It is time for an inclusive and bottom-up women’s peace agenda

Guest contributor

Khin Ohmar

I remember vividly in 1986, during my second year of university, a friend confided in me that seven Shan women were admitted to Taunggyi Public Hospital after they had been raped by Myanmar soldiers. While I felt distressed to hear this, from my position as a young Burman woman who had until then been sheltered from the direct abuses of the military, I couldn’t fully understand.

Why would military personnel commit crimes of sexual violence and how could they get away with it? How could victims and their communities be made to feel they must stay silent or risk more harm if they were to speak out about this violence or seek justice? It was the beginning of my own political awakening to the deeply entrenched systems and structures that protect those with power and perpetuate abuse and injustice.   

As my activism and commitment to defend human rights developed and expanded, and I met countless survivors of Myanmar military violence – many of whom were survivors of military rape, so did my intersectional analysis of what it means to be a woman activist fighting for freedom in Myanmar. Even though my lineage came from Burman, Shan and Mon ethnicities, I understood my identities as a Burman, Buddhist woman with access to education were sources of power that offered opportunities and also protection from discrimination that women from ethnic minorities and rural areas didn’t have.

We have some lived experiences in common under military dictatorship, – but I could not know the experience of systemic layers of discrimination and abuse based on my ethnicity, religion, and location that Shan, Karen, Ta’ang, Rohingya and many other ethnic groups in Myanmar have faced daily across generations. Only when I met survivors and their communities in the late 1990s, could I expand my understanding on how the military enjoys blanket impunity, and how that impunity is entrenched across all levels of the society.

The more I came to know, the stronger and firmer my commitment to stand in solidarity became, and my commitment to use my sources of power to support oppressed and marginalized communities in their fight for equality, justice and accountability. To me, that’s the power of a truly powerful people’s movement or a women’s movement: – that we all come together, recognizing the different layers of discrimination and abuses we’ve faced or different sources of power and privileges that we gained from the system we lived in—, and we organize around a shared vision for a new system that promises a future of holistic, inclusive and durable peace. 

In the past three decades, the U.N. has made strides to recognize the inordinate violence towards women and girls in conflict, including those committed by the Myanmar military, as well as the essential and urgent role of women in achieving peace. The U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 – commonly known as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda – has brought international attention and a more human-centred focus to issues of peace and security, calling for women’s participation in peace processes, prevention and protection from human rights abuses, and women’s access to justice for conflict and post-conflict situations.

In recent years, the WPS agenda has been expanded to include LGBTIQ+ individuals as well. It has been the catalyst for countries to adopt National Action Plans for implementation of their own WPS agendas. Yet, in the 24 years since the Resolution was adopted, how much has really changed for grassroots women in conflict areas around the world, and in Myanmar? Conflict-related sexual violence continues with blanket impunity, and the Myanmar military’s crimes are more widespread than ever. 

October marks the anniversary of the Women, Peace and Security resolution, and November hosts the Global 16 Days of Activism campaigns to end violence against women. This year’s theme for the 16 Days of activism is ‘Towards Beijing +30: UNiTE to End Violence Against Women.’ Three decades after the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the UNSCR 1325 Women, Peace and Security agenda, it is time to truly unite and invest in women’s movements for justice, accountability, and durable peace. It is time to ground our strategies in the needs of grassroots women in conflict areas, and their visions for a peaceful future of coexistence. That is the only way to affect meaningful change for women and girls’ peace and security. 

The time is not only right to focus on collective women’s movements, it is absolutely essential in this time of shifting power in Myanmar. As I speak with women and youth from the ground on their perspectives and strategies, there is an urgency for more nuanced and inclusive approaches toward rebuilding – but not reconstructing – Myanmar. Especially, at this moment in the revolution, people need to be organizing across all ethnicities and identities to discuss the kind of future they envision for themselves, their communities, and what a new Myanmar can look like. Women can and should take the lead. 

