# data[].attributes.headline
Most  of the NGOs are involved in sexual harassment of refugees an example is Oxfam international. It happened in South Sudan , Central African Republic among others. Even male senior staff  abuse their female colleagues. I wonder if this is what it means to be agents of social change

# data[].attributes.subject
Most  of the NGOs are involved in sexual harassment of refugees an example is Oxfam international. It happened in South Sudan , Central African Republic among others. Even male senior staff  abuse their female colleagues. I wonder if this is what it means to be agents of social change

# data[].attributes.body
Narice Ninyesiga

https://radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/oxfam-accused-of-sexual-assault-in-south-sudan

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate services for resilience: the changing roles of NGOs in Ethiopia

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate services for resilience: the changing roles of NGOs in Ethiopia

# data[].attributes.body
How NGO's have helped the Ethiopian government expand climate information services but also risk becoming entangled in political issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary
The current and expected impacts of climate change are influencing government policies and services as well as donor and NGO activities. The shifts have been influenced by the 'resilience agenda' whereby actors seek to reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience as a means to mitigate climatic challenges. A focus on resilience has required a much more diverse engagement, as the interrelationships between climate, health, poverty and wellbeing are increasingly recognized. This has made programming more complex.

Within these changes, climate information services have received greater emphasis. Forecasting has supported the strengthening of emergency response programming, and early warning data is used to adjust safety net implementation. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across Africa and Asia have responded accordingly, and diversified their partnerships and activities within climate information services.

To enrich our understanding of these trends, this study traces the emergence of climate services as a core element of resilience programming and explores how development NGOs are contributing to the climate information services system in Ethiopia. It examines when, and how, the emergence of resilience programming has affected programme partnerships and activities in the country, tracing the high-level changes that have occurred since 2002. The study approaches climate information services as a value chain, looking systemically at the range of entry points where NGO engagement has had an impact.

More specifically, the study is focused and structured around three areas of inquiry:

1. Understanding the climate services landscape in Ethiopia: How has it evolved over time and why?

2. NGO contributions to the climate services system: How have development and humanitarian NGOs contributed to the design and delivery of climate services? Have their roles changed over time?
How?

3. Changes in NGO practice: Has NGO engagement in the design or delivery of climate services (particularly under the banner of resilience) led to wider changes in organisational practice?

Ethiopia experiences high levels of vulnerability to climate change, with limited capacity to respond. The Government of Ethiopia faces a range of developmental challenges, for which it does not have sufficient resources to address. This results in complex decision-making and difficult trade-offs. The National Meteorological Agency (NMA) has attempted to address funding and capacity limitations with a range of partnerships. Coordinating bodies have emerged to bring together an array of governmental and nongovernmental bodies engaging with climate information services throughout the country. While capacity and coordination have improved, much progress is still needed.

NGOs have played a key role in building the capacity of government agencies, and in so doing expanding the type of services offered. In seeking to reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience, NGO programming and engagement has become more complex. At the same time, NGOs have changed the types of partnerships and activities they are involved in, as well as being influenced by the broader NGO environment within Ethiopia. These changes present opportunities for impact at scale, but also challenges of a narrower scope of engagement and run the risk of becoming entangled in complex political issues as government partners.

Based upon these trends we conclude that:

* NGOs have played, and will continue to play, a critical role in expanding climate information services in Ethiopia. To-date, national agencies have expanded their physical capacity and ability to produce climate information. One of the key challenges is communicating information in effective, relevant and appropriate ways to smallholder farmers and pastoralists.

* There are a wide range of governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations engaging with climate services. Coordination efforts to-date are important first-steps, but much more activity of this nature is required.

* Donor and NGO activity have expanded government capacity and the provision of climate services, but these developments remain limited to specific geographic areas and pose long-term risks of sustainability.

* The new modalities of working and changes to activities of engagement are neither apolitical nor value-neutral. We need to better understand and acknowledge the politically sensitive nature of the operational environments and partnerships as well as the activities and data.

* Given the influence of the 'resilience agenda' on donor and NGO priorities, and the challenges of sustainability of activities within climate information services in Ethiopia, more research is required to understand the extent to which climate services are being integrated into programming and decision-making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
building resilience and adaptation to climate extremes and disasters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate services for resilience: the changing roles of NGOs in Ethiopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary The current and expected impacts of climate change are influencing government policies and services as well as donor and NGO activities. The shifts have been influenced by the 'resilience agenda' whereby actors seek to reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience as a means to mitigate climatic challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.devex.com/news/davos-an-ngo-leader-s-survival-guide-91877

# data[].attributes.headline
The Role of NGOs in China’s Climate Change Governance

# data[].attributes.subject
The Role of NGOs in China’s Climate Change Governance

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/role-ngos-chinas-climate-change-governance/

# data[].attributes.body
I thought Kiva could be a relevant organization to bring up here. It’s a non-profit with the aim to decrease poverty where people lend money and crowdfund people’s loans, e.g. help raise money for someone to start a business, get an education, etc. It’s interesting how both the organization itself functions as an actor, but also enables ordinary people to become significant actors.
http://pages.kiva.org/node/615297

# data[].attributes.headline
The role of youth in building sustainable and resilient urban and rural communities- #YOUTH2030

# data[].attributes.subject
The role of youth in building sustainable and resilient urban and rural communities- #YOUTH2030

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/node/2641005

"The Forum brought youth leaders from around the world to the United Nations Headquarters in New York. It gave them the opportunity to engage with government representatives, youth delegates, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders in civil society and the private sector."

# data[].attributes.body
A alliance of different community organisations and front line struggles. Some news and updates about the work in this area.

http://www.ourpowercampaign.org/blog

# data[].attributes.headline
 Do international NGOs still have the right to exist? 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Do international NGOs still have the right to exist? 

# data[].attributes.body
After 60 years of development it’s time for INGOs to ask some difficult questions about what power they need to devolve

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/mar/13/do-international-ngos-still-have-the-right-to-exist

# data[].attributes.body
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation commit a further €100 million, for a total of $300 million (€244.7 million), towards EU's external investment plan, to finance agricultural research to help the world's poorest farmers better adapt to increasingly challenging growing conditions brought about by climate change.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-361_en.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Ranking of the world's NGOs (top 500).

Description:
"NGO ADVISOR is a Geneva-based independent media organization committed to highlighting innovation, impact, and governance in the nonprofit sector."
https://www.ngoadvisor.net

# data[].attributes.body
"For years, the State of Israel has been putting all kinds of obstacles on the path of those seeking entry who question its policies or wish to visit their Palestinian friends"

Israel is maintaining its stance on banning NGOs.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/banned-ngos-what-israel-so-afraid-1042901999

# data[].attributes.headline
How do we make corporations more accountable?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do we make corporations more accountable?

# data[].attributes.body
"We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That’s why we’re putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Justice for people and planet

We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations.

take action

Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International
Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations.

We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

We stand in the way of imports of dirty cars and expose corporate misbehaviour wherever we encounter it.

The public image of Greenpeace is often one of "corporate bashers". We can indeed be pretty harsh and irreverent when calling attention to corporate misdeeds, like in this satire video.

Of course, we don't believe that everyone in a corporation thinks like the man in the video. There are many in business - and many businesses - that want to do the right thing for people and planet. We applaud them.

Greenpeace never says no without offering an alternative. We are so committed to getting the solutions our world needs adopted fast, that we are, at times, willing to praise corporations that are still part of the problem.

We'll say "well done" to Coca Cola for eliminating climate damaging refrigerants from their cooling equipment because it benefits our climate and future generations. But we do so in the context of us demanding more fundamental change. And we do so at the very same time as we campaign against them on plastic pollution.

We have "no permanent friends or enemies". That's part of our core values - and it works to achieve change. The work with Coca-Cola to eliminate climate damaging gases, for example, also started as a brand jam when they were providing the "green Sydney Olympics" with cooling equipment that destroyed our climate.

It's a fact, though, that corporations who misbehave are too rarely punished - and too often have captured our political leaders. The public good - our planet, our future - is the loser.

You can see that clearly in our new report Justice for People and Planet, which showcases 20 case studies of corporate capture, collusion and impunity. The report describes how some corporations have abused and violated human and environmental rights around the world. The examples are as shocking as they are diverse, ranging from deforestation, water and air pollution, plastic pollution, or waste dumping, to chemical spills, nuclear disaster, violations of Indigenous rights and more.

The report argues that it is the rules that govern our global economy (and lack thereof) that are the real reason behind such corporate misdeeds. Economic globalisation has created significant governance gaps. There are no enforceable social and environmental global rules governing global economic players.

That we lack these rules to deliver a sustainable and fair economy worldwide is the result of specific political choices by our leaders. The cases presented in our report show that corporate impunity for environmental destruction and human rights violations is a result of the current economic and legal systems.

The failure to protect human rights and the environment is often caused by state institutions and decision-makers being captured by specific corporate interests. This all too often leads to politicians failing to pass binding laws and failing to ensure corporations are held to account.

There is a different way. Effective state action could end corporate capture and close the governance gap. Global regulations with teeth are clearly possible - they exist! The World Trade Organisation, for example, can sanction countries that break its rules.

We need similarly strong roles for the environment and human rights. That's why we're putting forward 10 Principles for Corporate Accountability:

1. People and the environment, not corporations, must be at the heart of governance and public life.

2. Public participation should be inherent to all policy making.

3. States should abandon policies that undermine environmental and human rights.

4. Corporations should be subject to binding rules both where they are based and where they operate.

5. States should require due diligence reporting and cradle to grave responsibility for corporate products and services.

6. States should promote a race to the top by prohibiting corporations from carrying out activities abroad which are prohibited in their home state for reasons of risks to environmental or human rights.

7. States should create policies that provide transparency in all corporate and government activities that impact environmental and human rights, including in trade, tax, finance and investment regimes.

8. Corporations and those individuals who direct them should be liable for environmental and human rights violations committed domestically or abroad by companies under their control.

9. People affected by environmental and human rights violations should be guaranteed their right to effective access to remedy, including in company home states where necessary.

10. States must actually enforce the regulatory and policy frameworks they create.

You can find much more detail about these principles (and why they are needed) in the report itself.

And you can, like us, take heart in some steps in the right direction that are already underway: France, recently required corporations to identify potential risks to people and the environment as a result of their activities, and act to prevent harm to people and the environment.

Switzerland is gearing up for a people's referendum that would legally oblige corporations to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities.

New specialised laws such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act also require businesses to tackle slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.

All these show how governments can make rules with teeth to govern corporate activities around the world. If they want to.

