VII. Novib’s Role

Novib has played a key role in the founding and financing of Social Watch.  In addition to the Board of Directors, each of the three departments – Projects, Advocacy and Press and Campaigns – have been involved, to lesser or greater degrees, in the initiative since its inception.  For example, the Projects department includes seven regional bureaus and has funded 33 organizations involved in Social Watch; Advocacy and Press works to mobilize awareness of the Social Summit commitments on a European level; the Campaign department seeks to sensitize and raise support for social development issues among the Dutch public; and among the Board of Directors, former general director, Max van den Berg, played a leadership role in promoting Novib’s involvement in Social Watch. 

Parallel to this external evaluation of Social Watch, Novib conducted a self-evaluation of their various, and at times over-lapping, roles as donor, participant, executive and advocate.  Social Watchers perceived the fact that Novib engaged in a self-evaluation as an important, yet rare exercise of a donor reflecting on its role in shaping an NGO process, particularly with the goal of greater institutional transparency and accountability.  Below are the key findings from their report, “Rock Around the Clock” finalized in July 2000 followed by an analysis of the impact and challenges of Novib’s role in Social Watch.

A. Key findings from Novib's Self Evaluation [1]

1.       Donor Role

The total sum of Novib financial support for Social Watch related activities to NGOs in the South has been minimally 10 million and maximally 11.5 million Dutch guilders.  These funds were contributed to 33 different organizations, including the Social Watch Secretariat in Montevideo.  It represents slightly less than 1% of total Novib funding, spread over approximately 4.5% of Novib's partner network. 

 In addition, about 1 million guilders were spent to promote Social Watch in the Netherlands/Europe by the Advocacy and Press Section and the Campaigns Department.  However, about 2/3 of these funds went to the Into Africa project, which eventually was less tied to Social Watch than originally intended.

 The initial strong identification of Social Watch with Novib proved to be a long-term obstacle for efforts to diversify the financial support basis of Social Watch.

 Novib actively promoted Social Watch and used the power of money to interest Southern organizations, mostly existing partners, to participate in Social Watch.  Generally these efforts did not go beyond a line where the autonomy of partners was fundamentally violated.

2.      Participant Role

 After five years, there is a generally positive appreciation within the organization for the strong leadership role that Novib took on in the initial phase of Social Watch.  Leadership is an issue that Novib has to further explore and understand. 

 There is a lack of clarity among Novib staff about how Novib's commitment to Social Watch fits into various elements of Novib's broader global strategic positioning.

3.      Executive Role

 The transfer of the responsibility for the Social Watch secretariat (the executive role) from Novib to ITeM appears to have been a fairly smooth process.  Novib's perception is that the relationship that has developed between Novib and the Secretariat is generally open, balanced and carried by a sense of equity.  The funding aspect is dealt with in conjunction with a broader substantive engagement of Novib with Social Watch.

4.      Advocacy Role

 The separation of the donor and advocacy roles in the organization with the aim to respect the autonomy of partners has basically worked in Novib's multiple relationships with Social Watch.  But there is a lot of room to improve internal and external communication, information flows and monitoring. 

Moreover, the donor and advocacy roles need to be equally articulated at equal levels in the internal management structure.  This did not happen sufficiently in both the project and campaigns department, which led to a somewhat lopsided functioning of the advocacy section and less "integral" management.

 Novib's involvement in Social Watch contributed to strengthening its position as an advocate on social and economic development issues in Novib's own political arenas in the Netherlands and Europe.

 B.     Impact of Novib

 Novib’s role has unquestionably been central to the success of the Social Watch initiative.  Novib funded and organized a key meeting in The Netherlands in 1995 that jump-started the Social Watch initiative.  Novib hosted the Social Watch secretariat from 1995-1996 and supported the production of the trial annual report including contributions of several watchers.  When the secretariat was transferred to the Instituto del Tercer Mundo in 1996, Novib continued to provide core financial support.  Novib staff have contributed in numerous ways to the Social Watch initiative including: hosting capacity-building workshops for watchers, writing conceptual think pieces, contributing to Social Watch’s development of indicators and indices, and participating on the coordinating committee.  

