Using Video to Spread Your Nonprofit Group's Message and Mission

More and more nonprofit organizations are tapping into video as a powerful marketing and fund-raising tool.

But while some charities use video to reach supporters, potential donors, and the public, others have been slow to adopt the approach.

What's the best way to use video storytelling to get your group's message across to current and potential supporters? What technologies work best for public-service announcements? What's the difference between direct-response and viral video?

The Guests
Sara Fusco is assistant director for online communications at Refugees International, in Washington, where she is managing a redesign of the organization's Web site. Previously, Ms. Fusco was deputy director of development at the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, where she developed databases and marketing materials, and directed the organization's special events planning. Michael Hoffman, an expert in online business development and marketing, is chief executive officer of See3 Communications, which develops visual, audio, and photographic content for nonprofit groups wanting to raise money and spread their message. Mr. Hoffman co-founded DoGooderTV and EarthFirst.com. Mr. Hoffman is also the host of the Guide to Online Video, an introduction to online video for nonprofit groups.

Mark Horvath is a television producer who creates video content for nonprofit causes. He has worked extensively with the homeless population in Los Angeles for over eight years, and creates video narratives of the plight of homeless people in Los Angeles. His videos can be seen at http://invisiblepeople.tv/blog/. He has also developed marketing and fundraising campaigns for churches in Los Angeles, and St. Peters, Mo.

Steve Braker has produced broadcast, non-theatrical, and commissioned documentaries for more than 25 years. He founded Worthwhile Films, a Northfield, Minn., company that produces documentary and educational video, and other types of media programming for nonprofit organizations and government agencies.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome to today's online discussion on online video for nonprofits.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
The growth of social media has made it easier than ever before for nonprofit groups to use video to spread their message and raise money.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
But for many organizations, video isn't part of the daily routine. And, of course, budgets are tight. So how can your group effectively create, produce, and market video on a tight budget? What are the common mistakes? What are others doing?

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Today, we have four experts in the use of video for storytelling and advocacy available to answer these and other questions.

They include:

Sara Fusco, assistant director for online communications at Refugees International, in Washington; Michael Hoffman, an expert in online business development and marketing and chief executive officer of See3 Communications; Mark Horvath, a longtime television producer who creates video content for nonprofit causes; and Steve Braker, who has produced broadcast, non-theatrical, and commissioned documentaries for more than 25 years.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
To ask a question of one of our guests, please click on the "ask a question" link on this page and type in your question. This discussion is text based, so there is no need to call in. The page will refresh every minute with the newest information.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
With that, let's get started ...

Steve Braker:
Hello all, I'm Steve Braker and I've been producing "narration-free" documentary style video for NGOs / nonprofit organizations for 25 years as Worthwhile Films (http://worthwhilefilms.com).

It's exciting to see that video is in a new era in terms of its reach and potential, now that almost anything can be seen almost anywhere. That doesn't mean that the old ways of getting an org's video message in front of the right eyeballs are obsolete, they're just part of a larger mix. The challenges are the same: produce video which tells a compelling story and message, and get the right people to see it in a productive context.

Question from Ellen, small video production company:
Where can I find data on the effectiveness of using video for nonprofit fundraising?

Michael Hoffman:
There is a lot of information online. A good place to start is the Guide To Online Video at http://www.see3.net/guide/

Question from Ladd Morgan, Ernst & Young:
If a small nonprofit cannot afford a professionally done video, should it approach donors with something homemade?

Sara Fusco:
In large part I'd say it depends on the content that you have, and the donors you are approaching. "Amateur" raw footage can be extremely compelling to donors if the content is fresh - something that hasn't been seen or told before - and has an emotional story that is being told.

Don't try to over-stylize it yourself. As long as the content is there, the story is sharp, and you clearly make the case that your organization is the one who can best address the issue you're portraying, then yes, it can absolutely be homemade and work for donors.

Mark Horvath:
Quality transmits credibility. people will judge your brochure, video, or any marketing material by how professional its done. that said, with today's tools and a little extra work quality video production does not necessarily have extreme costs anymore.

Question from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
We have some older, non-professional equipment (digital but just barely) like a handicam. Is it worth producing something or just waiting until the budget opens up for better items?

Mark Horvath:
NEVER WAIT! Right now all I have is a laptop that cannot even edit video and a small camera. My Avid died and I cannot afford to replace it. I sat and looked at what I didn't have and got depressed. Once I started to look at what I had and just decided to make things happen I found the solution. The point is take what you have and make something. If you are missing an important piece rent or borrow.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
We've had a couple of questions come in about this format. This is a text-only chat -- so there is no audio or video that accompanies this discussion. This page will refresh every minute with the newest material. Thanks everyone.

Question from Piper Stege Nelson, NDI:
When posting a video on your website, specifically on the CONTRIBUTE or DONATE page, what is most compelling? And what length is best?

