Advocacy and Shaping Public Opinion
on Development Issues
– the Swedish Information Grant from
a European Perspective
Diakonia • Fairtrade Sweden • Forum Syd • LO-TCO Secretariat of International Trade Union
Development Co-operation • MyRight • Plan Sweden • Save the Children Sweden • Swedish
Committee for Afghanistan • Church of Sweden • Swedish Mission Council • WeEffect
Advocacy and Shaping Public Opinion on Development Issues – the
Swedish Information Grant from a European Perspective
By Göran Eklöf, Context
Translation: Linnéa Richardson, Concord Sweden
This is a shortened version of a longer text, which also includes references to all cited
documents. The full text, in Swedish, is available at CONCORD Sweden’s website
www.concord.se
DEAR, Development Education and Awareness Raising, is the name of the EU
Commission’s grant for work with information, education and advocacy concerning
global issues and the fight against poverty. In accordance with the EU’s Policy
Coherence for Development (PCD), DEAR-funded work should be viewed in the
context of all policy areas that affect poor countries’ potential for development and
prosperity. As a result, the Commission is increasingly emphasising the importance of
highlighting the wealthy countries’ role and responsibility in creating a more equitable
world order, and mobilising greater support among people for a just and sustainable
world. The majority of work that is financed through this grant is campaign and
advocacy projects which relate to development issues.
However, in Sweden the equivalent civil society grant has evolved in the opposite
direction and the goals of the government’s strategy for Sida’s work with information
and communication for 2010-2014 are becoming more restrictive and narrow. As a
result the possibility, which Swedish organisations have had for decades, to receive
financial support for their advocacy work has been completely removed.
The European Union’s DEAR programme is part of the EU Commission’s thematic
programme for support to non-state actors’ and local authorities’ in (NSA-LA)1. One of the
programme’s priorities is to promote PCD, coherence between development policy and other
relevant policy areas such as migration, trade, security and environment.
The aims of the DEAR programme are to increase public awareness of development issues,
promote public education in order to anchor development policy in society, mobilise public
support for poverty-reducing efforts and fairer relationships between industrialised countries
and developing countries, and to change attitudes towards the challenges and problems
developing countries and their populations are facing.
One third of the DEAR grant is earmarked for campaigns and advocacy work (however, that
share even amounted to 58 % in 2012). These projects aim to achieve changes in behaviour
on the individual or collective level, or changes in institutional and corporate policies. They
facilitate and support informed citizens’ engagement and advocacy for more just and
sustainable policies, political and economic structures, and individual practices. Project
activities can be targeted towards the public, but also towards authorities or political and
economic decision-makers on a local, national and international level.
The strong emphasis on the organisations’ advocacy work and shaping of public opinion
followed as a result of the independent review of DEAR that the European Commission
conducted in 2010. The study suggested that supporting citizens’ active involvement in
initiatives aiming to eradicate poverty and promote justice and human rights should be one of
the overarching goals of the programme. An extensive dialogue about the Commission’s
engagement with civil society and local authorities in development commenced the same
1
Non-state actors and local authorities in development.
2
year. One conclusion was that the Commission and the Member States should be better at
utilising civil society’s role in educating the public, mobilising citizens and advocating for
sustainable international policies and global public goods. Civil society organisations were
subsequently encouraged to further strengthen their roles in creating public opinion and
acting as watchdogs of development plans and aid flows.
The Commission’s latest communication on its engagement with civil society in external
relations states that organisations will continue to receive support in order to monitor policy
coherence and hold aid donors accountable. The directions for DEAR in the coming seven
years, which the Commission has presented, also continues to emphasise policy coherence
issues and the role of civil society as advocates and watchdogs towards decision-makers.
