Neil Ford suggests re-vamping UNICEF’s Africa Communication for Development Strategy in order to improve impact and achieve results. He suggests two strategic changes: (1) to focus on only few broad communication methodologies and (2) to focus on partnership development at the community level. Both suggestions are logically correct, however when Neil is telling us what to do, he is not telling us how to do it. Historically, there were several attempts in UNICEF to go to scale in communication, but only few attempts included sustainability mechanisms.
One of those attempts was undertaken in Nigeria (1986-89), which is mentioned by Neil as a current example of disperse application of communication strategies. I happened to be a UNICEF Chief Communication Section in Nigeria in that time. We focused on only two strategies: (1) capacity building within the mass media (NTA and FRCN). So called Child Survival Secretariat at NTA, entirely equipped by UNICEF and staffed by UNICEF trained personnel was producing from its inception and broadcasting something like an hour a week of Child Survival oriented programs. This technically correct approach died progressively due to lack of sustainability (rapid use of equipment, desertion of trained staff to better professional opportunities, gradual erosion of political will including UNICEF, etc)
(2) the second strategy consisted on organizing campaigns, mainly immunization campaigns, where UNICEF was mobilizing one-time participation of social groups (Rotary, civil society organizations, traditional leaders and others), making radio messages in 86 different languages, etc…. and –‘beating the bush’ as described by then Minister of Health Olikoye Ransome-Kuti. All resources were consumed in the process.
Nobody evaluated comparatively those two approaches in Nigeria. Logically speaking the first one was more promising at the long run, however lacked sustainability. The second approach, very common in Latin America at that time, was frustrating by its need to repeat it again and again. What was better? Both were good. Personally I believe there are several good communication strategies, which success depend on sustained, consequent use and application.
Best regards, Stas Czaplicki, former UNICEF staff member
Revamping UNICEF C4D Strategy by Neil Ford
Neil Ford suggests re-vamping UNICEF’s Africa Communication for Development Strategy in order to improve impact and achieve results. He suggests two strategic changes: (1) to focus on only few broad communication methodologies and (2) to focus on partnership development at the community level. Both suggestions are logically correct, however when Neil is telling us what to do, he is not telling us how to do it. Historically, there were several attempts in UNICEF to go to scale in communication, but only few attempts included sustainability mechanisms.
One of those attempts was undertaken in Nigeria (1986-89), which is mentioned by Neil as a current example of disperse application of communication strategies. I happened to be a UNICEF Chief Communication Section in Nigeria in that time. We focused on only two strategies: (1) capacity building within the mass media (NTA and FRCN). So called Child Survival Secretariat at NTA, entirely equipped by UNICEF and staffed by UNICEF trained personnel was producing from its inception and broadcasting something like an hour a week of Child Survival oriented programs. This technically correct approach died progressively due to lack of sustainability (rapid use of equipment, desertion of trained staff to better professional opportunities, gradual erosion of political will including UNICEF, etc)
(2) the second strategy consisted on organizing campaigns, mainly immunization campaigns, where UNICEF was mobilizing one-time participation of social groups (Rotary, civil society organizations, traditional leaders and others), making radio messages in 86 different languages, etc…. and –‘beating the bush’ as described by then Minister of Health Olikoye Ransome-Kuti. All resources were consumed in the process.
Nobody evaluated comparatively those two approaches in Nigeria. Logically speaking the first one was more promising at the long run, however lacked sustainability. The second approach, very common in Latin America at that time, was frustrating by its need to repeat it again and again. What was better? Both were good. Personally I believe there are several good communication strategies, which success depend on sustained, consequent use and application.
Best regards, Stas Czaplicki, former UNICEF staff member