 7 million future deaths…Gavi support has contributed to the immunization of an additional 500 million children.” Gavi’s objectives were strategically implemented to produce results that protect developing populations and improve healthcare, which aligns with SDG 3 that aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”
Partnerships are arguably the driving force behind the successful implementation of the SDGs. Governments are often slow and unreliable, while existing institutions like private corporations and civil society organizations have “on the ground” experience navigating the challenges inherent to their industry. The success of a PPP is determined by inclusivity, local implementation and ownership, transparency, accountability, political engagement, and strong focus on results. According to a study conducted by the OECD, “effective partnerships must have strong leadership, be country-led and context specific, apply the right type of action for the challenge, and maintain a clear focus on results.”
The SDGs also focus on more specific goals such as improving infrastructure, conserving oceans, and sustaining energy, which leaves room for partnerships to narrow their focus and innovate, particularly in the private sector. According to Devex, “Business leaders are still trying to understand the concept of sustainability, too, and how to integrate it into their business models.” The ODA method of developed countries donating funds to developing countries is ineffective since monetary aid does not specifically encourage the creation of new and sustainable systems. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s.” As is often the case, this money is lost in transit and never reaches the local level due to corrupt bureaucracies and weak relations with civil society organizations. Financial contributions from the private sector, when combined with effectual and enabling political leadership, move beyond temporary alleviation to foster a more permanent impact.
Public-private partnerships are a vital part of Goal 16, which seeks to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Ultimately, PPPs allow for a more inclusive and communicative atmosphere conducive to tackling important development issues on a more direct and practical platform that enables self-sufficiency and citizen accountability. If the SDGs are to be achieved, the vital role of PPPs cannot be ignored.
Following the introduction of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in 2014 many questioned how such ambitious goals could be met by 2030. The SDGs address, among other developmental issues, the eradication of poverty, hunger and income inequality. In Asia, civil society demonstrates that it can bridge the gap between these lofty goals and their eventual success. According to Nicholas Booth and Beniam Gebrezghi, it is “Precisely because of civil society’s role in representing the interests of the poorest, most marginalized and excluded groups, [that it] seems more urgent than ever before in every aspect of a new agenda which seeks to ensure no one is left behind.”
Over the last 30 years there has been dramatic growth in Asian civil society. Today, the United Nations Development Programme works closely with local civil society organizations on a variety of development projects. In the wake of Japan’s triple disaster in March of 2011 (the earthquake, along with the resulting tsunami and nuclear disaster) for example, civil society organizations played a crucial role in reconstruction and community development efforts. Nicholas Booth and Beniam Gebrezghi again point out: “These civil society groups worked side-by-side with local communities, educators, businesses, local governments, and national governments to help the victims and to get Japan back on its feet.”
More recently, civil society helped rebuild Nepal after the country was devastated by an earthquake in April 2015. With the Nepalese government unable to conduct proper disaster relief, the people of Nepal turned to one another. In June, our blog focused on Nepal and its efforts to rebuild with the aid of international philanthropy. Using Twitter and Facebook, Nepalese citizens were able to arrange rescues, deliver supplies and provide shelter. According to Christian Science Monitor, “Nepal’s response to the [earthquake] was helped by an increase in the number of civil society groups since the introduction of multiparty democracy in the 1990s.” In response, Google has brought back “Person Finder,” a system used after Haiti’s 2010 earthquake to check social media for possible updates on missing persons. Locally based initiatives including Tomnod, a program designed to crowdsource images of structural damage, provided first responders with valuable information.
While civil society is filling the gaps left by other sectors, there is still much that Asian governments can do to encourage third sector growth. China, Nepal and Japan have seen an increase in civil society registrations, but CSOs in other Asian countries are combating increasingly restrictive policies. In Laos, the Ministry of Home Affairs has amended the decree on nonprofit associations (NPAs) and foundations by adding the requirement that groups must notify or obtain permission from the government for funding that they receive from foreign sources. This new policy, which echoes Russia’s infamous “Foreign Agent Law,” can lead to funding delays of up to 18 months and pose significant operational difficulties for programs funded by international philanthropy. The Laotian government’s crackdown on civil society has been downright hostile. John Sifton, Asia Advocacy director of the Human Rights Watch explained the situation, “If a human rights defender like Aung Sang Suu Kyi were to stand up in Laos and speak out against authoritarian rule, she would be immediately arrested.”
