Hora de leer

9 minutes

Imprimir

a- a+

Leer hasta ahora

Global Mechanism: Your analysis and ideas?

12 comments

UNICEF, with Rafael Obregon (Chief, Communication for Development, UNICEF New York) leading and The Communication Initiative, through Warren Feek (Executive Director) are holding a series of consultations, to gather views, opinions and ideas on what kind of global mechanism could be helpful for supporting advancements in the scale, sustainability, relevance and influence of programmes, strategies and organisations that develop and implement initiatives rooted in communication and media development, social and behaviour change.

Background

The global development tapestry has seen the growth of a series of such mechanisms seeking to advance particular fields of work. For example, WASH for All; the Global Partnership for Education and, the Global Partnership on Violence Against Children, amongst others.

As we have reviewed these mechanisms it is clear that there are a range of differing goals and roles including:

Raising technical standards;
Advocating value and impact;
Engaging in policy debates and dialogue;
Coordinating action;
Accrediting data;
Expanding funding levels; and,
Acting as a legitimate global point of contact for policymakers, funders and other major global players in development.

What kind of mechanism - priority, strategy, structure?

The major question for the social and behaviour change, communication and media for development field of work is what kind of mechanism – focus and structure - could help to advance our field of work. Consequently, there will be 3 major themes to the consultation that we will be holding. From your perspective and experience:

What priority goals and themes would you propose as the focus of such a possible mechanism?
What strategic approach should such a possible mechanism take to work towards those goals?
How would you recommend that such a mechanism be structured and organised?

Options paper

The analysis, views and ideas expressed in this and other consultations will feed into an options paper that is being developed. That paper will be the key document for an all-interested-parties meeting to be convened in April 2017 in order to negotiate and agree a way forward.

No duplication!

One quick clarification concerning this process. There is no intention at all to replace any of the present global processes that are active on communication and media development, social and behaviour change within the Development community. The question is whether there is something missing, an important missing piece, that would help everyone.

Please do contribute through the comments process and the planned consultations. We are most happy to answer any questions. And we very much hope welcome ideas, analysis and crituque.

Warren Feek
Executive Director
The Communication Initiative
www.comminit.com

Phone - 1–250-658-6372
Cell - 1–250-588-8795
wfeek@comminit.com

Comments

Warren

Feek

Reminder re London meeting TODAY

Hi folks - just a quick reminder for all of those who are attending the London gathering today, Thursday 10th from 3pm to 5pm, to discuss the possible need for and options for a global "mechanism" in our field. The address is:

BBC Media Action, Ibex House, 42-47 Minories, London, EC3N 1DY.

You should be on a list at reception. Look forward to seeing you there and to the questions, analysis and ideas we will all share and discuss.

Any issues or questions please text me 1-250-588-8795

Plus further encouragement to please post any advance thoughts and ideas through this Group.

Thanks - Warren

Warren

Feek

Your one sentence description

Hi and many thanks to everyone who participated in the "mechanism" gathering in London on Thursday. Particular thanks to all at BBC Media Action for providing the venue. Very much look forward to seeing everyone in Geneva. Thanks to Annie and her WHO colleagues for supporting the venue. Anyone can contribute their ideas online through the comments facility at this link. (There is background information here.) Rafael and myself are planning out the next steps in the consultation process.

At the conclusion of the London meeting we went around the table and asked people present to describe in one sentence the mechanism that they would prioritise. Peter Drury has shared his sentence through this Group.

Could we please encourage everyone who was at the London gathering to start this process by doing the same? It would be excellent to share these for further dialogue and consideration by all. Simply reply to this email or click "Please review ... " below.

Of course you do not have to have been at the London gathering. All are welcome to contribute. In this way, as we go through the consultation phase, we will collectively consider, gather and review the ideas being generated.

Thanks - Warren

Warren

Feek

Reminder: Mechanism meeting - WHO - 12-30pm Thursday 17th

Hi folks - just a quick reminder for those who have confirmed that they will attend the "mechanism" consutation with Rafael and myself on Thursday, 17th November from 12-30pm to 2pm in Salle B at WHO in Geneva. We had an excellent gathering in London and look forward to repeating in Geneva. If you are not a UN staff person there should be a visitors badge waiting for you at the main reception. Very much look forward to seeing everyone there. If you have not confirmed but wish to attend please let me know.

Plus a REMINDER to those who attended the London meeting. Please send me your one sentences (plus explanations if you wish) for sharing. Thanks

Best wishes and thanks - Warren

No way that external actors ... can foster authentic transform

I have been somewhat dismayed in the past few years that (ED: HIV/AIDS related agencies highlighted) have in my view pretty much abandoned previous commitments to social and behavioural change communication, and in so doing have failed either to keep up to date or to forge ahead in evolving perspectives on the subject.