A more just and sustainable world is possible. If all who want a livable planet push for it - together. Are you in?
Daniel Mittler is the Political Director of Greenpeace International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do we make corporations more accountable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're campaigning for a system that puts justice for people and the planet ahead of profits for corporations. take action Greenpeace is famous for campaigning against corporations. We made "Choke" out of Coca-Cola's logo to draw attention to the massive plastic pollution impact they have around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Switzerland cuts funding to Palestinian NGO with suspected violent links 

# data[].attributes.subject
Switzerland cuts funding to Palestinian NGO with suspected violent links 

# data[].attributes.body
"Information recently emerged that the group had named a youth centre after an unnamed Palestinian terrorist, prompting donor countries – Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark – to revoke their support."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A view of the city of Ramallah, where the NGO is based.
(Keystone)

Switzerland's Foreign Affairs ministry has confirmed that it has stopped funding a Palestinian women's rights NGO, following an investigation that showed links to a terrorist figure.

The story was reported in the SonntagsZeitung newspaper and confirmed Sunday by the Swiss News Agency, ATS.

The NGO in question is the Ramallah-based Women's Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), which professes on its website to promote "a democratic free Palestinian society that ensures plurality, social justice and equality between women and men".

+ Switzerland places great focus on aid to Palestinian refugees

However, information recently emerged that the group had named a youth centre after an unnamed Palestinian terrorist, prompting donor countries - Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark - to revoke their support.

The foreign affairs ministry told ATS that the actions of WATC broken written agreements made with another group that administered the payments in the Palestinian Territories, the Human Rights and International Human Law Secretariat, also based in Ramallah.

The agreements stipulated that recipient groups should shun any appeal to violence or hate.

The last instalment of Switzerland's funding to the group - some $36,000 - will not be paid.

SDA-ATS/dos

Horizontal Line

Join us on Facebook!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Switzerland cuts funding to Palestinian NGO with suspected violent links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Switzerland's Foreign Affairs ministry has confirmed that it has stopped funding a Palestinian women's rights NGO, following an investigation that showed links to a terrorist figure. The story was reported in the SonntagsZeitung newspaper and confirmed Sunday by the Swiss News Agency, ATS.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts from members of the climate network regarding the recent change of the World bank's policy. A step in the right direction. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts from members of the climate network regarding the recent change of the World bank's policy. A step in the right direction. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PARIS, FRANCE - Today at the One Planet Summit in Paris, France, the World Bank Group (WBG) made a series of announcements, including a headline announcement that they will end finance for upstream oil and gas projects after 2019, in order to align its support to help countries meet their goals under the Paris Agreement.

This announcement builds on previous commitments from the WBG to restrict public finance for coal projects, which helped lead to additional commitments in other fora and growing global momentum towards a phaseout of coal. Other positive announcements from the WBG included commitments to increase the ambition of its Climate Change Action Plan, to increase transparency regarding portfolio greenhouse gas emissions, to expand the use of a shadow carbon price, and to partner with Canada and the International Trade Union Confederation to provide analysis and support for a just transition away from coal in developing countries.

The Big Shift Global campaign sees today's announcement as a key step towards shifting all public finance away from dirty energy by 2020, and increasing finance for clean energy access for all. Big Shift Global campaign members reacted to the announcement:

Alex Doukas, Stop Funding Fossils Program Director at Oil Change International, said: "The World Bank's landmark decision to end oil and gas finance after 2019 demonstrates real climate leadership that other public finance institutions must now match. Oil and gas reserves already under development contain more carbon than we can afford to emit while remaining within the limits of the Paris Agreement, so ending public finance for additional oil and gas production is absolutely the right thing to do. All financial institutions, public and private, including the World Bank, must still work toward aligning their finance with the aim of keeping global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius, but today, the World Bank set a high new bar in climate leadership."

Fran Witt, Senior Climate Advisor at Christian Aid, said: "This announcement shows that the World Bank is ready to clean up its act. For any development institution to be ploughing public money into fossil fuels is now considered reckless. For the World Bank Group to rule out investment in oil and gas exploration from 2019 demonstrates that it can be a force for good."

Jon Sward, Environment Project Manager at the Bretton Woods Project, said: "This is a major step forward, in terms of the World Bank Group backing up its rhetorical support of the Paris Agreement with concrete action. This announcement sends a clear signal to other publicly-funded multilateral and national development banks that climate change must be taken seriously, and that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund new fossil fuel projects. Civil society will be closely monitoring how the World Bank puts this pledge into action - including how its 'exception clause' is applied in IDA countries. It will also continue to push the International Finance Corporation - the World Bank Group's private investment arm - to stop providing support for new fossil fuel investments through financial intermediaries, as documented in the Big Shift Global's recent Dirty Dozen briefing."

Ebenezer Essilfie-Nyame, Chief Operation Officer at Abibiman Foundation, said: "There is an African proverb that, ' He who fears the sun will not become a chief.' By today's announcement, the World Bank Group has demonstrated its commitment in leading the urgent and vital shift that contributes to protecting our planet and people. As the French quote translates, ' Little by little, a bird builds its nest,' we welcome this wholesome announcement of WBG and we believe it is in the right direction in contributing immensely to the fight against climate change. Further, we will continue to monitor to ensure that such commitments are honoured."

Shelagh Whitley, Head of the Climate and Energy Programme at the Overseas Development Institute, said: "The World Bank Group is finally showing true leadership on climate change with their announcement today that they will end all finance for the extraction of fossil fuels by the end of 2019. The World Bank Group's primary objectives are to end extreme poverty and support prosperity. There is now global consensus that energy access for the poor is best provided through clean energy and that shared prosperity can only be assured through ambitious action on climate change. All multilateral and bilateral public finance institutions must now follow the example set by the World Bank Group and end wasteful and dangerous government support to dirty fossil fuels."
Notes to Editors:

In the three years from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, the World Bank Group financed over $1 billion per year in upstream oil and gas on average, according to the Oil Change International Shift the Subsidies Database.

Yesterday, more than 200 civil society organisations from nearly 60 countries released a letter calling on multilateral development banks - including the World Bank Group - and G20 governments to end public financial support for fossil fuels by 2020 at the latest.

Yesterday the Big Shift Global campaign released a briefing detailing some of the dirtiest fossil fuel investments by public finance institutions, including the World Bank Group.

In October 2017, following Big Shift Global's campaign ask, the WBG committed to reporting the greenhouse gas emissions of its portfolios, aligning itself with other multilateral development banks doing the same. Today it reinforced that commitment.

Big Shift Global is a campaign of more than 30 organisations working for a big shift away from fossil fuel finance by 2020, to increased finance for clean energy access for all.

For more details, contact:
Alex Doukas, Oil Change International, +1 202 817 0357, alex@priceofoil.org

Fran Witt, Christian Aid, +44 7970 799121, FWitt@christian-aid.org

Ebenezer Essilfie-Nyame, Abibiman Foundation, eenyame@gmail.com

Jon Sward, Bretton Woods Project, jsward@brettonwoodsproject.org

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Shift Global campaign reacts to World Bank Group's major commitment at One Planet Summit to end financing for upstream oil and gas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PARIS, FRANCE - Today at the One Planet Summit in Paris, France, the World Bank Group (WBG) made a series of announcements, including a headline announcement that they will end finance for upstream oil and gas projects after 2019, in order to align its support to help countries meet their goals under the Paris Agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
NGOs that work with the Global Fund recognize the conflict of interest this partnership would cause for their missions, but does their opinion matter when funding is such a struggle?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Previous research had identified excessive drinking as a major risk factor for contracting both TB and HIV/AIDS, the groups said.

Announced last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the partnership will see Heineken help distribute health supplies in Africa.

"We understand the need to seek new financing mechanisms for global health," three groups representing hundreds of national federations, NGOs, patient groups, and professional associations wrote in an open letter, obtained by AFP.

"However, we respectfully point out the dangers inherent in partnerships with the producers and marketers of hazardous products such as alcohol."

The letter - signed by the heads of drug and alcohol campaign group IOGT International, the disease-prevention lobby group NCD Alliance, and the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance - called for the Global Fund "to immediately end this partnership."

A 2017 report from UNAIDS concluded that "harmful use of alcohol increases risk to a range of communicable and noncommunicable diseases, including HIV."

Heavy drinking has also been shown to hasten disease progression in HIV patients.

"Partnerships with the alcohol industry are laden with inherent conflicts of interest," the open letter cautioned.

"New @GlobalFund @Heineken partnership serves only to legitimise destructive action by #alcohol #industry," the NCD Alliance added in a tweet.

The Global Fund said it had fully vetted the Heineken partnership, and the beer maker was well positioned to advance the fight against HIV, TB and malaria in Africa.

"Heineken's supply chain experts will work with Global Fund logistics planners to improve supply chain, to better deliver medicines and health supplies to people who need them," said Seth Faison, head of communications at the Global Fund.

The partnership has already started work in the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa and Nigeria, he told AFP.

Heineken, which earned global revenues of $20 billion (16 billion euros) in 2016, did not comment on the open letter.

Founded in 2002, the Geneva-based Global Fund is a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector, and patients.

The non-profit body invests nearly $4 billion a year to support programmes, mostly run by local experts.

All but five percent of funding comes from donor governments. Private foundations and the private sector account for the rest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health NGOs slam Global Fund partnership with Heineken

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Previous research had identified excessive drinking as a major risk factor for contracting both TB and HIV/AIDS, the groups said. Announced last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the partnership will see Heineken help distribute health supplies in Africa.

# data[].attributes.body
http://geographical.co.uk/nature/climate/item/2272-future-of-the-paris-climate-agreement

# data[].attributes.headline
EU sets bad example on human rights with NGO crackdown

# data[].attributes.subject
EU sets bad example on human rights with NGO crackdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The European Union is setting a bad example by allowing some of its members to stifle human rights groups, which is encouraging crackdowns elsewhere in the world, a top United Nations official charged with defending rights activists said.

Michel Forst said officials in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Israel and other countries pointed at recent laws in Hungary and Poland to justify their own regulations which may curb the independence of non-governmental organizations.

"There is a need for European countries to be more coherent ... not to teach human rights outside of Europe and then not respecting human rights inside Europe," said Forst, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders.

Charities in dozens of countries, from Angola to India and Tajikistan have faced restrictions targeting their funding and operations over the past two years, according to an EU report.

The trend is part of a global backlash on civil society that has seen rights activists in some parts of the world criminalized or branded as troublemakers, Forst told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview in London.

In 2017, thousands of activists were detained and at least 312 killed because of their work, up 11 percent on the previous year, according to Front Line Defenders, a watchdog group.

Forst said the EU has historically done a good job supporting and protecting rights advocates worldwide but the bloc's authority is now being undermined from within.

Last year, Hungary introduced a measure requiring NGOs that get money from abroad to register with the state, a bill that NGOs say stigmatizes them and is intended to stifle independent voices.

Poland instead introduced legislation to set up a centralized authority controlling charities' funding.

As countermeasure, the EU should boost direct funding of rights groups operating within its borders, Forst said.

"What is absurd for me is that the EU is funding organizations in Latin America, in Africa - which is good - but there is no more funding for EU NGOs," he said.

Money should be allocated from a dedicated fund and not channeled through governments, he said.

The European Commission said last year it was taking Hungary to the EU's top court over its NGO laws that the government says aim to protect the country from foreign influence.

Besides Europe, Forst also singled out Australia for its treatment of asylum seekers held in offshore camps, adding it was "not a safe place" for human rights defenders due to pressure from the government.