These restrictions are, unfortunately, not limited to Laos. In Singapore’s recent elections, the People’s Action Party (PAP) retained its majority in parliament, a position that it is held since 1959. The PAP, positioned as a center right party, has a reputation for restricting the actions of free speech within the city. In March 2015 Amos Yee, a teenager responsible for a video that criticized a former Singapore leader was arrested. Yee was sentenced to 18 months of “reformative training.” Amnesty International was quick to respond: “According to the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, reformative training is ‘akin to detention and usually applied to juvenile offenders involved in serious crimes’ and was referred to in a recent Singapore district court decision as ‘incarcerative in nature and should be imposed cautiously’.” Limits on free speech have a direct and negative impact on many civil organizations whose intrinsic goals of aiding society often conflict with official government policy.
Without the assistance of civil society organizations, the Sustainable Development Goals laid out by the UN cannot be met by 2030. If Asia’s leaders want to see these goals met, the restrictions on civil society organizations must be eliminated. Asian countries have both the organizational capacity and financial resources to help combat poverty, hunger and inequality, but will they be able to step up to the challenge?
As migrants flood into Europe from countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Kosovo, and especially Syria, European leaders and policymakers face a great challenge. Coming on the heels of the Greek debt crisis, the recent influx of migrants is testing the European Union once again. The responses and policy proposals from EU member states vary greatly, but the majority are focused on securing borders rather than protecting the rights of migrants and refugees. In the short run, the migrant crisis may be a burden on most of Europe, but in the long run, it could present an economic opportunity.
Europe’s surging migrant population could be a valuable resource for sustained economic growth in those countries that possess the foresight to invest in them now. Many European economies face demographic challenges as fertility rates fall to 1.3 – below the replacement rate of 2.1 – while the average age increases. In 2014, 19 of the top 20 countries with percent of population ages 65 and above were European countries. This dramatic demographic change poses a serious threat to future productivity. Europe is in need of fresh young workers to counter its feeble birth rate and aging population.
So far, Germany has led the humanitarian charge, unveiling some of the most generous asylum policies in the EU. One week ago, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to spend $6.6 billion to cope with the roughly 800,000 migrants and refugees expected to enter the country this year. Unfortunately, without similar refugee support from nearby countries—most notably Hungary—Germany was overwhelmed by the flow of asylum seekers and decided to temporarily close its border with Austria.
In spite of the border closure, the continued acceptance of refugees is economically sensible. As of 2014, Germany had the world’s third highest percentage of individuals 65 years and older (21%), coupled with the world’s fourth lowest percent of population between the ages of 0 and 14 (13%). According to the German government’s Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, if this trend continues, the number of working age people in Germany (about 45 million) will shrink by 8.5 million by 2030 and another 8.7 million by 2050. Put another way, Germany will lose over 37 percent of its working age population in just 35 years. The largest economy in Europe cannot be sustained without more workers.
Industry as a Catalyst for Integration
As migrants and refugees enter a host country, one of the main issues that they face is integration with and acceptance by the native population. A successful way to avoid this problem is to provide opportunities for migrants and refugees to quickly contribute to the workforce and the country’s overall welfare. Private-sector investment is crucial in this process. Fortunately, several corporations have already started to make an impact on the refugee and migrant populations in Germany.
Ulrich Grillo, Head of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), said last week: “If we can integrate [refugees] quickly into the jobs market, we’ll be helping the refugees, but also helping ourselves.” In addition to speaking about the economic benefits of refugees, BDI has proposed changes to Germany’s labor laws and regulations and even sought assurances that migrants who do find employment will not be deported.
Corporate leaders in the automobile industry, one of the largest sources of employment in the country, have been the most outspoken in their support of migrant and refugee employment programs. Dieter Zetsche, the CEO of Daimler-Benz and a global leader in corporate philanthropy and human capital investment, said that his company would take steps to recruit new employees from the incoming pool of refugees. In addition to investing in refugee capital, the famous automobile maker also joined in the relief effort. A few months ago, Daimler Trucks, in collaboration with the Frankfurt-based aid organization “Wings of Help”, initiated a mobile relief effort in the Turkey-Syria border region. A fleet of eight Actros semitrailer trucks, provided by Daimler-Benz, carried some 120 tons of relief supplies to those in need.
More recently, Matthias Müller, the CEO of Porsche AG, called for industry leaders to “take a clear stand against xenophobia and extremism.” Muller’s statement is especially important in light of the recent attacks on refugee residences. VW’s Porsche luxury-car division will also provide language training and counseling to refugees. The impact of language instruction, in particular, cannot be understated. The ability to communicate in German is a necessary step towards successful societal and workforce integration.
Europe’s refugee crisis may be viewed as a political problem, but it can be an economic and social opportunity. The actions of corporations like Porsche and Daimler, as well as organizations like BDI, demonstrate that refugees can be invaluable contributors to economic and social development. Moreover, by encouraging private-sector investment in refugees governments can transform the current migrant crisis into an economic and social turning point for both Germany and the European Union.
