Communications for Development @ UNCDF - Index

1. Usually because insufficient funds and belief that required financing could be found later

2. Many people don't consider communication as relevant

3. 1 Different and divergent understandings of what is meant by devcom creates confusion 2. Participatory development communication is relatively new: there is a lack of understanding of what PDC can do for development initiatives and the people involved 3. Program officers and senior managers in donors organizations are not familiar with PDC. The term “communication” brings the idea either of media or of dissemination, rather than nurturing and supporting the participatory development process. 4. NGOs and CBOs interested in using PDC lack the methodological tools to do so; there is few learning and capacity building programs available and the few of them are in the English language. 5. The recommendations are not very operational and do not help in advancing the agenda.

4. Because communication is still largely seen as a marginal, or “additional” issue. It isn't recognized (accepted by project funders) as a fundamental part of the development process.

5. Those in the development work now know that development itself is a communication process and could not proceed without engaging people in the process itself. That only when people know what they are now and what they could possibly be in the future will they have the willingness and motivation to work for their betterment. Development communication is an enabling mechanism or catalyst.

6. As far as the situation in Pakistan is concerned, the UN agencies are increasingly attaching importance to public outreach activities as a means to raise awareness of human development-related issues. To this end, the UN System in Pakistan recently worked out a communications strategy to present a unified image of the UN in this field. Accordingly, the agencies are making financial contributions to these activities.

7. Not easy to answer succinctly in this short space, but: For multilateral and bilateral donors because the link to the goals are not clear enough, and thus investing time and resources does not appear cost-effective. As for NGOs/CBOs they are aware of these links, but partly do not have the resources, and partly are dependent upon the above donors.

8. The impact of Communication for Development activities is not readily measurable and to some extent not fully understood by development practitioners

9. B/c not even ODA levels are being met.

10. Past experience shows there is always inadequate resources directed to communication programs due to budget constraints, changing political priorities, short-term objectives and lack of social understanding by organisations.

11. Multilateral bodies are rather sensitive to this aspect.

12. Assessing the impact of communication interventions is not easy. We have to look how the impact of communication can be measured.

13. Even though there are some efforts in having a communication component associated to projects they are not truly communication for development components. They are mainly related to information to communities on the projects and not for building communication for development approach into projects. There is need of further discussion with donors in order to get away from the perception of communications component as a mainly public relations process.

14. I believe that most donor organisations have little understanding of interaction and its importance. Economics, the dominant discipline usually departs from the assumption that the market does everything. Such market fundamentalism leaves little room for understanding communication. If one goes along with the notion of three coordination mechanisms: hierarchy, market and networking/interaction, one can easily see how donors tend to only emphasize the first two and do not have much conception of the thirds. Hierarchy and market do not rely much on communication.

15. L'importance de cette méthode d'utulisation de la communication n'est pas perçue par la plupart des acteurs de développement

16. Poor understanding of communication, an unwillingness to surrender institutional agendas (which is often necessary for participatory communication), difficulties in demonstrating impact, decentralisation leading to strategic fragmentation and generally a lack of strategic thinking and learning necessary for communication for development to make its case.

17. The implementation of the resolution may take time due to the mobilisation of resources and planning.

18. Resources mobilisation for development communication is common in the NGO sector.

19. Very often those who participate in conferences such as the UN Roundtable mentioned above are experts in communications and know the importance of communications. But those making the budgets have a completely different viewpoint on the subject or are sometime not sensitive enough to the need for supporting activities related to communication for development.

20. Hard to generalise about this as some donors - bilateral and multi-lateral are directing resources to communication but most are not at the levels urged by the UN declarations. Factors which contribute are: - varying levels of understanding on what is development communication; -difficulty with quantifying outcomes/impact of initiatives; -lack of specialised personnel within donor institutions to promote and support understanding, commitment and application of development communities approaches

21. Most institutions focus their “communication activities” mainly on public information and visibility for the institutions. There is not a clear understanding of the potential in using communication for development in support of development initiatives.

