Rapport från det internationella fundraisingmötet den 30-31 oktober 1998 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 augusti 1998

Till: Styrelsen
Från: Dan Grundin och Hanna Roberts
Datum: 1998-11-30

Rapport från det internationella fundraisingmötet 30-31 oktober 1998

Det internationella fundraisingmötet kom till stånd som ett resultat av beslut 50 på ICM i Kapstaden 1997. Ett förberedande möte hölls i februari, där framför allt fundraisers från de olika sektionerna deltog. Från svenska sektionen Erik Zachrison och Olle Torefeldt. Ett mindre förberedande möte (utan svensk representation) hölls i mars. Meningen var sedan att detta möte skulle hållas i juni, men av olika skäl blev det uppskjutet till slutet av oktober.

Mötet i oktober gästades av ett 60-tal deltagare från sektioner, SCHIFM och IS och leddes av tre personer från konsultföretaget Brakeley, som fungerade som mötesledare (facilitators).

Mötet handlade främst om tre saker: en internationell översyn (international audit) av Amnestys potential vad gäller fundraising, inrättandet av en enhet för fundraising (fundraising unit) på IS, och en översyn av riktlinjerna för fundraising (fundraising guidelines).

En internationell översyn

IS och SCHIFM hade inhämtat tre "offerter" för den internationella översynen, från Brakeley, Burnett Consulting och Carol Pitchersky, där förslag på tillvägagångssätt, tidplan och kostnad presenterades. Utan att ta ställning till de enskilda "offerterna" enades mötet om att rekommendera IEC att genomföra en internationell översyn, och att denna skulle kunna presenteras för ICM i augusti 1999. Det betonades att en översyn måste ta fasta på Amnesty som en global rörelse, men även närmare studera ett flertal sektioner av olika storlekar. Ett problem i sammanhanget är att en sådan översyn beräknas ta minst sex månader, så ett beslut måste tas av IEC i december, varvid arbetet måste påbörjas omedelbart om en rapport ska kunna föreläggas ICM. Eller med mötets egna ord:

That the audit go forward and be completed with sufficient time for its recommendations to inform the debate at the 1999 ICM relative to the fundraising aspect of the International Strategic Plan. Funding for this audit is to be provided from the current fiscal year budget.

Fundraisingenhet på IS

Mötet enades om att samordningen av fundraisingarbetet på IS måste förbättras och ges utökade resurser enligt följande:

The creation of a professional fundraising unit whose leadership must have authority at the IS's senior management level in order to bring about the cultural change in the movement which is essential for development of successful fundraising.

That such a unit be properly resourced with a minimum of £ 200,000 per annum being included in the draft budget to the 1999 ICM.

När det gäller resurser nämndes en enhet om tre personer som ett minimum, att jämföras med dagens situation där en person på IS ansvarar för fundraisingarbetet.

Riktlinjer för fundrasing

Mötet diskuterade det utkast till riktlinjer som tagits fram av Mary Gray, AI's internationella kassör, och Blair Gibb, fundraisingansvarig på IS (se bilaga). Riktlinjerna är indelade i sex avdelningar och nedan följer en kort sammanfattning av diskussionerna runt dessa. Mötet beslutade att redovisa de synpunkter som framkom under de olika avdelningarna, och strävade alltså inte efter konsensus.

I. Basic Pinciples
Denna avdelning handlar om själva grundprinciperna för Amnestys arbete:
A. AI's independence, impartiality and credibility must not be compromised nor seen to be compromised.
B. AI's primary basis of financial support must remain our membership - our members and supporters are our source of legitimacy as well as funding.

Här hade man föreslagit att den gamla "5 %-regeln" skulle ändras till 25 %, något som mötet starkt motsatte sig

II. Transnational coordination
Gäller samordning av arbetet mellan sektioner, IS och IEC. Antogs utan större ändringar av mötet.