Steve Braker:
I think in this day and age, you need to get the viewer on your side as quickly as possible. I'm still a proponent of getting people in a room to watch and discus a video, but you don't have a "captive audience" online.

Your online fund raising video might be 5 or 8 or even 12 minutes, but you want them to have a good feeling for what you're about and why they should help within the first 1 or 2 minutes.

Question from Kin Lazzaro, Sarah Lawrence College:
Would you suggest using online video as part of the acknowledgement process?

Sara Fusco:
Absolutely! It's a great treat to donors to receive something that helps them see that their money is going to an important cause. Anything that makes a donor feel special does wonders for your cultivation efforts.

Question from Scott Fortnum, ALS Canada:
I run the development program for the ALS Society of Canada and we have a stellar 60 second PSA that essentially chronicles the impact of the disease (typically 3 to 5 years) in one minute.

It is extremely powerful according to viewers and has been blogged about internationally on various marketing sites.

The industry buzz is great, but I am wondering what some of your thoughts are with regard to getting this in front of potential donors.

Steve Braker:
Congratulations, Scott. It sounds as though you're in a great position! I won't be an expert on this as it's more in the realm of web message wrangling than video itself.

But I think the challenge will be to get as many of those online placements to point back as visibly as possible to the site where people can take action. The video should include a specific call to action; if it isn't in there it should be added as text-over or at the end.

Question from Katherine, Mary's Pence:
If I have a four minute video of a grantee of ours that is compelling of our organization how can I use this to reach donors or educate people? What are the best ways to use this video?

Mark Horvath:
Interesting question. Sometimes video is not the answer. So often I hear "lets make a video" when another method would work best. The key here is to know your donors and ask THEM how they want to receive communications. For example, if they are online then add to a Web page or send in an e-blast. If the video is short make a business card sized DVD and mail it. There are many delivery methods but I must stress that you MUST know your donors. The real questions is, how do they want to receive your messages? I hope that helps

Question from Scott Squire, NonFiction Media:
As a small-footprint documentary production company, I'd like to know how to make a convincing case to organizations for making the relatively substantial up-front investment a documentary entails.

Steve Braker:
Great question. First of all I would suggest targeting yourself to the groups or types of groups that you really believe in and want to work with.

The vast majority of my projects are funded by sources outside the organization's budget. Government funding, foundation grants, individual donors who see it as valuable seed money for other donations. I help the organization in this process by providing a proposal and other materials which are then turned around as part of the appeal or application to fund the video. It's a new age, of course, but I think the same process is still alive.

Question from Nedra Weinreich, Weinreich Communications:
What are the elements you need to think about in video storytelling that are different from telling a story in print? Thanks!

Mark Horvath:
To me, the big difference is emotion. So much communication is lost in the written word where video/audio will capture everything. I personally like the person to tell their own story as I feel it's more powerful then a voice over narration. I am also not very big on locations unless they bring real meaning and emotion to the person being interviewed. Head shot so you can see the face and then add broll to visually tell the story. music plays a HUGE part in bringing emotion and is a very effective tool that print cannot provide.

Question from Abhilash Ravishankar, grassroutes.in :
I have a question, which is quite specific in nature. We fund youth to go on road-trips to rural areas, meet change-makers and document their travelogues on video.

When we process the video, we look at two audiences:
a. Donors
b. Other youth (in order to inspire them to travel for social change).

How different do you think the stories in the videos should be for the different audiences?

In your experience, what does a donor look for? Obviously impact. What else?

Michael Hoffman:
I think the most important thing is telling compelling stories. Stories that work, work for everyone. The difference between donors and others might be length and format -- you might want to use the donor videos in a presentation and you might need to have a different length or different messaging at the end.

Donors want to know that their support matters to real people. They want to know that the problem isn't so large that they can't have an impact, and they want to see their money at work with real people.

Question from Rachel, large nonprofit:
What are some of the pitfalls or obstacles I might run into as a part of a very large nonprofit? I'm interested in pitching it to my supervisors, but know I will face some resistance. Do you have any statistics of how online videos have been helpful to groups?

Sara Fusco:
It definitely can be tough to make the initial case. There are success stories that I know of, but it depends on your objective with the video (advocacy, fund raising, list-building). Michael at See3 probably has better ideas of statistics that he could share with you.

You'll need to develop a targeted campaign with a very clear objective, and then explain how online video will fold into that. Video is not the silver bullet, and can't accomplish your goal by itself. It's mostly the outreach that you do once it's produced and posted online that can make or break your campaign, and that's a huge pitfall that people can overlook. Just because you build it, it doesn't mean they will come.

Question from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
We're not eligable for Adobe non-profit discounts on Premiere (at least not through Techsoup) is there anywhere else to look to get decent editing software? -note no one here has a mac to use Final Cut.

