In order to compete we need to be much....

-Eigil L. Rasmussen

Eigil L. Rasmussen served as Country Director at MS Nepal for about four years. As a leader of the organization he made significant contribution to the implementation of the MS Nepal Policy Paper based on MS in the South principles. His initiative towards strengthening partnership programme and delegation of authority and system development within the Country Office are highly commendable. He returned home (Denmark) recently on completion of his assignment in Nepal. Excerpts of his interview with Binay Dhital just before he left:

What is your overall experience of leading a personnel-based partnership organization like MS Nepal?

First of all a personnel sending organization like MS is to stay here. There is no doubt about it. MS is a volunteer sending organization growing mature and there is a potential for having a more modern thinking of partnership combined with a larger number of personnel from, in our case, Denmark in the future. When it comes to the number of personnel (DWs) we need to be more professional in our choice. In order to compete we need to be much more multi-dimensional in what we are doing.

I think MS should be doing what it is doing. It should continue to revise its strategy. We are always saying that we should involve our DWs in income generation and poverty reduction aspect of things. But I think in that field there's stiff competition from local people who know much more than the Danes do. So what we have to do is to look at how we can make better use of our DWs in capacity building for intercultural cooperation. Because that's where they've stronger knowledge and, I guess, intercultural cooperation needs to be developed with the players from both ends together. Conflict Theatre, Democracy by Bus/ Women and Conflicts: New Perspectives projects are some of the examples. These programmes could not have been done only by the Danish or by the Nepali side alone. Well MS is here to stay and we're on the right way. I'm very proud that we've got the opportunity to be the first one in putting intercultural cooperation as an equal goal to poverty alleviation. I think it should have been like that for many years.

How challenging do you think it is for MS Nepal to work in the present security situation? How should it cope with this situation?

We have to establish where we are in relation to the current security situation. While analysing the situation we have to have two questions in mind--are we here to stay? Or are we on our way out? Personally, I believe that we are here to stay no matter whatever happens. We may (but I even doubt that we'll have to) take our people out of here temporarily but I see no signs that we'll be pushed out of Nepal. We have been very careful in the selection of our working areas and partners by becoming more poverty-oriented. We have also shaped Operation Day's Work (OD) very much along the line.

What it takes to deal with security situation is revision of our strategy (ies) according to the changed situation. We are keen in having DWs in all partnerships and that we should aim at. In certain situation we might take our DWs out of some areas temporarily and put them for use elsewhere but that I don't see as a failure or big problem. But definitely, we need to be even better in revising our strategy if things turn more complicated and if we are that, which I believe we are, I cannot see any problem in dealing with the security situation.

In which areas you think you have been able to accomplish what you intended to do and which are the areas which need further improvement?

I remember when I arrived here people were still not too sure that MSiS and partnership do apply in Nepal. As a major achievement we have now formalized MSiS programme and have been able to develop our version of partnership programme that works. The other thing I have found quite exciting is promotion of delegation of responsibility. Though, it is not necessarily a requirement from MS but it is a requirement in MS because we talk a lot about transparency and about involving stakeholders and staff like that. Giving responsibility to people is actually the most motivating factor that you can think of. You just need to find the way to do it.

In the Country Office the Programme Unit, the HRD Unit and the Info Unit have grown a lot thanks to greater mandate they are given. The Administration Unit is a bit more complex and appears to be running in a traditional way may be because it is a traditional set up in MS system. It has, therefore, been more difficult to handle and I should say that it is one of my biggest disappointments in working with MS that I could not manage to work by following the ideas I had about management.

Speaking about the ideas that I have tried to introduce there are certain steps, which I believe will be interesting to talk about. If you want to delegate responsibilities, you need to be good at systems development--identifying tasks, shaping them up so that others can see what we are talking about and making a visible mandate for everybody. Instead of spending all your time and doing the job yourself you should rather define what is this task all about and that, of course, should be done in a participatory way. This is why I am always talking about development of a Country Office Manual as this is where our system development lies together. So the system/guidelines development is a very much basic tool required to ensure delegation of responsibilities.

The next step will be initiating the delegation process and promoting learning by doing. You need to be able to step back, accept even if things are not done in a way you would like to do yourself, and to go back many times and suggest changes. And what it takes is that you are very much aware of what's going on and creation of an open environment where your people do come and ask you, and where it does not become an offence. The process of supervision and facilitation is a very important part. The last element is monitoring and that is, I think, sometimes a problem in MS. I believe that you cannot really delegate unless you have a properly functioning monitoring system and when there is not a certain level of trust. The practice of encouraging all players to come up with new ideas and taking them positively and implementing them rather than the boss sitting and thinking all brilliant ideas himself has brought many good results. It's a philosophy of working that, I think, has made us much more productive than we were in the past.

The leader should be visible and in charge, while at the same time remaining committed to delegation of responsibilities. A leader should not be criticized for claiming to be leader but for his/her inability to ensure delegation. I think we have established a working style in MS Nepal, which works. Now I strongly hope that would be maintained and used much more in the organization. I claim that the reason why we still have problem in getting the administration work properly is that the philosophy has not been understood. I guess what we have been up against is strong tradition in the organization where new ways of thinking may receive applause but a system, which is not bureaucratic and also not very dictatorial, is sometime difficult to promote as it takes backing from all corners.

I think a lot of consolidation is yet to be done all over the programme because things have been done very quickly. We have a visible MSiS programme. We have three visible regions. We have some places where we will have to refine our choice of partners and the way we work with partners. Now that the shape of the programme is there physically in terms of partners much more time should be set aside for working with partnership. Our partners are confident in us and we are confident in them. It is a good time to start discussion about what does this partnership mean and how we can make it even better.

