Category: Featured Post

Hope, with a pinch of anger – Collective insights on how to respond to rise of anti-rights groups

23rd February 2022 by Miriam Niehaus, Eva Gondor, Poonam Joshi

At the International Civic Forum in early December, one of the speakers, Israel Butler from Liberties, showed us, a group of some 50 civil society and donor representatives from across the world, how to adjust our framing and build a narrative that can shift the moveable middle of societies – persuading a wider public to support progressive approaches to build a more equitable and sustainable world and to reject the regressive agendas of ‘anti-rights’ civil society. A baking cake metaphor comes to mind as we learned about the different ingredients required to make a message not only stick but motivate people to take action. Very simplified, there’s a whole lot of hope (eggs, sugar, flour and milk combined), but also a pinch of anger (maybe that’s the baking soda?) needed to create powerful messages that will be heard instead of fear-based narratives spread by anti-rights actors. We will endeavour to implement this recipe in this blog with a list of five key takeaways that resonated with us at the forum.

But let’s take a step back: Since 2016, the International Civic Forum (ICF) has been an annual space for civil society representatives to come together across sub-sectors but also with representatives from business, philanthropy and media, to discuss responses to the clampdown on civil society rights and the operational environment for organised civil society. Usually, the focus is on the state as the aggressor. However, building on the 2019 CIVICUS report on civil society responses to anti-rights groups, we wanted to shift the focus to non-state actors – exploring how the distinct category of anti-rights groups impacts ‘progressive’ civil society and what can be done about it. This seemed especially timely as, particularly in countries of the Global North, anti-rights groups have managed to harness anti-vaccination sentiments, further gaining traction and feeding off the fear and frustration of populations as the pandemic is still in full swing. Therefore, the ICF 2021 centred on the issue of anti-rights groups on the rise and how ‘progressive’ civil society can jointly address this challenge.

The conversations at the ICF were incredibly rich, nuanced, and self-critical, with a wide range of speakers including the Carnegie Europe’s Richard Youngs, Inés Pousadela from CIVICUS, founder of new initiative Noor Naureen Shameem, and representatives of international and local civil society organisations from around the world. Many strategies were shared, but also gaps were identified where we lack experience or don’t yet have good, actionable ideas. These five takeaways stuck with us:

1. The strength of coming together.

Several groups, mainly LGBT+, women’s rights and migrants’ rights groups, have felt the brunt of anti-rights aggressions towards them. For them this is in no way a new phenomenon. During the discussions, it became more glaring how other civil society actors are attacked by anti-rights groups as well. Environmental activists are increasingly feeling anti-rights attacks. The example of aggressions against child advocates in international fora was particularly eye-opening. And while these are terrible developments, it means we have the opportunity for forging much greater alliances and benefitting from a pool of learning and creativity. We must build on the strength of our growing number of affected stakeholders.

2. Tap into unlocked solidarity.

We can strengthen our causes even more by tapping into unlocked solidarity, namely that of faith-based groups. Representatives from several civil society sub-sectors cited how faith-based organisations have supported them when they were attacked: they have helped build bridges with religious actors that have more moderate and sympathetic views and can defuse escalating conflict. However, this can be a complicated matter as sympathetic religious dignitaries in some cases take considerable risks by standing in solidarity. Therefore, nuanced and mindful tactics are key.

3. Hope is on our side.

Whereas most anti-rights actors run on a narrative of fear, ‘progressive’ actors develop aspirational narratives built on core human values. We highly recommend looking at the concept of hope-based communication to understand how messaging affects the brain on a neurological level and how we can make that knowledge work for us.

4. Frame our own narratives instead of accepting unhelpful dichotomies.

We need to be careful to not cement dichotomies put forward by anti-rights actors, or we might lose vital ground in that “moveable middle”. An example of where this comes in to play (and this will be old news to many) is LGBT+ or women’s rights advocates being portrayed as anti-family by anti-rights actors. Some LGBT+ actors have done wonderful work on ‘claiming back family’ and shifting the frame of family not to who it consists of, but what it can mean, namely love.

5. Never let a good crisis go to waste?

This seems certainly to be true for anti-rights actors. Imagine this: A virus threatens humanity. A logical response is to mobilise all forces of humans against the virus. That’s the battle line. But no, how about we as humans divide and help the virus conquer by scape-goating certain populations (remember the attacks against people of Chinese heritage in the U.S.)? This is just one example of how some anti-rights groups in some contexts have exploited the current pandemic (and the tactic may ring awfully familiar for LGBT+ groups in reference to HIV). ‘Progressive’ civil society needs to better understand how to take over the narrative in such crises, because while the current COVID-19 pandemic is still ravaging, the climate crisis is in equal swing.

Clearly, more conversation, strategising and action need to take place within civil society and with cross-sectoral likely and unlikely allies. We will further address this issue within the scope of the Solidarity Action Network (SANE). Is this a burning topic for you too? What do you do on this front? Who and what are you still missing and looking for to make your work on this fly? If this list of takeaways has made you hopeful but also angry enough to want to collaborate on the topic, let us know about it!