A December report by Pro Bono Australia and the Human Rights Law Centre, two rights groups, found Australian NGOs were often pressured into "self-silencing" their advocacy work fearing funding cuts and political retribution.

"(Global civil society) space is shrinking because it is shrinking in Europe, because it is shrinking in the Americas, in Australia," said Forst.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
advocacy groups / pressure groups / lobbies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EU sets bad example on human rights with NGO crackdown: U.N. expert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The European Union is setting a bad example by allowing some of its members to stifle human rights groups, which is encouraging crackdowns elsewhere in the world, a top United Nations official charged with defending rights activists said.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Becoming “professional and efficient” is becoming corporate."

# data[].attributes.subject
"Becoming “professional and efficient” is becoming corporate."

# data[].attributes.body
NGOs have lots of beneficial qualities and as we’ll probably hear at monday’s lecture they can have an impact on negotiations and so forth.
What I’m sharing now is, however, an article with a more critical stand towards NGOs. The author’s belief is that when activists become established NGOs, they loose much of the ”raw, innocent and effective”-spirit. Interesting viewpoint!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human rights activists are lured by donor funding to become 'professional' NGOs. But efficient doesn't necessarily mean effective

Activists from the global south hear, far too often, from our donors that we should "learn how to become professional" and "make NGO management efficient". Let's decode what that means.

Professional means "a person engaged or qualified in a profession". Donors would like you to be a "professional" activist and want to see you approaching human rights work as a profession.

Efficient management means "performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort". For conventional NGOs this means achieving targets, writing reports and submitting them on time. To really understand the danger of becoming efficient, compare it with effectiveness. Being effective is about doing the right things, while being efficient is about doing things right, no matter how far you have moved away from human rights "activism" to be part of an efficient management team.

As soon as a well-meaning group of activists start the process of becoming a professional NGO, the problems begin. No matter what is said at the outset about the NGOs being free to act the way they have envisioned, the truth is that NGOs are deeply indebted by donors, and well-funded NGOs are even worse. This is the start of submission to a system that repeatedly disempowers and controls.

Look at the process: once a human rights movement in the global south decides to become a NGO - because that's the only way donors (especially big multilateral or bilateral ones) will fund you, and provide the most basic financial resources, you have to sign a memorandum of agreement.

The NGO leaders and management team will have to be inducted into the "good governance" model dictated by the donor through a series of training programmes, meetings and workshops. They will have to develop operating procedures, organisational policies and even strategies to match the donor's expectations. We are expected to be "professional" if we wish to continue to get funding.

Then an NGO has to adopt a human resource policy, finance policy, as well as guidelines on how to use computers/internet and how to engage with the press. The activists, who have no choice but to survive on the small salary that the NGO pays, have to submit to the processes of the organisation.

This will affect everything from when the activist-turned-professional-staff are supposed to arrive or leave, to how they are supposed to conduct themselves at work. And the movement-turned-NGO often has to share its press releases to donors for their endorsement before it can be released.

There are guidelines on how the NGO is supposed to conduct meetings, hire people, appraise the staff, reward them and even fire them. In the process of becoming professional and efficient, NGOs slowly forget to engage with real people's problems and emotions. The grassroots people (or fashionably called "target population") find an ever widening class-gap between them and the NGO management.

The donors prefer measurable reporting to than effectiveness of activism. Thus the donors send templates to make the NGO efficient. It is very hard for grassroots organisations to comply with the donor's requirement for professional reporting, scientific data compilation and efficient management. Donors will try everything to make you "professional". They don't care that, in the process of becoming professional and efficient, you become ineffective. You end up spending more time on paper work, and your actual work of promoting human rights, slowly falls down your list of priorities. To become professional and efficient you are encouraged, over time, to get rid of the "emotional" side of your personality, which not only makes you less of an activist but also make you less human.

Data must be validated by the donors. The injustices, abuses and deprivation taking place may be a well-known fact to the local communities but without research carried out using a methodology acceptable to the donor, the local knowledge retains no value and is considered "anecdotal". You end up spending so much time and energy to validate your "anecdotal" knowledge that crucial advocacy has to wait until the validation is completed. Usually the recommendation is a follow-up study.

And so genuine activists get frustrated and seek escape. They seek ways to block out the disempowerment process. They refuse to participate while the senior manager is doing a staff performance appraisal and are indifferent to organisational rituals like one-to-ones, meeting the press or quarterly reviews with the donors. The movement-turned-NGO rebels by not sending reports to the donor within the stipulated time and saying "the computer crashed", even if that means the donor giving you a red mark and threatening discontinuation of funding.

A good leader is sensitive to the disempowering ecosystem created by a large, process-driven NGO/donor. That leader provides the emotion that donor-pleasing NGOs are incapable of having. They have the power to bring joy to the team, discuss their issues, vent their frustrations and encourage their ideas. More importantly, a leader protects the interest of the movement, not because that is the expected "professional" leadership process, but because they are an empowered human being and knows why they are a leader.

The leader can create the space for all activists without compromising funding. But they should also be ready to say no to funding if the movement's agenda is compromised or hijacked. A good leader enables the human rights movement to be free from the "professionalism and efficiency-driven" activist-taming culture. A good leader also knows when they should leave, not because they do not have the skills or capacity anymore, but because they have empowered staff to replace them.

Don't make funding the goal itself

Funding is not the only important consideration for an NGO. It is an important component but it is not always needed. Keep this in mind when looking for funding. It is a well-known fact that the big multilateral and bilateral donors have more funding to disburse (after their own handsome portion for administrative charge) but there are small donors, private foundations and grants that are often better suited for human rights organisations. Look for funding only when it is vital but don't make funding a goal of your organisation.

My advice to human rights movements is to remain grassroots and loosely organised movement for as long as you can. Don't become a "professional" NGO for the sake of it. Becoming "professional and efficient" is becoming corporate. You will deliver much better if you stay a raw, innocent and effective activist. If not, you might as well shift to the corporate world.
This blogpost was first published on Medium. Sunil Babu Pant is the founder of the Blue Diamond Society, a Nepalese LGBTIQ organisation. Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter. Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why grassroots activists should resist being 'professionalised' into an NGO | Sunil Babu Pant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human rights activists are lured by donor funding to become 'professional' NGOs. But efficient doesn't necessarily mean effective Activists from the global south hear, far too often, from our donors that we should "learn how to become professional" and "make NGO management efficient". Let's decode what that means.

# data[].attributes.headline
Interesting about sustainability when it comes to ads and advertising

# data[].attributes.subject
Interesting about sustainability when it comes to ads and advertising

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/are-those-two-super-bowl-ads-really-good-sustainability

# data[].attributes.headline
Make Scotland Fossil Free: Divestment Training Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Make Scotland Fossil Free: Divestment Training Day

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/events/make-scotland-fossil-free-divestment-training-day

This NGO 'Stop climate chaos' is offering free training days in Scotland for opportunities to learn how to lobby your MP, MSP, Councillor or university on climate change and divestment. "We'll be learning and putting into practice the best techniques, tricks and strategies to convince your top targets to get behind a clean energy future and divest funds from fossil fuels"

# data[].attributes.body
This article examines the importance of procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) on the effectives in international environmental negotiations. It is interesting to see the positive correlation between the inclusion of these justice principles and the effectiveness of the negotiations. Yet, it also shows that environmental negotiations should give more attention to distributive justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AT THE weekly market in Toya, at the edge of the Niger river, just outside the ancient city of Timbuktu, little seems to have changed. Under shelters built from branches and tarpaulins, traders in turbans with leathery faces hawk almost everything imaginable. There are slabs of rock salt, mined deep in the desert, next to crates of Algerian cigarettes. Cheap radios sit beside tins of USAID vegetable oil (the marking "not for sale" roundly ignored).

Yet all is not well here. A group of armed UN peacekeepers walks among the shoppers, asking questions. One elderly Tuareg says that just a few days earlier a dozen armed men had wandered into the village, flaunting their weapons. He will not say who they were, but they were not soldiers from the Malian army. "We have fear here. When these men can come and go as they please, there is no security," he says. When asked if he had ever seen the state's security forces, he gestures a hand with a large silver ring at the market: "They are never here."

Upgrade your inbox

During the past decade Mali has become one of Africa's most intractable security problems. Once seen as a model democracy, it has been plagued by violence since 2012, when Tuareg-led jihadists with links to al-Qaeda led a rebellion across northern Mali, at the edge of the Sahara desert (see map). At one time tourists used to pour into Timbuktu to ride camels across the desert. Now most of the foreigners at the airport wear army uniforms. The city has said goodbye to Bono, a rock musician who once played there. But in most other respects things have got worse.

The old fracture lines of race and tribe widened after independence in 1960. Many among the Tuareg and Arab minorities were uncomfortable with being ruled by black Africans in the south. Big rebellions broke out in 1963 and 1990. But the one in 2012, which came after soldiers had staged a coup in Bamako, the capital, marked a turning-point. The rebels, who had developed from a secular nationalist movement into an Islamist insurgency, seemed ready to march on the capital. That prompted France to send in troops, who pushed the rebels out of most cities but did not defeat them entirely.

In 2015 the warring parties signed a peace deal. But since then the violence has continued to escalate. At least four separate attacks between January 25th and 28th killed scores of people. Last year the UN counted 220 attacks on its operations. That is more than in 2015 and 2016 combined. The peacekeeping mission established in 2013, known as MINUSMA, is by far the UN's most dangerous. It has a force of about 11,000, but 150 peacekeepers have been killed. Insecurity has spread from the north to the centre of Mali.

The country's vast desert is not only a breeding ground for jihadism; it is also a trade route that carries consumer goods south and drugs and migrants towards Europe. That partly explains why France's president, Emmanuel Macron, has already visited Mali twice. France has some 3,000 troops in the Sahel fighting terrorists, most of whom are in Mali. America has a force there too, as does the European Union (on a training mission). Western countries are also paying for a counterterrorism force drawn from regional armies, the G5 Sahel.

In Kano, a village 60km east of Timbuktu, the UN shows off what its DDR (disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation) programme has achieved. As women in bright wraps and headscarves ululate, a newly built water tower is ceremoniously untapped and brown liquid gushes out onto the sand. "It is an excellent thing," enthuses Mohammed Ahmed Cissé, the village's portly chief. "We can grow gardens, and...work together instead of fighting."

Although the fighting has died down, there is not much disarmament. Armed rebels still live in the village, admits Mr Cissé. And a bigger problem is apparent. No one from the Malian government has been seen in almost a decade. Andrew Lebovich, a Bamako-based analyst from the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, argues that the government has little interest in implementing the peace agreement. Fully 90% of Mali's population is in the south, as is most of the economy, which is dominated by goldmining.

A presidential election is due to be held this year and is occupying the incumbent, Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, far more than insecurity. Mr Keïta has faced protests, but not chiefly over the war: corruption allegations sting more. When the Malian army, which is recruited almost entirely in the south, does try to fight, it is often brutal, which helps armed groups recruit.

