CUSO Coalition Study - Bob Thomson - June 16, 19931. Introduction
2. Findings
Definitions
Criteria
Benefits
Decision Making
3. Recommendations
Appendices
1. Introduction Back to top
CUSO commissioned Bob Thomson to undertake a review of its work with coalitions as a part of the process of further clarifying and defining its programme guidelines and the interpretation of the alliance building component of CUSO's Mission Statement.
The goal of this study has been defined as:
- to review globally CUSO's work in and with coalitions and to report to the organization on the findings;
- to assist partners, Board, staff and volunteers to better understand the totality of this work in the context of achieving our mission, and to facilitate improved, more strategic work in coalitions.CUSO's Mission Statement states: "CUSO is a Canadian organization which supports alliances for global social justice. We work with people striving for freedom, self-determination, gender equality, and cultural survival. We achieve our goals by sharing information, human and material resources, and by promoting policies for developing global sustainability."
Central to this mission then, is the building of alliances, and a major tool in this building is coalition work. This study of CUSO's coalition work is part of an ongoing, participatory and dialectic process of defining CUSO's specific goals and objectives and of evaluating programmes and activities against those goals and objectives, including their revision/refining as necessary over time. Other components in this process are: the large project evaluation, phase II of the inter-regional programming review, the Gender and Development Action Plan and the further clarification and development of the Board Programme Guidelines and Strategy implementation.
An initial inventory shows that CUSO is involved in some 25 national coalitions, 36 provincial coalitions, 38 overseas coalitions and 28 inter-regional programmes or linkage projects. (See Appendix B for a list of this work.) From only fifteen (of 40) questionnaires returned, CUSO resources allocated to coalition work, including staff time and direct funding, amounted to approximately $200,000 last year. These coalition relationships involve several categories of work, from advocacy, to information exchange, to education, to funding, to joint programming, etc., and are characterized by many "styles" or structures.
Dr. Bud Hall, in a study of NGO networks carried out for CIDA's INGO Division in October 1992, noted that networks represent a wide variety of methods of cooperation between people and organizations, tend to be non-bureaucratic and flexible (although not always) and preserve the autonomy of their members. He points out that: open, horizontal and democratic networks work best; networks are influenced by culture, language, race, class, ability and gender; clarity and focus strengthens networks; coordination or animation is critical and activity and communication keeps networks alive.
The negotiations, delays and stresses inherent in building alliances and networks can produce a whole greater than the sum of the parts, but there are costs which each party should be aware of and balance in assessing their participation. His findings are born out by the findings of this study for CUSO.
NGO evaluations of coalition work in general show many reasons why this approach has grown very popular in the past decade. Surveys indicate that NGOs join coalitions because they enhance capacity, increase political clout, allow smaller organizations to work in areas they couldn't otherwise, increase efficiency of resource use, provide access to information, etc., etc. However, they also involve a lot of work and compromise, delays in reaching consensus, lack of clarity of legal accountability and liability, and questioning about whether the result is the lowest common denominator or a synergy which makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
Some of the issues to be explored in this study will include: effectiveness, inter-organizational relationships, financial obligations, legal obligations and accountability. An awareness of these issues should help CUSO to define the nature of its coalition work, the benefits and the problems inherent in this work and, through this process, contribute to the setting of priorities for the allocation of human and financial resources to CUSO's coalition work.
In the course of the study, it became apparent that, only as CUSO arrives at greater consensus on overall Board programme guidelines, will its capacity to develop specific criteria and priorities for coalition work. It is not recommended that this study be seen as a 'how to' guide for coalition work, but rather as a pointer to issues and criteria to watch for and apply in the context of each specific coalition.
We hope through this study, to "quantify" some of these elements to begin to form some appreciation of the balance between "lowest common denominator" and "synergy" that exists in the coalition work in which CUSO is involved, to identify some criteria which can help us decide how to tip that balance towards "synergy" in meeting CUSO's strategic goals and to help set priorities in resource allocation.
