Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on


主講人:美國獨立部門(Independent Sector)執行長

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only “Strategies for Global Collaboration in the 21st Century” 2012 Asia NGOs International Development Conference Diana Aviv, CEO Independent Sector September 14, 2012 Taipei, Taiwan Thank you, Professor Wang and colleagues, for your kind invitation todiscuss strategies for global collaboration in the 21st century. Forums likethis one help build lasting ties between nations and I’m grateful to be withyou today. The people of Taiwan and the United States share a long friendshipbased, in part, on our enduring commitment to freedom, individual rights,and the rule of law. These are the building blocks of a society in whichengaged citizens may pursue their highest ambitions, voice their opinionsfreely, and organize peaceably to promote the common good. Our nations also share an abiding belief in the opportunities affordedby free, open markets. Competition comes with costs, but it also offerstremendous opportunity to reward innovation, encourage creativity, andspread wealth. Over past decades, Taiwan and many of its neighbors in thePacific have enjoyed unprecedented economic growth. This achievement isthe result of hard work as well as a clear, focused vision on creating asociety where peace and prosperity dwell. While democratization and economic advancement have strengthenedcivil society in Taiwan, the charitable community deserves credit as well.There was a time when protecting human rights and promoting democracycarried grave personal risk. Having grown up in South Africa duringapartheid, a system of legalized oppression, I have immense respect forthose with the unwavering courage to pursue justice. Today civil societyorganizations (CSOs) have blossomed into “constructive and influential roles,which would have been unimaginable 50 years ago.”1 Yours is truly a proudhistory – and your accomplishments at home are matched by Taiwan’s workabroad. For over 5 decades, your nation has extended its hand to othercounties. What began in the late 1950s with assistance to farmers inVietnam has burgeoned into a sophisticated operation that ranges fromEastern Europe to Central America to the South Pacific to Africa and beyond.According to the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund,Taiwan is one of the few nations in the world that has moved from being arecipient of aid to a donor nation.2 Continued engagement in the international arena couldn’t come at abetter time. In the few seconds that it takes me to utter this sentence, a1 Civicus Report, 2005, page 14. 1
  2. 2. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Onlychild will perish. That is because almost 9,500 children around the world dieevery day from hunger and related causes.3 A quarter of the worldpopulation currently lives in poverty. 4 Some 50 countries suffer amidregional conflict and violence.5 When we consider the widening gap betweenrich and poor as well as the damaging effects of climate change, it becomesclear that such problems are insurmountable by any government or group oforganizations. To be successful, we must consider a combination of strategicpartnerships that will better align the resources, capacity, and potential ofdifferent entities toward a common goal. The international development community, as you know, worksthrough bilateral and multilateral partnerships among governments,international NGOs, and often the private sector. We have the opportunity tocollaborate on a global scale like never before thanks, in part, totechnological advancements and a willingness by people to embrace them inthe service of our missions to unlock greater potential for collective action. As I prepared to address global collaboration, I consulted with variousUS nonprofits6 working in the field of international development. I askedmyself ‘what wisdom can I share regarding collaborations that might helpyour organizations offer even greater good in the international sphere?’ Four models came to light: two target change at the grassroots level.Their objective is to improve one life at a time – in doing so, they havealready reached tens of thousands. The other two models of collaborationinvolve setting the conditions for successful cooperation at the regional andglobal level. Such coalitions maximize their value when each participantadheres to a set of common principles and standards. I’ll review severalbedrock principles in the field of international development: deliveringsustainable impact and embracing transparent and accountable practices.These ideas are reflected in the “8 Istanbul Principles” (which I’ll explainmomentarily) but also stem, in large part, from my work as a long-timemember of the American charitable community.US Charitable Sector The United States is home to a little over a million public nonprofits,private foundations, and religious congregations that work to improve thelives of individuals and communities. 7 About 90,000 of them are privatefoundations and, for our purposes today, some 7,000 organizations areexclusively focused on overseas relief efforts, development assistance, orhumanitarian programs.8 There are many thousands more that have3 Mercy Corps Report, “Home Grown Ways to End Hunger,” Summer 2011.4 Mercy Corps, Global Giving Foundation, InterAction, and others7 Urban Institute State of the Sector: 2
