Criteria for being at the Global Alliance table

Hi - This is a response to the question from Antje (iirc) concerning the criteria used to identify the preliminary list of possible organizations to be invited/selected to be at the Alliance table - see page 5 of the implementation plan. The following guided this choice. They are presented as a possible starting point for the work of the criteria sub-group.

Criteria

1. A primary focus on an agreed element of the communication and media development, social and behaviour change field of work - for example behaviour change, communication for development, media development, citizen engagement, entertainment-education, ICT for development, social marketing, health promotion, facilitating dialogue and debate, community participation and/or other.

2. A primary organizational structure built around a membership or registered network base with those networks or members coming from a range of organisations - not internal to one particular organisation. (Perhaps a number needs to be set?)

3. The management, organisation and funding of the registered network or membership organisation is not exclusively or even predominantly from one development organisation - as a concrete example should the World Bank for example start, manage and fund the PCN - Poverty Communication Network - it would not qualify.

4. The members and/or registered network participants need to come from across a number of countries - exclusively one country processes would not be included. So, a Nigeria network - no. But a West Africa network - yes. (If the working group agree with this you may wish to set some actual parameters - eg a 10 country minimum?)

5. That these are substantial networks or membership organizations. (Again we did not set a number limit but if this is one of the criteria agreed by the working group you may wish to consider a number here?)

6. Geographic and development issue balance and diversity across the Alliance at the table. (There is a notable Asia gap in the proposed networks/membership orgs suggested in the draft implementation plan.)

Notes

a. It was fully recognized that the Alliance would not commence fully formed. That what we were seeking in the beginning was a solid group of Alliance participants at the table to commence the Alliance. That group would then agree future networks/membership orgs to be at the Alliance table accoerding to the criteria established. 

b. The exception to this is where there are strategically important gaps at present. Hence the final para on page 5. Three key gaps are Bilaterals, Foundations and, with the demise of the UN Roundtable, the UN. If, for example USAID, Soros/Open Society and UNICEF are invited to the Alliance table it would be with a clear understanding that they would be using the Alliance process as a prompt and rationale to establish and convene networks of, respectively, Bilaterals, Foundations and UN agencies and organisations. When established those networks would become the participants at the Alliance table. (Perhaps a time frame could be set).

Hope that this helps the work of this sub-group - most happy to answer any questions or clarify any of above - Warren

Rhadika, Susan, Rafael, Charlotte, Lisa, Patrick - Hi - these are the notes promised from the Global Alliance Criteria group meeting this morning. They highlight the outcomes from the call, as requested refine some of the draft criteria, and address the one issue on which we focused including suggesting some possible ways forward.

OVERALL MEETING OUTCOMES:

1. There was general agreement related to the criteria outlined in the draft distributed.

2. By way of further background please see below the draft list of network and partnership based organizations that could be considered based on the criteria outlined below.

3. There was a request that the draft criteria presented be refined with more specific quailifiers such as the numbers of members and/or countries covered - these are included in the renewed draft included below. 

4. We need to be clear about (a) the level of the person/people around the table from the agreed Alliance participants - should be their most senior and central people and (b) that this will be an active process - it is not just a series of meetings. This is now included in the renewed draft below.

5. Need to further explore the involvement of individual organizations. This was recognized as a very tricky issue - some thoughts and options follow.

6. The mission, goals, strategies and priorities that should guide and influence the nature of the organizations around the table were taken as the ones outlined in the draft implementation plan derived from the work at the all-parties meeting in New York in June, 2017. When the priorities group has completed its work the essential criteria below should be refined related to those priorities if required.  

REFINED CRITERIA

The Alliance will not commence fully formed. What we were seeking in the beginning is a solid group of Alliance participants at the table to commence the process. That group would then agree future networks/membership orgs to be at the Alliance table accoerding to the criteria established.

Initially, there will be a maximum of 15 organizations at the Global Alliance table. In the first instance these will be identified, chosen and invited by the review and transition group identified at the June, 2017 meeting in New York. Any additions will then be the responsibility of the Alliance organizations at the table to identify, approve and invite participation.

In order to be at the Alliance table the following criteria will need to be met:

1. A primary focus on an agreed element of the communication and media development, social and behaviour change field of work - for example behaviour change, communication for development, media development, citizen engagement, entertainment-education, ICT for development, social marketing, health promotion, facilitating dialogue and debate, community participation and/or other.

2. A primary organizational structure built around a membership or registered network base with those networks or members coming from a range of organisations - not internal to one particular organisation. That organisation should include clear rules and bylaws concerning decision-making, representation, policy development and other core elements of an organizational structure.  

- Minimum of 1,000 individual members or 20 organizational members
- Set of formal rules

3. The management, organisation and funding of the registered network or membership organisation is not exclusively or even predominantly from one development organisation - as a concrete example should the World Bank for example start, manage and fund the PCN - Poverty Communication Network - it would not qualify. There could be an exception if there is a promising new network or partnership that does meet the member or partner threshold outlined in 2 above but has a single donor in its start-up phase.

