Lessons for a Community Development Approach to Promoting Human Rights

1. Lessons for a Community Development Approach to Promoting Human Rights Dr Terrence Loomis

2. “Community-led Development in Aotearoa NZ: Dead End or New Opportunity” • Basic approaches to community change • Where community-led development (CLD) fits • Principles that distinguish CLD • Experiences of CLD in NZ • NZ Government’s “CLD” initiative (problems) • What else can be done? (3 new directions) www.achievingsustainablecommunities.com

3. Two approaches to ‘intentional community change’ Community building (CD) Enhancing the capabilities of citizens to plan and manage their own local development. Community organising Empowerment and change through direct social action, conflict and struggle. The programmes approach The power approach

4. Standard Community Development Principles • Deliberative learning and transformative development vs reactive quick fixes. • Empowering individuals and communities to take responsibility for positive change. • Identifying and building on local ‘gifts’. • Strengthening the capacities of organisations and individuals. • Addressing inequality and helping the disadvantaged gain a voice. • Respecting and valuing diversity. • Partnering and collaborating with stakeholders.

5. Where CLD fits Purpose Developing communitiesAddressing injustice Within theCLD CommunityCommunity building Community organising Control Outside the Government CD & Civil protest Community services movements

6. Distinguishing features of CLD • A place-based perspective (locality). • A holistic approach: working across interrelated sectors in a strategic, outcome-driven way (priorities may change over time). • Promoting authentic grassroots leadership and community-wide engagement. • Addressing broader structural processes impacting communities.

7. Lessons regarding a holistic approach • Communities are comprised of complex, interconnected relationships and interdependent processes (“systems”). • Peter Block (2010) – Modern communities increasingly function as a collection of discrete sectors, institutions and programmes (eg globalisation, government policies) • Government agencies still operate as ‘silos’–ie. engage communities piecemeal in providing services, programmes and funding vs. coordinated ‘investment’ in mutually agreed outcomes. • Community leaders often succumb to a deficit mentality: needs, problem-fixing, initiative-hopping, funding chasing, and turf protection. • The challenge: addressing single issues/needs vs. achieving lasting, positive social transformation.

8. Positive social transformtion Inspiring Communities, 2010. What We’re Learning report. “History has shown that it is not possible to create positive social transformation by working on just one part of the system. More significant change happens when there is simultaneous intervention in many parts of the system...rather than becoming fixated on one particular sector in isolation.” “This means seeing a local priority like family violence prevention in terms of potential multidimensional responses, and potential involvement of a broad range of organisations and approaches”. What would this mean for Taku Manawa?

9. Lessons regarding broader structural processes • It’s about the unfair exercise of power, even with “good intentions” or in the public/national interest. • Governments and corporations are skilled at public relations and co-opting groups/leaders into “partnerships” (e.g. the E Coast fracking debate). • Structural processes and power relationships are often overlooked by CD practitioners. • If these aren’t addressed, sustainable development efforts are jeopardised and the community loses. • Responses – research, strategising, public education, promoting dialogue, networking, building alliances. • Choices: promote change from within institutions, or take direct action.

10. Structural processes impacting communities: a New Zealand example • Many communities have done visioning and strategic planning for their own development. • The Local Government Act 2002 supported ‘community outcomes planning,” four well-beings, and a sustainable development approach by Councils to 10-year plans. • There is no requirement for government agencies to support community outcomes in the LGA, in frameworks like Whanau Ora, or in DIA’s current CLD initiative. • Government’s neoliberal agenda to promote wellbeing includes cost-cutting, asset sales and “making NZ attractive to foreign investment” (eg. LGA and RMA changes – attracted many submissions). • The cumulative effect is to undermine the power of communities to challenge government intervention and manage their own development (ie. authentic CLD is a threat – eg. Gisborne freshwater planning, 10 yr plan & fracking).

11. Community responses to NZ structural processes Three possible new directions in CD practice: • Strengthening the non-government CD sector (grassroots networking, new funding sources) • Supporting community organising and direct action aimed at addressing injustice & disadvantage • Promoting and expanding locally-driven holistic (sustainable) development initiatives.

12. Challenges for Taku Manawa and the role of human rights in community development • From programmes to power – are we entering a new era in NZ community development? • How does Te Manawa avoid (or change from) being yet another ‘silo’ programme? • Adopting a holistic approach, how do human rights relate to Local Council 10-year plans, existing community priorities and initiatives? • What role does Te Manawa have in helping communities understand and respond to broader structural developments in NZ?