  3. 3. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Onlyaffiliated networks all over the world or that have, as part of their portfoliosof programs, an international component. As is the case here in yourcharitable sector, missions range widely. From symphonies to universities tozoos to homeless shelters, the US charitable sector is vast. It accounts for5.5 percent of our gross domestic product.9 Even so, most US nonprofits are small. Almost three fourths of UScharities reported annual expenses of less than $15 million Taiwan dollars(or $500,000 US).10 Revenue is generated from various sources such asindividual donations, corporate giving, and foundations. But the largestshare of our revenue – almost half – may be attributed to dues, fees, andcharges. This includes membership dues, payment for childcare facilities,money earned by selling used clothing, or tickets to a cultural event. 11 Inaddition, approximately 32.3 percent of our revenue comes fromgovernment grants and contracts for services such as providing health careservices to people over age 65. Whatever an organization’s field of practice, it shares one attributewith all others in the sector: a commitment to achieving the common good.Our federal and state governments have long recognized this specialpurpose by making charitable organizations tax-exempt, which enables themto dedicate funds to fulfilling their missions. 12 To encourage donations,government also allows citizens to deduct a certain portion of their charitablecontribution when they calculate their income taxes. Because of their unique role in society, distinct from business andgovernment, we call these organizations the “independent sector.” That isalso the name of my organization, a leadership network of approximately600 charitable organizations. Some are large foundations working toimprove health care access for all or alleviate poverty worldwide. Others aresmall nonprofits that protect endangered species, train college students inconflict management, or build safe playgrounds for children. Still othersrepresent business interests in training future nonprofit professionals.Included in this group are nonprofits, foundations, and corporate givingprograms that are located all over the United States. Because IndependentSector sits at the nexus of so many different types of organizations, we arewell positioned to observe trends unfolding sector-wide. One trend involves the way that collaboration is changing on multipleplanes – between grant makers, grant seekers, and their stakeholders;between nonprofits, businesses, or government agencies. Technicaladvances have been a driving force behind these new partnerships, along9;to=TWD;amt=1 Conversion rate is based on roughly$1US to $30 Taiwanese dollars.11 Ibid / entire paragraph.12 In contrast, the government of the Philippines has essentially delegated responsibility for certifying or re-certifying nonprofits and foundations to the charitable community itself. This sector, which is highly organized, doesso by conducting extensive peer reviews. 3
  4. 4. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Onlywith a willingness by people to conduct their work differently. Some marshalfunds from online donations. Others use ‘visual mapping software’ to showrelationships between all the entities working on a specific issue. (I’ve donethis at my organization and am happy to share more during Q&A.) Othersuse social media to galvanize a movement, as demonstrated though ArabSpring. Smart phones are nearly ubiquitous in the developed world and havereached about 70 percent of the developing world. They too are atremendous resource to facilitate partnerships and build networks. In the US, nonprofits and foundations use technology with varyingdegrees of sophistication. Some simply do not have the resources, skill sets,or wherewithal to invest in computers – an understandable constraint giventhe economic challenges we have faced for the past few years. Others aresimply too overwhelmed by their day-to-day operations to experiment withnew methodologies. Still others are risk adverse and, like the proverbialostrich, would rather bury their heads than face change. In contrast, many US nonprofits and foundations are willing toexperiment, take prudent risks, and learn from mistakes. They are blue jaysthat dart and dash on the wind.13 Nicknamed the “Camp Robber,” they havebeen known to swoop down from a branch and steal your lunch in amoment’s notice. They are agile and opportunistic, characteristics of twoorganizations that I will highlight. The first is a grant-making organizationthat connects resources to recipients; the second is a grant-seekingorganization that began as an advocacy effort in Kenya, not far from mynative homeland.I) Collaboration @ Grassroots Level – 2 ExamplesA) The Global Giving Foundation In 1997, the World Bank asked two of its executives, Mari Kuraishi[koo ra ee shee] and Dennis Whittle, to develop innovative ways to combatpoverty. They created the first-ever “Development Marketplace,” wherepeople from around the world competed for World Bank funds. The eventunderscored tremendous untapped potential to create a global marketplacefor philanthropy. Kuraishi [koo ra ee shee] and Whittle left the World Bank and launchedthe Global Giving Foundation. It is based on the notion that individuals -- afarmer in Sudan, widow in Mexico -- know what they must do to pullthemselves, their families, and their communities out of poverty. In mostcases, they lack the means to do so. Said differently, solutions dreamed upin London or Geneva to solve social ills thousands of miles away are wellintentioned, but will not work unless local inhabitants are an integral part ofthe solution.13 Enjoyed this image; will include it next time as suggested. 4