The Women’s League of Burma (WLB) has been an instrumental voice of the women’s movement for 25 years, committed to build trust and understanding among the women of Myanmar from diverse backgrounds. They were pioneers at the forefront for women’s inclusion in peace processes through Resolution 1325. They have bravely acknowledged the damage of the military’s divide-and-rule mentality to people’s sense of community cohesion and solidarity across the many ethnicities of Burma. The WLB has also done the tireless work of exposing the military’s decades-long use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, and the need to hold the military accountable for its abuses and crimes, while also promoting durable peace. 

As Myanmar’s political transformation unfolds, indeed from the moment Naypyidaw falls into the hands of the revolution, it is at that point that things will need to become solid without delay. There is an immediate need to reach a political agreement to form a unified coalition government that can fill the power vacuum and serve as a transitional authority. This will ensure the state central system built and controlled for decades by the military is dismantled and replaced and strengthened by bottom-up people’s federal governance. In this regard, there is an urgent need for people-to-people—, and specifically women-to-women dialogues—, to prompt the visioning about how we want to live together and, to create peaceful coexistence together.  

For decades, WLB has been laying the groundwork to prepare for the opportunities current political transformation emerged from the Spring Revolution creates. We need to set a new political agenda, with grassroots women’s voices— those who have resisted against the military’s central oppressive system and have been most impacted by the war and yet largely ignored and neglected. We need to come together as women to talk about how a political transformation can be achieved with the goal of human security and sustainable peace. Moving forward, a multi-ethnic, intergenerational grassroots women’s movement with a locally-led and owned women’s peace agenda in hand will contribute greatly to the various needs of the transition, including solid cohesion.   

Now is the time for the women of Myanmar to mobilize and take their rightful place in decision-making of the revolution to determine the new vision of the country. Beyond our demands for at least 30 percent quotas for women’s participation at all levels of decision-making and our crucial campaigns against gender-based violence, we need to set our own agenda for peace. We talk about a ‘seat at the table,’ but if we are there to be tokenized, or to follow predetermined political agendas, how can that seat be meaningful and equitable? Women’s needs will never be prioritized nor our visions realized.   

Women need to come with independent thinking—, and independent voices—, to the table. I am not naïve as to how hard this can be, but our challenge is to use this opportunity of political transformation to strengthen our existing relationships, coalitions and networks to articulate a vision for a federal Myanmar where all of our voices are represented, our concerns prioritized, and all perpetrators held accountable. We can only truly address gender-based violence and oppression when women are speaking independently, articulating an intersectional political analysis that accounts for the layers of discrimination, oppression and persecution that Myanmar’s diverse communities have long experienced. That is a true peace agenda for a new Myanmar. 

The women of Myanmar can and must lead by mobilizing and organizing broadly at the grassroots. The international system, directly or inadvertently, often pits us against one another, creating a sense of competition among us for representation, resources, and access to information. But movements are not about a small group of brilliant individuals or leaders; they are about genuine inclusion of diverse communities and diverse perspectives, particularly of those most impacted on the ground.  

Movements depend on leaders who can take a step back to nurture and facilitate members on the ground to join the shared leadership and be a part of decision-making. Successful and effective peoples’ movements for peace are built and joined by people who believe in themselves, and who have and share the wisdom from their lived experiences of survival through conflict. Who else will have more learning and insights for meaningful and effective conflict resolution for ending violence? 

In this 16 Days of Activism, the international community can commit to unite with the women of Myanmar to support grassroots, women-led movement- building to set a genuine women, peace and security agenda for Myanmar from the ground up. Myanmar never developed a National Action Plan, and the 10-year National Strategic Plan for the Advancement of Women (NSPAW), adopted in 2013, only included a ‘women and emergencies’ category; it did not comprehensively address women in conflict areas, nor the multiple layers of structural oppression that ethnic minority women have endured that impedes their safety and security. A genuine federal democracy that protects and promotes the peace and security of all must explicitly address the grievances of ethnic minority women, and their vision of peace and human security. Grassroots women’s movement- building can help to clarify what is needed and how to enact it. 

