This Health Finance and Governance (HFG) Project’s guide provides governments and donors practical advice on engaging civil society in health finance and governance in order to meet health sector objectives and to improve health outcomes. The guide describes the potential and limitations of civil society engagement entry points and presents an array of tools that may be used to do so.
Archives for August 2015
Brisbane Meet-Up June 2015
Date: 30/06/15
Location: Brisbane, The Lucky Duck Café and Bar
Brisbane Chapter of the C4D Global Network grapple with difficult stories
On the 30th of June 2015, 25 network members met in Brisbane. Dr Scott Downman shared his experience from twelve years of dealing with the question of how to personalise stories of human tragedy and injustice in journalism and public awareness.
Dr Downman is a lecturer in journalism at the University of Queensland. For the past 10 years he has been involved with community development projects in Southeast Asia aimed at addressing the issues of human trafficking, labour exploitation, and work migration. From 2007-2009 he worked as a fieldworker for the Thai-based NGO Mekong Minority Foundation, in an AusAID-funded project in northern Thailand. He is the director/founder of HELP International, an anti-human trafficking not-for-profit organisation. He was the 2012 winner of Australia’s Future Justice Award for his media-based anti-trafficking work in Thailand.
Dr Downman used examples of where traditional journalism has been inappropriate for personal stories of refugees, asylum seekers, the victims of human trafficking, and other vulnerable people. His academic critique of reporting by NGOs (at their own request) revealed many examples of exploitation, where people were re-victimised and re-traumatised during the communication of their stories. Over time, this academic critique has expanded to a body of work aiming to produce best-practice models for reporting stories of human tragedy and injustice. Dr Downman asserts that truly informed consent is paramount in avoiding exploitation. In this process, the reporter and reported find common emotional ground and negotiate the form the story takes. Dr Downman has been involved in many examples of alternative journalism, such as self-portraiture and participatory mapping. Other approaches include using actors, illustrations and masking.
There is a need for alternative approaches to story-telling, not only overseas but in our local community. ‘Change Makers: The True Story of Woodridge’ is a magazine Dr Downman created with six University of Queensland students. The magazine was developed over 5 months, as reporters spent time building relationships with students at Woodridge State High School and finding appropriate communication methods to tell their stories. The Change Makers team aimed to dismantle negative stereotypes associated with this community, while covering complex social and cultural issues, such as asylum seekers, child marriage, and Indigenous youth. The team received a national award for the magazine and Dr Downman believes the time taken to build trustful, mutually respectful relationships were key to its success. Dr Downman coined the acronym, TRIO for his approach to journalism: Transparency, Representation, Impact and Ownership.
Dr. Downman’s presentation left the room abuzz with conversation. The small group discussions were based around two questions, “How do you represent and personalize the stories of people you work with?” and “What is most important – the person or the person’s story?”
Brisbane Meet-Up April 2015
Date: 28/04/15
Location: Brisbane, Pallet Bar and Brew
Communicating the Reemergence of Country
On the 28th of April, approximately 50 people gathered at Pallet Bar and Brew to learn from the experience of Dr. Dermot Smyth on Communicating Country. Dr. Smyth began by explaining that most of his thirty years of work with Australian Indigenous people falls within two related themes: Country-based Planning (CBP) and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs). Dr. Smyth’s journey from PhD studies in the ecology of cave-dwelling swiftlets to Communicating Country involved learning about and finding ways to apply the ancient Aboriginal concept of “Country” – which refers to the traditional estates of Aboriginal clans that in coastal regions extend beyond land borders, into the sea, and beyond geography all together, to include many aspects of identity, home, culture, livelihoods and spirituality.
After a long history of displacing people from their Country for creation of National Parks, since the late 1970s government agencies and other land management organisations increasingly began engaging with Aboriginal Traditional Owners during planning. Dr. Smyth explained that this, however, led to what he terms ‘”Well, anyway…” Planning,’ where planning groups consult with Indigenous groups, only to ignore their input and proceed as previously intended, or failed to understand the complexities of clan estate boundaries and other values associated with country. Dr. Smyth talked about the inherent complexity of genuine participatory approaches, as multiple country groups often recognize portions of the same National Park as their own and will only speak for their own country.
Dr. Smyth advocates a country-based, rather than resource tenure-based approach, where Traditional Owners, usually with the help of an independent facilitator, create their own plan for their whole country, including the portion of National Park or other areas or resource of interest to government and other parties (e.g. pastoralists or commercial fishers). This means that all aspirations are not squeezed into one relationship with the National Park and there more diverse economic options. CBP is a non-legal, quasi treaty-making process. Tensions between country groups are often dampened, as the focus of each group is no longer the one, government-defined resource or tenure. This country-based approach has also been used in regional marine planning (Sea Country Planning), where plans include both the land and marine parts of coastal clan estates.
Country-based Plans:
- Apply to an area (usually whole of country) determined by an Indigenous group;
- Are made by an Indigenous group
- Are tenure blind
- Include cultural and natural values
- Include livelihood values
- Include other values, issues and threats
- Produce strategies and actions
- Include other stakeholders
As a facilitator of CBP, Dr. Smyth’s aim is to ensure the least powerful voices are heard and valued through an inclusive process. He provided members with some tips – e.g. that the planning process usually begins with small meetings of single stakeholder groups, followed by larger meetings, to introduce different groups and to exchange perspectives. Dr. Smyth suggested there be no surprises in the CBP process, with participants being fully aware of what it will involve. Outputs of CBP can include publications (books, posters, web pages), strategies to address concerns and aspirations, partnerships with commitments and implementation frameworks. Frameworks include governance structures, commercial arrangements and Ranger groups. These frameworks can help to create and protect livelihoods, particularly when employment positions (such as Rangers) are created that can only successfully filled by local Traditional Owners.