The study has used three means of gathering material: interviews, returns from a questionnaire circulated to CUSO staff and a review of documents. A list of documents consulted for this study are attached as Appendix A. Several meetings were held with a reference group comprised of John van Mossel, Brian Tomlinson and David Haslett.
a. History/Context Back to top
This study occurs in a context in which CUSO is reviewing the totality of its work and clarifying the implications of its new mission statement. The Board Programme Guidelines appear to have become the main focus of this review, as well as the main 'vehicle' for the incorporation of changes into CUSO's work in Canada and overseas.
There appear to be two principle interpretations of the direction these changes in CUSO programming should take. One is a more specifically 'political' approach, which envisions the complete integration of CUSO's work into the Canadian and global social justice movements. The other is less political and more 'technical' in its definition of 'development', and sees the new direction as just a revision of CUSO's recruitment and fundraising base from the general public and professional circles to 'popular organizations' such as the environment, womens and indigenous movements. These two interpretations are not necessarily in contradiction, but represent different approaches to CUSO's redefinition of its work.
They involve differences in both style and political approaches to development work. There are areas of substantial agreement, but also significant differences on the degree of 'politicization' necessary. In part they are differences over tactics, but there also exist more profound differences over politics and strategy. Into this rich mix one must also add Canadian regional and personal perspectives. In brief, one could say that CUSO itself is a coalition in the process of clarifying and negotiating the commonly held goals, objectives and criteria of its constituent parts or membership.
As such, an analogy comparing CUSO's internal processes with the process of defining, prioritizing and learning lessons from 'external' coalition work may be useful for the clarification of internal CUSO guidelines. An effective coalition process, whereby objectives are clarified, each member's perspectives and expectations understood, and the sharing of resources and tasks negotiated, is in many ways as relevant to CUSO's internal decision making as it is to CUSO's deliberations on participation in this or that CCIC working group.
Of course there exist structural mechanisms and relationships within a single organization such as CUSO which limit the application of this analogy. CUSO's approach to other coalitions however will depend on its own internal process and the negotiation of commitments to others in a coherent way by all parts of the organization.
b. Definitions Back to top
Several respondents to the questionnaire distributed to CUSO staff attempted definitions of coalitions. One distinguished between coalitions and networks, noting coalitions are task oriented, more formal and have clear agendas, and networks are more loosely formed and work around a wide range of common interests and the sharing of information. Another respondent saw coalitions as short-term and task oriented, while networks are more defined and longer term than coalitions, and alliances are yet a further but deeper and longer standing form of relationship. One interviewee was quite insistent that coalitions must be very task oriented and therefore time limited.
Dr. Hall identified four main types of network structure: star, family-tree, spider-web and fishing-net networks, each with their own characteristics. Most material reviewed for this CUSO study and in the CCIC Coalitions Study looked at the structure of coalitions, rather than at the flows of information and communications that figure prominently in network analysis. Thus formality vs informality, and legal incorporation, accountability and liability of NGO membership and representatives, were major concerns.
In practice, the identification, analysis and definition of both communications and structure are important for the success of coalition work. Semantic differences about networks, coalitions or alliances aside, the fundamental question here is one of relationships, and as Dr. Hall noted, "clarity and focus strengthens networks".
Many attempts to define coalitions, networks and alliances are essentially semantics, and the main point for many respondents was the necessity of defining the nature and time frame of commitments in any given relationship, whether it is called a "coalition", or "network" or "alliance" or even (to confuse things more) "partnership".
Several interviewees with much experience in coalition work stressed that coalition work is about changing the political culture, is a long term process and is very NEW. Jai Sen, in a report on a 1989 networking workshop in India noted that: "A basic task of international networks is to attempt a creative translation and presentation of historic and emerging global realities and changes, at local levels and in terms of vernacular perceptions; and local, vernacular perceptions, ideas and initiatives at the global level. This is fundamentally and primarily a CULTURAL task."