What do you think should be done to consolidate the new initiatives?

I think its first of all about having the CO manual ready. It is also about taking an approach where it becomes natural to say first the CO manual or guidelines and then the work. That's what I had to struggle for. I guess that the philosophy I mentioned above has not really been understood. Now I think that's what we have to do. The problem lies in the lack of a system development approach to things. If we had done that-- taking that focus rather than trying to patch up problems when they emerge-- we could have gone much further. I think one should not cry about it much though because if we believe that the strategy of delegation is important, then system development becomes the main entrance to doing that in a better way.

What about further diversifying MS's funding sources?

As it is the policy objective to diversify funding base we have done it. Democracy Fund, OD and a much stronger funding base from MS Denmark are some of the examples. Our budget has considerably increased now and on top of that we have OD fund next year. But I think we are not that much in need of alternative funding as we were before. If we really want higher external funding, we need to prove that we can handle OD work before we enter into other big things. Unfortunately, MS Nepal has proven not being able to handle big amount of money before. I believe we are much better equipped to do that now. But again I think we have to be very careful in proving that we can actually handle this. Then there is democracy Fund. Big budget cut in Denmark has affected the fund but still somebody has to get what's left. We have proved to have a good approach and it means that it's still not impossible. The Images of Asia seems little bit difficult to find out how to make use of that which is there.

What I consider the new direction that we can go in the present circumstances is to be better at linking to other donors locally. I think having more than the areas that we now have talked about at this point is not right. We definitely can try and may use good relationship we have built with DANIDA in many different fields. They are increasingly open to civil society and to MS work. We can work in many areas where we are together and it is perfectly fine with them too.

Is it obligatory for MS Nepal to remain a medium-size programme even if it has the capacity and scope to grow?

There was a time when MS Nepal was saying we are not too sure that we like partnership approach but still we were lucky to be allowed to be a medium size programme. It was very difficult to argue that we should become big programme with very few partners and negative attitude towards the whole project and the initiatives. But if you take a look at the budget and you will see that we are amongst the third biggest programmes today. Look at the number of partners. You also see that we are ranking fairly high but with DWs we are being little bit low. If you look at the figures proposed for the next year we will be on par with those who have most DWs. I strongly recommend that we make it because that's what we have said we want to. I don't believe that if we are getting up towards the edge of a frame, someone/anyone will stop us from developing programme. We don't mean that we should just continue to establish more partners we are allowed to. I know in some countries they have been told to close down the partnership because they are beyond the border but if we want to expand further I believe we will/can do that.

What do you suggest we should do to maintain and further promote MS Nepal's visibility in MS world?

First of all it is a question of understanding what MS is and its programme in the South, and then deliver. The philosophy has been as simple as that MS is saying MS in the South and partnership we will give them partnership. MS is saying we want intercultural cooperation we will give them that. MS is saying we want advocacy and more modern types of development we give them that. So the philosophy is to read what the good people in Copenhagen are telling us to do and then prove that we are really up to the standard they are after because in that you get your freedom to be innovative. I remember the first MS Nepal annual report I saw when I came in. It was telling that we did not do anything because we did not have adequate resources. And that's a killer. I mean you will never get anywhere by doing so. But later on we started taking more positive approach to things. You get and fly and when you are flying you have the possibility of maneuvering. MS is an organization, which is not afraid of being impressed when you do impressive things; they are not telling oh! no, you cannot do that. In fact you can say MS is, may be sometimes, too easy to impress because we have a tendency to say yes to even things that lie outside our policy, if it is impressing enough. So one has to do certain self control also.

What are your suggestions for further strengthening of information work that MS Nepal is doing?

Our information work has been strengthened by making use of local resources. We have now continuity in what we are doing. We have a person in charge who is here to stay and we have DWs coming in and working with the Information Unit. MS globally should realize that many more things can be taken care of at the local level and that's why we have struggled to make our own productions of different kinds here on our own initiatives thereby proving that the South is much better in many of these things than the info people in Copenhagen can imagine. So I see very much a need for MS info section in Copenhagen and MS at large to recognize the potential that lies in this and use it to its fullest potentials. We should make a set up where people can work together--North-South, South-South --and then try to see who is best at what. MS has the potentials that I've not seen in other organizations. The recognition of the potentials from Copenhagen is very important one and it is also essential on our part to prove that it is true. So we have some work to do there.

We are embarking on the path of establishing info partners. If we have three different info partners established in each of the three regions they could cooperate as an editorial committee kind of thing. That's the wider perspective of how we structure if we work with info partners. The editorial committee of my imagination is a body that includes the head of the MS/N Info Unit as the coordinator and representatives from each of the info partners and DWs concerned. That could be an inspiration for all sides. It should not only be MS's need for information, it should rather be about programme's need. Once you have such a committee, then you decide who takes care of what task and you find out also how others provide support. Then you can work together with the info workers in Denmark. But they talk as if the info DWs are almost CO staff out of Copenhagen and I think that's old fashioned. So there is still a battle to fight and that is interesting part as well. And MS is not an organization where you cannot change. Further efforts should be made to enhance the partners' capacity to do what the MS/N Info Unit is doing.

Would you like to tell something more to MS/N colleagues and partners?

I would like to say that it has been very exciting to be a part of this process. I have got a lot of inspiration from the work that we have been doing in development field. It was very interesting to note that even while shifting the whole programme focus to new areas and initiating the process of delegating responsibilities we could still keep things on the right track. That was a professional challenge to me, which I have enjoyed and learnt enough from here. I am definitely not a leader who gives away everything and says now others can run my organization. But I believe that with the right kind of structures you have there is nothing to be afraid of giving strong mandate to many different players. In fact the success of the work you are doing will become much better if you dare do it.