The Direction of DEAR in a Few “Like-Minded” Countries
The domestic civil society’s work with public information, public opinion and advocacy on
development issues has been an important part of development co-operation for decades, in
the countries like Sweden, which have encouraged civil society’s active engagement in
development issues. In Denmark, Norway and the UK, the attitude towards the question of
government support for the organisations’ DEAR projects has varied considerably during the
past couple of years as a result of shifting political majorities. Yet in none of these countries
has any government, regardless of its political orientation, taken a position that is as
restrictive as that which has been applied in Sweden since 2010.
Norway, while outside of the EU, applies the principles of the EU’s DEAR programme to an
even greater extent than the Commission itself. This is especially the case in terms of Policy
Coherence for Development and the need to get states, private sector, and individuals to
make decisions that contribute to creating better conditions for vulnerable people living in
poverty. Norwegian development policy focuses on climate change, conflicts and
unregulated financial flows, all of which undermine the efforts made in order to reduce
poverty. Development policy should challenge the inequitable balance of power within and
between countries and relationships that contribute to injustices, oppression and
discrimination, on all levels.
The aid agency Norad’s support for civil society’s work with DEAR aims to contribute to
creating debate about the North-South relationship and development issues. A broader
perspective on development should be at the core of the work. The organisations are
expected to set the agenda for, and participate in, the public debate on the issues that are at
the center of the government’s development policy. They are also expected to contribute with
critical and analytical perspectives, and to highlight underlying causes and development
trends. The support should also contribute to enabling civil society to critically examine the
Norwegian authorities’ policies and be a driving force and a watchdog for decision-making
processes concerning development politics.
The power shift after the election in September 2013 is likely to lead to changes in the
Norwegian development policy, but as of the end of October it is still unclear as to how the
policy will change.
In Denmark, the aid agency Danida allocates support to the civil society’s work with public
information both as a percentage of all programme support to organisations with framework
agreements, and through a special information grant – Oplysningsbevillingen – to which the
organisations can apply for funds. The funding from Oplysningsbevillingen should be used to
build public opinion in Denmark by informing the public not only about conditions in the
developing countries and the development cooperation, but also on issues that concern the
relations between developing countries and the industrialised world. People should be
encouraged to take a stand and to act. Information grants that are allocated from the
3
programme support to the main organisations may not be used for purely domestic political
campaigns. However, as long as the work builds on the knowledge and experience of the
Danish organisations’ development co-operation, they are free to use the funds for
campaigns, even on politically controversial issues.
In 2006 the conservative government cut the funding for DEAR by 50 percent, but there were
no additional restrictions on the use of the funds. More recently the Social Democratic
government has turned the tide, and in 2013 the information grant was back to the same
nominal level as in 2005.
In the UK, the government financing for DEAR has also been heavily affected by political
power shifts. The Labour party made a major investment in the programme Building Support
for Development in 1997, which in 10 years received more that £ 116 million from the aid
agency DfID. The change of government after the 2010 election meant an abrupt change.
Cameron’s Liberal-Conservative coalition closed down several DEAR programmes almost
immediately and started to phase out most of the remaining ones.
However, the motives for, and the process behind, the UK’s drastic cuts differ radically from
the development which has been seen in Sweden. A review of Building Support for
Development that the Labour government conducted in 2009 concluded that it was difficult to
determine whether the programme had had any effect on citizens’ understanding of
development issues or of poor people’s conditions. In a new study, commissioned by the
Cameron government in 2011, the evaluators still say that they are convinced that the efforts
to raise awareness about development issues in the UK had contributed to reducing global
poverty. It would therefore be legitimate for DfID to continue to fund both the government’s
and the organisations’ public information efforts within the country. The government did not
share this conviction, and decided to stop the funding for most of the programmes.
Oh, DEAR…! The Development of the Swedish Information Grant
For many years, Sida has allocated grants to Swedish organisations to inform the public
about development issues. There has been a clear division of labour between Sida, whose
main task has been to inform the public about the implementation and the results of Swedish
ODA, and the civil society organisations’ role in shaping public opinion and working with
advocacy. For example, in Sida’s 2004 instructions for the information grant, prioritised target
groups included policy-makers, politicians, decision-makers and shapers of public opinion.