Nepal provides a positive example of an inclusive and bottom-up approach to women’s mobilization that helped to define and set the country’s National Action Plan for Resolution 1325. Through widespread consultations and dialogues with diverse women from across the country, the plan recognizes 14 categories of conflict-affected women including single women (widows) and disabled women. The inclusive approach allowed for the intersectional analysis needed to address the specific impacts of the conflict. Importantly, it also helped to strengthen and expand the grassroots movement and civil society participation that is needed to hold the government accountable to implement the plan. 

While a national plan for WPS 1325 is still a distant dream for women in Myanmar, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has also proven it does not have the will or the capacity to address sexual and gender-based violence against women, despite its own declaration to end this violence. It held its Ministerial Meeting on Women—and other meetings relating to women and children—in Myanmar together with military representatives in October, despite public outcry at the hypocrisy for neglecting the host country’s women’s suffering at the hands of the military. Allowing the military to host any meeting, much less ones discussing women and children’s welfare, is shameful complicity by ASEAN in the ongoing sexual and gender-based violence and other atrocity crimes in Myanmar.  

It is fact that the Myanmar military has been blacklisted by the U.N. for sexual violence since 2018. That same year, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Pramila Patten signed a joint communique between the then Aung San Suu Kyi-led elected government of Myanmar and the U.N. to address conflict-related sexual violence. The following year, the UN Fact-Finding Mission found that the Myanmar military had long used rape as a weapon of war. It is well documented that the Myanmar military is misogynist, patriarchal and that conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) is pervasive and endemic.

How can ASEAN blatantly ignore that? What was there to discuss in those meetings if not these gravest crimes against women? Where is the ASEAN commitment to end violence against women that they declared publicly? Worse, the ASEAN’s recently-developed Regional Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security 1325 lacks relevance to the peace and security needs of women in Myanmar who are under attack by the military. Far from being part of a peaceful resolution, ASEAN is hindering sustainable peace and gender justice in Myanmar.

With the momentum of this year’s anniversary of Resolution 1325 and the start of the 16 Days of Activism international campaign ‘Towards Beijing +30: UNiTE to End Violence Against Women,’ we must shift towards mobilizing a grassroots women’s movement for sustainable peace, based on and rooted in human security and gender equality. Women can form the shared political leadership needed for this moment of political transformation towards establishing federal democracy with genuine solidarity and investment by the international community.   

The international community must unite and act in solidarity by listening to women and building trust and a better understanding of the context and the solutions that grassroots women identify. The international community must not lead, nor rush, force, or speed up the process needed for genuine and meaningful on-the-ground processes. ASEAN must also support Myanmar people-led and owned dialogue processes. Quick fixes will not bring sustainable solutions. In this regard, Thailand, as Myanmar’s closest neighbour, can support Myanmar peoples’ efforts towards sustainable peace by providing safe spaces for movement building through people-to-people and women-to-women dialogues.

Too often women activists and peacebuilders have been used by the international system and mechanisms as tokens to promote its own agenda, without genuine consultation with, and meaningful participation by, the women most directly impacted. This approach is at best piecemeal in terms of advocacy and at worst becomes empty rhetoric disconnected from the realities on the ground. The international approach can even become an unnecessary burden or pressure on women, where their information is extracted and/or their work used without proper credit. Either way, grassroots women and their concerns are sidelined. 

The Friends of 1325, an informal and ad-hoc group of countries who formed to advocate for implementation of Resolution 1325, must publicly support the Myanmar women’s movement as key agents of change for a new Myanmar, and support their ongoing efforts for justice and accountability. The Philippines, as part of the Friends of 1325, could take the lead within ASEAN to condemn and sanction the Myanmar military in this regard.

The Chin Human Rights Organizations (CHRO) made a submission to the Philippines Department of Justice over a year ago, and there has yet to be a response. Now is the time to move that case forward. Governments in the Friends of 1325—notably Philippines, Korea, and Japan as Asian neighbours—can follow Argentina’s path in exercising universal jurisdiction to prosecute cases against the Myanmar military for sexual violence cases against Rohingya women as crimes against humanity.    

