Speech for the Canadian International Development Agency
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Chers Amis,
Je vous remercie de m'avoir invité en Ottawa, retrouver le Canada est extrêmement agréable. Par-dessus tout, mon organisation, la NCDO et moi-même somme de l' avis que le l'échange de connaissances concernant l'engagement des citoyens est primordial. J'espère que vous me permettrez de parler en Anglais. Je comprends le Français et pouvez me poser des questions en cette langue mais je ne suis malheureusement pas capable de prononcer un discours entier in Français.
Thank you very much for inviting me here to Ottawa. This is my third or fourth visit to Canada and it is always a pleasure to be here. As you know, ties between our two countries are very strong. During the second world war you provided shelter for our royal family and large parts of the Netherlands were liberated by Canadian soldiers. Many Dutch emigrated to Canada and built new lives here, enjoying space and opportunities that the Netherlands cannot provide.
I have spoken with quite a few of you by now so I will only very briefly introduce myself. My name is Jan Weijers, and I am programme officer at NCDO, the Netherlands National Commission for International Relations and Sustainable Development. NCDO is an independent agency, charged by our ministry of foreign affairs with promoting public engagement in the area of development cooperation. For this we have been given 55 staff and a budget of 25 million euros. The largest part of my work is managing The Third Chamber which is why I will repeatedly use this project as an example.
The Canadian International Development Agency has invited me here to share experiences about creating public awareness. I will address three issues:
? Public engagement and public opinion in the Netherlands
? The activities of NCDO in this field and particularly The Third Chamber
? Some remarks about differences and similarities with Canada and perhaps some observations about the conference this afternoon
Public Engagement in the Netherlands
From what I have heard this morning, numbers about public engagement in Canada and the Netherlands are pretty similar. NCDO carries out a survey of public opinion every two years and that consistently shows that 79% of Dutch citizens believe we should spend the same amount or even more money on international development. Only 18% thinks the amount should be reduced. For your information, the Netherlands spends 0.8% of its GDP on official development aid, equalling €4 billion euros in 2005, or some 6 billion Canadian dollars. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are still the only countries to meet the United Nations ODA target of 0.7%
Another survey, the Euro-barometer, conducted by the European Union, shows that 92% of Dutch citizens think development cooperation is "rather important" or "very important".
Research conducted by various commercial polling firms show similar results.
However, there are a number of concerns, despite these very positive numbers.
For starters, there increasing doubt about the effectiveness of aid. For example, the NCDO survey shows that in 2002 no less than 36% of respondents believed aid money was badly spend. In 1998 this was 29% and I am afraid the increase will continue. The main reason for this is the perceived lack of results. Last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the third world movement in the Netherlands. However, the pictures we see from Africa have not improved. On the contrary, driven by the need for fundraising quite a few organisation have taken to showing more gruesome pictures than they would have dared 10 years ago.
Added to this are continuous attacks from politicians from the right on the effectiveness of aid. One of them in particular makes outlandish and unsupported claims saying that 50% of all aid money is lost in corruption.
The aid organisations themselves are not always helpful. Oxfam international published a report a few weeks ago titled "Millstone or Milestone". This otherwise thoughtful report was quoted in the Dutch media as saying that 80% of aid money does not reach the poorest people of the world. Full stop. What was a very well intended lobby effort was not so successful from a perspective of public engagement.
Apart from the doubts about the effectiveness of AID, public engagement is often rather limited.
For example, when asked "Do you think that developing countries should be able to export to Europe without limitation, even if that results in job losses in Dutch companies and means Dutch farmers will lose market share" only 40% is in favour. 52% support trade barriers.
When one of the right wing politicians I referred to earlier proposed to take €500 million from the aid budget and use it to increase security in the Netherlands, no less than 40% of the people supported him.