22. Because the importance and role of effective communication is still not seen to the necessary extent by multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors may it be at the governmental or non-governmental level. Also from own experiences as manager of communication projects on sustainable development I know that information and communication aspects of existing projects are not sufficient attended to.

23. Because of momentum; the validity or legitimacy of the concept; and the wish to be part of (and be seen to be part of) a worldwide movement.

24. I am sure that there is no dedicated percentage being supplied, and nor should there be. Many years ago UNDP tried to insist on such a percentage, and it was a farce; project designers just but in a few thousand dollars worth of a-v equipment that was never properly used. What is required is that the planning of every development project should include an assessment of its communication needs and the funds be made available on the basis of those needs. Projects vary tremendously in what communication resources they require, and a predetermined dedicated percentage would not be the answer.

25. I think there is formal adherence to the quantifiable process of allocating resources to communication, but the lack of a measurable ‘output' means that resources (time, human, financial) are not used fully.

26. There is a lot of confusion about what communication for development actually means, among multilateral and bilateral donors and among NGOs/CBOs. Communication for development is a highly specialised field and not realised by just printing a couple of booklets. Previous experiences might have been disappointing, as for example many HIV/AIDS education campaigns demonstrate. Last but certainly not least, communication for development is often perceived, and certainly realised, from a top-down perspective, from a content point of view (experts and ignorant consumer) and a message point of view (using the wrong kind of format).

27. The multilaterals and bilaterals have resources whereas NGOs/CBOs do not have sufficient resources to spare for communication.

28. Because we need all parties understand and involved.

29. While organisations realise that communication for development is vital in human development resources for communication exercises are not adequately channelled to do an effective job.

30. Lack of awareness and skills is a big impediment

31. I don't see much evidence of effective communication for development programmes. Perhaps it is because of a lack of skills and understanding of development processes. Traditional marketing communication and propaganda methods do not serve development purposes well.

32. AS the international model shifts and digital divide compliance

33. DevCom is usually a part of every initiative, intentionally or not.

34. Communication is simply not understood as a priority.

35. Communication, participation and ownership are intangible words whereas decision makers want to see evidence like computers, feeding centres, numbers immunized etc. Rural communities also want to see new roads, agricultural subsidies, and have perhaps had disappointing experiences with agricultural advisory services or extensionists as they are called. When you research where they get their information from its usually from friends and neighbours - so even communities, when you talk about communication and paying for information they aren't too keen either. P.S. I organized the UN Roundtable on Communication for Development and it was in Sept 2004, not Oct. Wishing you all the best in your research.

36. I wanted to answer “They're trying”. I think we have a long way to go in our own understanding of knowledge management, knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking in developing countries. Once we know more we can be more effective in our communication strategies.

37. The awareness that this needs to be done is there, but there is a lack of capacity - people need training in how to communicate to different audiences and for different purposes

38. most development officials have a technocratic, narrow and uninformed impression of how societies change and how reform takes place

39. Insufficient importance and status attached to communication

40. People are still too locked into short term project cycles and evidence of project outcomes

41. Like buzzwords it has disappeared for other fads. Its failure to justify itself as a prerequisite in each development effort might be another reason. The recognition that the impact of decision makers (eg. political and religious) outweighs the impact of communication activities contributed too.

42. In practical experiences, we find communication people are busy with repairing running trains, and they are asked to perform the best with minimum resources.

43. it is very rare to find a development program ignoring the importance of communication. However, very often, the necessary strategies, resources (human, financial) and sustainable activities are not given the attention they deserve.

44. I have no basis in saying “yes” or “no”

45. There are two problems. The first is that projects, other than those specifically concerned with communications, often lack communications specialists and do not consider communications as intrinsic to successful outcomes. The second is that where communications is a component it is too often an instrumentalist approach which sees communications as being about the project agency getting a message across rather than the use of communications by target communities as a means to build community ownership in the results.