Miriam Niehaus

Head of Programmes

International Civil Society Centre

Miriam leads the Centre’s programmes. She started at the Centre as Executive Assistant in 2014 and then, as Project Manager, developed and implemented the Centre’s projects on civic space between 2016 and 2019. Prior to joining the Centre Miriam worked for VSO International and GIZ in the Palestinian Territories. She holds a BA in Islamic Studies and Social Anthropology from the University of Freiburg and an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies.

Eva Gondor

Senior Project Manager

International Civil Society Centre

Eva leads on the Centre's civic space work - the Solidarity Action Network (SANE) aimed at strengthening resilience of and solidarity among civil society actors, and the International Civic Forum (ICF), our annual civic space platform to network and identify opportunities for collaboration. Prior to joining the Centre she worked at the Robert Bosch Stiftung (Foundation) in Stuttgart where she managed the foundation’s projects focusing on civil society and governance in Turkey, the Western Balkans, and North Africa.

Poonam Joshi

Director

Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society (FICS)

Poonam Joshi is Director of the Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society (FICS). Prior to this Poonam was the Executive Director of the Sigrid Rausing Trust. Poonam has worked on range of human rights issues as a lawyer, policy advisor and grant-maker, and has established and managed programmes to support civil society in the Middle East North Africa, South Asia, Central and Eastern Europe and Balkans.

New – 2022 events and programme flyer, find out what’s on and what we are doing

17th January 2022 by Adriana Sahagún Martínez

Welcome to our 2022 flyer. You can download the flyer below to find out about what we plan to do this year and how you can get involved.

Download 2022 Flyer

Communications Manager

International Civil Society Centre

Six takeaways for action from Global Perspectives 2021 – Let’s Talk About Power!

15th November 2021 by Vicky Tongue, Miriam Niehaus, Wolfgang Jamann

We have spent the last two weeks around the world – in Colombia, Kenya and Indonesia and online – talking about power in many different forms – from de-concentrating data and digitalisation, to decolonising aid and organisational structures, and embracing new power. Global Perspectives 2021 again gave the Centre’s communities the opportunity to immerse themselves in themes and workshops, discussing strategies to address key trends, challenges and opportunities to shift power across the civil society sector.  

We’re still digesting everything we heard throughout two intense, thought-provoking weeks, but here are some key takeaways we can all put into practice immediately: 

1. Collaborate to be better champions of digital and data equity for others

Information and communications technology has a huge role to play as an empowerment tool in power shift and decolonisation for civil society to generate its own solutions, knowledge and information transfer. Building both grassroots and organisational digital skills and security and championing data privacy and equity in advocacy and programming work is essential. But to do this better, civil society organisations (CSOs) need to establish a basic understanding of emerging technological developments and their implications for digital rights and equity across all parts of an organisation. They also need to build stronger networks and work closely with expert tech/rights CSOs, academia and researchers to understand these issues and laws, and challenge big tech narratives about the magic of emerging technologies, and promote and develop more local- or regionalised research and bodies of knowledge on digital developments.

As our opening keynote speaker for Day 4, Nanjira Sambuli of the UNSG’s High-Level Panel For Digital Cooperation compellingly reminded us, civil society has a collective moral responsibility to understand and sound the alarm on the adverse social harms and outcomes of unproven technologies. After all, algorithms are ‘opinions embedded in code’, fashioned in the image of their creators rather than the hyperlocal actors around the world who live the complex realities of these ‘unintended consequences’ further down the line.

2. Engage new mindsets – centralise care not charity and learn to walk behind 

We heard calls to abandon charity mindsets and appreciate the agency of communities, and an inspiring challenge to ‘centralise care as the major currency’ to redistribute power. We heard experiences from other sectors which are decolonising – research, architecture and local government – on the need to learn to walk behind and be led by the communities we work with before we can even properly understand how to walk alongside them. We heard from ActionAid how we can change fundraising imagery and narratives from emphasising difference – with single stories that stereotype people and invoke pity – to making a difference. They shared Development Engagement Lab’s compelling evidence that positive and negative funding appeals raise the same amount of money, but positive appeals inspire efficacy and higher emotional engagement from the feeling that one can make a difference.  

3. Assess what it means to be locally led and what changes organisations can make to embrace new power values 

Many CSOs see themselves as embracing new power values, but as being stuck in hierarchical, linear, old power models. Some international CSOs shared how deep engagement with their constituencies have challenged questions around legitimacy and led to reflections on the power of their organisations, their own expectations, the difficulty of giving up control and the need to consider and change linear paths of thinking and decision-making. We heard calls for how local organisations should push back on donor demands and also say no to international CSO partnership interest where these mean too much compromise in their delivery of people-driven solutions. All organisations should assess what being locally led means to them and the realities of the changes, compromises and constraints they are able and willing to bring about or have to accept. 