August 19th marked the 12th annual World Humanitarian Day, which celebrates humanitarian assistance in developing countries. World Humanitarian Day began in 2003, dedicated to the twenty-two aid workers who were killed by the bombing at UN headquarters in Baghdad that year. According to the World Health Organization, “82.5 million people in 37 countries need humanitarian assistance.” While foreign aid and international NGOs are play an important role in humanitarian response, the efforts made by local aid workers are just as important. A core part of a functioning civil society, local aid workers are often more sensitive and attuned to the needs of the local population since they share a common culture, environment, and language. Given their unique position, local aid workers are typically the first to respond to a crisis, thereby reducing the number of lives lost and damages incurred from the outset. For example, local aid workers were delivering assistance to those affected by the Ebola outbreak in 2014, six months prior to the World Health Organization’s declaration of a public health emergency.
Unlike their unwieldy international counterparts, local aid workers are better equipped to combat some of humanitarian assistance’s greatest weaknesses, including the timely, low cost, and culturally sensitive distribution of aid. Local aid workers can also access areas, people and knowledge that many foreign parties are unable to tap. In spite of their essential role in crisis management and their capacity to promote sustained philanthropic development, local aid workers often lack the resources marshalled by larger international groups. According to a research study conducted by Oxfam, “Between 2007 and 2013, the resources provided directly to [local aid workers] averaged less than 2 percent of total annual humanitarian assistance.”
Though mobilizing local aid workers is a more effective solution in most emergency situations, without adequate funding and resources, local aid workers are unable to properly address and respond to a crisis. In response to the Nepal Earthquake that struck in April 2015, the Nepal Flash Appeal distributed $422 million to over 70 organizations, but Nepalese organizations received just 0.8% of those funds. In spite of their limited funding, approximately 1,800 local Nepalese aid workers led relief and recovery efforts to minimize the damage caused by the earthquake, compared to approximately 450 Indian aid workers who responded.
In addition to the paltry funds and resources, local aid workers are also more susceptible to on-the-ground hazards. According to the Overseas Development Institute, “attacks on aid workers have steadily risen over the years, from 90 violent attacks in 2001, to 308 incidents in 2011, with the majority of attacks directed towards local aid workers.” Particularly in those countries racked by civil war and cultural conflict, local aid workers may be caught in crossfire, while international aid workers can depend on the protection of foreign and domestic governments.
Emphasizing the importance of local aid workers may be the first step in realizing World Humanitarian Day’s mission to commemorate those who have risked their lives to help other people. In advance of the upcoming World Humanitarian Summit, scheduled to take place in Turkey in 2016, it is imperative that policy-makers embark on initiatives that recognize, strengthen, and protect the crucial role of local aid workers in global humanitarian assistance. To maximize the efforts of local aid workers, communication with international civil society organizations must be improved, funding must be increased, and the distribution of resources must be better organized. When all of these needs are met, the world will be better equipped to confront future disasters and humanitarian crises.
Last month, representatives at the United Nations Third International Conference on Financing for Development agreed to a number of proposals to fund the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals. Collectively known as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, these proposals cover a range of financing sources, from domestic tax revenues and official development assistance to private sector financing and philanthropy. The Agenda also included measures to support international trade and capacity building. World leaders now hope that the financing mechanisms laid out in the AAAA will encourage countries to adopt both the SDGs and a climate change accord scheduled for negotiation in Paris this December.
The SDGs are a proposed set of 17 goals that are meant to provide benchmarks for a variety of development issues over the next 15 years. The goals cover poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, energy, the environment, and a host of other global challenges. Each goal is accompanied by a number of targets that serve as tangible metrics of a country’s progress towards the SDGs. These new goals are a follow up to the Millennium Development Goals, a 15-year set of eight benchmarks that world leaders agreed to back in 2000. To improve their drafting process for the new goals, the UN organized the largest consultation program in its history that combined government input with surveys of the general public.
The Addis Ababa Action Agenda, a vital part of the new development goal drafting process, is a step towards recognizing the role of international philanthropy and the private sector in supporting global development. The agreement makes several references to the importance of the private sector in economic growth, particularly the role of the financial sector in enabling small businesses. Furthermore, Article 10 of the agreement explicitly lists philanthropies and foundations as vital members of the “global partnerships” that are required to meet the SDGs. This is a substantial improvement over the funding section of the MDGs, which overwhelmingly relied on official development assistance and did not reference to international philanthropy.
