This article focuses on policy advocacy programmes in Nepal and Nigeria, instigated by ActionAid International with local women’s rights organisations and non-government organisations, and supported by the Institute of Development Studies, UK. These programmes aimed to challenge women’s unequal responsibility for care work and to influence policymakers to understand the importance of providing services to support them. One of the main components of these programmes was child care, a responsibility which most women experience 24/7 for at least two decades of their lives, and which profoundly shapes their lives and opportunities.
The processes through which each of the country teams have engaged with public policies was examined, focusing on the similarities and differences in each context. Although the programme of activities has been implemented in much the same way in both countries, and each chose to focus on early child-care provision as the main policy demand, the partnerships and policy processes chosen differ greatly. Specifically, the paper distinguishes between ‘critical engagement’ (in the case of Nepal), as compared to ‘constructive engagement’ (in the case of Nigeria).
Key findings:
- There were certain similarities in the strategies and process adopted by both countries. Firstly, the generation and use of evidence was key in driving the unpaid care agenda, both at the community level and among policymakers and practitioners at national level. A very strongly shared priority was identified for the national advocacy work for child care.
- The use of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) and discussions with a range of stakeholders was critical in raising the profile of unpaid care work as an issue in both countries. Finally, organising and coalition building amongst both state and non-state players was critical in both countries to ensure quick and sustained buy-in and commitments. However, it is critical to note that this buy-in has not been universal amongst all government actors, even though some critical players have been influenced, albeit with difficulty, to take positive action.
- Making care visible in both countries was thus not an easy journey, with both programmes facing challenges and resistance along the way. Firstly, there were problems pertaining to the validity of unpaid care work as an issue for AAI country offices to engage with, including scepticism that unpaid care work is a real issue, resistance from local stakeholders such as the Unpaid Care Work Coalition who did not endorse the programme immediately.
- Secondly, at the community level there was initial resistance among men in the communities. In Nigeria, there were men who perceived the programme as promoting an alien culture, seeking to change women’s traditional care role, and possibly wanting to transfer the drudgery of care to men. AAI Nigeria was able to overcome this resistance through a series of targeted engagements with the men and endorsement and interventions from traditional and religious rulers.
- Thirdly, there were also challenges with regards to budgeting, competing priorities, and resistance from the government that took different forms, from dismissal to diversion, such as resistance from government, preference for leaving things to NGOs due to lack of government funds, and other agendas being prioritised.
- A fourth challenge comes from competing women’s rights issues within women’s organisations. Our experience is that care is not typically seen as a high a priority as other issues, such as gender-based violence and trafficking. Further, there is also either a lack of knowledge, capacity, or a dismissal of issues pertaining to the structure of the economy if raised by women’s rights activists. However, the lack of capacity was less about capacity, as several workshops and training programmes were held for addressing this. A team member reflected that this depicted a certain lack of confidence, or in some cases even reluctance and resistance to the idea of unpaid care as a priority issue for action.
- Finally, even within AAI, the unpaid care work initiative was often not seen as either a priority, or as a potential domain where AAI could play a leading role among international NGOs. The country office teams took on the challenges associated with this by taking on the role of internal advocates and getting buy-in from others to have the best use of resources.
- Despite the similarities in both the goals and the challenges that the two countries have faced in their work on unpaid care, key differences have meant that the country strategies of Nepal and Nigeria are quite different. In Nigeria, the Unpaid Care Work Coalition has worked very closely with a government ministry, as highlighted earlier. In fact, the National Framework for Action has been developed jointly with this Ministry. This high level of constructive engagement with the government can be accorded to the presence of a champion in the Ministry, who has worked very closely with AAI Nigeria staff. This has been termed ‘constructive engagement’.
- On the other hand, AAI Nepal’s approach could be termed ‘critical engagement’ – implying a distanced approach where although they sought to influence the government, AAI Nepal and the MAM movement remained critical of the government, especially at national level. There have been some attempts made to liaise with the Social Security Fund department in Nepal, but with limited success.
- However, AAI Nepal’s work has been more grounded than AAI Nigeria in local community work through MAM and its partner organisations, which has led them to set up pilot CCCCs. Consultation with local authorities, such as the VDCs, and implementing LRPs along with support from the community have been crucial in establishing and running CCCCs in communities like Chapagaun and Shakhamul. This is in sharp contrast to AAI Nigeria, where while local community work is vibrant, the focus of their work on unpaid care work is strongest at the national strategy level.