Working with social movements

PROMOTING PRO-POOR GROWTH: THE ROLE OF EMPOWERMENT – © OECD 2012

Social movements have great potential in empowering marginalised people and in reducing

poverty. But donors working with social movements need to recognise that social movements

have long-term goals that cannot be fitted neatly into project cycles and that “empowerment”

through social movements entails a certain degree of politicisation. Although they may wish to

maintain neutrality, they need to be willing to take that risk. Donors can facilitate empowerment

by supporting institutions and activities including Ombudsman functions that offset attempts

by governments, private companies and national elites to weaken, de-legitimise, incorporate or

repress social movements advocating the interests of poor people.

Working with social movements

Priyanthi Fernando,

Centre for Poverty Analysis, Sri Lanka*

* Priyanthi Fernando is the Executive Director at the Centre for Poverty Analysis in Sri Lanka, a developing country

participant in DAC Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET). This Good Practice Note was co-written by its associated

Task Team on Empowerment and the work received considerable inputs from Professor Marjorie Mbilinyi, Tanzania

Gender Networking Program, also a developing country participant in POVNET. The author acknowledges with thanks the

comments made and the resources provided by other members and secretariat of the POVNET.

Poverty reduction and Pro-Poor Growth: the role of emPowerment – © oecd 2012

8. workinG with social movements

8. Working with social movements

Priyanthi fernando, centre for Poverty analysis, sri lanka*

* Priyanthi fernando is the executive director at the centre for Poverty analysis in sri lanka, a developing country participant in dac network on Poverty reduction (Povnet). this Good Practice note was co-written by its associated task team on empowerment and the work received considerable inputs from Professor marjorie mbilinyi, tanzania Gender networking Program, also a developing country participant in Povnet. the author acknowledges with thanks the comments made and the resources provided by other members and secretariat of the Povnet.

Social movements have great potential in empowering marginalised people and

in reducing poverty. But donors working with social movements need to recognise

that social movements have long-term goals that cannot be fitted neatly into project

cycles and that “empowerment” through social movements entails a certain degree of

politicisation. Although they may wish to maintain neutrality, they need to be willing

to take that risk. Donors can facilitate empowerment by supporting institutions and

activities including Ombudsman functions that offset attempts by governments,

private companies and national elites to weaken, de-legitimise, incorporate or repress

social movements advocating the interests of poor people.



Introduction

despite the political nature of working with social movements which makes engage-

ment difficult for donors who wish to maintain their “neutral” status, a number of dac

donors are supporting and working with social movements on issues such as land and

labour rights, indigenous people’s rights and gender equality. the purpose of this Good

Practice note is to provide insights into how donors can best work with social movements,

to highlight potential areas where donors need to be careful in their engagement with

social movements, and finally to draw attention to the potential of social movements in

empowering marginalised people and in reducing poverty. to limit the discussion and

to make it relevant for donors seeking to better understand, or support empowerment of

people living in poverty, this Good Practice note defines social movements as a type of

group action consisting of informal groupings of individuals and/or organisations focused

on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing

a social change and as such through civic action generating transformative change. the

author is aware that this working definition does not comprise all social movements, a

point which we shall return to later in the Good Practice note. also, due to the focus on the

potential of social movements in bringing about empowerment of people living in poverty

the discussion is limited to dealing with social movements that address a number of issues

relevant for people living in poverty.

the current dac approach to pro-poor growth defines it as “a pace and pattern of

growth that enhances the ability of poor women and men to participate in, contribute to

and benefit from growth” (oecd 2006). the dac Policy statement on Pro-Poor Growth

sees the empowerment of people living in poverty as an essential element of the process.

empowerment has multiple meanings relating to power, participation, autonomy and choice

and takes place when people individually or collectively, conceive of, define and pursue

better lives for themselves. for pro-poor growth to happen, poor women and men need to

change existing power relations and gain and exert influence over political, economic and

social processes that determine and, all too often, constrain their livelihood opportunities.1

social movements can be seen as a manifestation of this empowerment.

social movements most often aim to achieve something better for their constituents

who are usually among the excluded and powerless in society. their goals could be

securing more equitable control over resources, greater representation in local politics,

fair access to services and markets or decent working conditions. they see the nature and

exercise of power in society as the fundamental obstacle to achieving these goals and tend

to organise around ideas that give the movements’ constituents new forms of social and

Key messages

1. donors working with social movements need to recognise that social movements have long-term

goals that cannot be fitted neatly into project cycles.

