Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

When referring to ‘us as donors’ I am not talking about any specific organisation,
but discussing aid agencies in general. I will give a number of
examples from South Africa, where I was working 1991–1994 as a representative
for a Swedish donor organisation. Since this period I have visited
the country a number of times, in different capacities.
I will focus on the process of dialogue and refrain from a discussion about
content. I see dialogue as an inter-personal exchange with the aim of increasing
understanding, learning and exchanging of ideas, through communication.
The purpose of dialogue is not necessarily to reach one common
viewpoint but to try to understand the different participants’ perspectives.
This can lead to a more honest and constructive discussion. Dialogue can
take place at different levels and places and in many forms. An improved
dialogue in development can lead to more efficiency, but is not in itself a
blueprint for success. However, without a dialogue co-operation will have
few chances of succeeding.
Unclear purposes?
As partners in development co-operation we have a certain culture of meeting
one another, perhaps in the form of conferences and seminars with a
multitude of participants, and bilateral meetings between donors and recipients.
All these meetings make demands on our time, since they need
preparation and are subject to reports. Considering this, it is amazing how
often the purpose of meetings, seminars and conferences is unclear and without
a commonly understood aim. As a result we tend to have different
expectations when we meet. If we do not agree on what we want to achieve,
or worse, do not even bother to find out what it is, the dialogue is greatly
hampered.
Certain meetings, like round tables and yearly reviews, are held regularly,
and the purpose is therefore easily taken for granted. These meetings tend
to focus on the contributors’ need for information. Quite often financial
problems and budget considerations take up considerable discussion time.
It is more rare to meet in an open dialogue to discuss implications and
impacts of ongoing programmes and lessons learnt from evaluations, even
though this does happen.
There are also meetings and conferences on specific issues, such as poverty,
growth, HIV, the environment etc., which is valid, but there seems to
be an over-emphasis on information. The question remains at the end about
what to do with all the information. Traditionally it has been the benefactors
initiating these forums and this naturally has affected the setting of the
agenda. Northern partners – be they donors, academic institutions or civil
society – can finance their own daily work and have a far greater freedom to
organise conferences, invite people and refund them for their costs, as well
as to decide when to participate in conferences organised by others. There-
97