4. Ask ourselves and others ‘who is we?’ when offering solutions

Shannon Paige of Peace Direct, Casey Harden from World YWCA and Stella Agara from YouLead Africa all highlighted in different ways this simple but profound self-challenge which we can all put into practice immediately in our work. What does it mean if your organisation is recognised internationally and regionally, but communities around the area where you work don’t think you’re legitimate? How are CSOs tapping into the spaces of community knowledge and indigenous solutions and ensuring that the activities they are funding are promoting these solutions which already work, and not erasing them or compromising the problem? Like World YWCA, ‘who is we?’ is a fundamental question for everyone – local CSOs, international CSOs and donors alike – to constantly ask themselves and each other. This will help organisations to truly understand both their identity and integrity as a solution grower with their community, on whose behalf they may be managing external resources ‘in trust’ to bring those solutions about.  

5. Seek, share and offer solutions to shift power  

In her closing speech, Stella Agara reminded us that decolonisation is also about content and not just process – are fundamental equity issues like climate justice and tax justice making their way into these conversations? We need to be sure that we are really solving problems and root causes through our work, rather than running programmes which are just maintaining a resourced and running civil society sector.  

We also need to acknowledge that there are different framings of these issues – for instance, concepts of ‘decolonising aid’ did not resonate with participants in the Latin American and Caribbean workshop, who preferred the term ‘deconstructing’. But for others, the experience of colonisation is still very present in the international civil society sector. Accepting these contextual differences is important, while still sharing ideas and ambitions, and build collective wisdom and practical ways forward to truly challenge and change power systems, structures and narratives. 

When it comes to offering solutions to shifting power, ‘who is we?’ is clearly everyone. 

6. Join or promote these inspiring calls to action right away 

Our workshops focused on how civil society organisations can shift power. At the end of the conference, we heard ten inspiring ‘calls to action’ of collaborative projects that aim to do just that. We encourage you to check them out, even if you didn’t attend: 

Access Now – #WhyID, a global coalition of CSOs, activists, technologists, researchers, lawyers, and other digital identity experts, to fight back against the dangerous wave of centralised digital identity systems appearing around the world, and to advocate for rights-respecting approaches to identity management. Sign the #WhyID open letter.  

<A+> Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms is a global and multidisciplinary feminist coalition of academics, activists and technologists prototyping the future of AI. Call to Action on decolonising tech and creating new models of equality and systems change. Submit your paper. 

Civic Tech Innovation Network (CTIN) is a Community of Practice and action learning network for people with an interest and commitment to leveraging the nexus between technology and civic activism. Learn more about the network. 

CIVICUS Grassroots Revolution and the Shift The Power UK Funders Collective are strategic streams of work aimed at improving funder relations, ways of work and power dynamics with grassroots activists and movements left behind, marginalised and most impacted by structural inequities. Join the grassroots-led movement and learn more about the Youth Action Lab. 

Connect Humanity supports, catalyses, and scales holistic solutions providing people with the internet access and means needed to participate fully in a digital society. Learn more about the support they provide. 

Purposeful is a feminist hub for girls activism, rooted in Africa and working worldwide, calling all girls groups and collectives interested in funding opportunities and connecting with other girl activists in their region. Submit your profile. 

Red S.O.S Aldeas Infantiles: The initiative was created to promote and support spaces for participation, mobilisation and citizenship for young people in Bogota. Learn more. 

Rights CoLab advances human rights by fostering collaboration among experts across the fields of civil society, technology, business, and finance. Fill out the Google form to express interest in engaging with the ‘RINGO‘ project. 

“Stopping As Success: Locally Led Transitions in Development” (SAS+)  seek to learn how to facilitate responsible development transitions from international to local actors. Explore SAS+ resources. 

TechSoup’s Hive Mind is a cutting-edge online harbour and community of practice gathering activists, journalists, CSOs, teachers, university students, and a wider community interested in learning more about improving media literacy skills online countering disinformation, digital safety and security, and creating positive narratives. Get inspired. 

Read the full outcome from our six days of convening here. 

We hope everyone enjoyed Global Perspectives 2021. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. 

Vicky Tongue

Vicky Tongue was the Centre’s Head of Futures and Innovation/Scanning the Horizon project manager from 2018-2022, leading the Centre’s futures strategy and collaborative trends scanning community. In this role, Vicky wrote and edited many of the Centre’s Scanning Sector Guides and Civil Society Innovation reports.

Miriam Niehaus

Head of Programmes

International Civil Society Centre

Miriam leads the Centre’s programmes. She started at the Centre as Executive Assistant in 2014 and then, as Project Manager, developed and implemented the Centre’s projects on civic space between 2016 and 2019. Prior to joining the Centre Miriam worked for VSO International and GIZ in the Palestinian Territories. She holds a BA in Islamic Studies and Social Anthropology from the University of Freiburg and an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies.

Wolfgang Jamann

Executive Director

International Civil Society Centre

Dr. Wolfgang Jamann is Executive Director of the International Civil Society Centre. Until January 2018 he was Secretary General and CEO of CARE International (Geneva). Before that he led NGO Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and the Alliance 2015, a partnership of 7 European aid organisations. From 2004-2009 he was CEO & Board member of CARE Deutschland-Luxemburg and President of the CARE Foundation. Previously, he worked for World Vision International as a regional representative in East Africa (Kenya) & Head of Humanitarian Assistance at WV Germany. After his Ph.D. dissertation in 1990 he started his career in development work at the German Foundation for International Development, later for the UNDP in Zambia. As a researcher and academic, he has published books and articles on East & Southeast Asia contributing to international studies on complex humanitarian emergencies and conflict management.