Advocacy work and efforts to increase public knowledge have been viewed as equally
important and mutually beneficial.
The situation changed radically in the autumn of 2009 when the government presented their
new strategy for the work with information and communication financed by Sida. At the time,
Sida had suggested that the information grants should contribute to an equitable and
sustainable development, in accordance with the Swedish PDC, Policy for Global
Development (PGU). According to the goals for Swedish development co-operation, it
should also contribute to creating conditions for poor people to improve their living
conditions2. However, Sida’s position was completely ignored, and civil society did not have
any opportunity to influence the strategy either.
It follows from the new strategy the organisations’ work with advocacy and shaping public
opinion no longer fits the information grant’s requirements. The strategy also does not
differentiate between the roles of Sida and those of civil society, with the result that the
organisations are reduced to being implementers of the government’s strategy.
2
Förslag till strategi för Sidas informationsverksamhet 2009-2013. Sida, 12 november 2008.
4
The strategy’s goal is for the public to have a “good knowledge of the situation in developing
countries, Swedish aid and its results, as well as issues concerning the driving forces for
development in developing countries”.3 Here, every ambition that the information itself should
contribute to results in the form of equity, sustainable development and better living
conditions has been removed. To increase the knowledge of development issues has
become a goal in and of itself. The strategy also does not address the issues of international
economic and political power relations, investment decisions or consumption patterns that
affect the poor countries’ development. The strategy is thus in contradiction to the
government’s own policy for support to civil society, which states that the support should
contribute to achieving the goal for international development efforts which is to create
conditions for poor people to improve their living conditions4.
Sida’s instructions for the grants for Swedish organisations’ work with information and
communication in Sweden, which was adopted in 2010, was built on the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs’ strategy, but was more nuanced in several aspects. Two years later, the instructions
were revised in a way that significantly reduced the organisations’ freedom to determine for
themselves how to maximise the effects of using these grants. The following, entirely new
and absolute constraints were introduced:
The grant may not be used for shaping public opinion by taking a stand for one side or
the other in a party politically controversial issue and with the aim to influence the
parliament or the government. The grant may only be used for activities which, in an
objective manner, contribute to increasing knowledge in accordance with the strategy’s
goals5.
The way the instructions are now applied means that the grant cannot be used to mobilise
public opinion for change, and that decision-makers may not be included as a target group
for the information.
It should be fairly obvious that the limitation has been put in place for purely domestic
political reasons, and is not in any way based on the PGU’s (Sweden’s Policy for Global
Development) perspectives of putting the interests and rights of poor people’s in the
foreground. As a basis for the government’s position, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to
the bill proposed by the government, Offentlig förvaltning för demokrati, delaktighet och
tillväxt, (Public Administration for Democracy, Inclusion and Growth) which states that
government agencies should not shape public opinion with the purpose of influencing the
parliament or the government. However, the bill does not address the issue of whether or not
interest groups should be able to receive support from the state for shaping public opinion in
such a manner.
The implementation of the strategy was reviewed in 2012 by the (now closed) independent
agency for the evaluation of development co-operation, SADEV. According to the evaluators,
the strategy is seen by most of the parties involved as inadequate, which makes it hard to
implement in a meaningful way. The new strategy’s goal is described as “immeasurable” and
the strategy does not offer guidance as to what kinds of effects the implementation is
supposed to have. SADEV recommends that a new evaluation is conducted when more
projects have been concluded, and that a new strategy is developed where – amongst other
3
Strategi för informations och kommunikationsverksamhet, inklusive genom organisationer i det civila
samhället 2010-2014. Utrikesdepartementet 2009-09-10.
4
Pluralism. Policy for Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries within Swedish International
Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2009-09-10.
