NGO Networking in the Philippines

Previous posts discuss the asset and liability of non government organizations (NGOs); their vulnerabilities to groups with vested interests; and coping strategies which Korten (1990) describes as “three generation strategy” to describe the stages of development of NGOs. All these lead to  linkages and networking between and among NGOs, even with other sectors of society.

Linkages and networks serve as protective mechanism of NGOs  from any form of threat because of their collective nature. Network also prevent  unnecessary duplication or overlapping of development effort.  As a strategy, networking has been used by many sectors in pursuing development endeavors. Networks link local efforts for more effective lobbying and advocacy and provide venues for the exchange of experiences and resources between similar NGOs.

John Clark (1991) associated the emergence of networks with the development of advocacy group. This is the last of the six schools  he formulated to trace the historical evolution of Northern NGOs his book Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations.  The first network to make a name was the International Baby Foods Action Network. Set up in 1979 by seven NGOs, it grew to about 150 NGOs from all parts of the world and led the successful campaign for international governmental agreement on a code of marketing for baby foods.

The milestone  of NGO networking in the Philippines happened in 1990 with the launching of the Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE NGOs). This solidarity, however, did not happen overnight. It was a culmination of decades of common struggle similar to what other NGOs in other countries experienced in the course of historical development characterized by diverse intensity and highlights.

Alegre (1996) traced the beginning of NGO networking in the Philippines from the formation of the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. (CWAFPI), the forerunner of the present-day National Council of Social Development (NCSD). As early as 1952, a group of social work leaders organized the Philippine National Committee of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW). This eventually evolved into the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. (CWAFPI), the umbrella organization of the various welfare and civic organizations, e.g., the Catholic Women’s Clubs, Boy/Girl Scouts of the Philippines, National Red Cross, etc. which, up to this day, cater to such sectors as traditional women’s groups, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

The early organizational formation, however, is only one part of the story of networking with particular focus on welfare agencies. Alegre (1996) presented a comprehensive discussion of the factors that contributed to the growth and development of networking in the Philippine NGOs in his book Trends and Traditions; Challenges and Choices. This observation is complemented by a chronological presentation of the formation of nine mainstream national networks after NCSD in From the Present Looking Back: A History of Philippine NGO by Karina David (1998).   Hence, the history of networking in the Philippine is better understood in the context of historical evolution of NGOs in the country.

The story of Philippine NGOs generally follows the trend of the world history of NGOs- from relief and welfare endeavors to social reformation which eventually led to the transformation approach.  Alegre (1996) divided the history of NGOs into six distinct phases rooted in key points in the country’s recent past, as follows: American Colonial Period to Post WWII: Relief, Rehabilitation and Welfare; The Deepening Social Crisis and the Rise of New Social Movements (1965-1972); Coping with Repression, Carving a Niche (1972-1978).  Expansion and Innovation (1978-1983); NGO Support to the Surging Mass Movement (1983-1986); Ebbs and Flows of a Painful Transition (1986-1992; Maturation and Renewal (1992 to the Present). Each phase will be discussed in the succeeding posts.

Heterogeneous nature of NGOs

NGOs emerged to respond to needs, which were not readily met by the government due to systemic limitations. With elite and/or traditional politicians at the helm of leadership, the government, most often, cannot initiate major reforms. This is a situation where NGOs take active role as catalysts for change. Providing stimuli for the various sectors of society to organize them, NGOs equip the poor with the important skills, knowledge and resource necessary in their struggle towards a better life and a more humane society (Aldaba ,1993).

Image credit: lingofeeds.com: 

However, the term NGOs itself elicits discussion or debate. It is not consistently used which results to various definitions/classifications. According to records, one of the earliest mentions of the term "NGO" was in 1945, when the United Nations (UN) was created. Being an inter-governmental organization, the UN opens its  door to  international non-state agencies - or non-governmental organizations which are awarded observer status at its assemblies and some of its meetings. Thereafter, the term  was widely used to  refer to nonprofit entities independent of governmental influence.

In a broad sense, NGOs are simply agencies or groups which are different from government bodies. Quizon, as cited in Racellis (1998), defines NGOs: as private, voluntary organizations; social development agencies; or professional support; or cause oriented groups that are non-profit –oriented and legal, which are committed to the task of development and established primarily for socio-economic services, civic, religious, charitable and/or social welfare purposes.

This definition covers the heterogeneous nature of NGOs. As such, various acronyms were  as used to describe  them. Wikipedia and Nonprofit Expert  have released the following classifications: BINGO is short for Business-oriented International NGO. TANGO means Technical Assistance NGO  while RINGO is an abbreviation of Religious International NGO.  ENGO refers to  environmental NGO while GONGOs are Government-Operated NGOs, which may have been set up by governments to look like NGOs in order to qualify for outside aid. DONGO means Donor Organized NGO while QUANGOs are quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations. There  is also  PANGO which is a Party NGO set up by parties and disguised as NGOs to serve their political matters and  MANGO which refers to  Market Advocacy NGO.

Image credit: transmissionsmedia.com

On the other hand, Karina David has  the following classifications of NGOs: DJANGOs  for Development, justice and advocacy NGOs. Commonly called as Development NGOs, they  perform  a mixture of direct and support service function with and for GUAPOs (genuine, autonomous people’s organization.) Primary form of intervention is community and sectoral organizing, developments in recent years have spawned organizations that provide support services (legal, medical, research, etc.)

Next, the TANGOs  (Traditional NGOs ) representing the charitable, welfare, and relief organization, TANGOs perform valuable services for the poor. While they intersect with the POs and DJANGOs their primary focus remains on marginalized individuals and families. There is also the  FUNDANGOs  (Funding agency NGOs). These foundations and grant-giving are linked to grassroots organizations primarily through providing financial and other forms of support.

Of course, there are also MUNGOs  (Mutant NGOs),  according to David. Theses are extensions of the state (because they are GRINGOs government-run NGOs) or personal interests. Another is the  BONGOs, business organized NGOs which refer to those that are created primarily as tax dodges, vehicles for quelling labor unrest, or means to project a benevolent company image. Finally, the  COME N’GOs. These are NGO entrepreneurs with  fly-by-night organizations that package proposals and promptly disappear with the funds and/or work the funding game by hiring themselves out to large donor organizations.

I don’t know if the controversial network of  fake NGOs created by Napoles will ever classify to any of the categories or there is a need for amendments to the aforementioned classifications.

_______________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building.  A phenomenal movement which came to aid world development and to establish outlooks and attitudes that laid the foundation for a modern development perspective, genuine NGOs  have emerged as a new catalyzing, social organization and as a significant player in development  (Alegre,1996).