As long as the state remains so ineffective, Western countries find themselves pushing on a string. According to one report by the International Crisis Group, an NGO based in Brussels, G5 Sahel soldiers "are spending longer in training and preparatory missions than in doing their actual jobs". Yet without systematic change, Mali's problems are only likely to get worse. Half of the population is under the age of 16. The average Malian woman has six children. According to Unicef, barely a third of the population can read, a sad statistic that is unlikely to improve soon, given that hundreds of schools have been closed because of the fighting. Young men without much education or chance of employment are easy recruits to jihadism.

In Timbuktu Mohammed Ag Atta, a 52-year-old Tuareg, says that a decade ago he made good money guiding tourists out into the desert. But now he cannot even feed his camels. "The problem is the state," he says. "Nobody notices us." And so the war goes on.
Correction (February 3rd, 2018): An earlier version of this article misquoted Mr Lebovich. The article has been amended to clarify that his point was specific to the government of Mali's commitment to the 2015 peace agreement, rather than to security in general. Sorry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why UN forces are finding it hard to bring peace to Mali

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AT THE weekly market in Toya, at the edge of the Niger river, just outside the ancient city of Timbuktu, little seems to have changed. Under shelters built from branches and tarpaulins, traders in turbans with leathery faces hawk almost everything imaginable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez - the 17year old indigenous activist who made the world listen

# data[].attributes.subject
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez - the 17year old indigenous activist who made the world listen

# data[].attributes.body
"Xiuhtezcatl is the Youth Director of Earth Guardians, an organization of  youth activists, artists and musicians stepping up as leaders. Thousands of Earth Guardian crews work together around the world to create positive, concrete action in their communities to address climate change.

Now Xiuhtezcatl is a lead plaintiff with a group of 21 young activists joining climate scientist James Hansen in suing the U.S. Government for failing to act on climate change to protect the Earth's atmosphere and our youth's future.

He has traveled the world educating his generation (and older generations) about the state of the planet they will inherit, inspiring them into action to protect the Earth. He performs internationally at music festivals, organizes demonstrations, and has spoken at over 100 high-impact rallies, events and conferences.

Xiuhtezcatl received the 2013 United States Community Service Award from President Obama, and was the youngest of 24 national change-makers chosen to serve on the President's Youth Council." (https://www.xiuhtezcatl.com)

More info: https://www.earthguardians.org/xiuhtezcatl/

# data[].attributes.headline
Interesting article on the perception of activism and dialogue

# data[].attributes.subject
Interesting article on the perception of activism and dialogue

# data[].attributes.body
This article does not directly deal with NGOs, but it presents an interesting discussion on different perceptions of activism, including if activism can be considered as being the absence of dialogue or rather dialogue in itself and about the risks of activists to get into dialogue with powerful agents, such as the state or big corporations.

# data[].attributes.headline
How public-private partnerships fight climate change in the cocoa supply chain

# data[].attributes.subject
How public-private partnerships fight climate change in the cocoa supply chain

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses cross-sectoral partnerships between government institutions and NGOs in regards to cocoa farming.  Deforestation in Ghana to make way for more farms has caused a negative feedback loop, creating less rainfall and drought.  In order to fight this issue, partnerships between governments, NGOs, industry, farmers and community members are needed to help cocoa farmers become more resilient to climate change.  An interesting quote from the article is: "Government has the access and power to affect change, NGOs have the expertise and infrastructure to implement, and corporations are driven by a commitment to be part of the solution."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article is sponsored by Mondelēz International.
Deforestation is a growing and serious problem, and for MondelēzInternational, it makes up the largest part of our carbon footprint. We are committed to addressing this global phenomenon, focusing on areas where we can make the biggest difference, such as palm oil and in our cocoa-growing communities. When it comes to cocoa, our emphasis of late has been on Ghana.

Ghana supplies about 20 percent of the world's cocoa, and it has one of the highest deforestation rates in Africa, at 3.2 percent per annum (PDF). The situation demands attention and it's one reason we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the local government and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

The situation demands attention and it's one reason we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the local government and United Nations Development Programme.

Cocoa farmers feel stuck in a vicious cycle. Deforestation has led to carbon emissions, resulting in reduced rainfall and severe conditions such as droughts. Farmers aren't able to grow as much cocoa and they feel forced to expand into new forests to earn income and also meet the demand of cocoa. Unfortunately, the cycle continues all over again and it's affecting not just their livelihoods but also their communities.

The keyto securing the future of cocoa and helping these farmers is partnership. As global operations manager for our sustainable cocoa sourcing program, Cocoa Life, I've found when both public and private sectors work in tandem to protect forests, we see change happen.

It's how Cocoa Life got its start. Established in 2012, MondelēzInternational created Cocoa Life to nurture thriving cocoa communities and create an essential foundation for sustainable cocoa. Through our program, independently verified by third-party organizations, we strategically work with governments, industry, suppliers, NGOs and - most importantly - farmers on the ground. They each bring much-needed expertise. For instance, government has the access and power to affect change, NGOs have the expertise and infrastructure to implement, and corporations are driven by a commitment to be part of the solution.

Cross-sectoral partnerships, such as our recent memorandum in Ghana, remind us how important it is to involve every player in the conversation. The Forestry Commission of Ghana and Ghana Cocoa Board, both government institutions, will oversee implementation and ensure climate smart cocoa production. UNDP will share technical expertise and facilitate communications across all partners. And through Cocoa Life, Mondelēz International will contribute $5 million over five years and lead projects on the ground.

Government has the access and power to affect change, NGOs have the expertise and infrastructure to implement, and corporations are driven by a commitment to be part of the solution.

Trust and transparency: All partners must establish clear, regular channels of communication to ensure KPIs are being met and there is ongoing progress. Like any relationship, dialogue must be open, transparent and based on trust.

Local knowledge: Securing partners with on-the-ground understanding of the needs and challenges is crucial to establishing beneficial and effective programs. To get this knowledge firsthand, the Cocoa Life teams are based in the cocoa origins and regularly shadow farmers and their communities. Communicating with and learning directly from cocoa farmers help us improve Cocoa Life to better meet their needs.

Accountability: Partners keep one another accountable. Government and NGO partners hold private sector corporations to their commitments. And corporate involvement helps hold government and NGOs responsible for implementation.

While the Ghana memorandum is certainly another step towards protecting our forests, it is just one piece in fighting a larger global crisis. No matter which partners we engage, three key tenants are needed for progress:

Working with a range of partners to help our farmers grow more cocoa on less land helps secure their livelihoods while fighting deforestation. We hope that through Cocoa Life's ongoing commitment and leadership, we will inspire action at scale and more partnership between governments, NGOs, industry, farmers and community members to join the fight and help cocoa farmers become more resilient to climate change.

We hope that through Cocoa Life's ongoing commitment and leadership, we will inspire action at scale.

2015: Cocoa Life commits to lead private sector action (PDF) as part of Côte d'Ivoire's national REDD+ program to combat deforestation. In addition to training farmers on Good Agricultural Practices to help improve their cocoa productivity and providing resources, the program works with NGOs to support forest mapping and monitoring.

2017: Mondelēz International and 11 other cocoa and chocolate companies, as well as governments, establish the Cocoa & Forests Initiative - a cooperative, multi-stakeholder framework to address deforestation and forest degradation in the cocoa supply chain. Together, we will create a joint action plan to fight deforestation in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire.

2017: Cocoa Life signs a memorandum (PDF) with the Ministry of Environment in Côte d'Ivoire to support the country's bold ambition to reach zero deforestation in cocoa (part of the REDD+ program, supported by the World Bank).

2018: The Forestry Commission of Ghana, Ghana Cocoa Board, UNDP and Cocoa Life sign a memorandum (PDF) to reduce emissions in the cocoa supply chain across Ghana through the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Program.

Recent public-private partnerships in action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How public-private partnerships fight climate change in the cocoa supply chain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is sponsored by Mondelēz International. Deforestation is a growing and serious problem, and for MondelēzInternational, it makes up the largest part of our carbon footprint. We are committed to addressing this global phenomenon, focusing on areas where we can make the biggest difference, such as palm oil and in our cocoa-growing communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Juliana v. United States | Environmental Law Reporter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ELI makes law work for people, places and the planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Strategies NGO's can utilise from organisations such as Coca-Cola to speed up our progress towards real impact

# data[].attributes.subject
Strategies NGO's can utilise from organisations such as Coca-Cola to speed up our progress towards real impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Melinda Gates: What nonprofits can learn from Coca-Cola

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melinda Gates makes a provocative case: What can nonprofits learn from mega-corporations like Coca-Cola, whose global network of marketers and distributors ensures that every remote village wants -- and can get -- an ice-cold Coke? Maybe this model could work for distributing health care, vaccinations, sanitation, even condoms ...

# data[].attributes.body
New Zealand Government is reviewing aid strategy after call from UNICEF to step up its game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Foreign Minister Winston Peters says New Zealand's level of aid expenditure is in "serious need of review", following "nine years of underfunding by the previous government".

During the 2017 financial year, New Zealand spent $530.5 million on aid, including $66.2m that went to humanitarian responses in disaster and conflict areas.

That $530.5m accounted for 0.23 per cent of New Zealand's Gross National Income (GNI), well below the OECD average.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made strong statements about the importance of "doing what's right" in relation to the Manus Island refugee situation, and the Government has made lifting people out of poverty a top priority.
READ MORE:
* Govt urged to spend more on international aid
* Govt urged by Unicef to work harder for end to Syria war in global appeal
* When going to school can be deadly
The aid community says it is hopeful the coalition's willingness to help the most vulnerable, will extend beyond New Zealand's borders.

But why do we currently spend so little compared to our international counterparts? And what is the new Government actually planning to do about it?
WHAT DOES NEW ZEALAND SPEND ON AID?
The newly released Unicef Humanitarian Action for Children (HAC) report says one in every four children is living in a country affected by conflict or disaster.

Nearly 50 million children have been uprooted from their homes due to violence, poverty or natural disasters.

Conflicts such as those in Iraq, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria continued to worsen in 2017, bringing violence, displacement and disruption to children's lives.

Last year,164,000 refugees and migrants, including 29,000 children, entered Europe, joining the 1.4 million people who arrived during the previous year, and the 3.6 million people already hosted in Turkey.

Unicef's HAC report predicts the international children's NGO will need US$3.6 billion (NZ$4.9b) - the same amount the world spends on vegan cheese each year - to carry out its programmes in 2018.

The programmes aimed to help 82m people, including 48m children, in 51 countries.

Last year, New Zealand spent a total of $530.5 million on aid, accounting for 0.23 per cent of GNI, that's dropped from 0.3 per cent in 2008.

It was below the OECD average of 0.4 per cent, and well below the longstanding international commitment it made to raise aid spending to 0.7 per cent of GNI.

While New Zealand did contribute more compared to its GNI than some countries like the United States (0.19 per cent), and Japan (0.2 per cent), it gave less than Australia (0.27 per cent), the United Kingdom (0.7 per cent), and Scandinavian countries, according to OECD figures.