This has been acutely felt in HIV prevention where the overwhelming evidence of the past year is that HIV prevention efforts are going backwards - despite or perhaps because of the the naive faith in the impact of treatment as prevention. At the same time though, my last 3 years here in Zimbabwe have reinforced my view that donor driven SBCC is doomed to failure - there is simply no way that external actors whether bilateral or multilateral can foster authentic transformation on the ground. The solutions have to lie with much more removed and arms length mechanisms for financial support or partnership building or co-creation efforts.

In a general sense therefore I think the mechanism you and Rafael are floating is a good idea.

My inclination would be that it needs to be flavoured with notions of nudge, behavioural economics, big data and the whole new array of social media influencing techniques that advertising agencies these days get excited about. There is some good UN work in this area (and UNICEF has certainly been at the forefront of it) but too much has been inexpert and badly thought through (every month or so I see across my desk yet another proposal for a social media platform that promises to captivate Zimbabwean youth but they all rise and fall without trace).

I hope these comments are helpful and I will see if there are possibilities of my engaging with this effort more in the future.

regards,
Michael Bartos

Sue

Goldstein

Structural change such as change in gender power relations

Soul City Institute’s position on international body for social change and development communication.

SCI has been in the social change arena for 20 years and although the field has moved through the health education, behavior change, social change continuum it seems in the past few years to have moved backwards to “demand creation”. This has spurred on by a renewed focus on biomedical interventions and a move away from structural and developmental interventions. Social and behavior change organisations have been reduced to instruments that create demand for biomedical interventions. There is no acknowledgement that development is a process and needs structural change such as change in gender power relations, (tackling the issues that keep women disempowered) , social justice and policies such as alcohol policy and access to services.

At the same time there has been an influx of international agencies and NGO’s into Southern Africa and elbowing out locally based interventions. “Evidence based” interventions is used as an excuse not to support locally grown interventions when funding to build the evidence of locally based interventions is shrinking

SCI would welcome an international body which addresses these issues and collects the gaps in the evidence that show the difference the structural interventions can make. The encouragement of locally implemented and long term strategies with long term funded studies to produce the evidence is a key issue to be address.

Sue Goldstein

Soul City Institute for Social Justice

Warren

Feek

In your own words - Global Mechanism

To: Participants in the “Global Mechanism” consultations

Hi folks - I wanted to quickly address those people who have participated in one of the in-person consultations that has been held to date (there will be more!).

Can I please ask you in your own words (so not relying on any summary interpretation that Rafael and I may have of your analysis and perspectives!) to quickly submit a few paragraphs or points summarising the contributions that you made at the consultation gathering that you attended.

Either click “Please review complete …” below, scroll down, through the numerous contributions already received, to the Post Comment block, log in and submit direct OR just send to me by email reply and we will post for you.

Many thanks - this is really going to help this consultation process. It will ensure that we do not misinterpret any views expressed.

Thanks - very much appreciate everyone’s engagement - a delight to work with you all - Warren (and on behalf of Rafael)

Silvia Balit

Value, Impact, Partnership, Funding et al

Thank you for sending the backgound information on the Consultation. As I explained in the survey I filled out, I am no longer an active working member of the C4D community. Thus I can only contriubute comments based on my past experience.

With regard to your request to submit some comments on three basic points:

1. Priority Goals:

a) Advocating for the value and impact of C4D has always been a priority goal, but has never been achieved.Thus I believe it should remain a priority goal. With concrete examples of impact.

b) There has been an increase in partners, while some traditional partners have disappeared (see FAO and Unesco). There is thus a need for more coordinated action.

c) Funding has always been a problem, especially for field level activities that provide evidence of impact. But this requires funding for longer periods (at least 5 years) to see results and impact. Funding for Hq. posts is also a priority.

d) To act as a legitimate point of contact would be another important priority.

2. Strategic Approach

The global network should not duplicate or override other existing networks. They should feed into it. Which raises the question of participation and membership. How to ensure national and local participation? What about membership? Should it be open only to institutions ? And what about languages?

3. Structure

This raises the issue of staff and resources made available to the global network. Possibly regional contact points to gather and ensure regional and local participation.

Silvia

Sue

Goldstein

C4D social and structural

Dear All

I notice that some people are using C4D as a synonym for health education. C4D also implies community based action and involvement. It implies looking at structural and social barriers to change. Knowledge is only a small part of the equation.

Best

Sue

Sue Goldstein

Executive: Programmes

Soul City