2. donors supporting social movements need to realise that “empowerment” entails a certain degree

of politicisation and that they need to be willing to take that risk.

3. donors can facilitate empowerment by supporting institutions and activities including ombudsman

functions that offset attempts by governments, private companies and national elites to weaken,

de-legitimise, incorporate or repress social movements advocating the interests of poor people.



political identity. the success of the feminist movement, for instance, does not depend just

on various forms of political action, but also on the way in which the ideas associated with

the movement led women, and ultimately men, to rethink hitherto accepted and largely

unchallenged notions about the roles of women in society.

social movements can also question the dominant economic paradigm and its ability

to deliver sustainably, the basic tenets of pro-poor growth as defined above. movements on

land rights for women and for marginalised groups in africa are beginning to challenge the

liberalisation and privatisation policies which lead to increased corporate power, including

that of multinational corporations (mncs), over natural resources, and which have led

more recently to a scramble for land for food and energy crop production and speculation,

as well as increased competition for access to minerals, petroleum, timber and water

(mbilinyi, 2009; world Bank, 2010).

Value of engagement with social movements

it is the value of these social and political changes that social movements can engender

on behalf of the excluded and powerless that makes them potentially important allies in

achieving the objectives of pro-poor growth, poverty reduction and empowerment.

social movements also play an important role in nation-building and democracy. they

imply an organised citizenry motivated and empowered to mobilise behind and carry on

a sustained campaign in defence of their interests and rights. they test a state’s practical

ability to defend the constitutional rights of all its citizens (eyben and ladbury, 2006) and

are thus critical to the governance agenda.

engagement with social movements can give donor agencies a more direct relation ship

with the constituency that development activities are expected to benefit, with representatives

of those who are most dramatically affected by global decision making. indigenous peoples’

movements for example, represent a marginalised and impoverished group of people who

are nevertheless custodians of much of the world’s agricultural diversity and its related ecosystems and its bio-cultural and knowledge diversity; as such they play a vital role in addressing global challenges (mckeon and kalafatic, 2009). they and other social

movements are increasingly influential in national policy making and have a greater presence

in a rapidly developing multi-actor global governance system.

social movements can also be sources of “early warning” on emerging issues since they

tend to react to their members on the ground, long before formal development institutions

become aware of them. they have access to local knowledge and expertise, the kind that is

essential to understanding ecosystems, fighting climate change and biodiversity loss. they

can contribute to searches for alternative, more equitable and sustainable paradigms at a

time when conventional approaches are being questioned (mckeon and kalafatic, 2009). at the same time, engagement with social movements could also be a source of some tension as they frequently critique the policy options pursued by many national governments, including donor governments and institutions.

Characteristics of social movements

in our definition of social movements the issue of transformative change involves

changing the underlying assumptions and overt behaviours, processes and structures of a

society.



civic action implies that the key actors in a social movement are citizens, often from

social groups with less political power and on the periphery of economic and social decision

making (as well as those working with these groups), and the actions usually constitute a

series of demands or challenges to structures of power and the power holders.

the focus of the actions and the issues around which social movements mobilise

people, can vary. in terms of relevance to pro-poor growth and empowerment, a typology

of issues that social movements mobilise around include, but are not limited to:

• movements that mobilise around issues of access to and control of productive

assets. examples include movements relating to rural or urban land (e.g. pastoralists

movements) or indigenous communities access to forest resources.

• movements that mobilise against perceived economic exploitation and inequality of

access to markets, labour markets in particular. they comprise people and organisations

in specific trades or industries as well as networks of social and environmental justice

activists. movements related to extractive industries such as mining, or movements that

challenge trade liberalisation and their impact are some examples.

• movements that challenge discrimination, social exclusion and systemic and structural

forms of racism, patriarchy and sexism e.g. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation.

movements such as the human rights movement or the women’s movement from its

suffragist origins would fall into this category.