Podcast: Integrating technology into children’s daily lives

11th November 2021 by Adriana Sahagún Martínez

For the Centre’s 2021/22 Report on “Civil Society Innovation and Digital Power Shift’’, we’re speaking with inspirational innovators from civil society organisations (CSOs) around the world to hear the stories of their inclusive innovation approaches to advance people-centred digitalisation, to either address system power imbalances or capitalise on emerging people power and technological capabilities.

In this episode, María Berenguer, co-leader of the Youth&ICT4D department at SOS Children’s Villages International, talks about the organisation’s Digital Village project, which aims to integrate technology into the daily lives of children and families.

Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

Load content

Find out more about the Digital Village project.

Explore the Centre’s ‘Civil Society Innovation and Digital Power Shift’ report. 

If you are interested in joining this exciting project, please fill in the form.

Communications Manager

International Civil Society Centre

A Growing Partnership: New Coalitions in Malawi and Denmark & HelpAge International Joins as Global Member

10th November 2021 by Colette Rose

The Leave No One Behind partnership is growing at both the country and global level. The partnership has launched coalitions in two new countries: Malawi and Denmark. At the global level, the partnership is excited for HelpAge International—a worldwide alliance standing up for the rights of older people— to join as a global member organisation.

In Malawi, a cross-sector coalition including the national planning commission is co-led by three civil society organisations: CARE Malawi, the Centre for Social Accountability & Transparency (CSAT) and Plan International Malawi. The coalition is currently finalising plans for their first data project. The country team’s inaugural project aims to make young peoples’, girls’ and women’s voices heard and count in Malawi.

Denmark is the first country from the Global North joining the Leave No One Behind partnership, in a coalition led by ActionAid Denmark. This marks an important milestone for the project since the Sustainable Development Goals are often perceived as primarily being relevant for countries in the Global South. However, some marginalised communities in northern countries, such as older people, refugees and people with disabilities, can also be left behind due to underreporting—resulting in public policies and services that do not account for the needs of marginalised populations.

HelpAge International was a collaborator on the report An Unequal Pandemic earlier this year and now formally joins the Leave No One Behind partnership. Official data on older people is often sparse or ignored in the design of policies and programs, including most recently in pandemic response planning. Civil society organisations focusing on the rights of older people work to fill these gaps, including many of the members of the HelpAge Global Network spanning 86 countries.

The newly formed coalitions in Malawi and Denmark, and HelpAge International’s expertise on older people’s needs will undoubtedly enrich and further diversify the Leave No One Behind partnership’s work to make voices heard and count.

Colette Rose

Project Manager

International Civil Society Centre

Colette joined the Centre in September 2021 as Project Manager for Making Voices Heard and Count, a project of the Leave No One Behind partnership. Before joining the Centre, she lived in New York for over a decade, where she most recently led strategic communications at the Guttmacher Institute for its international research on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Previously, at Physicians for Reproductive Health, Colette trained doctors in advocacy communications for evidence-based health policy. She has worked as a policy researcher, editor, writer and project manager with OutRight Action International, Amnesty International, Oxfam Germany and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. Colette holds a BA in international relations from Connecticut College and an MSc in political sociology from the London School of Economics.

Call for Proposals – Consultancy for Developing an Animated Video

1st November 2021 by Adriana Sahagún Martínez

The Centre is looking for an experienced videographer with expertise in animation and storytelling to develop a short (1-1,5 minute) animated video that introduces the Leave No One Behind (LNOB) partnership and its Making Voices Heard and Count (MVHC) project to international stakeholders who are not yet familiar with our work.

MVHC is a unique collaborative project of the LNOB partnership, which is hosted by the Centre. The partnership was launched in late 2017 by 12 international civil society organisations. It brings together international and national civil society organisations (CSOs), civic networks and platforms with the ambition to bring about a scalable solution for filling data gaps on marginalised groups in the monitoring and review of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Centre is commissioning a consultant to:

  • Develop and produce a short animated accessible video suitable for use on various social media platforms introducing the work of the LNOB partnership and MVHC project.

Find the full tender and how to apply here

The Centre invites qualified individuals or organisations (“Offerors”) to submit a proposal for the requested services. The application needs to be submitted by 10 November 2021.

If you meet the selection criteria, please submit your application to Colette Rose including:

  • Proposal Narrative
  • Resume or CV of individual or principals, in the case of a consulting firm
  • A list of prior clients and links to earlier produced animated videos as demonstration material
  •  A detailed budget in Euros (EUR).

Proposals, including any attachments, should be sent electronically in PDF format to: crose@icscentre.org. Please ensure to include in the subject line: “Call for proposals – Video Animation”.