He also notes: "There is a tendency especially in international/ global networks, towards fragmented, over specialized focus and objectives, as a consequence of the fragmentation of life in the North and the reality that most such networks are located there and their agenda set by them." Inherent in these attempts to define coalition work are efforts to find practical, structural forms which can give expression to an emerging consensus that development must integrate many perspectives and factors. This consensus embodies a major paradigm shift in the definition of development from the technical to the cultural.
Our efforts at coalition work often involve a fundamental clash between our 'western', task oriented organizational models and the cultural and spiritual integrity we have witnessed in our Third World programmes and are trying to import into our northern daily lives.
Despite the lack of clearly agreed upon definitions and the need to focus on relations, as opposed to structure and form, there appeared to be some consensus that networks are more informal, coalitions are time limited and task oriented, and alliances are longer-term and deeper partnerships.
c. Criteria Back to top
The study found that there is an almost universal consensus in CUSO that the first criteria of involvement in coalition work must be greater clarity of objectives. This is a clear response to a felt need for clarity in the 'muddy waters' of coalition politics, or more profoundly, for clarity in the face of our growing awareness of the enormous complexity of human development.
What the benefits of the coalition are for each participant, what each brings to the work and what each expects in return should be clear from the beginning. Without this clarity, no balance can be struck between the time and resources invested and the benefits for each participant. If this is clear, then another criteria frequently mentioned, that of indicators for evaluation, will be more easily met.
Recommendation: Before CUSO commits significant resources in either staff time or funding to a coalition activity, there should be considerable clarity of objectives, expectations and commitment to the provision of specific resources on the part of a majority of coalition participants. In the absence of such clarity, there should be a definite process and agreement on the necessity for arriving at this clarity.
Complementarity with CUSO's objectives and programmes was another criteria frequently mentioned in both questionnaires and interviews. In some cases, people felt CUSO got involved in too many coalitions, without a focus on its own objectives. This might be a product of either the breadth of CUSO's geographic and sectoral programming, or the fact that, as one of Canada's largest NGOs, the infrastructure and resources are there to act in many places.
Others felt that CUSO's own goals and objectives are not clear or specific enough to act as guidelines for the setting of priorities for coalition work. This could be the product of the actual goals and objectives, or an organizational structure which is diffuse and lacks sufficient focus to allow effective co-ordination of regional, departmental or even individual criteria.
Recommendation: Prior to making commitments to a specific coalition activity, there must be some reasonably objective and participatory check of the consistency of the work with CUSO objectives.
Clear decision making structures, for both CUSO and within coalitions, which permit them to undertake activities on the basis of specific resources and commitments from participants in a fixed time frame, were also judged an important criteria for CUSO membership in a coalition.
Comments in this area came from CUSO respondents based on negative experiences with Programme Angola and other coalitions, where administration and structures were not clear, and from non-CUSO respondents based on delays in decision making by CUSO, and difficulties identifying who and where organizational responsibilities and authority for funding decisions lay. The matter of appropriate decision making structures within CUSO is discussed later in this report.
A note of caution: care should be taken to distinguish between ineffective decision making based on inappropriate administrative structures, and problems caused by lack of agreement or clarity about objectives and priorities which have political and not structural roots. It is all too often easier to blame structures (and sometimes staff) for weaknesses, rather than to openly name specific political obstacles or differences. In the case of Programme Angola, comments made in the CCIC Coalitions Study would lead one to believe that ineffective administration resulted, at least in part, from a lack of direction resulting from the lack of agreement on objectives by participants. It seems markedly different approaches to the coalition were glossed over by participants because of the prospect of funding for their own work and a reluctance to say so for fear of loosing this funding. Several respondents implied that a similar situation was the basis for problems with the Indonesia Canada Forum.
A frequent question about coalition work seems to be whether it represents a step forward and the creation of a synergy which make the whole greater than the parts, or whether it merely forces participants to work based on the lowest common denominator. The creation of synergy rather than a frustrating even debilitating search for consensus was mentioned by several respondents as a criteria for CUSO participation in a coalition.