However, there is still a lot more that the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the SDGs could do to support philanthropy’s vital role in development. In June, the CGP cohosted the Conference on Policy Coherence for Mobilizing Private Financial Flows for Sustainable Development with the OECD Development Center. The purpose of this conference was to discuss how to best utilize private funding for the SDGs in the lead up to the Third International Conference on Financing for Development. Dr. Carol Adelman, director of the CGP, provided a number of recommendations, summarized below:
- Efforts to measure private financial flows and to publicize philanthropic best practices should be increased
- Private and philanthropic actors should be included in drafting the SDGs
- Innovation should be the primary criteria for creating public-private partnerships as part of the SDG targets for global partnerships
- Philanthropy should be recognized as a unique source of development practices rather just an additional funding source for official development goals
- Countries should strive to improve their legal environments for investing in both for-profits and not-for-profits
- Intergovernmental organizations should facilitate the distribution of private resources to developing countries by evaluating best practices and identifying successful ventures
Though these suggestions were not explicitly included in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, countries looking for ways to finance their SDG efforts should still consider them. Many of these suggestions simply entail engaging with the private and philanthropic sectors, and collecting new data. However, some countries may balk at evaluating their legal environments. A major finding of the CGP’s new Index of Philanthropic Freedom is that laws created to serve the legitimate interests of the state, such as capital controls and illicit financial flows legislation, often hinder philanthropic efforts as well. Examining their legal requirements will require states to evaluate the benefits of combating illicit finance or managing volatile financial flows against the benefits that come from international philanthropy.
As Dr. Adelman noted in her comments, 80% of the developed world’s economic engagement with the developing world comes from the private sector, philanthropy, and remittances. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda is an important first step in acknowledging these essential flows and how they can help meet the SDGs. But the international community needs to go further in developing a more holistic funding plan for the SDGs, and the recommendations made at the Conference on Policy Coherence are an excellent place to start.
On April 30, 2013, the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF)—an umbrella organization of over 700 civil society organizations—received a non-descript notice from the Ministry of Home Affairs that revoked the INSAF’s registration and froze its assets in an effort to allegedly protect “the public interest.” This was not the first time that the INSAF had encountered resistance to its activities. Both the INSAF and its member organizations had often sparred with the Indian government over issues of environmental policy including the construction of nuclear power plants and the legalization of GMOs. Thanks to an ambiguous new section of the legal code, however, the Indian government has the authority to freeze assets and rescind the registration of organizations that receive unapproved foreign funds and/or pose a threat to “the public interest.” The true motivation behind the deregistration of the INSAF was immediately obvious to the organization’s leadership: they were being targeted for their activism.
The notice delivered to the INSAF in April was issued in accordance with Sections 13(1) and 14(1-2) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act of 2010. Based on an older 1973 law designed to shore up foreign currency reserves, the ambiguity of the amended FCRA allows for nefarious government overreach. Section 13(1) states: “Where the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that pending consideration of the question of canceling the certificate on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (I) of section 14…[it may] suspend the certificate for such period not exceeding one hundred and eight days.” Section 14 is more severe: “The Central Government may, if it is satisfied after making such inquiry as it may deem fit cancel the certificate if, in the opinion of the Central Government, it is necessary in the public interest to cancel the certificate…”
Objecting particularly to the ambiguity of Section 14, and drawing significant support from the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights as well as the international CSO community, the INSAF filed a strongly worded petition with the High Court of Delhi. In September, five months after the Ministry’s notice had been delivered to the INSAF, the High Court finally dismissed the deregistration and thawed the organization’s accounts. The FCRA, however, was upheld.
The attack on the INSAF was just the beginning. In the last two years, Modi’s government has used the FCRA to target thousands of CSOs that have criticized government policies. On June 9, 2015, 971 organizations, including several prominent public universities and local chapters of international NGOs, were stripped of their registration for accepting unapproved funds. Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai, herself a recent victim of FCRA regulations, noted that “The issue is not related to the source of our funding or FCRA. It is a larger political issue under which NGOs are being targeted and persecuted for working, as well as, raising the voice of the poor, weak, and the deprived.” Ms. Pillai is partially correct. While the government’s use of the FCRA is, indeed, a reflection of larger political issues, repeal of the amended FCRA would be an appropriate first step on the road to philanthropic freedom in India.
In the 2015 Index of Philanthropic Freedom, India maintains a mid-range composite score of 3.2, but in the area of cross border flows it scores just 2.1 out of a possible 5. In his justification of this low score, Noshir Dadrawala of the Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy emphasized the onerous requirements of the FCRA: “It is important to note that no CSO operating in India whether registered or not can receive foreign contributions without first obtaining prior permission from the Home Ministry.” In order for civil society to thrive and international philanthropic funds to flow into India, the government must amend the FCRA and end its attack on the third sector.