Finally, Myanmar women activists and leaders must unite to collectively invest the time and heart to listen deeply to grassroots women’s experiences and learn from their perspectives on peace and security. A mass movement built on listening and wisdom is the greatest potential towards finding and identifying solutions to achieve genuine and sustainable peace. This vibrant movement will require collective effort for transformational processes of true nondiscrimination and inclusion, to overcome the differences that have kept us apart for generations.

As the revolution advances further, civilian protection has become an urgent matter to address. Now is the time for women to consolidate their political leadership and agenda setting as peace builders and change agents. The key to success for an agenda truly committed to women, peace and security is the prioritization of locally-led inclusive consultation processes among and between grassroots women from diverse communities—including Rohingya women—to develop a women’s peace agenda for a sustainable federal future.

Khin Ohmar is a Myanmar human rights activist who was involved in organizing the 1988 nationwide pro-democracy uprising. She is also the founder of Progressive Voice, a Myanmar human rights organization.

Typhoon Yagi: A New Crisis Amidst Myanmar’s Ongoing Turmoil

Myanmar, still reeling from the humanitarian crisis triggered by the military coup 43 months ago, now faces a new devastation. Last week, Typhoon Yagi tore through communities in Myanmar/Burma and along its borders, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. 

The aftermath is grim:

• Hundreds confirmed dead, with hundreds more still missing
• Thousands of homes destroyed
• Livestock, property, and critical infrastructure severely damaged
• Upwards of 650,000 acres of farmland ruined

The UN estimates that at least 630,000 people have been affected by the massive flooding and landslides. This adds to the already staggering 3.4 million displaced since the 2021 coup.

The full extent of the disaster remains unclear. Our partners on the ground believe the death toll could be significantly higher than reported, as much of the country remains cut off from aid. They estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have been newly displaced.

Notably, the impact of Typhoon Yagi extends beyond Myanmar’s borders. Thailand, which hosts many of those displaced by the ongoing conflict in Myanmar, has also suffered casualties and significant damage to property and infrastructure. This compounds the challenges faced by both Myanmar/Burma refugees and their host communities in Thailand.

In response to this crisis, our partners are calling for:

1. Collective action
2. Immediate provision of humanitarian assistance and healthcare
3. Assurance that aid will not be politicized or weaponized

Despite being stretched thin, our partners are working tirelessly to respond. In just the past four days, Partners Asia has been doing everything possible to support them in delivering essential medicines, food, and temporary shelter to communities already devastated by armed conflict.

As Myanmar faces this new calamity atop existing challenges, the need for support and solidarity has never been greater. We urge the international community to take notice and act swiftly to aid those affected by this double crisis, both within Myanmar and in neighboring countries hosting refugees.

Not Just A Middleman: Three Essential Characteristics for a Transformative Intermediary

As an organization that raises funds primarily in the United States, then distributes those funds to groups working in the global South (largely Southeast Asia), our role is sometimes summed up as merely an added layer of bureaucracy. The “middleman,” or “intermediary”, it’s often called, with an accompanying critique of why the role is deemed superfluous.

The voices come from all over. From Silicon Valley types pushing for data-driven solutions, to condemnation from journalists like Ken Stern, former head of NPR, warning against millions of Americans “donating to good causes to no good end.” 

To be fair, these critiques have some merit. We have seen it ourselves, in our own work. Local actors in the global South, and even our own partners, describe the challenges of working with intermediaries who want to engage them (local organizations) as implementers who are tasked with implementing the strategy of the donor, leaving them out of the conversation completely.

It is clear that the role of the intermediary is complicated, sometimes troublesome. But it can be transformative, as those of you familiar with our work have seen time and again.