• movements that advocate for overall economic, social or political change, the

construction of a new world order. an example of this is the world social forum.

social movements also have a tendency to be unstructured and non-institutional and

are characterised by “more nebulous, uncoordinated and cyclical forms of collective

action, popular protest and networks that serve to link both organised and dispersed actors

in processes of social mobilisation” (mitlin and Bebbington, 2006). mobilisation and/or

disruption are often seen as defining characteristics of a social movement; a movement’s

capacity to disrupt or threaten an existing social order are seen as linked to its ability to

bring about change, and a way of introducing new thinking into the political agenda.

Box 8.1. Examples of social movements leading to transformative change

the actions of the civil rights movement of the united states, over a period of 12 to 13 years,

overthrew existing laws that allowed segregation and other forms of discrimination in the

us and established social norms that were against discrimination. the women’s movement

in northern europe and northern america in the 1960s and 1970s reframed existing unequal

gender relationships as oppressive and harmful rather than being “just the way things are”.

the assumptions that were made about division of labour – not least the unpaid domestic work

of women – were made visible, framed differently and challenged in the process. more recent

developments in the women’s movement have impacted on global governance and have sought

to influence intergovernmental and multilateral processes, urged state compliance with, or

adoption of, key international treaties – mainly the convention on the elimination of all forms

of discrimination against women (cedaw) and the Beijing Platform for action. in latin

america, the indigenous peoples’ movements have campaigned for and won collective rights

and, most recently in Bolivia, have been a strong force in achieving political change.



however, the ability of social movements to challenge and transform existing structures

of power and domination can be offset by internal divisions or could vary with the context

and determine the length and nature of their engagement with the core issue. for example,

the south africa anti-apartheid movement took more than 25 years to have any effect in

promoting social inequality because of the repressive nature of the apartheid state that it was

trying to engage with. however the treatment action campaign has been able to influence

the government of south africa to develop an antiretroviral treatment plan after four years

of advocacy (stackpool-moore, 2006).

the objectives of social movements may change over time. for instance, what were

deemed “peasant movements” concerned with defending a way of life and type of rural

production from intrusions and demands of large corporations and the state, have now

been replaced in with social movements that are contesting economic control in markets,

demanding the right to determine prices and returns to labour, challenging institutional

constraints to restraining economic opportunities for the poor (webster, 2004).

Partial achievement of a movement’s objectives however, could rob a movement of

its dynamic energy or the movement may be overtaken by shifts in social and political

attitudes. at another level, social movements may become institutionalised, as in the case of

the British “labour movement”, which remains a useful umbrella term for the labour Party,

trade unions, co-operatives, and socialist organisations, but no longer conveys a sense of a

dynamic force seeking radical change.

social movements can be national or (increasingly) transnational. national movements

have grown from mobilising against a particular local issue to become a national movement

(e.g. peasant movements that have grown to focus on agrarian reform and the democratisation of

agriculture). international/transnational movements have proliferated from the 1970s onwards,

and relate to issues of peace, nuclear disarmament, environment, human rights, feminist rights,

gay rights and more recently, anti-globalisation (e.g. the world social forum). the 1970s and

1980s also witnessed a rapid expansion of the indigenous peoples’ rights movement worldwide

– in the us, canada, Greenland, colombia, scandinavia, australia and new Zealand.

in recent times, social movements have emerged as an important force in international

politics influencing global norms and practices. they resist globalisation, and challenge the

authority of the countries and the international institutions that shape international relations

and international development assistance.

Box 8.2. Conseil national de concertation et de coopération des ruraux (CNCR)

Conseil national de concertation et de coopération des ruraux (cncr) in senegal, grew

out of the failure of state-organised producer cooperatives and a state-controlled, commodity-

oriented model of agrarian development which was dismantled by, among other things, the

market liberalisation reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. these measures rapidly dismantled the state

marketing system in the expectation that its role would be taken by private market actors. when

this did not happen, rural markets collapsed, leaving rural producers to face new, different and

arguably worse, market failures. the cncr’s starting point was a critique of the economic model

by the peasant farmers, who were suffering from its effects, and a demand for the right to have a

say in designing policies and programmes under structural adjustment

Source: mckeon et al. (2004), Peasant Associations in Theory and Practice, unrisd civil society and social movements Programme, Paper no 8, may 2004.



in the developing world, social movements, like member-based organisations are often

seen as empowering the disempowered and creating positive social, economic and political

change through citizen action. there is a danger however, of over-rating the potential of

social movements to engender change. the process of empowerment of a movement’s

constituents, for example, can be limited to increased self-confidence, the development

of organisational skills and practical knowledge but not result in actually gaining and

exercising economic or political power. the democratising potential of social movements

has also not been uniform (hellman, 1997). recent history has also shown the possibility

of very destructive and reactionary identity-based movements in countries like india and

rwanda (sogge and dutting, 2010), and the far right christian movement in the us.