Communications Manager

International Civil Society Centre

Solidarity and freedom of expression – How can we protect and harness online spaces?

20th October 2021 by Sarah Pugh

Freedom of expression is a basic requirement for maintaining democracy and open societies where citizens are able to stay informed, express opinions and participate actively in public life. Over the summer the Solidarity Action Network (SANE) explored different aspects of freedom of expression through a series of curated conversations looking at the role that international civil society organisations (ICSOs) can play in protecting and increasing free expression and civic space, particularly in relation to digital space and freedoms. 

The first example came from Takura Zhangazha and Arthur Steiner from Hivos, who shared how Hivos has played an ‘incubator’ role in supporting young artists and makers to champion free expression, and to increase and even celebrate civic space. Through its R.O.O.M. Program Hivos has designed interventions that support young creatives, strengthening their resilience to remain critical and independent so that they can continue to challenge damaging narratives and shrinking civic space. Beyond the solidarity shown through this form of ‘incubation’ and direct support, Hivos has also made use of facilitation as a method of solidarity. The programme has facilitated the convening and connecting of young makers and creative hubs, enabling cross-fertilisation between these makers and other actors in support of Pan-African solidarity that can counter closing civic space. 

These forms of solidarity are brought to life through stories of R.O.O.M Program partners – in particular, the Magamba Network based in Zimbabwe. The network focuses on the arts, digital media, activism and innovation. It has opened up space for free expression online through supporting and incubating young bloggers and new media start-ups speaking truth to power, and has inspired the creation of other, similar hubs in Southern Africa. As one of its activities, the network has convened discussions around the topic of internet access and ownership, inviting makers and creative hubs across the region to discuss the rise in internet regulations, cyber-crime laws, internet shutdowns, and – in some countries – the increasingly prohibitive costs of internet access.

(Still from video: Who owns civic space? by Hivos featuring Magamba Network) 

How international actors can show solidarity through support to local civil society actors to maintain and defend freedom of expression online, and protect online civic space, led us on to the next curated conversation with Felicia Anthonio from Access Now. Felicia shared insights on the role that Access Now has played in coordinating and convening #KeepItOn, a global campaign and coalition that aims to end internet shutdowns.  

Members of the #KeepItOn coalition work together to prevent shutdowns through awareness-raising, advocacy, capacity-building and litigation. Access Now further builds resilience among affected communities through technical support and grassroots grants, and applies multiple forms of solidarity at local, national and international levels. 

(Graphic from: #KeepItOn update: who is shutting down the internet in 2021? by Access Now) 

The campaign uses public solidarity to tackle shutdowns, for example through advocacy at the global or national level calling for specific internet shutdowns to be ended. Tensions can arise between public solidarity on the one hand, and access on the other, and risks to access, staff or partners’ safety can act as barriers to ICSOs signing on to open letters or speaking out publicly on the issue of internet shutdowns. However, as the #KeepItOn coalition’s work demonstrates there is a spectrum of different modes of solidarity available to ICSOs.  

There are different examples of more ‘quiet’ acts of solidarity that ICSOs can take, such as helping to document restrictions in a particular context, or supporting local communities or groups affected by a shutdown. The coalition itself employs multiple modes and levels of solidarity; for example combining awareness-raising at the multilateral level with litigation or advocacy at the national level, alongside strengthening of local capacities to deal with the impacts of shutdowns. So, whatever their appetite or capacity for risk might be, ICSOs can contribute to the protection of digital space and freedoms, and joining the #KeeptItOn Coalition can be an effective first step. 

Further details about these two examples can be found in the Solidarity Playbook, in the case studies on Hivos and Access Now which cover strategies for the protection of online free expression, as well as its potential to bring about social change, revealing different strategies for solidarity in the face of closing civic space. We encourage you to delve deeper into these topics by reading the cases!  

 

Sarah Pugh

Research Consultant

RINGO Project

Sarah Pugh, Research Consultant, has worked with activists, grassroots movements and storytellers internationally. She has conducted research for both funders and civil society organisations, including human rights and women’s rights NGOs based in India and Burma, and has over a decade of experience in the human rights and social justice philanthropy sector, having worked with a variety of funder collaborations whilst based at Global Dialogue. She has managed pass-through grants and pooled funds for human rights and social change in the UK and globally, and supported the inception of the Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society (FICS). Sarah is currently acting as Project Manager for the RINGO Project - a systems change process aimed at reimagining the INGO.

Data Protection and Biometrics: Scanned by International Aid Organisations

20th October 2021 by Karl Steinacker and Katja Lindskov Jacobsen

NGOs and UN agencies have collected sensitive personal data of millions of people in the global South. With due prudence?

Aid and charitable organisations (hitherto referred to as NGOs) have gone digital in recent years. One aspect of this involves collecting and processing large amounts of data about the very people they assist and interact with. Such data is often very personal and may include health and educational data, family relations, religious and political believes. These data sets identify a person by name, address, picture, and increasingly also biometric features.