Government aid spending accounted for 0.65 per cent of total government spending in New Zealand last year.

Peters said the level of aid expenditure was in need of serious review.

The government's spending on aid, as a percentage of its GNI, has been in gradual decline since 2008.

While actual spend had increased in order to keep pace with inflation, the GNI was forecast to fall to 0.21 per cent over the next four years.

This would see New Zealand fall further behind in rankings compared with other countries, he said.

"Nine years of underfunding by the previous government is a significant issue but it will take some time to rectify."
WHY IS IT SO LOW?
Unicef NZ executive director Vivien Maidaborn said the spend was so low because "bluntly, it hasn't been a priority for successive New Zealand governments".

Since 2008, the aid strategy had been driven through an economic development lens, where the economic development was countable in both New Zealand and in the country receiving the aid.

That was a small window in which to spend money, she said, adding that there were far-reaching benefits to investing in education, health and social programmes.

Peters said development assistance was delivered according to criteria set by the OECD.

"We do not tie any of our development spending to generate potential economic benefit to New Zealand," he said.

In 2016, the biggest chunk of aid money was spent on projects relating to education, health and population (18.6 per cent), then economic infrastructure (18.2 per cent), and humanitarian assistance accounts for 11.8 per cent.

Council for International Development (CID) director Josie Pagani said it was fine for New Zealand to invest in development projects like building runways, but it was important local people benefited.

Projects should benefit the many, not the few, she said.

Pagani said part of the reason for New Zealand's low aid spend was a lack of public understanding.

Kiwis did not know how much the government spent, what the results were, and they questioned why New Zealand gave international aid when there were people struggling at home.

Surveys showed, at a guess, most Kiwis thought the government spent between 10 and 20 per cent of GNI on international aid, not less that 1 per cent, she said.

The aid community and the government needed to do a better job of telling the story in order to raise public awareness, and get buy-in that would influence governments to change their policies.
WHAT WILL THE GOVERNMENT DO?
Peters said the Government would renew its aid strategy and the level of funding, but it was understood these conversations were in the early stages.

New Zealand was committed to being a "good international citizen", he said, adding that 60 per cent of New Zealand's development assistance currently went to supporting neighbours in the Pacific.

Currently the aid budget was $1.7b over the three year period from 2015/16 to 2017/18.

"Of course, the government recognises international humanitarian needs. At present $300 million is delivered via international multilateral agencies and $60 million is earmarked for direct humanitarian assistance."

Beyond that, details were scarce when it came to how the strategy would change, and how much more New Zealand planned to spend.

However, Labour did outline its preferred policy for overseas development assistance ahead of the election in its manifesto.

The top priority was ensuring the central objective of the development programme was the elimination of poverty.

The other topline goals were listed as:

- Ensure the primary focus of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Pacific Division is on its development programme.

- Work cooperatively with the NGO sector (in New Zealand and overseas) and with governments in assisted countries to ensure development programmes best implement the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.

Labour also acknowledged aid efforts required money.

"It is important that New Zealand keeps faith with our longstanding international commitment to the target of 0.7 per cent of GNI allocated to overseas development. It is a core part of our global citizen commitments."

Maidaborn and Pagani said they were "hopeful" the Government would improve New Zealand's current approach to aid.

Given the coalition's rhetoric and preliminary discussion, which had taken place between the aid community and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), it looked like there was appetite to give more, and give smarter.

"I've got a great deal of hope and commitment to be involved in conversations," Maidaborn said.
HOW DO WE MAKE THE MOST OF OUR AID DOLLARS?
While it was important to give money, New Zealand - as a small country - also needed to spend smarter.

Maidaborn said the recent discussion about lifting the refugee quota was positive but the situation was more complicated than that.

The new Government has committed to doubling the refugee quota to 1500, but that lift will be phased in due to housing constraints.

"I don't disagree that we should be taking more refugees through the UN programme. But I also believe it's the least efficient and effective response."

If the world spent $3.6b in 2018 - about as much as the world spends on vegan cheese a year - that would assist 82 million people without moving them from their country, she said.

"It doesn't matter if we double or treble or multiply by 10 the number of refugees we take, it makes a difference in those individuals, but for the huge numbers, unprecedented numbers who have been displaced, it makes no difference at all."

Maidaborn said New Zealand would be better giving money through organisations that could scale humanitarian action.

"The bang for your buck, in terms of the dollar, is very much greater."

Peter agreed that many refugees wanted to return home when they were able.

"This means supporting political solutions to conflict and helping refugees within their own region are vital aspects of the international response to the refugee crisis.

"In the case of Syria, for example, New Zealand has announced $23.5m in contributions for humanitarian assistance in on the ground and the regional refugee response."

Pagani said in order to spend smarter, New Zealand needed to leverage its size.

The New Zealand Government needed to work with NGOs, foreign governments, local people, and private business to make the most out of its efforts and get the biggest bang for its buck.

"There's a perfect storm in New Zealand at the moment, where we could lead the world in how to go beyond aid, and do development better."

The Government was looking at some of the changes happening in the aid sector, leadership in foreign affairs was "really keen" to look at how they coordinated better, and the sector was showing government how to do partnerships with the private sector.

"I see the potential for New Zealand to be a leader in how we do development differently, and in a sense be an innovation hub," Pagani said.

- Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Govt to review aid strategy and spending, after NGOs call for NZ to step up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Foreign Minister Winston Peters says New Zealand's level of aid expenditure is in "serious need of review", following "nine years of underfunding by the previous government". During the 2017 financial year, New Zealand spent $530.5 million on aid, including $66.2m that went to humanitarian responses in disaster and conflict areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Just another example of NGO's working without close consideration of the native efforts for sustainability. Nice summary of the brunt of the issue by a local actor: "We're not dismissing the use of technology because we know that it must be complementary. But we want to incentivize the use of technologies that don't erase our culture," the indigenous leader said.

How can NGOs, governments, the EU, the UN, WTO and other international players really work and "incentivise" local actors to work on local problems as well as be a part of technology-based development solutions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With international cash to adapt to climate change hard to access, Central American indigenous groups are moving to build their own supply

By Sebastian Rodriguez

SAN JOSE, Jan 25 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Leví Sucre, an indigenous leader from the Bribri community in Costa Rica, remembers how his family used to grow beans on 5 or 6 hectares of land at their home in the Talamanca region. But that was many years ago, he says.

"That's impossible now. When growing beans, there's a period where they can't receive water (and need dry conditions). Now, unexpected cold fronts and rains are spoiling them" he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

According to Sucre, climate change is having serious impacts on the food security of indigenous communities. But they're not able to adapt fast enough, since access to international climate funds to provide cash for needed changes is, as he puts it, "an almost impossible task".

"We have too many limitations and they ask for too many things; starting with understanding how these things even work in the first place. In the end, the funds are created but never really reach us," said the indigenous leader in an interview.

Getting climate finance to the places where it is needed most - particularly communities trying to adapt to climate change impacts such as more unpredictable and extreme weather - is a huge challenge.

International climate funds, trying to ensure the money is well spent, require extensive paperwork - something beyond the abilities of many poor communities, their members say.

Funds usually also prefer to make a few large-scale grants or loans rather than thousands of small ones, in an effort to speed the distribution of money and avoid the time involved in vetting many small projects, experts say.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), created in 2010 by the United Nations to finance mitigation and adaptation projects, has faced criticism because of how difficult it can be for countries and local communities to get accredited and access the money.

Andrea Meza, climate change director for Costa Rica's Ministry of Environment, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that accessing these funds tends to be a draining process for indigenous communities.

"It's possible that they want to start projects with development banks or NGOs but it's clear that accessing these funds is not a fast, short, cheap or easy process," Meza said.

Between 2003 and 2015, only about 11 percent of $1.6 billion in climate finance flows reached local communities, according to research by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development ( IIED).

That was despite communities taking some of the most effective action to tackle climate change, experts say.

"They're the ones that are living in these environments on a day-to-day basis. They understand what interventions are going to make the most impact," Marek Soanes, a climate finance researcher at IIED, said during last November's U.N. climate talks in Bonn.

BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

But after struggling with a lack of access to international climate funding, Sucre and other indigenous leaders from Central America and Mexico have come up with a solution: They are trying to create their own climate fund.

With their regional organization, the Mesoamerican Alliance of People and Forests, they are assembling a "Mesoamerican Territorial Fund", which they hope could receive international funding.

The initiative aims to give rapid and easy financing to indigenous communities so they can implement climate change adaptation and mitigation projects.

One of the key aspects of the fund is that it will be managed by indigenous people and benefit their own communities, with little input from outsiders, Sucre said - though the Central American Bank for Economic Integration would hold the money.

"We are trying to install this initiative in the Central American Bank for Economic Integration because they can meet the necessary requirements. However, the money would be politically administered by the territories, not by them," the Bribri leader said.

The fund would finance projects that communities themselves propose and want to develop, he said, in an effort to avoid projects being imposed from outside, and to meet the different needs of each community.

That's important because, in the past, foreign investment in indigenous communities has sparked tensions among the groups, indigenous leader Magaly Lázaro told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

In particular, REDD+ - an effort to improve forest protection by giving communities living in forests incentives to protect them - "has provoked tensions in the relationship between communities", she said.

"There's been an inclusive process in certain territories but that hasn't been the case for ours in Buenos Aires and the rest of the Southern region," she said.

Her indigenous group ended up protesting against REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) efforts in their region, saying they imposed an alien form of conservation and created community conflicts.

The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund hopes to avoid such problems, Sucre said. He said he hoped funding could begin to flow into the fund as early as this year.

"We hope that by mid-2018 we already have the fund technically designed and ready to apply for international funds. By the second semester we hope to start financing," he said.

CLIMATE PRESSURES

The impact of climate change on indigenous territories is significant, Sucre said. Worsening natural disasters and weakening food security are some of the most threatening issues that indigenous communities face, he said.

U.N. research concurs that "indigenous peoples are among the first to face the direct consequences of climate change, owing to their dependence upon, and close relationship with the environment and its resources", according to a 2008 report.

Sucre said indigenous communities need to change the way they farm their land in response to increasingly unstable weather.

Because of increasing harvest losses, he said, many communities are growing more dependent on supermarkets.

But with worsening storms blocking roads and cutting off access to indigenous territories, that dependence could leave people without food in emergencies, Magaly Lázaro said.

Last October for example, Hurricane Nate left many indigenous communities in the Southern region of Costa Rica isolated after the collapse of many main road routes.

According to government data, the country's Aerial Surveillance Service had to transport 13.5 tons of food to the region by helicopter.

"We don't want to depend on any external entities. We want to depend on our own way of working," Lázaro said.

The Mesoamerican Territorial Fund, Sucre said, will aim to finance adaptation projects that protect the food security of indigenous territories, in part using traditional knowledge they have acquired through the years.

"We're not dismissing the use of technology because we know that it must be complementary. But we want to incentivize the use of technologies that don't erase our culture," the indigenous leader said.