Michael Hoffman:
The kind of software matters less than just getting started. Windows Movie Maker software is free and it can do basic editing. If you are committed to really building an in-house capacity for editing, I suggest speaking with your key supporters about why this investment is important and try to get them to underwrite the purchase of the software.

Question from Chris Davies, Weldmar Hospicecare Trust:
We were fortunate to have a film presented for us by a national celebrity, written for us by an Oscar winner (Gosford Park, etc) and produced by professionals - but it was too long for YouTube. I have added it as two halves. But the first half is getting 3 times the views of the second. They have offered to recut it (just needs 1 minute and 30 seconds taken out) but, as it's been there for four months now I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Will it dilute/ruin the impact we have already made?

Mark Horvath:
OUCH, these are great questions. The biggest bang was when it first went up. Unless you are going to promote it again it may not be worth the effort however, if they are offering to recut for free then do it just to have it. Personally, I never like to cut projects in parts. As I type I'd say YES, make it all into one. You'll find a use for it.

Question from Alexia Harris, adult education nonprofit:
It seems like most people are interested in nonprofits that cater to children, pets, or diseases. Do you have any suggestions for getting the public's attention if we don't serve those publics?

How can we use video to talk about the importance of adult literacy/education?

Steve Braker:
The categories you mention might be the most visible, but that doesn't mean your audience isn't out there. As Mark recently said to Katherine, video may or may not be the best vehicle for you. It's a tool to be used within the context of your overall marketing and fund raising.

I think telling genuine, straight-up stories is the best way to really reach anyone on any subject. Build a conversation with the people involved, and back it up with visual stories.

I wish I had the link for you, but there was a segment within the last month on NPR's "The Story" which was absolutely riveting - and they were talking about literacy! It took the story of one adult, in depth, and looked at how her life changed as she learned to read. There's one great example - it could have been audio, print, or video.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
We're about halfway through today's discussion and I wanted to post a reminder that you can submit questions or comments by clicking on the "ask a question" link on this page and then typing away.

Question from Amy Welsh, The Coordinating Center:
What type of a release do you need from the constituent in the video?

Sara Fusco:
We have a standard release that essentially says the individual understands what the objective is of the video, where it will be shown, how it will be used, and that we are free to edit the footage we collect from them. This should be signed by a parent or guardian if it's a minor, too.

There is also a location release we use that says it's okay to take footage of that space and edit it for those same purposes (mostly for when we collect b-roll).

It can also be extremely useful to get the individual on tape right at the beginning of the interview, with you explaining all of these details, and getting their verbal agreement. That's your safety net.

Question from Rachel, large nonprofit:
What are some of the pitfalls or obstacles I might run into as a part of a very large nonprofit? I'm interested in pitching it to my supervisors, but know I will face some resistance. Do you have any statistics of how online videos have been helpful to groups?

Steve Braker:
I'm afraid I don't have statistics, I just know that organizations are doing more video than ever, and the ones I'm involved in report great success in public awareness, donations, and other forms of support. Just tell them the people doing video say it's a good idea.... One longtime resource for this kind of information has been the Benton Foundation, I don't know what they have now but they have a long history of tracking media trends including nonprofit use. You might also want to check out the Communicators Network, for nonprofit communications people.

Question from Lauren, higher ed:
Do you see video social media site as a good method of online philanthropy? Are there specific organizations doing this well?

Michael Hoffman:
Absolutely! Social media sites are a great way to distribute video online. Of course there is YouTube, but there are also social networks such as Facebook, MySpace and smaller social networks built on platforms like Ning. The key is to map your community online. Where do the people you want to reach go? Start there, and then bring your compelling content to them -- don't make them come to you.

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fund raising purposes?

Mark Horvath:
Here is my favorite right now:

http://participate.denversroadhome.org/

My friends at URM do a great job and their short videos have made "stories from skid row" in the top 20's on Itune.s

http://www.urm.org

Of course, what I do

http://invisiblepeople.tv

social media release http://pitch.pe/4732

I'm not going for fund raising although there are strong elements. This was not part of the question but one of the reasons I started this is so many nonprofit videos show VICTORY that people detach, they say "wow, look at how great they are, now we don't have to do anything." Hhomelessness is not going away and is getting worse.

The one tip I can leave you with is that in creating a cause fund raising video ,do not leave the viewer thinking you solved the issue.

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fundraising purposes?

Sara Fusco:
I think American Jewish World Service does great things with video...which you probably read in the accompanying article! (http://www.ajws.org)

And I'll boast a little about our own current campaign (http://www.refugeesinternational.org/iraq-release) that is centered around a take-action and list-building.

I strongly believe that video isn't the magic solution to raise money, but it's one of my best (and favorite!) tools to cultivate and build faithful donors.