46. The lack of the political goodwill makes the actual commitment a drop in the oceans.

47. 1- It is difficult to ‘measure' communication 2- A question of power in both the political, economic...academic world 3- Most ‘communication experts' working in the above environments are ‘producers of media products' (journos, PR people etc.) rather than ‘people who understand communication from a more holistic perspective'.

48. Je crois cela parceque, la communication pour le developpement est reconnue comme la méthode, la démarche la plus à même d'initier un développement participatif et durable; néanmoins,elle nécessite du temps, du fait qu'elle exige que l'on tienne compte de la situation de la communauté dans laquelle on intervient, qu'on tienne compte de son rythme d'évolution,etc.Toute chose qui demande du temps et beaucoup d'argent et ne débouche pas toujours sur les résultats qu'une institution est en droit d'attendre,mais qui peut être par ailleurs important pour la communauté en question.Jusque là, ce sont les ONG et les associations qui sont plus proches des populations à la base qui ont accepté de donner cette chance aux communautés d'évoluer selon leur rythme et leurs propres manières de voir leur développement.C'est aussi une question de respect des communautés et de croyance en leurs capacités de décider de leur propre développement.

49. I think that all of the manager and decision makers are not able to make more budget to communication; it is expensive to invest at support, system, materials and formation (or participation at round table ...) and it is difficult to find a sponsor to improve personal capacity Moreover, the action and result of communication are not immediately “visible” ; it is “on” and “by” the person not like the bridge or school, etc.

50. The question is not clear. I am not sure if you mean are orgs dedicating a percentage of project funds to communication or if they are increasing the resources directed toward communication. If the former, no. If the latter, I think we have seen increased attention paid to communication in recent years, but surely not since the roundtable...

51. In my experience, donors cut out the communication budget for technical assistance grants and loans before any other component, or they add it on at the very end. This is a gross generalization, but the fact remains that very few donors integrate the component in a meaningful manner.

52. I think that is a declaration. Only a declaration. When we, formulated projects that includes communication, this is the first item that get cut!! communication activities. It is necessary to change the mentality.. communication needs a budget.. we are mending in the projects...to get allowances to produce information, to accompany processes. So, still need a lot of sensibilization to donors, government, ONGs, inclusive to the rural people.. it is very difficult to explain, to make clear that communication is not use of media.. It is needed to have budgets dedicated to communication. Inclusive communication appears in the objectives.. but to concretize.. it is a long way, still.

53. People start realizing that this is the way forward for change.( be it human , social , economic..)

54. People/NGOs and donors are still thinking in terms of immediate results that are quantifiable. Communication for development is not sexy because it is a lengthy business and computing its impact is no easy task. A few donors have come to realise that without communication nothing can be achieved because the people did not get involved.

55. As communicators we have failed to communicate and promote the discipline with policy and decision makers, especially those in development institutions. We have not provided sufficient evidence of the added value of communication for development. There is insufficient understanding of the discipline, that is considered by some, particularly the economists and scientists as being fuzzy, a soft social science, unable to provide hard statistics of success, but only anecdotes of successful experiences. In some cases there is confusion with other disciplines such as corporate information, marketing, advertising and journalism. The many different terms for the discipline do not help to dispel the misunderstandings.

56. Most of the NGOs in developing countries are not funders on their own. They are only a point in the relay process of donor funding.

57. NGOs and CBOs are more advocacy oriented and therefore place a greater portion of their budgets and efforts into communication.

58. Some NGOs and individual countries are starting to give some importance to communication for development and support initiatives in this area, but it is still very little. There should be on my point of view a global interest/movement to make communication easy and affordable for all, if we are to fight poverty and underdevelopment.