(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez ; editing by Laurie Goering : Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women's rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frustrated indigenous leaders aim to start own climate fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With international cash to adapt to climate change hard to access, Central American indigenous groups are moving to build their own supply By Sebastian Rodriguez SAN JOSE, Jan 25 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Leví Sucre, an indigenous leader from the Bribri community in Costa Rica, remembers how his family used to grow beans on 5 or 6 hectares of land at their home in the Talamanca region.

# data[].attributes.body
A nice little guide highlighting key aspects in strategic planning for NGOs. I highly recommend reading it if you ever need to build a strategic approach.

https://www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Strategic-Planning-A-PLP-Toolkit-INTRAC-1.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Some NGOs may face restrictions on their funding

# data[].attributes.subject
Some NGOs may face restrictions on their funding

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-rights-ngo/eu-sets-bad-example-on-human-rights-with-ngo-crackdown-u-n-expert-idUSKBN1FF2CV

# data[].attributes.headline
Private sector more committed with sustainable matters?

# data[].attributes.subject
Private sector more committed with sustainable matters?

# data[].attributes.body
"Companies and financial institutions are more involved in this year's summit than ever before, prompting some grumbling from NGOs who believe the process is being hijacked by strong financial interests.

Jonathan Taylor, Vice President of the European Investment Bank, gave a press conference in Bonn today saying the public lending institution has seen a huge uptick in private sector commitments in the past months. The bank, which ties its loans with private sources, has pledged to provide €100 billion ($116 billion) for climate action projects by 2020."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The small city of Bonn, Germany, was inundated with thousands of delegates today for this year's UN climate summit. Over the coming two weeks, negotiators will hammer out the rule book for the Paris climate agreement reached two years ago.

The VIPs will not arrive until next week for the intensive final days of the summit. But already, the politicians are gearing up for a battle between people claiming to speak for the United States.

Donald Trump announced earlier this year he will pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement. However, the withdrawal process takes three years, leaving the United States in as a signatory until then. President Trump is sending a small delegation to Bonn that will try to continue to shape the rules of the agreement.

The role this delegation intends to play, and what role it should be allowed to play, was the subject of much debate on the first day of the summit.

- COP23: What's at stake?

- COP23: High time to curb emissions as 2017 to become hottest year on record

For the first time ever, the United States did not set up a pavilion at this year's UN summit - the only developed country not to do so. But a rival group of US governors, mayors and business leaders, called the We Are Still In coalition, is opening a "US Climate Action Center" pavilion on Thursday. It is led by California Governor Jerry Brown and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Delegates at the Bonn climate summit aren't sure which US delegation to talk to

"For the first time, the US government is unlikely to create a space at these talks to tell America's story of climate action," says Lou Leonard, senior vice president for climate change and energy at the World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF). "So at this round of negotiations, the real news about US climate action will be delivered to the world by leaders of US business, cities and states attending these talks as a unified delegation working together to accelerate climate action in the American economy."
Who's the boss?
All of this means there will be two competing US delegations at this year's summit, which has left people wondering who really speaks for the United States.

"My view is that the sub-national delegates truly represent the interests of Americans, they are closer to public opinion on this," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group urging climate action, at a press conference today in Bonn.

"But on the issue of negotiating though, under our system of government it is the executive branch of the federal government that represents the US in these negotiations," he added.

- Opinion: Heed the cries for help from Fiji

- COP23: the price tag for climate change

With no visible US presence yet in Bonn from either camp, delegates are split over whether to focus more on talking to the official US delegation, or the unofficial one.

Many believe that the US will not end up pulling out of the agreement, and so it is better to talk to the rival delegation for now. "This is an aberration, and whoever takes power after President Trump will restore the US back into the Paris Agreement," said Meyer.

German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks poses with Fijian warriors

Barbara Hendricks, Germany's environment minister, told DW that she believes the official US delegation should be engaged with."I am very pleased, because [US] state secretary Rex Tillerson has a very balanced position," Hendricks said. "I am confident the American delegation will not disrupt the negotiations."

"The world has come a lot closer together," she added, "especially because of the megastorms in the Caribbean, and the US exit from the Paris Agreement has strengthened the unity between states."
Power and cash vacuum
Meanwhile, countries and financial institutions are lining up to fill the power vacuum left by the United States. China has been keen to step in, maintaining a large pavilion at this year's summit and taking on a more assertive role behind the scenes, according to diplomatic sources.

The European Union is also moving to fill the vacuum. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will both come to Bonn next week.

- Fiji sees threat of coming climate exodus

- Climate change is happening - but it's not game-over yet

Companies and financial institutions are more involved in this year's summit than ever before, prompting some grumbling from NGOs who believe the process is being hijacked by strong financial interests.

Jonathan Taylor, Vice President of the European Investment Bank, gave a press conference in Bonn today saying the public lending institution has seen a huge uptick in private sector commitments in the past months. The bank, which ties its loans with private sources, has pledged to provide €100 billion ($116 billion) for climate action projects by 2020.

"We are on track to deliver on our commitment," he said.

The EIB will hold a mini-summit with other public and private lenders on Thursday in Bonn to talk about how to scale up climate investment.

James Hansen, the "father of climate change awareness" gave a dire warning in Bonn
Anti-US summit?
Whichever US delegation countries choose to engage with, the resentment felt toward the US decision at the summit runs deep. Trump's decision was the subject of near-universal scorn at the first day's press conferences.

James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been nicknamed "the father of climate change awareness" because of his early warnings in congressional testimony in 1988, gave a press conference blasting the Trump decision and presenting the latest climate science. He was joined on stage by his 18-year-old granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, who is suing Trump and the US government for inaction on climate change.

"Adults, you say you love us, but I challenge you to make your actions match your words," she said. "If you continue to pursue your selfish aims, the result will be enormous suffering for your children."

Anti-coal demo in Bonn

Everyone can take action

"We think it's incredibly important to be the change in the world you want to see. Everybody can do something for the climate, even individuals. It starts with small decisions when you go shopping or march in protests," says Eva.

Author: Katharina Wecker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COP23: US absence felt on first day of UN climate summit | Environment| All topics from climate change to conservation | DW | 06.11.2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The small city of Bonn, Germany, was inundated with thousands of delegates today for this year's UN climate summit. Over the coming two weeks, negotiators will hammer out the rule book for the Paris climate agreement reached two years ago. The VIPs will not arrive until next week for the intensive final days of the summit.

# data[].attributes.headline
NGOs are on the rise in several countries where freedom of speech and democracy has been absent. But in countries like China, NGOs has taken the part of a public sector service provider, giving them a role but less of a voice.

# data[].attributes.subject
NGOs are on the rise in several countries where freedom of speech and democracy has been absent. But in countries like China, NGOs has taken the part of a public sector service provider, giving them a role but less of a voice.

# data[].attributes.body
Daring to think, daring to act - Civil society

"Some hoped that by working with the government, NGOs like Datong might influence it from within, but most of them turn out to have little autonomy over their own services"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE CONVERTED FLAT in a quiet residential neighbourhood in north-east Beijing does not look like a hotbed of revolution. A sticker on the door declares it to be a "safe space"; inside are some armchairs, a meeting table, a rainbow flag and a counselling room. Yet over the past two years this organisation in Beijing, which represents the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, has attracted increasing attention from the police. On one occasion the head of the centre was questioned for nine hours without a break. It is becoming harder to predict what forms of activism the Communist Party will tolerate, she says: "We often say our government is full of G-spots. You don't know how and where you touch them."

These days many Chinese want to get involved in non-profit organisations and civic groups, but the government does not always make it easy for them. After the party seized power in 1949 it stamped out anything that stood between it and the proletariat. Society was divided into work units, distinct walled communities that provided not just jobs but food, housing, schools, medical services and elder care for the toiling masses. The state claimed to meet every need from first to last gasp. What is now called civil society all but disappeared.

As the party has retreated from people's daily lives since the 1990s, a host of civic organisations has sprung up to fill gaps in state coverage. The needs and demands of society have become far more complex, but state provision is surprisingly thin. Some civic outfits work with particular groups, such as the elderly or migrants; others are organised around issues such as the environment or labour. About 550,000 domestic non-government organisations (NGOs) are registered with the government, and a further 2m or so are either unregistered or registered as businesses, often to try to avoid scrutiny or harassment. On top of that, around 7,000 foreign NGOs are operating in China.

This looks like an outbreak of altruism in a country often charged with lacking a sense of morality. The rise in individualism that has caused some to pursue blind self-interest has had the opposite effect on others, instilling more of a social conscience and increasing civic engagement. Many Chinese are responding to the anomie and inequality caused by their country's accelerated modernisation by trying to improve the lives of strangers. Such groups meet the demand for such services and provide an outlet for the mainly middle-class individuals who want to do their bit for society and have the capacity for it. Their efforts seem to enjoy widespread support: people's trust in NGOs is increasing year by year, according to the annual "trust barometer" put together by Edelman, a public-relations firm.

This urge to engage has recently spread to charitable giving. Total donations have nearly quadrupled since 2007, to $16 billion, though ordinary folk tend to contribute ad hoc when prompted by some crisis or natural disaster, rather than systematically. Giving in China is still paltry compared with America, which collects 25 times the Chinese total from a population a quarter of the size, but it is rising fast. The richest individuals lead the way. According to researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School, over a third of China's biggest philanthropists made money in property; nearly 60% of their donations go to education, reflecting a wider Chinese concern; and most give to the province where they work, replicating and reinforcing China's overall wealth gap.

A large and growing body of NGOs are essentially service providers for the state. The nine-storey building from which Datong, or "Great Harmony", a government-sponsored NGO, operates in the southern city of Guangzhou is home to a bevy of similar organisations; their names form the leaves of a tree in the lobby, representing the Guangzhou government that nurtures them. The local government commissions Datong to provide social services for the elderly, children, migrant families and HIV sufferers. Its founder, Liu Jinglin, is a party member, as are some of her social workers.

Some hoped that by working with the government, NGOs like Datong might influence it from within, but most of them turn out to have little autonomy over their own services. Many are, in effect, arms of the state. "The party wants to take all the credit for sorting out society's problems," says Jing Jun of Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Any size as long as it's small

Datong is precisely the kind of civic group that the government hopes will help it increase social stability by alleviating social ills. In March China's first charity law was passed to allow registration with the government, legalise fundraising and protect donors. It sends a strong signal that the state encourages at least some kinds of civic groups. Despite reservations, most people in the sector see it as an important step forward.

But the new charity law also sets clear limits. In effect, it caps the size of such civic groups. Institutions have to be in business for two years before they can raise funds, which is longer than some will be able to wait. Charities' operating costs must not exceed 10% of spending, which will make it hard to find and retain skilled staff. And most of the income must be distributed, so accumulating an endowment will be next to impossible.

The party is wary of civic groups because it views them as a training ground for political participation. It is well aware of the role that trade unions, churches and other civic groups played in bringing down the Soviet bloc. Mass participation is also an unwelcome reminder of China's own Cultural Revolution. There is a reason why the party calls NGOs "social organisations": it fears that "non-government" may be misread for "anti-government".

