What are the key challenges for you as the new AIN Chair? And what are the opportunities?
Adhikary:There are several. To start with, fulfilling the expectations of members itself is a challenge. For example, there are several issues with Social Welfare Council (SWC) alone. We are trying our best to address them. But our efforts alone is not sufficient. We need support and cooperation of external actors. The current unstable and flunews_id political context and constantly-changing bureaucracy makes it more difficult. Relationship between the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare (MoWCSW) and SWC is making our work difficult as well. Also, managing my time between my organization's work and that of AIN has been a challenge. To be honestâ€â€the sheer volume of work I have to undertake as Chair has been beyond my anticipation.
To talk about the opportunities, we have committed Steering Committee members, who want to make a good contribution. But they also have limitations, i.e., managing the time for AIN amnews_idst the organization priorities they have.
Another opportunity is that the bureaucracy, including the SWC, recognizes the role and contributions of INGOs, and is willing to listen and cooperate with us. INGOs have been recognized as a key player in Foreign Anews_id Policy (FAP) and three-year plan of National Planning Commission (NPC).
What are your priorities for the future?
Adhikary:Our priorities are to ensure that SWC is able to provnews_ide services required by our members efficiently and without any hassle; that we are able to positively influence donors and government with regard to the FAP and building positive and mutually-beneficial relations with civil society organizations including the media.
Regarding the latter, our position is that all the projects should not be lumped into one category, requiring all projects to get consensus of District Development Committee (DDC) as projects are of diverse nature. For example, humanitarian and volunteer work should not require the consensus of DDC.
There are some internal priorities as well. Review and successful implementation of our Strategic Plan for 2011-13 is one. In the Plan, we need to include undertaking discourse on federalism and its implication for INGOs, as the country has already decnews_ided to go for federalism. We also need to promote diversity and transparency within AIN membership and promote AIN member's contribution in the development process of
Last but not the least, we need to change the way INGOs are perceived and treated in this country. We are putting our efforts in that direction mainly through implementation of our Communication Strategy.
There was a somewhat heated story in one of the dailies recently about INGOs paying for the monitoring and evaluation of their programs.
Adhikary:Current practice is that INGOs have to build in the cost of M&E by the SWC. This may not be in line with good governance approach, but has been in practice as the budget provnews_ided to SWC by the government is very limited.
Ministry of Finance and MoWCSW are aware of this. Together with them, AIN will need to find a way out. One alternative could be that SWC carries out only broad governance review of the INGOs as per the general agreement. The project monitoring can be arranged by the donor and the government, where SWC representative will be invited to participate.
We are in dialogue with the donors, SWC and MOWCSW and MoF on this. As the new Social Development Act is coming up, perhaps this should be addressed in there.
Since some time back, AIN seems to have become more vocal, assertive and open. This is radical shift from the past when the approach seemed to be guarded and to remain low profile. It is as if INGOs are finally beginning to claim their stake. What led to such a big shift?
Adhikary:The Strategic Plan provnews_ided the direction with priority towards INGO image building. The challenge was to develop a strategy and the Steering Committee that was elected in 2009 picked this up. The major reason behind this shift is about changing people's perception by engaging with the media and by informing wnews_idely about the INGO contribution in the development process of Nepal.
But INGOs are not perceived totally as a responsible development partner. Do you think this just a misconception or there are some factual bases?
Adhikary:I think this perception is arising out of our media shyness. This is largely a communication problem. We have also realized that other stakeholders do not talk very highly of us as we also have not communicated with them properly.
Some also might feel that projects run by INGOs have given less tangible benefit. Another reason could also be that INGOs today tend to go more for softer approach of advocacy and rights than service delivery.
But basically, I see it as a communication problem. I don't think that we have been able to convince others of our role and contributions very much.
Adhikary:It might changeâ€â€if situation got worseâ€â€we might have to move to a humanitarian response agency or some of us might have to advocate for peace and stability with appropriate support.
Another issue is federalism. But I don't think our roles as such will change fundamentally, after the country goes to the federal set up. However, we will have to work in a decentralized and devolved set up, and that can be a challenge for many of us. But it could also be opportunity for many of our members who already have the experience of working in a federal set up. Some could even provnews_ide technical support during the transitional phase of federal process. Our members can be partners in implementing development programs under the federal setting.