59. I think that donor organisations, bilateral donors, NGOs and CBOs are increasingly becoming aware of the importance of involving communities in their own development. However, most of the organisations still have a mentality of top down implementation of development initiatives whereby outsiders ( the Organisations) decide and take leadership of implementation of development initiatives. This mentality will take some time to change, but it is gradually changing.

60. I think that communication development is beneficial for all those who work in development. so donors bi or multilaterals and NGOs must participate in budget for that domain

61. Il est important de prendre cela en compte au niveau des agences inter gouvernementales et non gouvernementales pour que ce soit un effort concerté. Si le niveau multilatéral, qui sert de locomotive, est engagé, le niveau bilatéral suivra plus facilement.

62. There is a very low level of understanding about what communication for development is and how it is crucial to achieving sustainable development

63. Two reasons -- (1) ComDev specialists and practitioners have not developed sufficiently or renewed a solid common understanding among themselves of what the discipline means and involves and where it fits in current development paradigms. (2) Donors and dev. agencies are reluctant to buy into supporting disciplines that are muddled and unconvincing on their role and distinctive contributions to the development jigsaw.

64. Until recently, I am not sure how many donor agencies are still interested in development communication activities and are willing to spend their funds in this area of human development.

65. Communication for development hasn't made an effective case that it can make a significant contribution to achieving the MDGs. It is viewed as small-scale, community-based work that does not make an impact at scale.

66. Because most organisations of this nature don't see the value of committing resources to this kind of work, and mostly undertake their communications activities as an afterthought

67. It is a bit tricky to make categorical statements here but overall few of the above organisational types view communication as fundamental to successful development initiatives. There are some striking exceptions but generally communication remains an after thought in development programmes and is largely misunderstood or ignored by key decision makers in these organisations. Too often large portions of already limited communication budgets go to corporate communication lines and departments.

68. This is my first job so I have limited knowledge in working with donors except from IDRC and FAO because they fund our project. I could see, however, that donors could give much more to development initiatives in developing countries. for example, So many donor agencies now are focused in funding ICT related initiatives so organizations who are looking for funds for more community based projects not using ICTs are not given priority.

69. There is still little recognition or conviction that comm can actually help in development.

70. More justification is required to prove that DC is a valuable tool for stimulating development and reducing global poverty

71. Most of them do not appreciate the real role communication for development plays in development. They still see it as some last minute possible solution to a difficult situation i.e., where planned action(s) have failed, they then say “maybe we need to talk to the people” “lets sell the idea to the people”. Most of these people have no confidence to approach communication for development in a systematic way. They have very little knowledge of communication for development as a process. They often think of it as production of messages and employment of technologies.

72. This is the case as it first gives credit to the contributing agencies and gives them good standing in their relationship with recipient countries. It also puts them in the limelight as helping to champion the cause of the under-developed and tackling head on the problems associated with under-development.

73. Development Communication has not yet sufficiently proved that its contribution is critical to the sustainable success of development projects. This is due to (i) a lack of knowledge and practice concerning appropriate DevCom evaluation systems and to (ii) the fact that DevCom is not generating visible results in the very short term.

74. In most cases I have seen, too little is done too late with regards to communication. Without an allotment of money and time to this from day one communication is normally considered strategically as a properly scaled component only when problems start or impact is not appearing as planned.

75. Tremendous misunderstanding about what is communication. Very limited definition in most organisations- confusion between public information and development communication. Also, difficult to measure- communicators are usually not in positions of authority to influence organisational agendas-

76. It is almost impossible to estimate the budget devoted to DevCom activities

77. Communication for Development is not regarded as an essential aspect of the programme by my implementers. Most of them think it is a waste of money and resources.

78. Most people do not incorporate Communications for Development (and please note in the UN resolution it is called Communication for Development- not DEVCOM)in project documents, but rather leave it to ‘happen'. Technical experts think they can communicate, so why have a strategy? Most people though know their technical field very well, but sometimes have a harder time communicating information and most importantly creating a DIALOGUE rather than a monologue!