III. Government funding
Här rådde delade meningar om i vilken utsträckning, och i vilka former, AI kunde acceptera indirekt statligt stöd.
Under punkt A. strök man den sista bisatsen om undantag helt.
Under B. fördes en diskussion om personer som gör motsvarande "vapenfri tjänst" eller är sysselsatta i arbetsmarknadspolitiska åtgärder (t ex ALU). Praxis och åsikter skilde sig kraftigt mellan olika sektioner.
Under C. gällde diskussionen hur man såg på stöd från "lokala myndigheter" (t ex våra kommuner). Här är de nationella skillnaderna stora. I Sverige tar vi ju regelbundet emot indirekt stöd från kommuner och landsting genom subventionerade lokaler etc. Den här punkten säger egentligen bara att man inte bör ta emot stöd från lokala myndigheter om de gjort sig skyldiga/är ansvariga för kränkningar av de mänskliga rättigheterna!
Under E. ändrades skrivningen helt till "Contributions from governments for relief may not be accepted" med tillägget "exceptions should be made only in limited circumstances".
Under F. var det många som menade att AI inte skulle ta emot denna form av statligt stöd, och att beslutet från 1993 borde ändras. En del sektioner, däribland den norska, har emellertid långt framskridna planer, eller är redan i gång med projekt som innebär MR-utbildning med indirekt statligt stöd.
Under G. som gäller konstruktioner liknande RGB och MR-fonden delades mötet i två läger. Ett som ville stryka punkten helt, d v s att AI inte skulle acceptera dessa former av indirekt statligt stöd, och ett som ville ha skrivningen kvar.

Överhuvudtaget tyckte vi oss märka ett starkt stöd för en restriktiv linje i frågan om statligt stöd. En del sektioner i Europa, bl a Holland och Grekland, och en del afrikanska, t ex Ghana och Nigeria, var helt emot, andra, bl a en del latinamerikanska verkade ha en mer "liberal" inställning i frågan.

IV. Corporate funding
Här fördes i anslutning till punkt E. en diskussion om samarbete med företag där en mindre del av produktionen eller ägarstrukturen handlar om för AI "problematiska" områden som t ex vapentillverkning. I riktlinjerna tar man upp begreppet "materiality test" , som väl bör ses som en parallell till Humanfondens huvudsaklighetskriterium.

När det gäller samarbete med företag kan det vara intressant att notera att riktlinjerna "varnar" för företag inom branscherna "mining, oil, timber and other extractive industries", vilket bör innefatta t ex SCA.

V. Merchandising and Ethical Procurement
En för oss ny aspekt var frågan om huruvida vi köper varor och tjänster till t ex sekretariatet från företag som är "etiskt godkända". Här har vi så vitt vi vet inte fört någon diskussion inom svenska sektionen.

VI. Approval Process
Behandlar hur man går tillväga i frågor som rör samarbete med transnationella företag och ansökningar om indirekt statligt stöd. Föranledde inga kommentarer.

Avslutningsvis kan sägas att mötet gav uttryck för den klyfta som finns i den internationella rörelsen, och på IS, mellan å ena sidan fundraisingarbetet och å andra sidan kampanjarbetet. De närvarande på mötet återkom hela tiden till hur styvmoderligt frågor om fundraising behandlas internationellt och i sektionerna. Diskussionerna gällde den kultur som finns i rörelsen och som, lite tillspetsat, säger att den veksamhet som direkt rör våra kampanjer och aktionsfall är viktigare och mer angelägen än arbetet med att få fram resurserna till samma arbete. En diskussion som vi anser i allra högsta grad berör även den svenska sektionen, inte minst mot bakgrund av det nuvarande finansiella läget.

Bilaga (det utkast som mötet diskuterade)

FUNDRAISING GUIDELINES

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. Basic Principles
II. Transnational Coordination
III. Government Funding
IV. Corporate Funding
V. Merchandising and Ethical Procurement
VI. Approval Process

Introduction

These guidelines were drafted by the International Treasurer and the Director of International Fundraising on the basis of ICM and IEC decisions and in consultation with SCHIFM and the March 1998 fundraising preparatory meeting. They are intended as a minimum framework for fundraising in the movement. Some sections or structures may choose to have more restrictive guidelines for their own internal purposes.

I. Basic Principles

A. Amnesty International’s independence, impartiality and credibility must not be compromised nor seen to be compromised.

B. Amnesty’s primary basis of financial support must remain our membership -- our members and supporters are our source of legitimacy as well as funding.