As Angie Chen, director of programs at The Libra Foundation argues, philanthropy is often too far removed from the reality of the communities that it purports to be helping. With more than 20 years of experience, we know an intermediary can play an essential role in shifting power and advancing issues of racial and gender equity amongst some of the most marginalized groups. 

We also believe that as more and more organizations within the United States look to advance issues of power and racial equity in their giving, the role of a certain kind of intermediary will be more important than ever before. So how do we ensure that the role of the intermediary is transformative, rather than transactional? 

Here are three characteristics we believe every good intermediary should have. 

Humility

There’s a common saying that an expert is just somebody from out of town, and that has certainly been the norm in a lot of development work – whether domestic or abroad. Yet this kind of expertise-driven strategy often takes leadership away from local groups and community leaders. It also begs the question – “who are the real experts?”

Intermediaries should place a heavy emphasis on humility and acknowledge the importance of input from local issue area experts and frontline leaders that live in and intimately know the community.

At Partners Asia, we are clear that we’re not the experts. Local leaders know best about what’s needed on the ground. They are the closest to the issues. They know the history of how things happen. And they have the relationships to get things done. Our job is to listen deeply, stay humble, and leverage our resources to support locally-driven strategies.

Relationships

“Intermediaries are catalytic to power-building because they reach across issues and geographies,” says Crystal Hayling, executive director of The Libra Foundation. “They build strong partnerships that reflect a deep understanding of groups in the community and their needs.”

A good intermediary is one that practices building deep and trusting relationships, has a sophisticated understanding of power dynamics, and provides infrastructure and opportunities for collaboration amongst partners.

This is true, particularly when the intermediary is proactively working to build well-founded relationships with local nonprofits, community groups, and otherwise marginalized populations. These relationships are at the core of everything we do. We conduct an annual anonymous survey with our partners to assess each relationship and whether or not our partners are getting the support they need from us, as part of our Learning and Impact Evaluation. We also support programs and activities that help to foster a strong network of relationships amongst our partners.

Streamlined Processes and No Red Tape

One of the biggest complaints that we hear from our partners on the ground is how long it takes for resources to get to them once the donor agrees to invest in their work. And when resources do come, they are often structured in a way that makes it virtually impossible to meet the community’s needs.

Partners Asia has tried to develop grantmaking processes that are responsive to the context in which the funds are being granted. For example, we process emergency grants in under five days – often with just a phone call and one-page summary.

Effective intermediaries are not governed by top-down, bureaucratic processes. They are nimble and responsive and ideally, offer flexible and unrestricted funding. 

We hope that by sharing our experiences, we can encourage more intermediaries to adopt these kinds of equity-based practices. Particularly when it comes to North-South relationships, where for too long we have seen the negative consequences of unchecked power dynamics and inequitable practices. We believe that this kind of approach offers a huge opportunity. Not just to emerging/overlooked groups and underfunded sectors, but to the social change ecosystem at large. As the Libra Foundation – who committed $10 million to 14 community-accountable intermediaries in late 2021 – observed, “we’re seeing more coordinated donor organizing efforts, accountability initiatives, space for tough conversations, and more loving organizational cultures.” It’s an approach that might well lead to the sort of lasting, transformative, and truly inclusive change we hope to see in this world.

By Corrina Grace, Strategic and Operational Partnerships Specialist, Partners Asia

This blog is an amendment of an article recently published by Partners Asia in Giving Compass.

An Inquiry into Local-Global Solidarity

Since the late 90s, the phrase “think globally, act locally” has been used in a range of contexts from environmental activism, to education, to ambitious business strategies for some of the most recognized brands. More recently, the idea seems to have undergone a rebranding, and “localization” is now the phrase of the day and, just as before, it has wide-ranging appeal. Including in the philanthropy sector.

Localization is being used by more and more organizations as a way for citizens around the world to respond to the growing climate crisis. It is also being adapted by many smaller philanthropies, where a “we live here, we give here” motto is used to encapsulate a philosophy of place-based giving at a hyper-local level. This idea of localization has also been used in some cases to push back against more traditional humanitarian approaches, arguing that traditional aid models create an influx of outside assistance that disempowers those most affected.