5
Sidas instruktion för bidrag till svenska civilsamhällesorganisationers informations- och
kommunikationsarbete i Sverige. Juni 2010 (reviderad juni 2012). Sida. (Emphasis added by the
author.)
5
things – goals and targets need to be more adapted to the respective roles of Sida and the
civil society organisations’,6.
In its budget proposal from September 2013, the government announces that the strategy for
information and communication will be revised during 2014. The connection to the
overarching goal of development co-operation will be strengthened, and the strategy should
enable increased accountability and transparency, both in the recipient countries and in
Sweden. However, the issue of support to civil society organisations for advocacy is not
mentioned in the budget proposal7.
The Swedish Strategy from an International Perspective
In summary, the changes that the government has implemented since 2010 mean that the
Swedish state’s support for civil society’s work with information and communication on
development issues deviates on several important counts from the consensus and the
practices that have been developed within the EU and among our neighbouring countries:
1. For the first time, a political limitation has been introduced on the issues on which
recipients of Sida’s information grant are allowed to influence public opinion. The reductions
of the information grants that were carried out earlier in Denmark, and more recently in the
UK, have not been accompanied by any similar form of political interference.
2. The information and communications strategy allows information about Swedish aid and
issues that concern “the driving forces for development in developing countries” to be
included, but not about other factors which affect development positively or negatively. This
is in sharp contrast to the spirit and letter of the Swedish PGU (Policy for Global
Development) and the EU’s Policy Coherence for Development, both of which emphasise the
need for coherent policies in all political areas.
3. The EU’s, Norway’s and Denmark’s DEAR programmes are built on the understanding
that influencing public opinion in a way that affects political decisions, companies’
investments and individuals’ personal behaviour can have direct and positive effects for
people living in poverty. This is, in its own way, also the guiding principle for the UK’s
strategy. Yet in the Swedish strategy there is no intention that the work with public
information should lead to any such results for these people.
4. The government’s new strategy makes no distinction between the respective roles of Sida
and of civil society, instead it reduces the organisations to implementers of Sida’s work with
public information. Not allowing the organisations to engage in advocacy with Sida funding is
in contradiction to the central commitment to support civil society organisations as
independent actors of development that Sweden, along with the international donor
community, established in Accra in 2008 and confirmed in Busan in 2011. It also limits what
the organisations can use their own funding for, since the organisations’ own financial
contribution of 10 % of Sida-financed projects must also contribute to the goals described in
the government’s strategy.
6
Strategi för information och kommunikation – genomförande och effekter av verksamhet finansierad
via Sida. Sadev Report 2012:2.
7
Prop. 2013/14:1, bilaga Utgiftsområde 7: Internationellt bistånd.
6
CONCORD Sweden’s Recommendations to the Government, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and Sida for the Next Review of the Information and
Communication Strategy
1. The government and Sida should see the strategy and the instructions for the work
with information and communication as a part of the implementation of the Policy for
Global Development (PGU). The civil society has an important role in proving and creating
debate about the conflicting goals that exist in Swedish politics in relation to the Policy for
Global Development (PGU). Through advocacy work and shaping public opinion, the civil
society organisations do not just demonstrate Sweden’s role in and responsibility towards a
more just world order, but also increase people’s active engagement to an equitable and
sustainable world. This is in line with the European Commission’s DEAR programme that
emphasises civil society’s role in monitoring policy coherence and holding aid donors
accountable.
2. The government should ensure that the information and communication strategy
corresponds with the government’s policy for support to the civil society, which takes
precedence over the strategy. In line with this policy, the new strategy must not only
promote increased accountability in the recipient countries and in Sweden, but also enable
civil society to carry out advocacy work and shape public opinion concerning development
issues both in the recipient countries and in Sweden.
3. Swedish civil society organisations should be given the opportunity to influence the
next Information and Communication strategy and related instructions. This is in
accordance with Sweden’s commitments to create more transparency and better channels
for the civil society’s participation in shaping policy, within the framework of Open
Government Partnership.
7