A Note to the Members of the Joint Task Force of the CAPART and Planning Commission

I appreciate the concern that there should be transparency in various practices, including receiving of funds and expenditure, of voluntary organisations (VOs). The National Policy on the Voluntary Sector suggests that the voluntary sector should address issues related to governance, accountability and transparency “through suitable self-regulation” (point 4.4). The policy mentions government’s intention to promote evolution of an independent, national level, self-regulatory agency for the voluntary sector. Point 5.6.2 of the policy document brings out the need for accreditation of VOs for better funding decisions and making the funding processes more transparent. It says, “The government will encourage various agencies, including those in the voluntary sector, to develop alternative accreditation methodologies. It will allow time for such methodologies to be debated and gain acceptability in the voluntary sector, before considering their application to Government funding of VOs.”

My understanding is that point 5.6.2 should be read in conjunction with point 4.4. This will ensure that a system of accreditation is built upon widely accepted self-regulations in the voluntary sector. This is extremely important for ensuring the autonomy of the sector along with ensuring their accountability. Furthermore, point 6.2 of the policy document emphasises on allowing the voluntary sector to set its own benchmark in different areas and also terms it “impractical to expect uniform norms for accountability and transparency”, given the wide variation within the sector.

In this backdrop, I find that the CAPART and Planning Commission have jumped over several stages in their haste to establish a National Accreditation Council and put in practice a kind of accreditation process. I find the entire process very top-down, government driven, which shows utter disregard for the wisdom and capacity of the voluntary sector itself. I have following comments on the process and also the draft of the NCAI:

i) CAPART should have facilitated initiation of a nation-wide debate on self-regulation in the voluntary sector. There is a need to open up the debate and take it to the diverse range of organisations in the sector, from grassroots mobilisers, movement groups, philanthropists, service organisations to corporate NGOs so that they engage in evolving their own benchmarks. Evolution of self-regulatory agencies (at suitable levels) cannot escape this process.

ii) CAPART should have commissioned a review of all past efforts of accreditation by CAPART and other agencies such as NABARD, and made the findings available in the public domain for further debate and discussion.

iii) CAPART should have circulated an initial draft for wider debate focusing exclusively on the concept of accreditation and various alternative methodologies of accreditation. This draft should have evolved through a process of consultation with credible organisations in the voluntary sector, coming from diverse streams of activities. Unfortunately, CAPART and Planning Commission chose to bring a small group together, which is quite eschewed in composition with corporate business interest seems to be dominating, and directly jumped into drafting of the entire edifice of accreditation.

iv) I find the entire exercise directed to corporatising the voluntary sector. This is quite evident from the discussion we had in the last meeting of the Task Force where most of the discussions concentrated on implanting the corporate models of accreditation on the voluntary sector. Please recall the debate regarding who can be accredited, who will bear the cost, who will do accreditation, etc. This is against the spirit of the national policy and will have disastrous impact on the sector. The composition of the participants also bears the testimony to my point. The voluntary sector needs a different kind of professionalism, one that is largely different from the professionalism required in the corporate sector (or corporate NGOs). The significance of the voluntary sector lies in its creativity, diversity, strong links with the community, its localised nature, voluntary spirit, its capacity and courage to question, to challenge the dominant paradigms of development, and in what we call – ‘cooperate where you can and resist where you must’. Recognising one kind of professionalism at the cost of another will only undermine the main strengths of the sector.

v) I also find this an effort to further encroach upon the autonomy of the voluntary sector. The proposed composition of the National Accreditation Council includes representatives of government bodies, corporate bodies (CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM, ICAI, other chambers of commerce and industry) and grant making government and international organisations. Not a single representative from VOs? One would expect that this would be a body comprising either exclusively or predominantly representatives from the voluntary sector.

vi) Though it is proposed to start, in the first phase, with self-assessment by VOs, it can be any body’s guess that the criteria of self-assessment to be decided (most likely) by the NACI will have the same corporate bias, as evident in the composition of the NACI.

vii) NCAI, if at all needed, should be an enabling and facilitating body for the voluntary sector, to help them in overcoming difficulties in their work posed by various vested interests, governmental and/or private. This should be a body capable to help in grievance redressal rather than a body to control and exercise authority over VOs.

There is a need to recognise the diversity and wisdom of the voluntary sector. The sector itself can find ways of enhancing accountability and transparency in its practices. No one size can fit all and no superimposition of norms (read corporate norms) is going to help. Let the debate on such important issues as accountability and transparency be taken to the vast expanse of the civil society. I am hopeful that the Task Force will consider my views.

Pushpendra

Senior Fellow

National Institute of Rural Development