4. The members and/or registered network participants in the Alliance organisations need to come from across a number of countries - exclusively one country processes would not be included. So, a Nigeria network - no. But a West Africa network - yes.

- Minimum of individual members from 10 countries and/or minimum of organizational partners from 5 countries.

5. Ensure that there is geographic, development issue and strategic variety balance and diversity across the Alliance at the table. Where there are gaps - for example the absence of an Asian based or focused partnership or network - the Alliance should work to fill those gaps.

6. High level representation at the table from the agreed Alliance participants. This should be their most senior and central people.

7. Clear understanding that this will be an active process - it is not just a series of meetings.

8. (An issue was raised concerning the involvement of individual organizations. Thoughts on this issue follow. When resolved we can add that criteria here.)

INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS?

The relationship between individual strategy, programme and/or research organizations and the Alliance was the subject of considerable discussion. It is tricky. How do Soul City, UNICEF, JHU CCP, BBC Media Action, Breakthrough (India and Global), Straight Talk, Puntos de Encuentro, etc fit into the Alliance?  First, some overall factors to take into account. And then some possible options as a way forward.

Underpinning the focus on networks and partnerships as the core of the Alliance were the following factors:

a. The requirement to have extensive reach into all parts of the social and behaviour change, communication and media for development, community engagement, social marketing, etc etc segments of this field of work - strategies, contexts, issues and priorities. Existing and future networks and partnerships provide a base to achieve that imperative.

b. The essential goal of drawing and supporting those different strands of our common field into a collaborative process - adding value to their discrete efforts and giving considerable weight to the Global Alliance.

c. The importance of ensuring that there is representation of and/or accountability to an active network or membership base - that the people at the table are not there as individuals with individual views or as conveyors of one particular individual or organisational voice.

d. From the commencement of the development of what is becoming the Global Alliance there was a social contract that was clear that the Alliance would not compete with or undermine existing partnerships and networks. It was on that basis that a number of them participated so fully and openly.

In our discussions there was a recognition that some very important parts of our common field of work did not have existing networks, partnerships, (in)formal affinities or coalitions. Three specific key gaps identified were Bilaterals, Foundations and, with the demise of the UN Roundtable, the United Nations organizations and agencies. The proposed resolution to this is to include at the Alliance table one individual organisation from each of those areas. By way of  example, USAID (Bilaterals), Soros/Open Society (Foundations) and UNICEF (the UN) would be at the table but with a clear understanding that they would be using the Alliance process as a prompt and rationale to establish and convene networks/coalitions/working groups/inter-agency coordination mechanisms (or equivalent) of, respectively, Bilaterals, Foundations and UN agencies and organisations. When established those networks would become the participants at the Alliance table. This would considerably strengthen the overall field of work.

The principles informing the criteria outlined above that lead to an Alliance based on formal networks and membership based organizations do come up against the realpolitik of the social and behaviour change, communication and media for development field of work. Within this field there are organizations that over a considerable period of time, with significant resource allocation (people, money, reputation, etc) have played very important roles building this overall field of work. Should they have a seat at the Alliance table? If yes, how should they be engaged? Crucially what criteria could be developed that would be the rationale or justification for having some individual organizations at the Alliance table but not others? There would have to be a clear justification.

Some thoughts for discussion:

a. Could we naturally assume that these organizations, as organizations and/or individual staff within those organisations, are members of the partnerships and networks that are the core of the Alliance? For example, BBC Media Action is a member and partner in GFMD and CDAC. If that is the case then they would be engaged as all other organisations would be engaged, through the networks and partnerships that are part of the Alliance.

b. Could these leading organizations in our field of work assume a role similar to the ones outlined as examples for USAID, Soros and UNICEF above; namely that they would be at the Alliance table in a role of developing a network/coalition/working group/inter-agency coordination mechanism (or equivalent) that fills a gap at the Alliance table? For example JHUCCP developing a global Entertainment-Education Association?

c. Could we make a case for a maximum number (3?) of core, key individual organisations being at the table due to their historic and contemporary importance developing this field of work? For example, The Soul City Institute for Social Justice. If we did go this route we would need to ensure geographic balance amongst the 3 so that we did not develop a lop-sided Alliance overly-weighted to large Northern agencies.

As with all of above, the initial decisions on who is at the Alliance table would lie with the review and transition team that emerged from the All Parties meeting in New York in June, 2017

     
INITIAL LIST OF POSSIBLE NETWORKS AND PARTNERSHIP TO CONSIDER FOR A SEAT AT THE ALLIANCE TABLE

Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) - Ricardo Corredor, Chair of the Board; Mira Milosevic, Executive Director;

International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) - Graham Robertson, President; Erma Manoncourt, Vice President for Membership;

Africa Media Initiative - Trevor Ncube - Board Chairman; Eric Chinje – CEO;

International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) - Janet Wasko, President; Gerard Goggin, Secretary General;

African Women’s Development and Communication Network - Emma Kaliya - Chair; Dinah Musindarwezo - Executive Director;

International Social Marketing Association - Patrick Cook – President; R. Craig Lefebvre - Past Vice President and Chair, Fundraising Committee;

Communication for Development Network – Stacy Hilliard, Chair of the Board; Jackie Davies – Director;

Our Media Network – Amparo Cadavid (present convenor);

Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities partnership (CDAC) - Brendan Gormley, Chair; Marian Casey-Maslen, Director;

The ICT4D Conference and Network – Schulyer Thorup (Chair); and

CIVICUS - Anabel Cruz - Board Chair and Chair of the Executive Committee (Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo); Dr. Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah - Secretary General.