«Trust is the fuel of our societies» says the contemporary historian and philosopher Yuval Harari. This remark raises an important question, namely how digital data dimensions of the practices of NGOs affect this vital issue of trust.  Can their policies and practices stand public scrutiny and are worth our trust? Can we be sure that personal and often sensitive data has been obtained voluntarily from each of the data subjects that NGOs gather such data from? Is it right to assume that the people have a clear understanding of purpose, benefits, and risks related to the sensitive data they allow NGOs to collect, store and process?

Data Protection and Sovereignty in the Global South

In general, it can be said that NGOs fall under the jurisdiction of the country where they operate. That might reassure the public in the countries of the North where data protection laws have been passed and are being enforced. However, on a global scale, as more and more governments enact data protection laws, we are in the paradoxical situation that NGOs often face new obligations to disclose personal data in support of national sovereignty and security issues. Countries like Turkey and Rwanda have modelled their data protection laws following the example of the European GDPR and demand that personal data of their citizens and residents is kept exclusively on servers on their territory. But NGO data is sometimes also shared with donors to obtain funding or as part of specific data-sharing agreements. Each contractual arrangement with commercial service providers, be it outsourced IT services, such as the storage and data analysis, or simple bank and mobile pay transfers, disclose identity and information about aid recipients.

Those who manage the personal data, the senior NGOs managers and data protection officers, are aware of the issues at stake. They will mention the noble mandate and the non-profit character of their organisation. Some will point out that they have internal data protection policies and regulations. Especially the international NGOs, these are the western institutions led and funded from the global North, will claim that they follow the GDPR, as the current international gold standard in data protection, even in countries outside of Europe.

It is certainly true that data of their institutional and individual donors, including those who have been recruited in the High Street to donate every month 10 Dollars/Euros or so, is kept and processed in a GDPR compliant manner. The NGOs know that they have to gain and maintain the trust of that important segment of the public since their financial and reputational survival is at stake.

Refugees in Chad have to reveal biometric data to obtain an ID card. – CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid

Open questions regarding digital rights

But what about the people at the margins, those data subjects in the global South, that have surrendered their personal data to NGOs because they need protection and assistance in the face of war, natural disaster, or poverty? In such cases, specific questions need to be asked and addressed, such as:

  • Are these data subjects informed in a transparent and understandable manner about (real and possible) data use as far as mandatory data fields are concerned?
  • Have people, where informed consent is asked for, been educated, even genuinely informed in relation to the specific context, so as to meaningfully make that decision? What are the alternatives offered to them should they decide not to for example not register their biometric data with an NGO?
  • Are the consent rules and practices easy and possible to fully implement? Can consent be revoked?
  • Do individuals have access to their data and to query that data, demand corrections, and which recourse options are open to them? Is deletion of data even possible or is there a right to be forgotten?
  • Are data subjects always informed about data breaches and data sharing arrangements, especially with state authorities?

Unfortunately, answers to these and other questions are in most cases likely to fall short of even minimum standards of data protection. Organisational culture and practices in many NGOs often fail to put the necessary focus on and resources into conducting impact and risk assessments in a particular context before decisions are made to collect, store and process personal data. Financial audits are common while data audits remain an exception. Operations security processes and strategies for protecting critical and sensitive data are rare within organisations and absent at an inter-organisational level. Self-policing is the norm, rather than submitting to independent oversight.

Co-operation with Palantir cause a stir

Special mentioning is necessary of the large specialised UN agencies, such as IOM, WFP and UNHCR. These organisations have, like no other non-governmental bureaucracy, amassed personal data files of tens of millions of people around the globe. Their data subjects for example, surrender their biometric imprints (commonly a fingerprint or an iris scan) for a bar of soap, a sack of rice or a cash transfer, but also for a residence permit, or the opportunity to be resettled in another country. Unfortunately, their policies for safeguarding such sensitive biometric data and importantly the implementation of data protection remain largely opaque. Let’s take the example of the data-sharing agreement that UNHCR has concluded with the government of Bangladesh. Human Rights Watch alleges that personal data, including biometrics, collected jointly by UNHCR and the Bangladesh authorities from Rohingya refugees, who have fled genocide in Myanmar, has been transmitted to the government of Myanmar. Or WFP which has announced that it signed a contract with Palantir, a company specialised in data analytics and which is part of the data-military-industrial complex in the United States. Palantir was criticised recently by Amnesty International for its failure to conduct human rights due diligence around its contracts. These and other data related treaties, contracts, and practices of UN agencies escape public scrutiny and cannot be challenged in any national court because of their diplomatic immunity. Yet, various UN agencies routinely roll out large-scale data collection programmes in many countries whilst failing to ensure appropriate oversight bodies and recourse procedures for their data subjects.

When two months ago western military and civil organisations evacuated their personnel from Afghanistan, large amounts of sensitive personal data, including biometric data, was left behind. Only time will tell whether that data has been adequately protected and cannot be abused. Closer at home, the German Red Cross received the 2018 edition of the Big Brother Award from a civil society organisation for its digital system of asylum shelter management. The Red Cross software instituted humanitarian surveillance and total control of the asylum seekers and refugees by movement tracking to and within the shelter, detailed recording of medical checks, food consumption, relationships, religious and ethnic affiliations and much more. The question is not whether there are similar systems in different setting and places elsewhere in the world but rather how many of them exist.

