NGO State relations

1. 1
The dynamics of the NGO (Non Governmental
Organisation) – State relations in the Congo Basin: the case
of Independent Forest Monitors
Respectful
Dr Aurelian MBZIBAIN
Teodyl NKUINTCHUA

2. 2
Outline
Theoretical
framework
Background Findings
Methodology Discussion and
Conclusion

3. 3
Background

4. From government control to multistakeholder governance
• Government systems have brought neither sustainable resource
management nor justice for forest-dependent people (Bose et al.,
2012)
• Public governance by itself is not sufficient to address collective
action problems - need for governance systems that include non-
state actors (Ostrom, 2003; Gutierrez and Morgan, 2017).
• A deeper understanding of factors that affect effective natural
resource governance is necessary (Agrawal et al., 2008)
• Civil society organisations (CSOs) recognised as key actors in
improving NR governance in Congo Basin (EU, 2015)
• Calls for scholarly research that challenge state centric theories of
international NR governance - need to expand units of analysis to
CSOs (Grant et al., 2013)

5. 5
Civil society: needed and contested
• Civil society, including Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs), play a critical
role in the debate for improved governance in the area of natural resources
management in Africa – local to continental;
• Seek to achieve influence through interactions with a wide range of key
stakeholders, and most notably the State;
• Yet their role is often misunderstood and in many cases contested (Mbzibain
and Ongolo forthcoming);
• State- civil society relations in the Congo Basin and many west African
countries seem to be made of suspicion from both sides, disrespect and even
exclusion;
• Civil society have historically achieved dramatic change in “soft”
development initiatives –revolving around people (Tvedt, 1998);
• Hulme and Edwards (1997) already expressed their concern that as NGOs are
getting closer and closer to donors and states notably in terms of values and
priorities, they are gradually “losing their roots”;
• Yet some seem to be very successful in achieving their goals while others
don’t;
• Why is that?

6. 6
NGO - State relations: unexhausted topic
• Wide acknowledgement that NGO- State relations are not only
important, but necessary at least for:
Legal framework
Funding
Service-provision
Capacity-building
Policy and decision making
(Bratton, 1987; Clark, 1991; Mercer, 2002; Charnovitz, 1997; Asad and Kay, 2014; Bratton,
1987; Garrison, 2000)
• Two gaps:
• Most of the research has been carried with purely
development or health NGOs: tangible service-providers
• Very little attention has been paid to the Congo Basin,
especially in a comparatively approach

7. Network management
Interaction and complexity
Actors, interdependencies & Frames
Institutional features
Source: Klijn and Koppenjan (2012)
How NGO-state relations have been addressed in the past
–
1. Governance network theory

8. Theoretical Framework –
2. Young (1999) and Coston (1998)

9. 9
Complementarity Confrontation
Cooperation Co-optation
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Similar
STRATEGIES
(Means)
GOALS (Ends)
• NGO-State relations
are grounded on
endless tensions
which, if ended
“would mean only
that at least one of
the two has ceased
to be what it
essentially is”
(Najam, 2000)
• Interactions are
driven by
institutional choice
Our Analytical Framework
Four-C Approach (Najam, 2000)

10. Poor forest governance:
laws poorly enforced,
corruption, illegal logging
Abundance of
environmental NGOs,
but poor capacities
including to demand
accounts to states
International markets as
the main destination for
timber
Expansion of
Independent Forest
Monitoring (IFM) =
Mostly NGOs
Methodology /Context (1)

11. 11
Literature and archive
review
Semi structured interviews and
multi-stakeholder workshops Participatory observation
Case studies
Methodology /approach tools (2)

12. 12
Findings (1)
1. Actors involved in the interactions:
NGOs rarely interact on their own: strong alliances are in place to lead
on the interactions
• Specifically dedicated networks (FODER)
• Standalone networks (CIEDD and CAGDF)
• More informal alliances with key stakeholders (OGF and CJ)
State is a complex web rather than a monolith
• Ministries of forest are usually the main entry point
• But other agencies could serve as intermediaries or end targets
2. Spaces of interactions
Information-sharing, mainly from NGOs , but also from State
Financial resources: mainly from NGOs
Technical support: often through Agreements, mainly from NGOs
Actions against illegal logging: joint missions, mainly from the State, but
also from NGOs
Administrative support and legitimacy: mainly from the State

13. 13
Findings (2)
3. Types of Interaction: Complementarity
• As a client, State may request or ‘have’ to use services provided
by NGOs
• As a service provider, NGOs need state’s buy-in
‘Working with government is like getting married: people come together despite of their
difference because they understand that life may be better together’

14. 14
Findings (3)
3. Types of Interaction: Confrontation
• End goal compete with other goals: Communication is broken and
mandate is threatened
• Main cause is “response to illegal logging” by the government –
personal and ‘highly’ strategic interests from both sides
• Secondary cause: the influence of external actors both on
government and NGOs

15. 15
Findings (4)
3. Types of Interaction: Co-optation
• Strong role here is played by individual allies in interacting
institutions
• Need to rely on all potential external allies, including other
governmental agencies

16. 16
Findings (5)
3. Types of Interaction: Cooperation
• Perfect marriage but not without suspicions: both institutions are
concerned that the other may be cheating
• Best case: CIEDD (Central African Republic)

17. 17
Findings (6)
D.R. Congo
Complementarity Confrontation
Cooperation Co-optation
Cameroon
Congo
Central African
Republic
Gabon

18. 18
Discussion and Implications
The endless balancing act
Relationship
Results

19. 19
Discussion and Implications
Achieving the fine balance requests navigating through at least 6
factors:
• External players: Bilateral and international agreements, Donors,
International NGOs, markets – cite sources which agree or disagree
• Issues at stake at a precise moment: service-provision, campaigns,
capacity-building, policy-reforms - cite sources which agree or
disagree
• Formal agreement with the State: A mandate, or well-accepted
official cordiality – same as above
• Personal (informal) relationships: Existing allies within each
institutions – same as above
• Skills within the NGO: Strategically decide on the favourite type of
interactions for the issues at stakes – same as above
• NGO environment: isolated NGOs on sensitive issues or existence
of networks as a shield/ democratic vs autocratic governments –
same as above

20. 20
Next steps
• Expand analysis from NGOs in capital cities to NGOs and
community based organisations in rural areas
• Are national NGOs/community based organisations able to
navigate these relationships?
• Accountability issues and how these affect role and effectiveness
of NGOs as agents of change