Clarity of objectives, expectations and commitment of resources are the key to the creation of synergy. If one assumes agreement on priorities, or at least commitment to an open process of reaching agreement over a specific time, then consensus will be seen as a desirable, if difficult, goal, rather than a draining experience to be avoided or entered into half heartedly. Without agreed upon priorities, decisions will never come easily or effectively, irrespective of structures or administration. This is particularly crucial when a major factor in a coalition's work is to make more effective use of scarce resources.
Recommendation: Coalition work must incorporate some form of monitoring of quantifiable programme targets and financial reporting which provides a degree of accountability commensurate with the level of CUSO resources invested in the coalition.
Coalitions however seem to be doomed to ineffectiveness if access to scarce resources is the only or the major rationale for their existence. This appears to be the major reason for dissatisfaction with Programme Angola and the Indonesia Canada Forum. The participants apparently only came together because they were offered extra funding, not because there were programmes or objectives that they truly shared in common. Money alone is not a good criteria.
Recommendation: Coalition work must incorporate some form of regular check-in or more formal evaluation and renegotiation of coalition objectives, expectations and resource commitments
d. Benefits Back to top
Respondents were almost unanimous that CUSO brings to coalition work an international and national network of offices, staff, resources, experience, skills, communications, infrastructure, information, etc. Both internal and external respondents mentioned CUSO's ability to bring the international context and experience to coalition discussions, to help make the slogan "think globally, act locally" come to reality. CUSO is not unique in this since other NGOs have similar capacities, but it does have a breadth of geographic and sectoral coverage which is not usually found in one organization. This is more important in coalitions with a Canadian agenda than in those which have an overseas programme focus, since other participants in the latter are likely to have similar backgrounds.
Several CUSO interviewees provided a 'definition' of CUSO's role in coalition work as an effort to relate local, Canadian issues to the international context. For example, in presentations to public enquiries, CUSO Saskatchewan has drawn parallels between Canadian mining and logging activities to the Bruntland Commission's questioning of the dominant economic growth model and has quoted Amnesty International's reporting on third world indigenous rights while discussing coercive development models in northern Canada.
To have local offices and therefore actors on the ground who can carry out local activities is a great advantage in Canada, where regional realities, culture and perceptions vary considerably. To be able to back up local action with national research and policy support is also unique. (Note: Many respondents mentioned an important caveat to this potential and this is discussed below in the section of this report on CUSO's decision making process, especially with respect to inter-regional programming and strategic planning.)
Other respondents mentioned many 'generic' benefits of coalition work such as the fact that it: breaks isolation and challenges old ways, provides a forum for cross fertilization of experiences and ideas, provides credibility through joint action, analysis and advocacy, permits economies of scale unavailable to individual organizations and access to information/research that might not otherwise be available.
Recommendation: Coalition work is very sensitive to many relationships, both interpersonal and organizational, objective and subjective. Gender, class, race, language, culture, power, ability, etc. all play roles and must be considered and balanced if the coalition relationship is to be effective.
Measurement of the 'generic' benefits of coalitions is not easy. However, qualitative comments made in many of the documents reviewed for this study and provided to the consultant in independent evaluations of Canadian ecumenical work indicate that there is a considerable body of positive 'subjective' opinion on these benefits, which must reflect the existence of a solid 'objective' expectation of positive results.
The CCIC Study of coalitions, while not attempting a measurement of the concrete benefits of coalition work, did suggest some possible indicators for undertaking such measurements. For example, the quantity of programme dollars per NGO staff within and without coalition support could provide a quantitative test for the costs-benefits of staff time spent on coalition work. To cover the qualitative impact of coalition work on programmes, each participant would have to analyse the degree of congruence of a coalition's contribution to its own objectives. They would have make value judgements about whether such factors as approval time, new, creative approaches, greater interdependence, deeper partnerships, more process vs projects, decisions taken closer to the location of projects and other issues make a particular coalition more valuable for their work or not.
e. Decision Making Back to top
Decision making was identified as a major problem area in CUSO's coalition work by both internal and external respondents.
The lack of a forum and process for the discussion of inter-regional work and for setting and monitoring priorities in a common programme was mentioned most frequently as a significant obstacle to the effective utilization of CUSO's strongest asset in coalition work, its network of international and national offices.