The idea of like-minded souls bound by a common cause linking up around the country is anathema to the party

The party is particularly cautious about foreign NGOs and foreign-funded domestic ones, seeing them as potentially subversive "anti-China forces". A new law requires international NGOs to register with the public-security bureau; they risk being shut down if they "endanger national security", a vague term critics worry will be used to justify increased monitoring or harassment. "It's unfortunate that they decided to see us as criminalised from the get-go," says the head of one such foreign group.

The state's fear that activism will turn into political action explains the ambiguous and at times antagonistic relationship between NGOs and the state. Yang Xiong of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences says social organisations are "friends of the government", and only those working on "religion, politics or the military" are sensitive. In fact the distinction is not as clear-cut as that.

Since Xi Jinping took office in 2012, the crackdown on civil society has intensified. Tolerance of the more sensitive groups has declined and previously accepted groups have been subjected to greater scrutiny. Leaders of labour-rights groups have been arrested. Courses on civil society at some universities have been closed and professors told to behave. In March 2015 five feminists were imprisoned for over a month, purportedly for planning a campaign against sexual harassment. Their crime was not that they stood up for women's rights, but that they wanted to stage simultaneous campaigns in several cities. The idea of like-minded souls bound by a common cause linking up around the country is anathema to the party. Most of its responses can be explained by this overriding concern.

Rather than bow to government repression, the feminists have changed their strategy, becoming active on social media and looking for crowdfunding to pay for ads against harassment. LGBT groups have changed tack too. Although Chinese society is becoming more tolerant of diversity, even at the top, the state worries that such groups are becoming increasingly well organised. In the past LGBT groups have helped stage "performance art" such as faux gay weddings in popular tourist spots to raise awareness. Now they have taken to helping people use the legal system to advance their cause. Individuals have brought cases fighting illegal "gay conversion" therapy, homophobic language in textbooks and pushing for the right to marry.

Bold star

Activism is not restricted to the non-profit sector. Luo Changping, a journalist, is known in China for his online exposure of the cheating and corruption of a top party official in 2013, which eventually got the cadre sacked. Mr Luo himself, although not exactly sacked, was moved from his reporting role at Caijing, one of China's more outspoken magazines, for investigating secret offshore accounts, and transferred to an affiliated research institute. Now he works for Okoer.com, a Chinese-German joint venture that tests the quality of products made in China and other countries.

Mr Luo is a rare individual in China who is willing to speak truth to power, so inspecting sex toys, soy sauce and biscuits may seem like a comedown. But his work still involves exposing the effects of corruption, negligence and the weak legal system on the lives of ordinary Chinese people, he says. "What I do now is more effective than journalism. One test can affect millions of consumers, but a big media exposé would change nothing."

That points to another reason why the party fears such engaged citizens: they lay bare the gross failings of the state, including its institutional inability to protect its citizens. Food safety is a particularly touchy subject in China. Most notoriously, in 2008 vast quantities of baby milk were found to be contaminated with melamine, killing four babies and sending 50,000 to hospital. Every month brings new such scandals. Though individuals sometimes go to jail for their part in them, the underlying failure of regulation and accountability is not dealt with. Since the subject is so controversial, Chinese labs often will not test food samples from private firms or individuals, so Okoer sends all its products to Germany to be analysed.

Ai Weiwei, a Chinese artist, once remarked that a distinctive feature of dictatorships is that they make individuals feel powerless to change anything in society. Yet although civic engagement is politically sensitive, China today has more and more engaged groups such as parents' associations at schools and residents' groups that represent apartment-block tenants. Few of them are interested in liberal causes; they may be NIMBYists, or objecting to migrant children in their middle-class schools. The vast majority are tiny and would never consider themselves part of a broader movement. Yet in pressing for action, they show that their voice matters, that the party cannot direct all social change from the top. Slowly they are shaping China, step by tiny step.

Special report: The new class war More in this special report:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE CONVERTED FLAT in a quiet residential neighbourhood in north-east Beijing does not look like a hotbed of revolution. A sticker on the door declares it to be a "safe space"; inside are some armchairs, a meeting table, a rainbow flag and a counselling room.

# data[].attributes.headline
Politicized UN committee using 'repeated and arbitrary deferrals' to block NGOs, critics say

# data[].attributes.subject
Politicized UN committee using 'repeated and arbitrary deferrals' to block NGOs, critics say

# data[].attributes.body
NGOs and voices within the United Nations are calling for the reform of the committee tasked with accrediting non-governmental organizations, saying it has become a political tool to block rather than bolster their participation:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-ngo-committee-politics-1.4494291

# data[].attributes.body
https://tabooau.co/
This Adelaide based organisation strives to empower women and girls in countries where there is insufficient education, knowledge and support provided for menstruation, as well as limited access to sanitary products. The topic is considered very taboo, and causes many females across the globe to be ostracised from society once a month.

Some figures from their homepage:

Many girls must leave school school for a week every month, leading to approximately 30% of girls in developing parts of the world dropping out of school when they hit puberty.

When girls have their periods they’ve can lose up to 12 weeks of school a year.

70% of all reproductive diseases in India are caused by poor menstrual hygiene.

In Sierra Leone, only 10% of women and girls surveyed had ever heard of a sanitary pad.

There is much more information on the website as to how they aim to do this, but sustainably made products are a key focus for the organisation.

# data[].attributes.body
"“We believe that the future of Hong Kong should be a ‘one country, two systems’ future and we are committed to that,” said May"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/31/theresa-may-pledges-to-raise-hong-kong-and-human-rights-with-china

# data[].attributes.headline
The "biggest actor" in this stage since the 50's has been the UN, but following up to the conversation for this lecture, ngo's effectiveness in negotiations and startegies, I thought this analysis by the guardian might make sense https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations

# data[].attributes.subject
The "biggest actor" in this stage since the 50's has been the UN, but following up to the conversation for this lecture, ngo's effectiveness in negotiations and startegies, I thought this analysis by the guardian might make sense https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was Dag Hammarskjöld, the tragic second UN secretary general, who had it best. The United Nations, he said, "was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell".

The kind of hell Hammarskjöld had in mind was not hard to imagine in the wake of world war and Hitler's extermination camps, and with the atom bomb's shadow spreading across the globe.

How much of a part the UN played in holding nuclear armageddon at bay divides historians. But there is little doubt that in the lifetime that has passed since it was set up in 1945 it helped save millions from other kinds of hell. From the deepest of poverty. From watching their children die of treatable diseases. From starvation and exposure as they fled wars made in the cauldron of ideological rivalries between Washington and Moscow but fought on battlefields in Africa and Asia.

The UN's children's organisation, Unicef, provided an education and a path to a better life for millions, including the present UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. The UN's development programmes were instrumental in helping countries newly freed from colonial rule to govern themselves.

And yet. In its 70 years, the United Nations may have been hailed as the great hope for the future of mankind - but it has also been dismissed as a shameful den of dictatorships. It has infuriated with its numbing bureaucracy, its institutional cover-ups of corruption and the undemocratic politics of its security council. It goes to war in the name of peace but has been a bystander through genocide. It has spent more than half a trillion dollars in 70 years.

"Like everybody says, if you didn't have the UN you'd have to invent it," said David Shearer, who served the organisation in senior posts in Rwanda, Belgrade, Afghanistan, Iraq and Jerusalem. He is now New Zealand's shadow foreign minister. "But it's imperfect, of course it is, and everybody knows that it is," he said.

As the UN marks the 70th anniversary of its founding this autumn, those imperfections - and how the UN addresses them - have come to the fore as the organisation struggles to define its role in the 21st century.

Tensions between western governments, which see the UN as bloated and inefficient, and developing countries, which regard it as undemocratic and dominated by the rich, have rippled across the organisation as ballooning costs drive the push for reform.

Even accounting for inflation, annual UN expenditure is 40 times higher than it was in the early 1950s. The organisation now encompasses 17 specialised agencies, 14 funds and a secretariat with 17 departments employing 41,000 people.

Its regular budget, which is agreed every two years and goes to pay for the cost of administering the UN - including mouthwatering daily allowances which result in many of its bureaucrats being far better paid than American civil servants - has more than doubled over the past two decades to $5.4bn.

But that is just a small portion of the total spend. Peacekeeping costs another $9bn a year, with 120,000 peacekeepers deployed mostly in Africa. Some missions have lasted more than a decade. And then there are the voluntary contributions from individual governments that go to fund a large part of disaster relief, development work and agencies such as Unicef. They have risen sixfold over the past 25 years to $28.8bn. And yet even at that level, some agencies are warning that they are operating on the brink of bankruptcy.

Even with costs surging fourfold in the last 20 years, total UN spending this year is still only about half of New York City's $75bn budget.

"There is no single institution that I found more exhilarating at its best, yet more debilitatingly frustrating at its worst, than the United Nations," said Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia and strong critic of the way the UN is run. He said his efforts to advance reform of the UN "were about as quixotic and unproductive as anything I have ever tried to do".

That's a sentiment widely shared among diplomats and UN officials.

Valerie Amos, Britain's former international development minister, described the UN as a valuable ally in delivering UK aid but lamented its inefficiency.

"There were concerns about the UN being overly bureaucratic and slow in the way it dealt with development issues. I think that's one of the criticisms of the UN that remains until now, that since it was formed it has become bigger and bigger. Many organisations have overlapping mandates. It's become an organisation that's quite unwieldy in lots of respects," Lady Amos said.

Helen Clark, head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the most powerful woman at the UN, dealt with the organisation from the outside as prime minister of New Zealand. She said that as the leader of a small country she valued being able to use the UN's size and resources to deliver New Zealand's aid programme, such as emergency assistance to Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami.

But once she started work at the UNDP six years ago she was less impressed. "When I arrived, the organisation was a little over a year into its first ever strategic plan. What that tells you is that modern management and modern strategic planning was late coming to the UN," she said. Clark laughed as she said the plan she was presented with was so broad in its goals that it made no sense.

Shearer, who headed Save the Children in Somalia, Rwanda and Sri Lanka before joining the UN, said the organisation's strength lay in what he called its "gravitas". Governments may turn away NGOs but the UN cannot be ignored. Neither can the UN's huge logistical capabilities, such as the World Food Programme's airlifts, be matched by any private organisation.

But he said the UN was weighed down by "incompetence" and red tape. "It's a very heavily bureaucratic organisation. It hasn't changed in a lot of years. It's built systems on top of systems on top of systems," he said. "Getting the right people, that was the Rosetta Stone of the UN for me. Once I cracked that, it meant I could use the organisation how it was supposed to be used irrespective of the structure, because the structure will always protect the incompetent, in a sense."

A decade ago, the UN launched its most enduring report into reform. A panel - co-chaired by the prime ministers of Mozambique, Norway and Pakistan, and including the then British chancellor, Gordon Brown - wrote a devastating document. It ticked off criticisms which said the UN was badly failing those it was supposed to help. Its work on development was described as "often fragmented and weak"; its governance was called "inefficient and ineffective".