ICRC and Oxfam work on biometric policies

Looking ahead, we see the contours of different trends: Some civil society actors recognise the emergence of unforeseen risks relating to the use of personal data that have been collected in many different contexts. They now increasingly advocate for intensified discussions of approaches to responsible uses of personal, in particular biometric data. Indeed, the ICRC and Oxfam have defined red lines for the use of biometrics and discuss their data policies and practices with the people they protect and assist.

On the other hand, however, the trend towards surveillance and biometric overkill continues. The most worrying example is the use of DNA by the US Immigration Service ICE. Here a precedent is set where biological features are not only used to uniquely identify an individual but the biological relationship of several persons. Meanwhile, UNICEF and the Gates Foundation are looking into ways of using biometrics for infant and child healthcare in Africa. Newly set-up start-ups suggest introducing biometrics for school kids in Africa so as to control their school attendance.

But there is resistance too. Political organisations working among Rohingya refugees living in camps in Bangladesh are campaigning among their fellow refugees not to deliver their personal data, notably biometrics, to the United Nations and the Bangladesh authorities out of fear that such sensitive personal data could end up in the hands of the military dictatorship in Myanmar. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA) failed in introducing biometric ration and cash cards: The Palestinian refugees wouldn’t have any of it and simply refused to collaborate.

Biometric Surveillance in a Civil War

And so it is not surprising that personal data can also become a weapon. A case in point is Yemen where two competing governments fight a civil war for control of the country. Since 2019, WFP rejects the lists of beneficiaries put together by the government based in the capital Sana’a. The agency demands that itself should be put in charge to biometrically register those eligible to receive food aid. The competing government, supported by the US and Saudi Arabia, allowed WFP to biometrical register food aid recipients in their areas of control. As a result, the bulk of food aid goes to the areas where WFP was able to register the population.

Accordingly, widening current debates and including a broad range of stakeholders will be crucial as we move forward. If it comes to sensitive personal data and trust, charitable intentions, progressive mandates, and a non-profit posture are noble starting points but unfortunately account for little. What happens to the personal data of the so-called data subjects is what matters. For years NGOs have been discussing concepts like do no harm and accountability. Many claim that they are accountable to the people they assist, protect, and seek to empower, rather than to their donors. Now the opportunity has come to implement and showcase meaningful accountability: Give those who are marginalised and in need of protection and assistance the digital rights they are entitled to.

This article was published first in German by Netzpolitik.org on 8 October 2021

Karl Steinacker

Digital Advisor

International Civil Society Centre

Karl Steinacker is currently the Digital Advisor of the International Civil Society Centre. He studied political science at the Free University of Berlin and international law at Cambridge University. He then spent three decades working for the United Nations (UNDP, UNRWA, DPKO, UNHCR) in the fields of development, peacekeeping and refugee protection. At the UN Refugee Agency, he held positions in Africa and at its Headquarters and was responsible for Registration, Statistics, and Data and Identity Management as well as for Camp Coordination/Camp Management.

Katja Lindskov Jacobsen

Senior Researcher

Centre for Military Studies at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen

Katja Lindskov Jacobsen holds a PhD in International Relations from Lancaster University and works as a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Military Studies at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen. The focus of her research is on security policy and interventions.

Tools for inclusive futures: Futures Frequency: A workshop method for building alternative futures

29th September 2021 by Vicky Tongue and Lena Tünkers

Members of the Scanning the Horizon community recently met online to continue our exploration of ‘tools for inclusive futures’, engaging methods to democratise futures conversations in organisations, using digital tools which do not require previous experience from either facilitators or participants. These tools have been highlighted in our recent Sector Guide on Strategic Decision-Making in a Whirly World.

—

Futures Frequency

This time, we wanted to find out more about Futures Frequency, from the Finnish innovation and futures fund Sitra. The idea behind Futures Frequency is that it inspires thinking and action towards positive, preferred futures and can be ‘used and applied by anyone’. You can check out an intro video here.

We decided to use it to explore futures of human diversity, and felt that a group of 9-12 is a good size to allow the discussion parts to take place in threes. No advance preparation was requested from participants, just encouragement to join with an open mind, and be ready to ‘enjoy the ride’, go with the process and put their heads in a different, more creative and playful space.

Setting the stage

We started with some relaxed individual reflection about the big ‘what if’ question – in relation to futures of human diversity in 2050 – which occurred to us. Then we introduced ourselves and our big question in plenary and it was already really interesting to see the different angles which people had already come up with – from gender fluidity, to intergenerational working with people living longer, to racism being history, to humans being seen as just another part of nature. Just this initial sharing already encourages you to open up and expand your own thinking more.