A corollary of this was a perceived lack of clarity around who decides what or has authority to make resource commitments to coalitions on behalf of CUSO.
While beyond the scope of this study, the refining of the process of internal decision making is a major element in an effective CUSO response to many coalitions, and to the effective utilization of CUSO's infrastructure and network for BOTH coalition and internal programmes. If one returns to the analogy of CUSO as a coalition itself, one might be able to apply some of the criteria and experiences of coalition work to CUSO's own programming.
One major element of a decision making process in this context is the Canadian regional 'question'. Canada IS a regional country with distinct regional perceptions, cultures and priorities. One can't always refer/defer to Ottawa and maintain local credibility because of prevailing regional attitudes to 'Central Canada', and one can have no truly national action without local actors. There appears to be a regional recognition in CUSO however that local or regional effectiveness is reduced without national scale resources, such as research and specialized sectoral support.
CUSO is a decentralized organization and this is reflected in its allocation of resources to regional and international "centres" and to its national Secretariat. This decentralized structure makes the coordination of national coalition work more complex if regional resources are to be brought to bear on national issues.
External coalition partners, and even CUSO staff and volunteers, are sometimes not aware of the implications of this decentralized facet of CUSO's structure and have expectations of national action and/or finanical resources which require greater discussion and longer processes for consensus. It is in this context that a number of respondents remarked that CUSO has the potential, as opposed to a substantive demonstrated capacity, to bring a national and international network of offices and human resources to coalition work.
A process or structure which permits greater flows of information and communications about action/analysis at both local and national levels, not for power but for co-ordination, is essential for effective programming in the complex world of social justice which CUSO has identified as its 'new' mission. For this to happen, agreement on objectives and strategy must exist, and for this agreement to be reached, trust based on increased information, communications and shared experiences must also exist. This is a dialectical process, or 'chicken and egg' situation, which is not unique to CUSO but common to all coalition work.
Continuity of representation was mentioned several times as important to effective decision making in coalitions. Continuity is important in the building of personal as well as organizational relations and for the maintenance of clarity around organizational commitments to coalition work. This must of course be balanced with the sharing of 'ownership' of coalition work within an organization, since this too affects effective participation. The key is to monitor this factor and to ensure that personal and organizational understandings of the specific coalition work are not in conflict and are inadequately co-ordinated.
Some respondents noted that effective national participation in Canadian social justice work will require a greater degree of analysis of both the national and regional 'political' contexts in which CUSO works, for example in identifying strategic Canadian partners for coalition work. The skills required for this type of analysis are different from those required to recruit co-operants or to fundraise for individual projects.
In an even more global sense, leadership skills are needed to facilitate the process of consensus building, whereby analysis and operational capacity are merged in programming. Leadership in this area can prevent conflict between these two areas, analysis and operations, both of which are crucial to the development of policy advocacy based on concrete programming and programming based on sound policy.
Finally, many comments were made to the effect that, the broader the spectrum of coalition participants, the longer it will take to reach consensus and then action, or in the worst cases, the more difficult or ineffective will be the work. Again, clarity about expectations, commitment and objectives is essential to decisions about whether a coalition with a particular constellation of actors is, on balance, worth CUSO participation or not.
Recommendation: As a prerequisite to the effective use of and access to its main asset, an international and regional network of offices and human resources, CUSO should give immediate attention to the creation of a decision making forum or fora for the discussion and negotiation of inter-regional work and priorities which respects its decentralized structure and resource allocations but increases its capacity to co-ordinate them. f. Other Comments
- A lack of formality in coalition work, while often beneficial because of the flexibility it offers and the fact that is necessary to respect and maintain organizational autonomy, can lead to lack of preparation and therefore of effectiveness.
- With respect to the new 'political' culture of coalition work, one respondent noted that, while it takes time, we haven't got all the time in the world. Effective social justice coalitions must be clear that there is no time for work with self-centred groups who take and don't give, or whose only motivation is the 'sharing' of resources for their own agendas and not immersion in a broader agenda. An analysis of the motivations of coalition partners is therefore crucial to the early identification of the potential for frustrating or debilitating conflict or delays.