  5. 5. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only Global Giving offers an online marketplace that links donors torecipients; it specializes in helping small social entrepreneurs grow theirbusiness. Donors can browse the website by country, area of interest (suchas education, animals, sports), or any other number of ways. They can makevery small tax-exempt contributions; in return for a one-time gift or monthlycontribution, they receive periodic email updates on the impact of theirdonation. One project, “Rehabilitation of the Visually Impaired,” is based inTaiwan. The Taiwan Digital Talking Books Association seeks fund to create acomputer literacy rehabilitation program for Taiwans visually impaired. Amodest donation of $300 Taiwan dollars ($10 US) gives an individual atalking book; $480 Taiwan dollars ($16 US) provides 2 hours of computertraining. The small donations add up. Thanks to about 80 donations, thisorganization has received 75 percent of the funds required to reach its goalof $300,000 Taiwan dollars ($10,000 US).14 As an aside, I might mention that “Digital Talking Books” was the onlynonprofit from Taiwan on this website. If yours is a grant-seekingorganization, you should consider registering at Since 2002, Global Giving has raised over $2 billion Taiwan dollars($68 million US) worth of donations for projects in about a 100 countries. 15This successful model of collaboration leverages existing technology to linkgrant-makers and grant-seekers all over the world. According to Kuraishi[koo ra ee shee], the co-founder (and a native of Japan by the way)GlobalGiving is now moving from operating as a “resource platform” to an“information platform” where all parties, donors and recipients, canexchange best practices and cross-cultural solutions. That leads me to mynext example: an “information platform” that marries digital volunteers withveteran agencies.B) “Ushahidi” [oo sha he dee] “Ushahidi” [oo sha he dee] is the Swahili term for “testimony.” It isalso the name of a nonprofit that formed in 2008 to map reports of politicalviolence in Kenya.16 Journalists, activists, and others submit reports via theweb and cell phones, that are then displayed online using Google Maps. Over time, Ushahidi [oo sha he dee] grew to 45,000 users in Kenya.Its leaders realized they needed to adapt their model. They built a broaderplatform using free and open-source software. Volunteer softwaredevelopers in Africa (and to a lesser extent in Europe, South America, andthe U.S) continuously improve it. Their efforts have paid off. Representatives from government agencies and seasoned NGOs havepraised the platform. It has been used by official voting monitors in Sudan,14 5
  6. 6. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy OnlyIndia, and Mexico along with international NGOs tracking supply shortages inZambia, Malawi, and in other hunger stricken nations. Many are using it nowto document the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a conflictthat has received little coverage in US media outlets. You don’t have to be a nonprofit tech company or crowd source yourmission to be agile and forward leaning in international development. Youjust have to be willing to use resources around you in innovative ways and,when appropriate, collaborate with others. Some partners may be from adifferent sector or may be pursuing missions different from your own; othersmight come from within your own sphere of practice though living in othercountries around the globe. Similarly, there is no single model for enactingpositive change. Improving lives takes many forms; thus far, I’ve talkedabout change from bottom up. Consider two of many collaborative modelsthat work from the top down.II) Collaboration @ Global Level – 2 ExamplesA) Japan Platform / Asia Platform17 In 1998, armed conflict erupted in southeastern Europe between theYugoslav government and Albanian separatists fighting to establish Kosovoas an independent nation. By spring of the following year, war and genocidecaused an exodus of some 500,000 Albanians from Kosovo,. In response,Japanese NGOs began to explore how they might help distribute food,provide medical relief, and improve sanitary conditions for the refugees.These organizations soon discovered that they did not have the capacity tohelp – if they worked independently. To cooperate more closely, four ofthem established a refuge camp in the nearby country of Albania. Theynamed it “Camp Japan.”18 Shortly thereafter, refugees began returning to their homeland as theconflict abated. Camp Japan never fully materialized but a new frameworkfor collaboration certainly did, based on the notion that even cooperationbetween NGOs and government entities is not enough. In many cases, alsoneeded are representatives from the business community, media outlets,and academia. The “Japan Platform” is based on a tripartite cooperative system foremergency relief in which NGOs, businesses, and government work togetherin equal partnership to deliver emergency aid. The Platform funds JapaneseNGOs, according to its website, through a joint fund provided by Japan’sForeign Ministry and the private sector.19 Over 30 Japanese NGOs currentlyparticipate on the Platform. Already dozens of projects have been completed17 http://www.japanplatform.org18 Ibid. 6
  7. 7. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Onlyin the Middle East and Africa; more are unfolding in northeast Japan in thewake of the earthquake and tsunami. While the Japan Platform continues to make improvements, it hasachieved enough acclaim that there is talk of creating an Asia Platform toreplicate success. Find out more by contacting the organizers Elsewhere similar networks are forming. Four groups -- the UnitedNations Foundation; the UN Office for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs; Vodafone Foundation, and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative – arecollaborating in Haiti. The situation there is still dire, but this network isfacilitating the delivery of aid in new ways. Read more in their report,“Disaster Relief 2.0: The Future of Information Sharing in HumanitarianAgencies.” As more regional networks form, the need for common standards ofpractice at the global level is becoming more urgent – a task taken up by the“Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness.”B) Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness