In the spotlight: Lindsay Coates, InterAction

The Networker Magazine February 6, 2013 BOND

Lindsay Coates, Executive Vice President of InterAction, believes that the traditional relationship between aid giver and receiver is changing to one of partnership and support, and this means that international NGOs will need to adapt to remain relevant. What similarities and differences are there between the US and UK international development sectors? Interactions members get a large portion of financing from the American public; support that runs across the ideological spectrum. I get the sense that while there is giving in the UK context, its not to the extent as it is in the US. On the other hand, a significant asset for UK NGOs is that there is strong public-political support for international development. In the US, international development is not part of mainstream political dialogue and politicians often feel that they pay a price for engagement with these issues. Traditional aid has a place and humanitarian response is vitally important but effective long term development must be dictated by the country themselves. In the last election, two big champions of foreign assistance lost their seats, with some citing that this was due in part to their strong advocacy stance at a time when many believe that congressmen should be focussing on their constituents. UK politicians seem to have stronger accountability to their public for foreign assistance work, and therefore theres a greater commitment to it. This is a huge advantage. Ive had political staff on Capitol Hill say to me that we need to do what youre doing in terms of building advocacy support that actually reaches law-makers. Your relationship with DFID is inspiring. They are seen as a leading agency that actively engages with NGOs as partners. Were pushing for a similar relationship with USAID as there has been a languishing of US policy around engagement with NGOs.

What does the US do well? Theres a strong sense of trust in NGOs by the public that support them. Last year, a study on public views on foreign assistance found that while there was concern about money going to corrupt dictators and issues of transparency and accountability, if you told members of the public that the funds and work were being delivered through a well-known NGO their support went up dramatically.

Should we be thinking 'beyond aid'? Hans Rosling gave a brilliant TED Talk that highlighted how much of our policy is still based on the idea of first world, second world and third world, when actually this hasnt been the case for years. To go beyond aid means that we need to move to more country ownership whereby we support a developing countrys chosen path. For some countries traditional aid is going to be important but for others it might be more important to help to strengthen the health system, or explain how to partner to improve social accountability or how to improve government systemsor tax collection. It has to be a country-by-country dialogue. Traditional aid has a place and humanitarian response is vitally important but effective long term development must be dictated by the country themselves.

What does the increasing prominence of the BRICS and other emerging economies mean for 'northern' NGOs? Country ownership and building an effective civil society is critical. India is a good example of a country that needs to build and enhance its civil society and groups there are looking for partnerships and support. This is a challenge for big international NGOs because it means that they will need to devolve power to continue to be relevant. I believe in the concept of accompaniment the idea that were walking together; that were supporting the ride rather than defining the end of the journey. The boom were seeing in south-south cooperation is really instructive. Of course, there are some core responsibilities that governments and civil society need to uphold around respect for civil society space and the enabling environment for civil society, but these are broader conceptual ideas and I dont think we need to get involved in the detail of how its done.

What are your views on the post-MDGs discussions? The dialogue we have with the Obama administration is significant in terms of trying to shape the US response. There are four things I would say on which the US NGO community is in broad agreement. First, that theres a belief that the MDGs work because theyre measurable. We can argue about whether were measuring the right things or applying it in the right way but this stands out from other United Nations endeavours. Second, I think theres strong concern about addressing the issues and needs of fragile states the places where the MDGs are not being met and a desire for serious attention on how we deal with that. Third, theres strong conviction that what follows the MDGs must be married to sustainable development and climate issues. Fourth, while theres a wide range of opinion on how exactly you do this, there is strong belief that we have to get at minimum inequalities and maybe go all the way to including rightsbased approaches. Theres an intense desire for inclusive dialogue that transcends the northsouth divide.

What is the role of the US private sector in development? Theres a well-developed corporate philanthropy space in the US. In some ways its simply an extension of the fact that businesses have, for a very long time, been donors in their communities and have partnered with not-for-profits that are doing various work within the community, so its less of a politically charged issue than it might be elsewhere. We recently asked our members whether they either wanted a relationship with corporations or already had one (primarily funding and joint projects and partnership) and 75 per cent said they either were doing it or wanted to. There are strong feelings that the NGO community engages withcorporations that have agreed to certain standards of conduct and behaviour and with industries that are forward looking in their policies and practices. Theres an interesting dynamic here because the buying public has quite high expectations of how corporations should go about doing their business and that filters into whether or not NGOs engage with them.

What are your hopes for Obama's legacy in relation to development? I am extremely grateful for the Presidents leadership on Feed the Future, the US governments global hunger and food security initiative. Agriculture and food security are core to economic development, to womens empowerment, to education and health it touches on so many things. The President has a keen personal interest so Im hopeful that funding will be solidified, possibly through legislation that it doesnt currently have, and that it will receive the institutional support needed to ensure it continues. Lindsay Coates, Executive Vice President at InterAction

Originally appeared online at: http://www.bond.org.uk/pages/in-the-spotlight-lindsay-coatesinteraction.html