- One interviewee noted that CUSO will have to take clearer stands on social justice issues, ie. decide on whose side it is on. Korten and Quizon summarize this point as follows: "Feeling is growing that NGOs committed to a transformational strategy must reach out to form alliances with a growing circle of diverse groups, including government and international agencies. Yet they must also by careful not to lend legitimacy to organizations and programs that are inherently a part of the problem."
- Even where long standing trust and shared experiences exist among a majority of participants, for example in the case of CAMG, relationships can grow exceedingly complex and tensions can develop based on differing personal perceptions on the sharing of 'power', workload, limiting or expanding the scope of the work, sharing of information around highly sensitive political work, etc. When new factors, such as additional participants or financial restraints are introduced to complex long standing relationships, the result can unbalance an equilibrium which is taken for granted or hasn't been tested by a regular refreshing or restatement of mandate or expectations.
- Some types of coalitions work better for certain types of work and not for others. Martin Khor, in a recent visit to Ottawa, noted that broad coalitions work well for information sharing, but that advocacy work requires a narrower base of likeminded organizations to be successful.
3. Recommendations Back to top
a. As a prerequisite to the effective use of and access to its main asset, an international and regional network of offices and human resources, CUSO should give immediate attention to the creation of a decision making forum or fora for the discussion and negotiation of inter-regional work and priorities which respects its decentralized structure and resource allocations but increases its capacity to co-ordinate them.
b. Only as CUSO arrives at greater consensus on overall Board programme guidelines, will its capacity to develop specific criteria and priorities for coalition work grow.
c. Some specific criteria for CUSO coalition work (Note: It should be emphasised that there are no formulae for coalition work. Criteria are highly dependent on context, and coalition work is more process than it is operational 'project' work, even if specific time frames and tasks make it more effective.)
(i) Before CUSO commits significant resources in either staff time or funding to a coalition activity, there should be considerable clarity of objectives, expectations and commitment to the provision of specific resources on the part of a majority of coalition participants. In the absence of such clarity, there should be a definite process and agreement on the necessity for arriving at this clarity.
(ii) Prior to making commitments to a specific coalition activity, there must be some reasonably objective and participatory check of the consistency of the work with CUSO objectives.
(iii) Coalition work must incorporate some form of regular check-in or more formal evaluation and renegotiation of coalition objectives, expectations and resource commitments.
(iv) Coalition work must incorporate some form of monitoring of quantifiable programme targets and financial reporting which provides a degree of accountability commensurate with the level of CUSO resources invested in the coalition.
(v) Coalition work is very sensitive to many relationships, both interpersonal and organizational, objective and subjective. Gender, class, race, language, culture, power, ability, etc. all play roles and must be considered and balanced if the coalition relationship is to be effective.
d. CUSO should make provision for some form of discussion, education and orientation to all these issues for all CUSO staff who might represent the organization in a coalition or make initial contact with a coalition.