In 2003, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) began to raise questions about the effectiveness of aid provided torecipients through donor governments and CSOs. 20 In the years thatfollowed, stakeholders from different nations have come together in theOpen Forum initiative to improve the practices of CSOs, among otherthings.21 The initiative included input from thousands of CSOs at regional andnational consultations as well as “high level forum” and global assemblies inBusan, Istanbul, Cambodia, and other sites. The Open Forum generated an“International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness,” the “firstever global statement on the effectiveness of CSO work.”22 I understand that Taiwan is an observer of the OECD23 and faceslimitations to full participation. However, the Framework may still serve as aresource for you. It benchmarks the status of the development efforts in theworld community and thus offers a standard against which you can measureyour own performance. In addition, the 8 Istanbul Principles and its onlinetool kit (available at are invaluable resources toimprove practices, methodologies, and governance. The 8 Istanbul Principles include the following:1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice;2. Embody gender equality/equity while promoting women and girls’ rights;20,09121 Ibid.22 Ibid.23 7
  8. 8. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only3. Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation;4. Promote environmental sustainability;5. Practice transparency and accountability;6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity;7. Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning; and8. Commit to realizing positive sustainable change. Two of them warrant further mention: delivering sustainable impactand embracing transparent and accountable practices. Then I’m happy tofield your questions.1) Deliver Sustainable Impact In 2005, an earthquake shook the Pakistani-administered region ofKashmir. It registered 7.6 on the Richter scale (to put that into perspective,the earthquake that shook the southeast coast of Japan in June was 6.4).The quake in Kashmir killed over 80,000 people and left 3.5 millionhomeless. People in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and elsewhere were left withoutfood or shelter. Making matters worse, the icy fist of winter was fastapproaching this rugged mountain region. Government agencies and international NGOs offering assistance facednot only immense human suffering and inhospitable terrain, but territoryhotly contested by two countries armed with nuclear weapons, who havefought at least three wars over the region in the past. Trying to help earthquake victims in such a scenario is difficult forveteran personnel with deep pockets and wide networks. Getting involved isthe right thing to do – if your organization has the expertise, experience,and wherewithal to do so. If not, the best form of help you can offer may beextending financial support to your fellow organizations. If you are bent onproviding in-kind help, then first consult your colleagues. Ask them whatkind of assistance would be the most useful and keep the end goal clearly inmind: helping the victims in the most effective and efficient way possible. That is not to say that organizations should refrain from directhumanitarian relief or partnering with aid agencies or government entitiessteeped in emergency response. My point is that international NGOs shouldbe deliberate and realistic about their own capacities, work to support othersbetter suited to some tasks and, above all, they should commit to making alasting, sustainable impact. There are several ways to do so. One involves education and training. Take the organization thatgenerously sends ten individuals to clear a minefield in a war-torn region. Ina month, they clear a sizable area that local inhabitants might now farm orotherwise occupy. But what happens when they stumble across anothermine or the town grows beyond the safe zones? 8
  9. 9. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only Such an organization might have achieved longer lasting effects if theirexperts had trained local officials, police officers, volunteer groups, or othersto clear mines. Under this approach, the inhabitants would benefit fromhaving safe procedures and well-vetted processes in place when they faceddanger; capacity of their own to clear and then use mine-free areas; and theopportunity to teach others in neighboring towns. A second way to make a lasting impact is to develop an exit strategybefore setting out. The international development world is filled with examples of goodintentions that left a community worse than before receiving assistance. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples was committed by myown nation. In 2001, the US Department of Defense scattered millions ofHumanitarian Daily Rations (or HDRs) from airplanes above the skies ofAfghanistan in South Asia, sandwiched between Iran, Pakistan, and others.The purpose of the program was to help prevent starvation and win the“hearts and mind” of unarmed civilians caught between warring parties.Each of the 2,200-calorie meals included a full day’s ration and foodacceptable by all faiths. Since their introduction in Bosnia in 1993, HDRs hadbeen used successfully countless times for humanitarian relief. The problem was that each HDR came in a small yellow package,about the size of a can of soda. It was the same shape, size, and color as asmall cluster bomb that was also airdropped into the country. 