Also on a smaller scale hige numbers for public engagement do not always translate into action. Take for example Max Havelaar. This is a brand for fair trade coffee and bananas. Research by the company itself shows that 80% of Dutch people know the brand, 70% sympathises with it and 7% actually buys it.
NCDO and The Third Chamber
The National Commission for International Relations and Sustainable Development, NCDO, has been charged by the Dutch government with creating public awareness in the Netherlands. We focus on international development and the millennium development goals are the framework for our activities. I already mentioned that we have a budget of about €25 million a year, which is about C$40 million. Roughly half of that amount we spend ourselves, the other half is given in grants to NGOs, schools, broadcasters, etc.
Many of the activities NCDO funds are fairly traditional awareness raising activities: a documentary about AIDS-projects in South Africa, debates about the merits of globalisation for developing and industrialised countries, and books about the history of what we call the "third world movement."
However, with some of our most important activities we try a new approach to awareness raising. Rather than "preaching the gospel" of international solidarity and providing the Dutch audience with pre-fabricated opinions about aid, trade, and migration we try to involve citizens in the debate. We aim to encourage people to form their own opinions and to participate in the debate. We do this not only because we believe that Dutch citizens have something to say about these issues. It is mostly because as a form of communication, listening is more effective than broadcasting.
The Third Chamber is a good example of this. Our Parliament has a First and a Second chamber, comparable to your Senate and House of Commons. It is from this that The Third Chamber derives its name. The Third Chamber is a shadow parliament with 150 members, 120 of whom we recruit from the Netherlands and 30 from developing countries.
The Dutch members we have selected represent the entire Dutch society. They voted for different political parties, represent different provinces, age-groups, levels of education, etc. Only few of them are professionally involved in development cooperation. We have done this to lend credibility to The Third Chamber. Any recommendation they make cannot be dismissed as leftist, rightist or a lobby of the development NGOs.
This is what makes The Third Chamber special. We give ordinary Dutch citizens the opportunity to form and express an opinion about international development. We provide them with training and information and extensive PR and media support. Of course I do not agree with all the opinions they form. But that does not matter. It are their own opinions, formed and expressed with conviction. By arranging as much media coverage as possible, the 150 members of The Third Chamber reach a huge amount of people and make an contribution to public awareness.
The other aspect that makes The Third Chamber special is the involvement of representatives from developing countries. This means The Third Chamber does not discuss about but discusses with developing countries.
NCDO runs more projects like this. For example, we have a youth club called the Club of 2000 who had a meeting yesterday which was attended by 400 people in the age group 20 to 25. The Club of 2000 is a platform for young people with an opinion about international development without us telling them what this opinion should be.
Canada and the Netherlands
I have listed attentively to your debates this afternoon and occasionally ventured to give an opinion. It seems to me there are many similarities between Canada and the Netherlands. Even if the absolute numbers are not always the same, the trends and concerns behind them show similarities.
A concern that we share is that one the one hand we see a need for a consistent message towards our citizens and on the other hand each organisation and agency needs to promotes its own results, its own raison d'etre. I would recommend your minister, if that is not presumptuous of me, to play a role in coordinating activities for public engagement. If public engagement is decentralised to too many organisations and agencies, the result will almost certainly be a confusing stream of different communications.
In the Netherlands it is important to communicate the results of development cooperation, not in long reports with extensive detail but in short messages and slogans. When the Dutch populists shouts "It does not work and it is a waste of money" we need to have an answers of 11 words to show the contrary. And there is an urgent need to come out of the defensive. We do a good job and we do it for the best of reasons. Let's shout it from the roof tops now!
Summary
I have given you some information about public opinion in the Netherlands. I have explained what NCDO does about this and what our activities are. Finally I have made some remarks about the conference this afternoon.
This is a dinner speech and dinner speeches have to be short. Perhaps we can discuss these issues more extensively over dinner. The English report of The Third Chamber has been distributed here. In it you also find a reference to our web site. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require more information.
Thank you for your attention.
Merci pour votre attention.