Controversies

The problem of definition

as with most social phenomena there are controversies around the definition of a social

movement, and what qualifies as a social movement and what does not.

the line between social movements and trade unions, political parties, nGos and other

civil society institutions is finely drawn.

trade unions like social movements engage in collective action, but are more structured,

are often affiliated to political parties and tend to focus on negotiating changes in economic

relationships (usually between workers and employers) rather than attempting to transform

the whole economic and social system. in many developing countries, members of most

trade unions tend to be predominantly male, full-time, permanent workers in the “organised”

sector of large-scale public sector enterprises and public sector services. the majority of

the work force working in the precarious “informal sector” is usually excluded from union

membership. sewa, the self-employed women’s association of ahmedebad, india, is a trade

union that is organised differently and comprising of women workers in the informal sector.

Political parties are political organisations that seek to control government through

the capture of public office and the organisation of government. social movements can

develop into political parties e.g. the labour Party or the communist Party but the interest

of political parties in capturing office distinguishes them from social movements. the

situation in latin america however suggests that this distinction between party and social

Box 8.3. Movement against large dams

the movement against large dams on the narmada river in india, not only stalled the

construction of such dams, but also pressured the world Bank to alter lending policies and

priorities to take social and environmental concerns into account. it also led to the establishment

of the world commission on dams (wcd), that recognised that large dams in many cases led to

avoidable impoverishment and suffering of a large number of poor people and established firm

standards and guidelines for future dams, including consultation with tribal people and others

affected by their construction. the enthusiasm for large dams is resurfacing as a “green energy”

response to climate change. china is now the single biggest funder of large dams and chinese

corporations and banks are set to build new dams in sarawak and ethiopia (survival international,

2010) social movements will continue to have a critical role in demanding adherence to wcd

principles.



movement leaders can be extremely tenuous, with Bolivian President evo morales deriving

his support from the social movement he spearheaded, and President lula of Brazil being a

product of the labour movement which had its own party, the workers Party.

nGos can be defined very broadly “as all organisations that are not central governments

and that were not created by inter-government decision” but the term is more usually used to

describe public benefit nGos – a type of civil society organisation that is formally constituted

to provide a benefit to the general public or the world at large, through advocacy or the

provision of services. they include organisations devoted to environment, development,

human rights, peace and their international networks. they may or may not be membership-

based.” (united nations, 2004). according to the Human Development Report, (undP, 2000),

nearly one-fifth of the world’s 37 000 nGos were formed in the 1990s (Bendana, 2006).

while nGos are often part of social movements and work within them to effect transformative

change, there are also a large number of nGos that work closely with (and sometimes

are funded by) state institutions or corporate entities. for example, nGos delivering

humanitarian aid for the us Government, or health related nGos supported by multinational

corporations (Bendana, 2006). also nGos, by filling gaps in public service delivery, can be

seen as facilitating the retreating state and, albeit with good intentions, supporting the very

policies and social structures they would oppose through advocacy. nGos also differ from

social movements in the sense that they are bureaucratically structured organisations, not

loose associations of citizens engaged in civic action. inasmuch as social movements can

metamorphose into political parties, they can also become “nGo-ised” which suggests a more

structured organisation that can (and does) process significant external funding, creating also

different accountabilities (i.e. to the donor) and requiring different skills.

social movements then are by definition a distinct form of civil society organisation,

different from trade unions, political parties or nGos though the differences are sometimes

blurred. dealing with social movements should pose very different challenges to donors,

especially since social movements themselves are not homogenous and vary in how far they

incorporate the characteristics of other civil society institutions.