24 Whendetonated, the bomb would kill anyone within a 100-meter radius. As soonas the US government realized the mistake, it changed the color of the HDRsto pink but eventually discontinued the program for a number of reasons.Among them, enemy forces were collecting the food rations and selling themon the black market. This example, while extreme, drives home the importance ofunderstanding the broader context in which assistance is being offered.Beyond the obvious dangers of people confusing an aid package with anexplosive devise, this scenario underscores the importance of a developing acohesive strategy. In this case, US editorials were filled with headlinesquestioning how we could bomb people from the sky one day, then air dropfood the next.25 Elements of the US strategy were counter-productive to theoverall goal of helping civilians caught in a violent conflict. In the US charitable sector, some organizations strive to “putthemselves out of business” by solving whatever social problem they set outto tackle. The September 11th Fund offers a good example. Created by TheNew York Community Trust and United Way of New York City, the Fund’s24 See also storiesin the Boston Globe and LA Times. 9
  10. 10. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Onlymission was to support victims of the terrorist attacks immediately after theevent. Their vision was deliberately short term. The Fund collected $16 billion Taiwan dollars ($534 million US) frommore than two million donors. It issued over 550 grants in recoveryprograms.26 Its exit plan took effect in December 2004, when the Fundfinished distributing the lion’s share of its funds and closed its doors. As partof its exit plan, it directed donors to support other reliable charities andinvested any remaining funds into programs offering mental healthcounseling, employment assistance, and legal advice. 27 Whether you operate in Washington, D.C., Taipei, or elsewhere, it’sfair to say that public confidence in the charitable community is one of ourmost precious assets. If people lost our trust, we would cease to exist.Embracing transparent and accountable practices is more important thatever in development work.2) Embrace Transparent and Accountable Practices People tend to empathize with those who have lost their home or lovedones. They donate time or money because they are motivated by a deep,abiding commitment to relieve human suffering after a crisis. Because people’s intentions are motivated by such impulses, we havea special obligation to shepherd the resources entrusted to us with greatcare to ensure they lessen others’ misfortune and improve lives in the longhaul. Fraudulent acts of a few can easily taint the rest of us, no matter howconscientious we are about fiscal responsibility; how effective ataccomplishing our missions; how diligent in linking donor intent tomeasurable, lasting results. This is true in general as well as in times ofgreat crisis. I was reminded of this lesson following the attacks in American onSeptember 11, 2001. On that day, terrorists hijacked commercial airlinersand slammed them into the Pentagon (our military headquarters – not farfrom my office) and into busy office buildings in New York City. A third jetbound for the White House crashed, thanks to heroic passengers on board,into a field in the Pennsylvania countryside. Some 3,000 people died in theattacks. In the aftermath of this tragedy, some unscrupulous people collectedmoney on behalf of the victims. Instead of helping them heal and recover,however, they used the money for personal gain. Such incidents offer acautionary tale: donations should be directed to organizations with highstandards of good governance. The best of them will be transparent inshowing how they deliver concrete, measurable results in times of crisis.26 10
  11. 11. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only My organization offers free resources called, The Principles for GoodGovernance and Ethical Practice” and an online “Resource Center.”Unfortunately, they are only available in English and much of the material isspecific to US legal requirements. Nonetheless, many of the fundamentalprinciples about accountability and transparency may be of interest. Iencourage you to learn more at our website at Before closing, I’d like to summarize some practical “dos” and “don’ts”that apply to both domestic and international work.a) On working with local communities - Do consult & empower them - Don’t assume they need not be consultedb) On achieving sustainable impact - Do commit to the long haul (with an exit strategy) - Don’t create a vacuum that would leave local inhabitants or the environment worsec) On practicing transparency & accountability - Do practice good governance & ethical behavior - Don’t risk losing the public trust. No amount of short term gain is worth risking your reputation or honor.Conclusion Some people see international development work as a train. It pumpsdown a pair of iron tracks, hurling itself forward kilometer upon kilometer.Ultimately it sinks beyond the horizon never to be seen again. 28 Instead of a train, I’d offer an alternate metaphor: a boxcar. The mosteffective international NGOS are linked in a long chain that includes otherplayers: government, business, volunteers, and the like. Together theycreate a much more powerful, sustainable engine of change. Each boxcar isas effective as the ones it is coupled to on either end – which is whycollaboration can be so powerful. You move toward a common destinationtogether. We must give up the idea that we are trains. Each of the models thatI’ve shared with you is like the boxcar. Success in development work abroad– and in programs at home, for that matter – rarely comes from a singleentity or isolated intervention; it comes through collective action,systematic, long-term investment, and empowering people in crisis, so thatthey may transform adversity into opportunity. Thank you. ###28 Credit for this metaphor goes to Paul Dudley Hart at Mercy Corps who shared this notion and generously offeredbackground material. 11
  12. 12. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only 12