‘The Accidental Aid

Worker’

A Mapping of Citizen Initiatives

for Global Solidarity in Europe

Overview presentation

Subject & rationale How it was approached Main findings

– Concept & characteristics– Governmental policy– Funding of CIs– Support of CIs– Representation & monitoring of CIs

Conclusions & way forward

What? Working definition of CI

“Small-scale initiatives or projects, set up by private persons in the North, aiming at improvement of standards of living of people in the South, and not sorting under other known classic or new development actors (bilateral & multilateral agencies, established NGDOs, corporations, societal institutions)”

Entry point for mapping

Why this study?

New players in the field of development aid Mainstreaming & socialisation Passive and active role of the citizen Studied in Netherlands & Belgium – but what about

elsewhere in Europe?

How? The approach

Gathering facts & contacts First step / incomplete Countries representative for EU & Europe Observation grid (concept, taxonomy, policy,

funding, support…) Sources: interviews, documents, research

work

Where?

EU or/and OECD-DAC ODA figure Pragmatism 17 countries

Common concept, common category?

Concept, labels & names Legal status Size Volunteers only? Non-specialists? NGDOs-in-the making or voluntary sector for

the South?

How many?

Databases Counts, extrapolations & estimate Overall second order estimate: 100.000 to

200.000 citizen initiatives

CI characteristics

Different roots Type of projects: DEAR & tangible projects Target groups: children, vulnerable groups Life cycle

Governmental policy: input

Hind-laying goals: public support, diversification Implementation level: decentralised and local Instruments:

– financial support (sub-granting)– nonfinancial support (training, capacity building)– fiscal policy

Government policy: limiting factors

Aid budget Considerations: aid effectiveness, scale of

operation, right-based approach, ownership Promotion of alternative deployment of

citizen engagement (volunteering)

Private funding

Most important (diversified) source of income Informal networks Dependent on giving behaviour attitudes Churches / parishes Foundations Specialised (funding) organisations NGDO support

Public funding

Strict criteria Registration / partnerships / co-funding South- and DEAR activities mixed Focus on professionalisation, not pluralism Provided at different government levels

National public funding

Least common level Many schemes abolished Aimed at supporting established NGDOs

– Effectiveness discussion– Transaction costs

Sub-granting system Tax system

– Donations tax deductable– 1%

Regional and local public funding

Extent depends on degree of self-government Criteria /conditions vary per region Coexisting with national funding windows Small (symbolic) amounts Funding reduced substantially over the years Increasing focus on private sources

Nonfinancial support

Many umbrella organisations, but;– Focus on established NGDOs– Not many CIs are member

Regionally organised Specialised organisations Also by NGDOs Focus on training, capacity building, DEAR Combination with financial support

Representation & monitoring

Representation almost non-existent;– CIs not a distinct category– Ad hoc nature of CIs

(Central) data monitoring absent Monitoring fundraising: seal of approval CI project databases in few countries Scientific research limited

Conclusions

CIs are common but different Focus on tangible projects Strong local embedding Variety of policies facilitates CI activities Public funding difficult to get access to for CIs Nonfinancial support emerging Research still in its infancy

Which way forward?

Active, prominent citizens: part of the aid landscape

Need for recognition of CIs– Added value: weaknesses and strengths– Mutual learning– Scientific research

Thank you

Ignace Pollet

HIVA - KU Leuven

Ignace.Pollet@kuleuven.be

Rik Habraken

CIDIN - Radboud University Nijmegen

R.Habraken@maw.ru.nl