Thanks - thoughts?

Lisa, Patrick, Rhadika, Susan, Rafael - the "Criteria" group.

Many best wishes. As you will recall from our previous meeting and will have noted in the subsequent comments, for example in this thread, we still have a couple of issues to resolve re the criteria for being at the "Global Alliance ..." table.

Can we please hold a final decision-making meeting on this coming Tuesday, 21st November at 11am EST? (Due to daylight saving changes please check this time against your time zone). This is the one hour after the Summit Secretariat meeting for those involved in both.

Prior to the meeting I will try to send a note with the identification of the outstanding issues and possible options to move forward. 

Hope that this works - many thanks - Warren (and on behalf of Rafael)

PS - Call in numbers to follow

To - The Alliance "Criteria" group -  Lisa, Patrick, Rhadika, Susan, Rafael,

Hi - I look forward to our call tomorrow (Tuesday 21st November at 11am EST - UNICEF will send call-in numbers) for the purpose of resolving the “criteria” for being at the Global Alliance “table”. In support of that call I thought it may be helpful to pull together some of the principles we have worked through related to these criteria, along with the progress to date. If you wish to add to or correct these please do so through comments or an email that we can then post over your name.

1. From the very first steps in the development of the Alliance a key principle communicated as the basis for the engagement of all parties in these consultations has been that the Alliance when under way will not compete with or possibly undermine existing processes in this field of work. It needs to add value, not detract value from others.

2. Also from the beginning there has also been a clear and open intention to ensure that the criteria applied to the agreement of organizations to be at the “Global Alliance …” table should position the Alliance as a process that brings the different elements of this important field of work together. There will be little value added if the Alliance is just another process on the same plane as the valuable processes comprising IUHPE, GFMD, C4D Network, ISMA, IAMCR, Civicus, etc. We will end up with nothing drawing the field together and simply with overlapping (and competing) processes engaging the same organizations and people in different venues.

3. The report from the New York meeting included the following related to the overall structure for the Alliance: “(the meeting) looked at the 3 major possibilities to emerge from the extensive consultations: a Standing Committee of the United Nations; a council of membership-based groups; and a Federation of issue-focused networks. There was a strong preference among the participants for a structural base that would allow and support all 3 options. Some of the positive aspects as well as the downsides of each choice are outlined in the report. However these elements are incorporated, it is agreed that the approach chosen should both enhance and support existing mechanisms related to particular segments of this field of work, and that the new mechanism should not compete with existing processes related to parts of this field …” .

4. Both at the New York meeting and in subsequent discussion there has also been a plea (that word does not feel too strong) for an organizational base including the set of criteria for being at the table, that ensures the full spectrum of the field feels represented and with a stake and voice in the mechanism developed. Concern was expressed that the Alliance, should not be dominated by the larger, most-often Northern-based organizations.      

5. The implementation plan for the Alliance took the New York meeting results and sought to develop a pan based on the request from that meeting. The relevant extract is at this link where there are example suggestions of possible existing partnerships and networks, along with a suggestion related to the UN agencies, that could together comprise the commencement of the Alliance.    

6. It is within those boundaries that we are looking at the criteria for being at the Alliance table.

7. The notes from our initial “Criteria” group meeting can be reviewed at this link.

8. At that meeting there was general agreement with the draft criteria developed and considered at the meeting. Those draft criteria can be reviewed at this link.

9. The one issue we agreed to further explore as a “criteria group” related to “individual organizations”. From the notes: “5. Need to further explore the involvement of individual organizations. This was recognized as a very tricky issue - some thoughts and options follow.” 

10. Since that meeting there have been comments online through this thread  - If you have the time its worth a quick review.

11. My understanding of where we are at now is that the one outstanding issue relates to those individual organizations.

12. In our meeting some of the thoughts and options shared on this theme can be reviewed in the “Individual Organizations” section -  section of the meeting notes

11. If there is to be provision for individual organizations to be at the Alliance table we will need to answer four key questions:

a. By what criteria is organisation X at the table but Organizations Y, Z, A, B and C are are not the table. This will need to be clearly explained and easily explicable.

b. Whose interests will the individual organizations represent? With IUHPE we know that it is the health promotion, communication, education “actors”. But who would individual org M represent?

c. What role will the individual organizations perform within the Alliance. They are not representative or consultative networks or membership based organizations. So what role do they perform?

d. To whom are they accountable for their actions at the Alliance table? 

Thanks - hope that this helps our meeting on Tuesday morning. Please do correct any of the above or add any additional elements that I have missed.

Best - Warren