But is an ethos of localization truly the right direction for philanthropy?

Given Partners Asia’s mission to enhance human dignity, equity and well-being for marginalized and disenfranchised populations in Southeast Asia, and our strategy of doing that by connecting local leaders with global resources, it’s a trend we’ve been thinking about a lot. And one we believe leaves a lot of questions unanswered. 

Questions such as: How local is local? What of those of us whose places of origin are distinct from the places we now call home? What of our connections to diasporas? And what is our responsibility as citizens of industrialized countries who have so clearly enjoyed the benefits of economic globalization? 

Corrina Grace, a Partners Asia collaborator, wrote about this recently in an article published by Giving Compass. She proposed that the local-global proposition is no longer relevant to the world we live in, and goes on to present an alternative framework for people who are looking to make a difference – wherever in the world that may be. 

So how does that framework apply to Partners Asia’s own approach and philosophy? We explored this with Corrina in more detail. Read on to find out!

1. Find your connection

Corrina argues that finding your connection is an important starting point, one that can help shift your support from a place of charity (built on the idea of “us” and “them”), to one of solidarity (built on a relational understanding that we are all connected).

We know this connection is vital! Many of us from the Partners Asia community support this work because of important connections to people and place. Whether you are part of a global diaspora, hold sacred memories of special places in the region, or are called in through your spiritual practice – we are all connected in some way.

Each of us linked to the other, this creates a precious web of human relationships that is central to allowing us to support our partners and do this work. It also greatly influences how we work. In the words of Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano,

“I don’t believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.”

So who are we learning from? More on that in the next point.

2. Prioritize Proximity

As Corrina’s article states, proximity matters when it comes to creating change! Yet we know that this is still largely missing in the international development space. As Mark Lowcock, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, explained “Despite good intentions, the … system is still set up to give people in need what … donors think is best, and what we have to offer, rather than giving people what they themselves say they most need.”

At Partners Asia we know that local actors, like community leaders and local organizations, must play a central role in shaping solutions. We firmly believe that local leaders are best positioned to deliver impact because they are deeply rooted in the communities they serve. They know best about what’s needed on the ground, they are the closest to the issues and they have the relationships to get things done.

That’s the power of proximity, and it’s a central tenet of all that we do. 

3. Strengthen Civil Society

Across the globe, civil society spaces are shrinking and democratic practices are increasingly under attack. And Southeast Asia is no exception to this trend. Within this context, the role that local NGOs and community-based organizations play in strengthening civil society cannot be underestimated.

This is where Partners Asia’s Theory of Change really comes into effect. We know that in order to create long term, systemic change we have to do more than just give away grants. It’s also about nurturing deep, equitable partnerships, and weaving networks of allies working for change. This holistic approach is designed to nurture shared learning, exchange and collaboration, while supporting locally-led organizations to develop the power and influence to drive decisions that impact their communities. 

Are you excited about being a part of this community? If so, why not share this blog with your friends or family and start a conversation about what local-global solidarity means to you. 

Funding Local Leaders and Building Resilience in the Face of Climate Change

Over the last few years, there has been greater recognition that addressing society’s most deeply rooted inequalities requires moving power and resources into the hands of local leaders and directly to the communities those resources are intended to benefit. But this shift represents more than just a philosophical or ethical position. In fact, it may be the most strategic shift that philanthropy has seen in the last 100 years. One deeply tied to our collective ability to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing climate. Yes, investing in local leaders and locally-led solutions is about a fairer future. But it’s also about survival.

The pandemic brought into sharp focus some critical flaws in the development ecosystem. As large organizations began evacuating their international aid workers back to their home countries and closing down offices, vulnerable communities were left alone, creating life-threatening gaps in support at exactly the moment it was most needed. 