Reformist or radical?

another related controversy is between the reforming and radical approaches within

social movements, the latter seeking rights and benefits within existing systems and

structures and the former challenging the system and proposing alternatives.

the issue of reforming or radical is also related to the notion of transformative change.

not all change is necessarily transformative. transformative change occurs when cultures

and institutions are altered through changes to underlying assumptions and overt institutional

behaviours, processes and structures. this is what happened when the feminist movement

forced women and men to rethink what had been the unchallenged notions about women’s

roles. transformative change is also deep, pervasive and intentional. transformations can

take place gradually over time or can be a more immediate result of radical fissures within

the status quo.

reform refers to change, but to change that does not immediately challenge underlying

assumptions and overall structures, but seeks instead to improve conditions within an existing

overall framework. while a radical approach is more “revolutionary” – altering social

structures and challenging values and basic assumptions are goals from the onset – reform

can, over time, also be transformative, but the immediate goal is to improve. empowerment is

of course central to, and instrumental in, both types of change.



the difference between reformist and radical perspectives is also strongly reflected in

the discourse on globalisation.

however, there is another perspective on the reformist versus radical nature of social

movements that questions the effectiveness of social movements. the argument is that,

given the nature of the context within which social movements operate, because movements

by definition voice the concerns of groups whose interests are not met by the established

political and economic settlement, and because their demands compete with the interests

and ideologies of the corporate, administrative and other groups that control decision

making, their ability to effect radical change is limited. there is also a threat of violence that

makes the work of movements and social mobilisation more difficult, but also connotes the

latent power of social movements, given their mass base and the “outrage” factor.

Representativeness, legitimacy and accountability

the credibility of social movements is linked to three concepts – representativeness,

legitimacy and accountability. the link between the formal organisation that represents the

movement and its constituency i.e. the people it works for, is not always clear-cut. many

people in the constituency, whether they are farmers or indigenous people, can belong to

one or another of the movements’ components (where a movement has mobilised at different

levels and in different geographical areas) or be outside formal membership of the movement

completely. a movement’s leaders will, almost by definition, be drawn from an elite

group within the movement and this could well be necessary for the movement to achieve

its advocacy objectives. some movements may initiate more transparent representative

processes, others may not consider it necessary.

the legitimacy of a movement is derived from whether it consistently acts in the interests

of its constituency, and whether it is recognised by that constituency as acting in its interests.

Box 8.4. Examples of reform versus radical agendas:

Jubilee2000 and Jubilee South and Bello’s challenge to Oxfam GB

the difference between Jubilee 2000 and Jubilee south is that Jubilee 2000 called for

the cancellation of developing country debt, whereas Jubilee south took a much more radical

position. it challenged the assumptions that debt cancellation would have any effect on reducing

poverty and turned the whole Jubilee 2000 debate on its head by referring to the “real historical

debt’” as that owed by the north to the south, as a result of colonial and neo-colonial exploitation.

their slogan was “don’t owe, won’t pay” and they demanded not “debt cancellation” in the

narrow sense nor aid, charity or private philanthropy but reparations, restitutions, compensations,

payment of the ecological debt by the north to the people and environments of the south

(Bendana, 2006).

in early 2002, oxfam Great Britain launched a market-access campaign geared to lowering

protectionist barriers in the north to key exports from the south. walden Bello, director of

focus on the Global south and a leading global activist, presented a more radical idea, namely

that the issue was not about export agriculture or market access but about halting or reverting

the wto-mandated liberalisation in trade and trade-related areas

Source: Bendana, a. (2006), NGOs and Social Movements: A North/South divide?, unrisd civil society and social movements Programme Paper number 22.



it is less likely that movements can derive legitimacy from more formal criteria, such as fee-

paying membership of constituent members, partly because constituent members are drawn

from disempowered and possibly impoverished groups.

Given that social movements generally comprise a number of groups, it is likely that

representativeness and legitimacy may not be uniform across all constituents. the question

then arises as to whether the movement bypasses the poor and those with least voice.

the main accountability of social movements should be to their constituent members,

and in reality they often have multiple accountabilities. one of the dangers of direct donor

support to social movements is that it can result in subverting the main accountability to

constituent members, to those who provide its funding.

Should aid agencies work directly with social movements?

the main controversy that should be at the centre of this Good Practice note is the issue

of whether aid agencies should work with social movements directly or not. where direct

assistance involves social movements as direct recipients of donor money a number of issues

arise. on the one hand there is the very real possibility that many social movements do not

have the institutional structures to receive such funding, while also the formal funding

relationship with donors could affect social movements in ways that might compromise their

autonomy, legitimacy and ability to act by:

• Projectising their activities and creating an adherence to a specific project cycle

that is at odds with the more fluid processes that movements engage in and the

pressure to achieve “targets” that is an inevitable condition of donor assistance.