C. In evaluating other potential sources of funding, consideration should be given to the need to avoid becoming dependent on any source of support that may be withdrawn due to:

-- structural issues (economic difficulties, strikes, funding programme expiry dates)
-- sponsor displeasure with Amnesty’s policies or campaigning activities

In order to avoid dependency, in general funding which would represent more than 25% of a structure’s annual budget must be approved by the IEC.

D. Amnesty structures should only accept external funding for which they are prepared to be fully accountable in terms of financial management, programme monitoring and evaluation.

In particular, sections applying to foundations or other organizations for financial support for particular purposes should be sure to obtain all requirements for reporting, monitoring, and financial accountability before making the application, and should provide the Director of International Fundraising with copies of any requirements which apply to the grant being requested if the funds involved are substantial. If funds secured from external sources are to be “passed through” Amnesty to other associations and organizations, the extent to which Amnesty is responsible for the accountability of these organizations should be clear.

E. In general, contributions for research on a particular country are not permitted. Funds for development in a particular country require SDC approval if the funds are to be transferred from a section to another section or structure and IEC approval otherwise (see Earmarked Funding Policy).

II. Transnational coordination

A. In general, donations to Amnesty from individuals or other entities located within a country which has a section should go to that country’s section and if there is no section, to the international budget. Exceptions (such as particular legacies) must be approved by the IEC.

B. Approaches to foundations or individuals who fund projects internationally are to be cleared with the section where the source is located (e.g., Ford Foundation -- AIUSA; Branson Foundation -- AIUK). This is to ensure coordination in case that section is already involved with the foundation, and to ensure that the foundation does not compromise Amnesty’s reputation. For example, some foundations are supported directly by political parties or governments; it may also not be a matter of public record where the foundation gets its money so that the section may have information that is not otherwise available. The best source of information on the reputation of a particular foundation should be its home country section.

C. Similarly, approaches to multinational corporations should be made through the section where the company’s headquarters is located (e.g., Levi Strauss -- AIUSA, Nokia -- Finland), unless there is no section there, in which case the approach should be through the Director of International Fundraising.

D. The Director of International Fundraising and the section where the organization is headquartered should be consulted regarding approaches to national or local subsidiaries of corporations or foundations, for the same reasons as indicated above.

E. Other circumstance may require international consultation, for example when the fundraising activities are to take place in more than one country or when others in the movement (for instance, a section in a neighbouring country) may be affected by individual section fundraising decisions such as affiliation with a particular funder. Consultation is mandatory, but, on one hand, any section may choose not to participate in multinational efforts and on the other hand, no section can impose its standards on other sections so long as the international guidelines are followed. The IEC should be consulted should any difficulties arise.

F. See also general corporate fundraising guidelines below.

III. Government Funding

A. The general principle is that Amnesty accepts no direct national government support. This is an important source of the credibility of the movement, and exceptions should be made only in very limited circumstances.

B. Indirect government support which is provided equally to all charities or employers (such as tax exemptions, employee subsidies, etc) is permitted. In-kind contributions specific to Amnesty (such as rent-free offices, donated equipment, etc) must be approved by the IEC.
But see also Section I C. regarding dependence.

C. Legislatures, judicial entities, and embassies are all part of “national governments” and therefore, in general, funding from them is not permitted.). In addition, funding from state, local and regional governments should be treated in the same way as that from national governments if the entities involved may be responsible for human rights violations (e.g., municipal police).

D. In general, funding from foundations funded by governments and intergovernmental organizations may not be accepted if the governments have any control over funding decisions. Consult the IEC should doubts arise.

E. Contributions from governments for relief may be accepted, but not if targeted for specific individuals or for refugees from a specific country.

F. In accordance with the Human Rights Education Policy approved by the 1993 ICM, contributions from governments for Human Rights Education may be accepted. Ongoing functions and personnel costs may not be underwritten by such funding. Questions regarding specific projects should be directed to the IEC.