Indigenous Protected Areas are voluntarily declared by Traditional Owner groups associated with the area. Dr. Smyth has been involved in the policy development of the IPA concept since the mid 1990s and there are now 64 IPAs across Australia, contributing over 40% of nationally protected land. There is no legislation underpinning IPAs but all Australian state and territory governments recognise that IPAs are consistent with international protected area guidelines and therefore are considered part of Australia’s National Reserve System (NRS).
Where indigenous people have not been granted legal tenure over their traditional country, they can still declare an IPA, to rejoin their fragmented Country once they have developed collaborative partnerships with agencies and organisations with legal interest in the land. The process involves educating stakeholder one by one, bringing them to an understanding that the process of declaring an IPA is a non-threatening process. Opinions and knowledge are respected and each ‘stakeholder brings what they have to the table,’ to become partners in the process. By bringing together the concepts of country-based planning and IPAs it has been possible to establish IPAs on multiple tenures and on combined land and sea areas to provide a new pathway for establishing marine and coastal protected areas.
Members asked Dr. Smyth what some of the challenges have been. He said one of the primary challenges was overcoming the fact that many Indigenous people have been ‘burned’ in development activities in the past. Initially some people have resisted giving CBP a go, as they believed the process would be just like the others, leaving them further disadvantaged. A reality of IPAs is that they will cease to be recognised if Traditional Owners are no longer interested in protecting their country since they are not underpinned by legislation. However, no Traditional Owner group over the last 17 years has so far lost interest in their IPA once it has been established – and many more groups are seeking to establish IPAs on their country.
A major challenge in remote Indigenous communities is to develop jobs and economies that local people are interested in pursuing. Many Indigenous people are not attracted to work in mining or tourism, but are very keen to work as Rangers and artists. These roles are sometimes call “propitious niches” because they meet the needs of local people as well as provide service to the wider society. Finding funding for Rangers can be challenging and is sometimes sought from a range of sources, both government and non-government. There has also been a movement towards re-introducing traditional, carbon-saving, burning practices funded by large corporations as a way of obtaining carbon credits. This is another source of livelihoods Traditional Owners in remote areas.
Members were interested to know what jobs are available in this field and Dr. Smyth reflected that most of this work is done by self-employed facilitators at the moment, as it is difficult for employees of government and non-government organisations to play the role of independent facilitator.
The evening concluded with members discussing how the reemergence of Country as a planning scale might affect their own C4D practice.
More about Dr. Smyth’s work can be found at http://www.sbconsultants.com.au/
Brisbane Meet-Up February 2015
Date: 24/02/15
Location: Brisbane, Lucky Duck Café and Bar
In February, 21 members (15 women and 6 men) of the Brisbane C4D Chapter gathered to discuss the complexities of C4D evaluation. Dr June Lennie shared her learnings and experiences from the ‘Assessing communication for social change’ (AC4SC) project in Nepal and members enjoyed active discussion afterward.
The AC4SC project ran between 2007 and 2011, assessing the social impacts of two radio programs run by an NGO, Equal Access Nepal (EAN). Dr Lennie described how top-down, rigid evaluation processes are ineffective in measuring social change and, through discouraging participation and an understanding of the local context and process of change, even counterproductive. Participatory, mixed methods approaches are encouraged, with triangulation for validation of data.
Dr Lennie explained that the AC4SC project was not devoid of its own complexity and challenges. As well as the challenges of working in an under-developed, politically unstable country, it can be difficult to reach marginalised groups, both in C4D and in evaluation processes. It is also important to understand the culture of an organisation and for the organisation to appreciate the benefits of participatory evaluation, before it can be successfully introduced. A desirable outcome is when the organisation aims to continuously learn throughout an evaluation process.
Through discussion, members added their own reflections on challenges they have experienced in evaluating C4D. These included the increased time participatory evaluation takes (projects need to be longer) and the pressure placed on practitioners to show positive impacts and to provide quantitative, economic data to funding bodies.
We are fortunate that the AC4SC project expertly included an on-going meta-evaluation throughout the process, and has produced the ‘Equal Access Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit’ http://betterevaluation.org/toolkits/equal_access_participatory_monitoring. This toolkit is very practical, drawing on learnings from the project and responding to organisations’ concerns about the complexity of evaluating C4D. Dr Lennie also co-authored ‘Evaluating Communication for Development: A Framework for Social Change’ (Routledge, 2013) and generously gave away a copy to a lucky member on the night.
We are particularly grateful to Dr Lennie for sharing her experience and wisdom with us, as this may be the last presentation she gives of this type. We look forward to our continued relationship as Dr Lennie remains an active C4D Global Network member.
Cameroon Meet-Up July 2015
Date: 06/07/2015
Location: Douala, Cameroon Link Conference Hall, Grand Hangar-Bonaberi
Mike Achanyi presented a back ground of Communication for Development, C4D, to registered members during a workshop at Cameroon Link conference hall 9n Grand Hangar-Bonaberi on the 6th July 2015. In an opening address, the executive director of Cameroon Link, James Achanyi-Fontem, informed participants of the benefits of the network, emphasizing that it is for exchange of information.
The C4D networkers came from Yaoundé, Bamenda, Buea and Douala. Mike during presentation of C4D Background, focused on its mission, vision and aims before elaborating on how people can join the C4D network, why people should join and its benefits. He spoke of the different membership categories and benefits.
Cameroon C4D aims to develop:
•A strongly connected Network
•A well informed Network of experts
•A vibrant Network of positive thinkers
•A sustainable member-driven network
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 7
- Next Page »