• creating accountability to the donor rather than to their constituency i.e. the people

whose cause they are espousing. this can lead to the inevitable disillusionment,

alienation and defection of a movement’s members.

• depoliticising the movement in different ways such as engaging in “safe” projects such

as constructing schools or shifting leadership from people with a political orientation

to professionals who push the work forward in a manner required by the donors.

Box 8.5. Concerned people against asbestos

the litigation that led cape Plc., a British company mining asbestos in south africa to pay

compensation to 7 500 former employees with asbestos-related diseases has been seen as a success

story of a transnational movement that grew from the work of a small community group, the

concerned People against asbestos (cPaa) and comprised local activists working alongside

international lawyers and environmental campaigners. however, the different experiences of people

in two towns in the northern cape in south africa, namely Prieska (where cPaa had its roots)

and Griquatown, led to very different perceptions of the legitimacy and representativeness of the

movement, as well as the interpretation of its success. the Griquatown residents were relatively

distant from the networking and mobilisation process taking place in Prieska, and this undermined

their ability to see the asbestos disease litigation as an international victory and as a case of justice

being done.

Source: When social movements bypass the poor: asbestos pollution, international litigation and Griqua cultural identity, ids working Paper 246, institute of development studies, uk.



• co-opting the movement’s agenda into the donor’s agenda and discourse, blurring

its distinctiveness without empowering the movement or its members. an example

is the movement on indigenous knowledge which was co-opted into international

institutions such as the world Bank (the indigenous knowledge for development

Program), unesco (Best Practice of indigenous knowledge) or undP (indigenous

knowledge Programme) and shared through transnational networks (laurie, n. et

al., 2002).

of course, this type of risk is inherent in many of the activities and engagements in

which social movements will be involved. in a broader sense, any social movement will

engage with the state and other interest groups and social actors in pursuit of its objectives.

in this engagement with the “establishment”, social movements maybe de-radicalised,

and adopt a more reformist (rather than transforming) agenda and as such lose some their

popular support (Ghimire, 2005).

Examples of good practice

it does not seem to be common practice for donors to work with social movements,

and, given the perceived risks to a social movement’s autonomy and dynamism, this may

be as it should be. the overtly political nature of social movements makes engagement

difficult for donors who wish to maintain their “neutral” status. however, not supporting

the right to organised action by citizens who are marginalised or disadvantaged by non-

responsive and unaccountable governments, private sector corporations, or international

institutions can in itself be construed as taking a political position.

some examples of support to social movements by bilateral donors are GtZ’s support

to indigenous peoples’ movements in latin america, danida’s support to the pastoralist

movement in tanzania, dfid’s support in collaboration with norad and sida, to the

land right activities of samat in Bangladesh. external funding for social movements also

comes through international nGos like oXfam who have been supporting tanzanian

pastoralist movements for many years, or survival international that supports indigenous

peoples’ movements around the world. the women’s movement has also been supported

by a range of donors partly because of the perception of it as apolitical and “safe”, but here

too the support has been largely for gender mainstreaming or gender budgeting, and less

for activism. for more information on these and other stories of empowerment, please see

www.oecd.org/dac/poverty/empowerment

the literature also indicates that when social movements are aware of the risk of

co-option they can (and do) negotiate with different funding agencies and make strategic

decisions on building alliances. comaru (consejo machiguenga del rio urubamba,

machiguenga council of the urubamba river), which represents 30 communities of

predominantly machiguenga people in the Peruvian amazon, were able to negotiate

support from a range of donors, including the energy companies against whom they were

campaigning (earle, 2007). donor support has also worked when it has been given to

legal teams that can help different movements fight for their rights: in Botswana, survival

international covered a majority of the san’s legal expenses when they fought a legal

battle against the government contesting their removal from the central kalahari Game

reserve and in nicaragua, the world wildlife fund funded the legal team that represented

the mayagna (sumu) indians in their successful case against the government which had

granted a korean logging company rights to mayanga land (mckie, 2007).