G. From time to time at the international or section level Amnesty International will join with other organizations to undertake certain activities consistent with its purposes. It may be that Amnesty International’s partners in such associations are able to receive government funding, and it seems appropriate for the association itself to receive such funding for a particular purpose. In general this may be acceptable if the funds are not under the sole control of Amnesty International. In general, if such activity is contemplated by the International Secretariat or by sections, approval should be sought from the International Executive Committee. See also the guidelines on Subsidiary and Partner Organizations.

IV. Corporate funding

A. AI structures should avoid seeking support from companies which are potentially targets of our campaigning or oppositional activities.

This may in some cases go further than simply avoiding companies we know to have committed, or been complicit in, human rights violations. A mining company, for example, may be working with Amnesty groups to improve its human rights record but still be in joint venture relationships with governments we consider to be human rights violators. In a case like this, even if the company is taking positive steps and working closely with human rights groups, receiving funding from that company could damage AI’s image.

Examples of companies likely to fall into this category would be resource companies who have little choice about where they operate: mining, oil, timber and other extractive industries.

B. Many companies manage their charitable activities through independent or quasi-independent foundations: Pepsi-Cola, Levi-Strauss, IBM and Reuters for example. The same guidelines that apply to companies should apply to their foundations.

C. Sections should always, before approaching a company for funding, check with that company’s home section for advice about the reputation and practices of that company. There are also online and other sources of data on companies which should be used to screen potential funding sources. In the end, there is no guarantee that any company is “safe,” and the decision to accept funds must be a matter of the section’s, the IS’, or the IEC’s judgement. When in doubt, consult the IEC.

D. The criteria above should also be applied to cases of company “sponsorship” -- ie., when a company contributes a resource to Amnesty in return for public acknowledgement of its support. Such a relationship must always include protections for AI in terms of the use of our name and logo; all sections should have their trademark registered with appropriate national agencies (such as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) before reaching such an agreement, and contracts should be reviewed by lawyers with experience in licensing and sponsorship.

E. Questions often arise about “second-level” corporate connections: for example, is a potential corporate partner a shareholder, client, or otherwise connected to a company which would be problematic for Amnesty? In such cases, the standard generally applied by ethical screening organisations is either a “materiality test” (typically 3%, as in “Does the partner own more than a 3% share in the problematic company?) or a “management control” test (Does the partner exercise any management control over the problematic company?). If neither of these conditions apply, the second-level company connection should generally not be considered a problem. However, in the end, the decision about whether such connections are a bar to fundraising should be made on the basis of concern for Amnesty’s overall reputation with the membership and the public.

V. Merchandising and ethical procurement

Sections and the IS should be careful to apply the same criteria to our own suppliers (e.g., for
catalogue merchandise, office supplies) and partners that we urge other organisations to apply. A useful model for making judgments in these matters is outlined below, which is excerpted from the policy on “Ethical Procurement” adopted by AI-UK in December 1997. It lists four criteria by which to judge potential suppliers and other partners.

1. Mandate Test: Where a supplier or its associate, subsidiary or parent is in direct contravention of the mandate of Amnesty International, AI-UK will not do business with that company. This includes, for example, any company engaged in the supply of military, security or police equipment in respect of which AI-UK is making a cessation call. Evidence for this test will come from AI’s own research.

2. The UDHR Test: where a supplier or its associate, subsidiary or parent is engaged directly in activities which constitute grave breaches of the standards established by the UDHR, AI-UK will seek an alternative supplier. Evidence for this test will be based on any evidence brought to our notice from a relevant reputable organisation and from monitoring relevant subscription materials.

3. The Public Perception Test: Where it is determined that the public perception of an association with a supplier may be detrimental to AI-UK’s reputation, standing and/or effectiveness, alternative suppliers will be sought. The primary focus will be on making a judgment of the likely concerns of members and potential members.

4. The Positive Test: where other considerations (cost, quality, etc) are not significant determining factors, AI-UK will give preference to suppliers who have themselves adopted ethical policies which most closely match our own, including adoption of the AI-UK Human Rights Guidelines for Companies.

VI. Approval Procedures

1. To approach the subsidiary of a foundation or company headquartered in a country with another AI section: inform the Director of International Fundraising, seek written approval of the fundraising unit of the home country section.

2. To apply for or accept government funding for any purpose: inform the Director of International Fundraising, seek written approval of the International Treasurer.