The report said the UN's taste for setting goals at the expense of delivering results failed the poorest and most vulnerable. It also criticised a system of funding for many UN programmes in which officials had to beg for money from governments year after year, making it difficult to plan.

"Cooperation between organisations has been hindered by competition for funding, mission creep and by outdated business practices," it said. "In some sectors, such as water and energy, more than 20 UN agencies are active and compete for limited resources without a clear collaborative framework. More than 30 UN agencies and programmes have a stake in environmental management."

The organisation has grown so big that at times it is working against itself. Critics point to large numbers of support staff doing ill-defined jobs. Staff costs account for two-thirds or more of some UN agencies' outgoings. "Performance management is a joke," said one official. "Almost everyone gets 'above average' in their assessment."

The UN is so fragmented that each agency has its own IT system.

The reform report noted that about one-third of the UN operations in 60 countries had a budget of less than $2m per agency, which meant that they could do little more than afford the cost of running the office.

The report proposed extensive changes to promote greater collaboration and efficiency under a programme called Delivering as One. This included myriad UN agencies in a single country coming under the authority of one official, and working more closely with the governments of those countries, which often had no idea what the UN was doing.

Ban, who recalls learning from books provided by Unicef as a child after his family was forced to flee during the first UN-led war in his native Korea in the 1950s, told the Guardian that rapid change was happening and that Delivering as One was at the heart of it.

"The United Nations of today is hugely different from the United Nations 70 years ago, and therefore it is very important the United Nations changes and adapts itself to changing circumstances," he said. "It's been changing, very drastically now. I have seen this kind of duplication between and among United Nations agencies, for example water issues. Delivering as One, working as one, in the United Nations, that's the main motor of my administration and I have been engaging with all different agencies and funds and programmes so that we can Deliver as One."

But that is not what others see. A pilot programme was rolled out in eight countries and was regarded as successful. But the broader reforms never came.

The executive director of the reform report was Adnan Amin, a Kenyan development economist who was head of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination, which represents all UN programmes as well as associated organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He said the changes proposed in the report were "fundamentally good ideas" but had not had the impact its authors had hoped for.

"It's led to reams of reports written in the UN, many of them impenetrable to the rest of the world because of the jargon used. I think there has been incremental progress but I don't think we can say there's been a fundamental change in the way the UN does business," he said.

Amin said the UN had set itself yet more goals but failed to heed the report's warning about lack of results.

"What we have now is another multiplication of targets and goals which are an extraordinarily comprehensive assessment of what's needed to be done but there's no operational clarity around them. Who's going to do it? Who's going to monitor it? Who's accountable for it? The goals themselves are pretty impressive but it doesn't say anything to the UN about what they should be doing," he said.

"We still have a lot of fragmentation. There are about 1,200 country offices of the UN around the world. There are 100 countries with more than 10 UN country offices in each country. You have country offices with a budget of eight or nine million [dollars] and a staff of five people. Half the money goes for the operational expenses of the office, leaving what is actually a minuscule amount of money for programming or key activities. In the context of what's happening today, a few million is not going to make any difference."

The drag on reform comes from different directions. Some UN agencies resist it.

Clark chairs the UN Development Group, an umbrella of major agencies, where she is responsible for implementing Delivering as One. "When I started learning about the arcane intricacies of Delivering as One, there were criticisms that it was very bureaucratic and process oriented. I have to say I believe there was some truth in those criticisms," she said.

She introduced a system, known as standard operating procedures, which she said was aimed at "not having the whole working together effort drowned in process". "It hasn't been easy because there are many different agencies involved and they have all developed over the years their own procedures and ways of working. It has required long and patient negotiation to get to the point of having standard operating procedures. It couldn't just be decreed because no one has the power to decree it," she said.

But the bigger obstacle to reform perhaps comes from the UN members states themselves.

After she left the British government, Amos became the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs.

"I don't think people give enough weight to the fact that the United Nations is a body made up of its member states of 193 nations. You have member states coming at the reform agenda with very, very different perspectives," she said. "One of the things I saw close up was that if, for example, you had a UN entity based in a particular country and you are seeking to reform and streamline and so on, very often that country will argue strenuously against taking away any resources.

"Even if you're saying you want to cut a few staff because it makes sense to have them somewhere else, there will be really serious lobbying against that."

Amin was confronted with this when the panel drawing up the reform report attempted to get agreement on some of the changes it recommended.

"You can hardly touch any mandate, as minuscule as it might be, that doesn't have one or two strong advocates from member states behind it," he said. "Through a very bruising one-year consultation process it became very evident that there was not that much that could be done that could fly politically and we ended up getting rid of two small gender outfits and creating a much bigger gender agency."

One diplomat points to the saga of the UN print shop in New York, a growing anachronism in the digital age. After it was flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, officials seized the opportunity to shut it down and shed 60 jobs. Even though those affected were promised work elsewhere in the UN, there was strong resistance from a grouping of developing countries opposed to the cutting of any posts.

Reformers are pushing for the 80 separate locations where UN payrolls are processed to be whittled down considerably, but have again run into resistance. They question the need to have large numbers of routine administrative jobs in high-cost cities such as New York and Geneva. They ask why foreign nationals on expensive expat packages, which pay for benefits such as private education for their children, are recruited to do them.

There is a tendency by the countries which pay most of the bills to portray the poorer ones, grouped in the G77 of 134 nations, as a drag on modernisation and the principal obstacle to reform.

But G77 countries say that behind claims of greater efficiency and modern management methods, wealthier nations are tightening their grip on the UN.

India is a leading member of the G77. Its ambassador to the UN, Asoke Kumar Mukerji, said the rich countries took the high-level jobs in the name of efficiency.

"If you look at the secretariat of the United Nations it is dominated by industrialised economies because they are the ones who contribute the bulk of the budget and they get the bulk of the positions in the secretariat, managerial positions," he said. "The point that the G77 is an obstacle isn't fair because the G77 is marginalised in the overall secretariat of the United Nations."

Clark has been praised for her reforms of the UNDP. She is touted as a potential successor to Ban and the UN's first female secretary general, although the politics of the appointment, which moves between regions, is a big obstacle. The New Zealander is lauded by some western diplomats for forcing through reforms, which they say are making the UNDP more efficient.

The G77 sees it differently. It has criticised what it says are the diminishing number of managerial jobs inside the UNDP for people from the developing countries the programme is supposed to be serving. Mukerji said it was an issue increasingly raised at UNDP board meetings.

"If you do not have developing country people inside the structure of the UNDP at managerial level up to the senior management, then you do have an agency which doesn't understand the ethos of the countries where it operates," he said.

The divvying up of jobs is a source of perpetual tension within the UN. "There's an enormous amount of lobbying by member states for particular jobs," said Amos. "I was rather taken aback at the amount of lobbying that goes on and that does not just go on for senior jobs, it goes on for jobs across the system.

"How you reflect in a 193-member state organisation the diversity of the member states and retain a merit-based system is a huge challenge for the UN. We have to move away from this idea that it's about having people who can somehow run an agenda for that particular country."

One senior UN official said politics continued to play a major part in the allocations of jobs.

"Appointments should be on merit but the truth is that if a particular country, one you need to keep on side for political or financial reasons, wants you to put one of its own in to a particular job, then sometimes you do it if it's not going to mess things up too much. Sometimes that person is very competent. If they're not you just end up working around them," he said.

"It does mean that there are people who don't seem to be particularly good or work very hard at what they do. But there are other people who are very good and they carry the rest."

Although the major powers complain about developing nations insisting on what one official called "jobs for the boys", they behave little differently. "The permanent members of the security council all expect to have a senior person from their country around the UN table," said Amos.

The US gets Unicef and the World Food Programme. China runs the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Russia is in charge of crime.

Amos's former job as head of humanitarian affairs is regarded as a British fiefdom. Her predecessor was British; so was her successor. That appointment laid bare the entitlement felt by the UK.

The prime minister, David Cameron, put forward just one name to the UN for the post - his former health minister Andrew Lansley. Ban demanded he submit at least three and eventually a former minister at the Department for International Development, Stephen O'Brien, was appointed. Although Cameron did not get his first choice, the post remained in British hands.

The sharpest confrontations over money and cuts come in what is known as the UN's fifth committee, which oversees budget and administration. Because it is open to all member states and makes decisions by a simple majority, the committee is where the G77 exerts its greatest influence.

"There are massive fights," said one official who described the US, EU, Japan and Australia on the side of cutting budgets, inefficiency and jobs while the G77 was painted as wanting more spending and more jobs for their nations.

The UN's largest contributors have a caustic view of the committee, regarding it as run by countries who make a minimal contribution to the cost of the UN but decide both the secretariat and peacekeeping budgets.

Officials and diplomats of all kinds bemoan a lack of assertive leadership. They have one eye on the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, but he is a product of the permanent members of UN security council.

"It would be great to see what difference a strong secretary general would make," said one top official. "We all say it knowing that it is unlikely that we will ever get one because the stronger member states have such an interest in not having a strong secretary general. They want a secretary general they are able to influence, lobby."

Which raises what many consider the real obstacle to remaking the UN for the 21st century - that its most powerful body is still locked in 1945.

The five permanent members, the victors over Germany and Japan, hold the whip hand through vetoes. For all the noise from the US, Britain and France in particular about modernising the UN, they show no willingness to give up the power they wield sometimes in ways governed entirely by political interest. Since 1982, the US has used its security council veto to block resolutions critical of Israel 35 times. The total number of resolutions blocked by other permanent members over the same period is 27. More recently, Russia and China have used their vetoes to block UN intervention in Syria.

India, the world's second most populous nation, is pushing for expansion of the security council to include six more permanent members with the right of veto, as well as several more non-permanent members. Mukerji, the Indian ambassador to the UN, said his country had been pressing for several years for agreement on a document that will be the basis of negotiations.

"It's incredible that in the United Nations, which produces negotiating texts on every other area it deals with, in the area of security council reform it has just not been able to put a text on the table," he said.

Appetite for broader reform seems just as tepid.

"Where is the conversation happening which says that, in 2015 and beyond, what is the United Nations there for?" Amos asked. "What should be the core activities of the UN that should receive a significant proportion of the regular funding of the UN?"

This article was amended on 9 September 2015. An earlier version said that the US had exercised its security council veto to protect Israel from criticism more times than the total number of vetoes cast by the other permanent members combined. That has been corrected to say that since 1982, the US has used its veto to block resolutions critical of Israel 35 times, while the total number of resolutions blocked by other permanent members over the same period is 27. The article was further amended on 18 September 2015 to correct an editing error that left iy saying that Dag Hammarskjöld was the third UN secretary general.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
70 years and half a trillion dollars later: what has the UN achieved?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was Dag Hammarskjöld, the tragic second UN secretary general, who had it best. The United Nations, he said, "was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell". The kind of hell Hammarskjöld had in mind was not hard to imagine in the wake of world war and Hitler's extermination camps, and with the atom bomb's shadow spreading across the globe.