ifad has a history of supporting farmers’ organisations and has facilitated the partici -

pa tion of farmers’ organisations in international forums and also in reviews of economic

partnership agreements of eu and acP countries (ifad, 2009; ifad, 2007). however, it is

not clear from the documentation how far this participation has contributed to “transformative

change” in the way international development agencies and partner governments have viewed

their support to the farming sector in general, and to small scale farmers in particular.

many of the lessons of good practice will tend to emerge more in the breach than in

practice. donors working with social movements need to recognise that social movements

have long-term goals that cannot be fitted neatly into project cycles, that their leaders are

representatives and advocates/activists and not administrators, that there could be tension

between the international agenda (e.g. promoting the green discourse) and the immediate

social development goals of a localised movement, and that strategies for activism within

Box 8.6. Donor support to the peasant movement in Senegal:

A story of positive engagement

the highly state-centric programme for agricultural development initiated in senegal

shortly after independence was in crisis by the 1970s due to a number of factors including

decline in export commodity prices on the world market, the weight of the state structures,

the progressive indebtedness of the farmers and the severe droughts that ravaged the sahel in

1973–1974. the first autonomous peasant associations began to be formed as a reaction to the

incapacity of the state to deal with this situation. By the end of the 1970s, these associations

had formed and obtained legal status for a national federation called the Fédération des ONG

sénégalaises (fonGs – federation of senegalese nGos). fonGs initially focused on operating

training and exchange programmes for its members, but the onset of structural adjustment

programmes led it to take on a more ambitious agenda that eventually led to the formation of

the Conseil national de concertation et de coopération des ruraux (cncr). cncr had some

remarkable achievements. it was able to bring together disparate rural federations into a national

platform. it won recognition for peasant farmers from government and development partners.

it secured a position for peasant farmers at the policy negotiation table and used this position to

impact on rural development policies and programmes. it also spearheaded the construction of

a regional peasant movement, and made its presence felt globally.

at its start, fonGs was supported by the international nGo six-s, established in the

mid 1970s with support from the swiss agency for development cooperation and designed

specifically to support emerging village-based groups in west africa and encourage them to

federate. six-s’s support came in terms of flexible and renewable funding and discreet and

respectful technical assistance. Because it was funding groups and federations in several

countries, its general assemblies also offered an important occasion for farmer leaders in the

sub-region to meet and strategise. a more mature fonGs, and the cncr that it spawned,

were able to establish a consortium of donors that funded the overall package of activities.

they were also able to negotiate with fao to acquire technical support that enabled fonGs

to translate the language of structural adjustment into terms comprehensible to farmers and to

carry out a reflection of peasant reactions to senegal’s national agricultural programme. in this

new relationship with donors, the movement was able to count on medium-term support for a

global strategy. mutual respect, long-term funding and a clear understanding of the nature of

social movements characterised donor support to these initiatives.

Source: mckeon et al., (2004), Peasant Associations in Theory and Practice, unrisd civil society and social movements Programme, Paper no 8, may 2004.



the social movement need to match their capacities and traditional repertoire if they are to

be successful. most importantly, donors supporting social movements need to realise that

“empowerment” entails a certain degree of politicisation and that they need to be willing

to take that risk.

Implications: so what should donors do?

the main recommendation for donors is that they should facilitate the “enabling

environment” for social movements, rather than provide direct support. this means:

• supporting institutions and activities that offset the attempts by governments, corpora-

tions and national elites to weaken, de-legitimise, incorporate or repress social

movements; providing support to ombudsmans’ offices for the protection of human

and civil rights;

• supporting movements’ attempts to put their arguments into the public space at

all levels through the media, workshops, research activity, communications and

publications etc.;

• advocating within the donor countries and governments, and in the decision-

making bodies of the international donor community (including the international

institutions as well as the emerging donors) for respect for the agenda of social

movements, and making the space to listen and be informed by them;

• supporting social movements through trust funds or other mechanisms specifically

established so as to be independent of donors, led and controlled by local and

national organisations and networks and able to use funding modalities appropriate

to the capacities and nature of the organisations they seek to support;

• refraining from weakening the state – because while many social movements

emerge precisely because of failures in democracy, governance and service

delivery, democratic states that are accountable to their citizens are required if the

objectives of social movements are to be achieved. aid modalities must support

the capacity of the state to make and implement policy, to regulate, to finance and

deliver public services and to deliver justice and the rule of law;