First stage, challenge your assumptions about the future

Then we had to activate our imagination muscles more by moving into the first main stage of the Futures Frequency method, challenging assumptions. We were given an audio drama snippet to listen to individually and then as a small group, we discussed what assumptions we heard in the piece and how it connected to our own assumptions or what felt familiar. This was a really interesting process to go through, surfacing both small assumptions or questions but also bigger ones about when in the future the conversation was set or whether we were just defaulting to assumptions about things in this future were still working in a similar way to the present. From a facilitation angle, you could either use one of the many supporting resources which Sitra provides for this, or you could create your own snippet – audio or written – linked to the theme you’re exploring.

This process does highlight biases you weren’t aware of in your own thinking and how your brain tries to ‘fill in the gaps’ around incomplete information you have on a situation. It also helps you better understand and appreciate how those you are working with are also thinking. This would be particularly important in a very diverse group, or especially if exploring potentially sensitive topics together. This stage increases your awareness of why you think certain things, before you then move onto imagining preferred futures.

Second stage, imagine your preferred futures

In this stage, you again start with individual reflection to imagine what the theme – for us, human diversity – might look like, without boundaries, with new possibilities, and envision a mental snapshot of the future you personally prefer for this, trying to engage different senses to bring this image to life. Then moving into Miro or another digital whiteboarding space, each person in the group writes up their personal vision in one sentence on a post-it and shares it with the others in the group. Then you all work together to combine your (three) different visions into a new statement which integrates the main ‘spirit’ of each. We didn’t really have enough time for this as we were primarily exploring the method – rather than the topic – fully, but in a full session this stage clearly needs a good amount of time to complete. Again, all this has templates from Sitra.

Take action towards your preferred futures

The final stage involves thinking through actions which you can take towards bringing this vision about.  First, we were guided through an individual brainstorm to come with ideas that would lead us to our vision. Time was the creative constrain here. In our small groups we were then tasked with coming up with a news headline from the future which captured what would have happened in the intervening period. We imagined we were living in 2030 and working as reporters for ‘Future News’, sharing our headline and a short explanation of the actions that had taken place and answering any questions from the other groups. And we could add visual images to represent the story as well.

Final reflections on the method

It’s recommended to add further methods to this final phase if you want to build out the process into more of a detailed action planning process. For instance, you could use backcasting or future literacy labs. But from a first experience, it really is a very useful way of getting the participants into a different space to share ideas and inspire others, appreciate the diversity of perspectives in the group and be encouraged to use your imaginations, within a simple but effective framework. It really does feel like a universal method which anyone can just pick up and use!

Vicky Tongue

Vicky Tongue was the Centre’s Head of Futures and Innovation/Scanning the Horizon project manager from 2018-2022, leading the Centre’s futures strategy and collaborative trends scanning community. In this role, Vicky wrote and edited many of the Centre’s Scanning Sector Guides and Civil Society Innovation reports.

Lena Tünkers

Co-Founder and Partner

Zukünftige

Lena Tünkers is an entrepreneur, process designer and facilitator, guided by the purpose of empowering people to cheerfully move towards the future. She has designed and executed a variety of strategy and innovation processes in Denmark, Kenya and Germany and applied the method Futures Literacy and Futures Frequency to the topics of education, collaboration, leadership and culture. From her work with the UN, Spotify, HelloFresh and Hugo Boss, among others, Lena brings experiences in business model design, strategy as well as innovation development. She is a board member of Founders of Tomorrow and hosts the House of Beautiful Business in

Joint Side Event at the UN World Data Forum

24th September 2021 by Peter Koblowsky

Bringing alternative data to official use: cross-sector partnerships to leave no one behind in SDG monitoring and review

SDG monitoring and review is key to ensuring effective planning and implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Yet, this is a field in which states face numerous challenges, not least related to the production, communication and use of data. Data partnerships which promote the use of complementary data (e.g. citizen-generated data, human rights data or administrative data) have the potential to strengthen SDG monitoring and review and can help fill data gaps and ensure that no one is left behind. This is particularly relevant as countries strive to build forward better from the Covid-19 pandemic.  

This event will discuss the experiences of our Leave No One Behind Partnership and the Inclusive SDG Data Partnerships project, an initiative promoted by the Centre, Partners for Review/GIZ and the Danish Institute for Human Rights.

The online session format is dynamic, including short presentations of good practices, lessons learned, progress made and ways forward from the participating countries. There will be the chance for the audience in the room and in the virtual space to interact with our country speakers.

This event aims to generate a constructive exchange of practices to inspire the ongoing collaboration efforts in these countries and in others. Speakers will reflect the diversity of the country groups, with representatives from government, civil society, National Human Rights Institutes and National Statistics Offices.

Register for the event here!

Peter Koblowsky

Senior Partnership Manager - Leave No One Behind

International Civil Society Centre

Peter joined the Centre in January 2013, back then as a trainee. He completed the traineeship in the advocacy & campaigning office of World Vision Germany. Peter now coordinates the Leave No One Behind project and contributes to the development and implementation of various other strategic formats. Before joining the Centre, Peter worked for various organisations and think tanks in the development sector, being an expert in multi-stakeholder processes. He studied at the University of Bonn and graduated with an MA in Political Science with a focus on multi-actor advocacy for climate policy.