For those of us who’ve been advocating for more equitable and inclusive partnerships that lift up local voices it was a small, if bittersweet, victory. Deeply entrenched in the communities they serve, local leaders are better equipped to respond with flexibility and agility to rapidly changing or unexpected shifts in the ecosystem (like a global pandemic or sudden military coup).

They have deep knowledge of the systems they’re part of, and are better positioned to change and influence those systems. And perhaps most importantly of all: When the going gets tough, they aren’t going anywhere. Local leaders don’t just have skin in the game, they have their lives on the line. 

But despite clear evidence that local organizations are much better equipped to provide agile, innovative, and contextually appropriate responses, data shows that only around 3% of international humanitarian spending goes to local and national groups. 

Those who are funding these kinds of local leaders are individuals and organizations who are challenging the status quo and flipping the power on traditional development dynamics by building fair, equitable, and dignified partnerships with locally-led groups. 

“Our support means our partners feel more secure in otherwise tenuous circumstances,” said Patty Curran, executive director of Partners Asia. “And when they feel safer, they’re able to remain strategic, resilient players in the bigger picture – which is vital if they’re to continue building a better, freer future for the people they serve.”

Building Resilience

A resilient response is one that is flexible and emergent – everything that our traditional development system is not. Individual and community resilience, built on a foundation of purposeful partnership, is critical as we face a rapidly changing climate. 

Natural disasters and extreme weather events bring about localized crises that disproportionately impact poor and marginalized populations. We can no longer afford to use the top-down, externally driven approach. As events become more frequent, we will be asked to do more with less. Worse, as the costs of adaptation and mitigation in wealthier countries escalates, funding support to developing countries will likely taper out. We must do what we can now to help communities build resilience. We must build on the power of partnerships. With increased investment in building genuine local participation, and a concentrated effort to shape a system where local communities are empowered with the capacity to address the challenges that impact them, a pathway forward – even in the face of a rapidly changing climate – may be possible. 

Get Involved

• If you’d like to support local leaders and locally-led efforts in Southeast Asia, contact Partners Asia.
• Further afield, Fieldworks helps organizations who want to nourish locally-led change in the Global South to find reliable information on local partners.
• And if you want to learn more, this Starter Kit from the Direct Philanthropy Initiative is designed to help any funder – regardless of size – to shift power to local hands, work with the most effective movement leaders, and build long-term community power from the ground up.

This article was also featured by Giving Compass on their online platform.

By Corrina Grace, Partners Asia Social Innovator

SDG17 (Rethinking) Partnerships for the Goals

It could be argued that SDG17 (Partnerships for the Goals) is the most important of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The complex and interdependent nature of the challenges we face in the world will not be solved by any one individual, organization, or government alone.

There is not a single solution that can be scaled or a transformative public policy to be implemented that can get us to where we need to be. As the voices of the People’s Climate Movement have been crying out for years: “To change everything, it takes everyone.” Achieving the Global Goals and meeting the ambitious 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda will require strong partnerships and collective actions that bridge across traditional boundaries such as race, religion, class, gender, and geography. It also required recognition that not all partnerships have been created equally.

Read more…

What “Response” looks like

Two very active schools that we support have gathered supplies and are now making masks, soap, and hand-sanitizer. Another is pooling resources to distribute food to migrant families.

Another partner is translating COVID-19 information into multiple languages so that the thousands of people that must cross the border back into Myanmar will know what to do when they get to their villages–and marginalized ethnic communities in Myanmar (who don’t speak Burmese) will know about the virus.

A fifth partner is distributing food parcels to thousands of Refugee families along the Myanmar-Bangladesh border as the lockdown is extended.

With many international aid workers no longer in-country, we are seeing clearly what we have long believed to be true–that the most effective response to a crisis is a local response.

This is exactly why Partners Asia supports local leaders. We walk alongside our partners, so that they can do the things they need in order to pivot, respond, and protect the most vulnerable members of their communities.

This pandemic has underscored why we promote their wisdom in responding to changing needs. Feel free to ask us more about what we do and what’s happening right now. We have a lot to share.

Patty Curran
Executive Director