FCRA PROJECTFCRA-RTY
FCRA PROJECT: UNDP FUND- CIVIL SOCIETY IN FOREIGN AID.
Deadline: ROUND THE
YEAR
Many aid actors, particularly among governments in developing countries, refer to ‘NGOs’ and their role in international aid and development cooperation. But the phrase ‘NGO’ is contested terminology, and for many has been subsumed within a broader category of ‘civil society organizations’ or ‘CSOs’. This study has chosen to use the term ‘CSO’.
The study uses a definition of CSOs put forward by the 2007–2008
Advisory Group on CSOs and Aid Effectiveness and now adopted by the OECD
DAC:-
“[CSOs] can be defined to include all non-market and nonstate
organizations outside of the family in which people organize themselves
to pursue shared interests in the public domain. Examples include
community-based organizations and village associations, environmental
groups, women’s rights groups, farmers’ associations, faith-based
organizations, labour unions, co-operatives, professional associations,
chambers of commerce, independent research institutes and the
not-for-profit media.”
CSOs are voluntary organizations with governance and direction coming from citizens or constituency members, without significant government-controlled participation or representation.
CSOs are voluntary organizations with governance and direction coming from citizens or constituency members, without significant government-controlled participation or representation.
The recent ‘Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation’ recognized CSOs as “independent development actors”: “Civil
society organizations (CSOs) play a vital role in enabling people to
claim their rights, in promoting rights-based approaches, in shaping
development policies and partnerships, and in overseeing their
implementation".
There are many types of CSOs involved in delivering aid, including
faith-based groups, trade unions, professional associations,
internationally affiliated organizations with branches in many different
countries etc. ‘NGO’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘CSO’, but
NGOs should be properly understood as a subset of CSOs involved in
development cooperation, albeit often one with no clear boundaries.
Constituency-based organizations, such as trade unions or professional
associations, for example, often do not self-identify as NGOs, but
rather as CSOs.
In the USA, the term generally used to refer to US CSOs involved in
international development and humanitarian assistance is Private
Voluntary Organizations (PVOs). According to USAID, a PVO is “a tax
exempt, nonprofit organization that solicits and receives case
contributions from the general public and conducts or anticipates
conducting international programme activities consistent with US Foreign
Policy objectives.” In the USA, the category of CSO sometimes includes
for-profit organizations.
International NGOs (INGOs) can be seen as a distinct category among
non-state actors, which have been very prominent in development
cooperation during the past decade. They constitute a subset of NGOs in
which coalitions or families of NGOs, based in various donor and
developing countries, have formally associated in an international or
global governance structure. These international structures coordinate
their ‘NGO family’ programming at the global level. This characteristic
changes the INGO’s relationship with a given donor or public in an
individual donor country as these organizations develop, finance and
promote programmes across donor countries. Some well-known examples are
World Vision International, CARE International and Save the Children
International.
Rather than delve into a debate on the pros and cons of this
terminology, which is a reflection of the diversity of nongovernmental
actors (many of whom are not involved in aid delivery), this study has
chosen to use ‘CSOs’ as the most inclusive concept.
CSOs include a diverse set of organizations, ranging from small,
informal, community-based organizations to the large, high-profile,
INGOs working through local partners across the developing world. Their
governance structures are equally varied, a function of their mandate
and constituency. However, all share a common characteristic: CSOs, by
their very nature, are independent of direct government control and
management.