• supporting the regulation of private companies and multinationals so that they

cannot encroach on the rights of poor people;

Where donors wish to directly engage with social movements, they will need to be prepared to:

• take the risk of being seen as politically aligned on the side of the social movement

and of marginalised people;

• adapt grant giving and reporting practices and to ensure that the financial relation-

ship does not distort the social movement’s relationship with its constituency, limit

its capacity for action or impose unrealistic management practices;

• be open to the challenges that social movements will pose to dominant paradigms,

particularly market liberalisation, globalisation and patriarchy.



Note

1. dac Povnet empowerment and Pro-poor Growth: Policy Guidance note.

References

Bendana, a. (2006), “nGos and social movements: a north/south divide?”, UNRISD Civil

Society and Social Movements Programme Paper Number 22, unrisd, new york.

earle, l. (2007), “international nGos and indigenous social movements”, INTRAC Policy

Briefing Paper No. 15, international nGo training and research centre, oxford

www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/303/Briefing%20Paper%2015%20-%20INGOs%20

and%20indigenous%20social%20movements.pdf.

eyben, r. and s. ladbury (2006), Building effective states: taking a citizen’s perspective,

development research centre, ids, Brighton, www.drc-citizenship.org.

Ghimire, kléber B. (2005), The Contemporary Global Social Movements, saGe, london,

thousand oaks, ca and new delhi.

hellman, J.a. (1997), “social movements: revolution, reform and reaction, thirtieth

anniversary essay”, NACLA Report on the Americas, vol. XXX, no 6 may/June 1997.

international fund for agricultural development (ifad) (2009) Support to Farmers

Organisations in Africa Programme, 2009-2012, ifad, rome.

ifad (2007) “economic Partnership agreements between eu and acP countries: the

support of ifad, fao and nGos to involve farmers’ organisations in the negotiations”,

ifad Policy division occasional Paper, ifad, rome.

laurie, n. et al. (2002), “ethnodevelopment: social movements, creating experts and

Professionalising indigenous knowledge in ecuador”, Antipode, vol. 37, 3: 470-496.

mbilinyi, m. (2009), “land, Global crisis and marginalised women”, commonwealth

association of surveying and land economy (casle), conference on equitable access

to land in africa – the rights of women, orphans and marginalised communities, 29

June, dar es salaam.

mckie, k. (2007), “the Process of donor funding as the cause of social movement

decline: a case study of the Barabaig land rights movement in tanzania”, Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the midwest Political science association, 12 april,

chicago.

mckeon, n., m. watts and w. wolford (2004), “Peasant associations in theory and

Practice”, UNRISD Civil Society and Social Movements Programme, Paper No 8, may

2004, unrisd, new york.

mckeon, n. and c. kalafatic (2009), Strengthening Dialogue: UN Experience with Small

Farmer Organizations and Indigenous Peoples, un non-governmental liaison service,

new york.



sogge, d. and G. dutting (2010), “moving targets: notes on social movements”, working

Paper 2, hivos civil society Building knowledge Programme, the hague.

stackpool-moore, l. (2006), We are one but we are many, Panos, london.

survival international (2010), Serious Damage. Tribal peoples and large dams, survival

international, london.

Further Reading

united nations (2004), “Glossary” in “we the Peoples: civil society, the united nations

and Global Governance. report of the Panel of eminent Persons on united nations–

civil society relations. a/58/817”, united nations General assembly, 58th session,

agenda item 59, strengthening of the united nations system, 11 June, united nations,

new york.

united nations development Programme (undP) (2000), Human Development Report.

Human Rights and Human Development, undP, new york.

waldman, l. (2005), “when social movements bypass the poor: asbestos pollution,

international litigation and Griqua cultural identity”, IDS Working Paper 246, institute

of development studies, Brighton.

webster, n. (2004), “understanding the evolving diversities and originalities in rural

social movements in the age of Globalization”, UNRISD Civil Society and Social

Movements Programme Paper Number 7, unrisd, new york.

world Bank (2010), Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it yield sustainable and

equitable benefits?, world Bank, washington, dc.

Working with social movements

Documents

Transcript of Working with social movements