Over the years, Novib has funded the Social Watch activities of 33 organizations, including the Social Watch Secretariat in Montevideo.  They estimate their financial support for Social Watch related activities to NGOs in the South between 10 million and 11.5 million Dutch guilders (at current exchange rates this is equivalent to USD 4,098,360 to 4,713,114).  However, these funds are dispersed unequally and inconsistently across Novib’s regional bureaus.  Out of their total funds earmarked for Social Watch activities, South American NGOs are the biggest recipients at 2,012,733 NLG (USD 824,890) followed by Central America at 1,361,000 NLG (USD 557,786) while regions such as East and Southern Africa and East and South East Asia receive substantially less support, at 290,458 (USD 119,040) and 171, 219 NLG (USD 70,171) respectively.  Novib has not provided funds specifically for Social Watch activities to any organization in North and Central Africa or Eastern Europe.  The majority of Novib support has been for lobbying, followed by research, publications and networking.  The training and capacity building component of their support received much less attention. 

 The statistics for organizations funded for their Social Watch activities are revealing.  Out of nearly 200 NGOs currently engaged with Social Watch – although to different degrees – Novib has funded the Social Watch-related activities of less than 20 percent of these groups.  At the same time, however, of the 21 Southern NGOs interviewed for the Social Watch evaluation, about half received funds from Novib specifically to support their Social Watch activities at some point over the past five years.[2]  They include NGOs from Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines and Tanzania.  In addition to aiding Social Watchers’ advocacy efforts at the national level, these funds have also facilitated participation in the inter-governmental follow-up process.  Networking and advocacy opportunities at the international level are contingent on the existence of funds and can play a role in a Social Watcher’s sustained involvement in that initiative. 

 In the Asia, Latin America and Arab regions, Novib has mobilized NGO interest in Social Watch through meetings with their ‘partners’.  In some cases the Social Watch secretariat is aware and involved in the mobilization process, as in the meeting of Novib ‘partners’ in the Middle East, South and Central Asia for which Roberto Bissio was invited to introduce Social Watch.  However in other cases, the Secretariat is unaware of Novib’s role in mobilizing or funding a Social Watch initiative, while at the same time Novib’s project officers are not cognizant of existing groups in the country, unrelated to Novib, already involved in Social Watch activities.

 At the European level, Novib has helped galvanize the involvement of Eurostep - a consortium of 22 development agencies that influence development cooperation policies in their respective countries - in the Social Summit process.  As a result, a number of European NGOs became involved in advocacy efforts in the inter-governmental process of the Social Summit.  However, given Novib’s additional role representing Europe on the Social Watch coordinating committee, it has not been effective in mobilizing national Social Watch initiatives in Europe.  While European watchers acknowledge that many NGOs in Europe do not relate their social agenda to the UN or the Social Summit, they are concerned about the poor participation record of countries within their region in Social Watch.

 C.     Challenges to Novib

 One of the challenges Novib has faced in its Social Watch-related work is how to balance its various, and at times over-lapping, roles as donor, participant, executive and advocate.  Promoting an initiative by sharing information and creating opportunities for exchange, such as in the case of the Katmandu meeting, was an important contribution to the Social Watch initiative.  When Novib uses the “the power of money” to both promote and financially support an initiative for which it also has vested interest, the processes involved must be transparent.  The different and complementary roles and responsibilities of the Social Watch secretariat and that of Novib in promoting Social Watch have never been clearly defined, and this has caused tensions between NGOs at the local level in some cases.  When a donor provides financial support for any initiative, the question of whose needs are being served, must be explicit. 

 Novib’s role as promoter is also confusing as it is unclear how support for Social Watch fits into its overall grant making strategy.  As stated in their internal evaluation report, “there is a lack of clarity among Novib staff about how Novib's commitment to Social Watch fits into various elements of Novib's broader global strategic positioning.”  This confusion has contributed to the unequal support across Novib’s regional bureaus for Social Watch activities, which also leads to misunderstandings of Novib’s funding priorities by NGOs from different countries. 

 While the Novib self-evaluation highlighted the difficulties faced balancing its different roles, it is unclear how such tensions will be resolved in the future.  More specifically, what are the potential policy implications of such “lessons learned” and how will insights gained feed back into Novib's future programming/advocacy work?

 Another challenge Novib needs to address is that of financial depreciation.  In the case of the Social Watch secretariat, the devaluation of the Euro has resulted in a substantive difference in the amount received by the Uruguay office and the funds agreed to by Novib in their original proposal.

 In the European context, Novib, along with like-minded development agencies and NGOs, need to address the factors that have contributed to weak national Social Watch processes in the region.  Through this process Novib could better define its own political objectives within the Netherlands as well as its advocacy strategy at the European level.  Such a process will help direct Novib’s involvement in political processes at the international level as well.  This is necessary in order for Novib to change its primary identification as a donor, and promoter of Social Watch in the South.

----
[1] The following points are quoted verbatim from “Rock Around the Clock.” The Hague: Novib.  p.  25
[2] This does not include organizations who receive Novib funding as part of their larger programs..