Appendices Back to top
Documents
- "A Study of Canadian Coalitions of Non-Governmental Organizations", Michel Rousseau & Carol Sissons for CIDA and CCIC, March 1992
- "Learning Lessons: Global Networking and International Non-Governmental Organizations", Dr. Bud Hall for CIDA INGO division, October 1992
- "Positioning CUSO Caribbean for Enhanced Policy and Programming Impact in Canada", Brian Rowe, July 1992
- "Final Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Programme Angola", June 1992, Marlene Green, Gregory Utzig and Fernando Pacheco dos Santos
- CUSO Quebec Affiliations list
- CUSO Saskatchewan/International Primary Health Care Network paper
- "Coalition Building for Community Development", February 1992
- 'Alliance of Convenience', Chandra de Fonseka, Lok Niti, June/91
- 'In Search of Common Grounds', Korten and Quizon, Lok Niti, June/91
- 'Issues in International Networking: Conclusions from a workshop in Calcutta', Jai Sen, March 1989
- 'New Challenges for Labour Solidarity' TUG (?) Nov/91
- CUSO Board Programme Guidelines
- CUSO 1993/94 Country/Regional Plans, January 1993
- ACN dossier: Inside Coalition Politics, #37
- Inter-Regional Programme Review, Apr/92 David HaslettInterviews
1. Sandra Sorenson - Action Canada Network - 20/4/93
2. Peter Gillespie - Inter-Pares - 15/4/93
3. Paul Finkel - CUSO Asia Desk - 14/4/93
4. Don Kossick - CUSO Saskatchewan - 28/5/93
5. Lise Blanchard - Executive Director CUSO - 25/4/93
6. Marc Alain - CUSO PPU - 26/5/93
7. CUSO Canadian staff orientation workshop - 18/5/93Questionnaires
1. Joe Tannenbaum - TUG BC
2. Cynthia King - CAMG and CIAWG
3. Jose Garcia - CAMG
4. Roxanne Murrel - CAMG, Mujer a Mujer, SolidarityWorks
5. Marc Alain - ACN
6. Linda Snyder - Atlantic Regional Co-ordinating Council
7. David Haslett - Program Angola
8. Brian Tomlinson - ACN and CCIC
9. John van Mossel - PAC and AIA
10. Martin McCann - Bangladesh/Canada Linkage
11. Chris Rosene - Andean Networks, IAWGLA, Common Frontiers
12. Thomas Walsh - SEASAN
13. FSOs Thailand - SEASAN
14. Selina Tapper - ADAAppendix B - Partial List of Coalitions Which CUSO Participates In Back to top
Name of Coalition CUSO Participants
1. Overseas
Asia/Pacific
Bangladesh Canada Linkage Asia Desk, Dacca Office
SEASAN (South East Asian Sustainable Agricultural Network) Asia RFO, Thailand, Asia desk
Indonesia Canada Forum Asia desk, Indonesia FSOEast, Central & Southern Africa
CANAMCO (Canada Namibia Cooperation) Africa desk, RFO
COCAMO (Co-operation Canada Mozambique) Africa desk, RFOLatin America
SAP working group Desk, RFO, FSOs
Andean Initiatives Desk, RFO, FSOs Nicaragua NGO staff Desk, RFO, FSOsCaribbean
CIAWG (Caribbean Inter-Agency Working Group) Desk, RFO
ADA (Association of Development Agencies - Jamaica) FSO2. Canada
a. Provincial
British Colombia
TUG (Trade Union Group) Canada desk, CUSO BC
Saskatchewan
SILP (Saskatchewan International Labour Project) Canada desk, CUSO Sask
Sask Linkage Committee Canada desk, CUSO SaskOntario
Ont Coalition for Social Justice Canada desk, CUSO Toronto, CUSO Kingston
Quebec
AQOCI (Association Quebecoise des Organismes pour le Cooperacion International) CUSO Quebec
CQNT (Coalition Quebecoise sur les Negotiations Trilaterales) CUSO Quebec
Solidarite Populaire Quebec CUSO Quebec
CQFD (Comite Quebecoise Femmes et Developpment) CUSO QuebecAtlantic
ACIC (Atlantic Council for International Cooperation CUSO Halifax
b. National
ACN (Action Canada Network) Exec. Director, PDS, PPU,
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation) Executive Director, PDS, PPU
IAWGSA (Inter-Agency Working Group on Southern Africa) Africa desk, RFO, FSOs
IAWGLA (Inter-Agency Working Group on Latin America) CUSO rep., PAL desk
Program Angola CUSO rep., Africa desk
CAMG (Central America Monitoring Group) Americas desk
Asia Pacific Working Group Asia desk,
R&R (Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Fund) CUSO rep.
PAC (Partnership Africa Canada) CUSO rep., Africa desk
CIAWG (Caribbean Inter-Agency Working Group) Desk, RFO
Common Frontiers Americas deskc. Appendix C - Coalitions Checklist Back to top
- Saskatchewan Health Network
- Issues in International Networking, Jai Sen, Calcutta 1989