Question from Robin Gabbard, Buckhorn Children & Family Services, Kentucky:
We have a great 1- minute video. I would like to have a 1 - 3-minute clip edited from the original and put on our Web site. It tells me that our site cannot handle the video stream. Can you point me to a reputable source where I can learn more about the needs of a Web site handling video and how to upgrade if needed?

Steve Braker:
Robin, I can't speak to your specific technical (or internal affairs) situation, but you may want to seriously consider the social networking sites - specifically Facebook and Youtube. If you won't be doing a lot of video I would currently suggest Facebook, as higher quality video can be integrated into external sites with minimal fuss and almost no branding ("Facebook" shows up for about three seconds on playback). Assuming you aren't on Facebok yet, there's another thing to ponder. It's very well used by the nonprofit community and has features specifically beneficial for nonprofits. Take a look at how some organizations you know are using it.

Steve Braker:
There have been a few questions about DIY video. I'm not a blogger, but in response to a request from Kivi Leroux Miler I did put up a few do-it-yourself video tips here: http://tinyurl.com/bmre6z . It is general and technical and doesn't address the questions of style and approach - which deserve the most attention. You really need to plan out exactly what you want and make sure that it meets your needs and your resources.

Question from Katherine, Mary's Pence:
What is a business-sized DVD? Will people know how to use it? I think the piece I have could go on a Web site, and could also be used at small donor gatherings as a discussion piece.

Michael Hoffman:
I'm not sure what you mean by business-sized DVD, but DVDs can be sent to donors. I think they are best used as part of a facilitated discussion. It often makes sense to do both -- have a DVD for distribution to events and to key donors/board members, etc... and put the video online.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:
Can you give us a range of typical rates being charged for producing different length videos (30 second spots, 2 minutes, etc) - both for broadcast and for online? I know there can be an enormous variety depending on the nonprofit's operating funds, but any ballpark figures would be helpful. Operative word is typical.

Mark Horvath:
Oh that all depends. You can shop around and get cheap rates but lots of times you get what you pay for. Coming from the church world where staff is usually untrained volunteers and good gar is a hard sale to a pastor you get used to making excellence with a little.

It also varies on what your spot is and how extensive the production will be

To me, more important than price is you need to build a relationship with a media team that GETS your vision. There are lots of "cookie cutter" guys that will give you a rate and produce your spot. But if they cannot properly transmit your message it's a complete waste.

Comment from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
Here's The Story segment on Illiteracy that Steve Braker referred to earlier, http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_682_Learning_To_Read.mp3/view

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fundr aising purposes?

Steve Braker:
There are many, but I would point you to Mark Horvath who is in the room here. I don't know what's going on on the fund raising end, but his invisiblepeople.org makes a very compelling case for L.A.'s homeless people.

Question from Helen, Los Angeles Education Partnership:
How do videos compare if scripted by someone within the organization versus someone from the outside?

Michael Hoffman:
People within your organization know your work better than anyone from outside. And while that's important, it can also be the problem. You are sometimes too close to your issue to explain it to outsiders in the economical way necessary for good video.

When we work with someone it's a partnership. We assume they know their work better than we do, but we also know how to craft stories from the raw material. If you are working only in-house, I suggest showing it to people outside and getting and accepting honest feedback. If you are working with someone from outside, it still has to feel authentic to you, or it won't feel authentic to your audience.

Question from Jonathan Hutson, Physicians for Human Rights:
We posted a great video on our homepage, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org, to address the astronomical cost of health care in Zimbabwe. It's called "Health Care: Zimbabwe's Luxury Item." It's posted on YouTube, and we've promoted it to our supporters via email. The Zimbabwe Times also featured it on their homepage. We've Twittered about it and promoted it via our LinkedIn group. Where else could we cross-promote our Zimbabwe video?

Steve Braker:
That's a very interesting question. As a side note, I put together a piece for an organization in Zimbabwe, but for political reasons it is only shown in person at fundraising events to protect the people in it - no web viewing. I would absolutely make a Facebook page for it, and possibly a Myspace Film page in addition to YouTube. Make sure that you maintain these sites with useful information and make the call to action as easy as possible for viewers to follow. I would embed the YouTube or Facebook (I prefer) videos on your Web page so that they are seen in your own context; Otherwise just make sure that the right links are at hand anywhere the video can be seen. It sounds like you might want a social media person to handle all this if you don't yet.

Question from Jillian DeLaTorre, small nonprofit:
We have three different audiences our videos cater to - how different should these videos be?

Mark Horvath:
These really are great questions. Without knowing any more details then what you have provided, whenever possible target to your demographic. That said, three videos. But then again as I said earlier, maybe one of your audiences would prefer communication via another media. One issue is trying to have a big net to catch everything. The more you can shape your media to target your audience the better your response.

Question from Peter Panepento:
Steve, we've talked a lot today about what makes a good video? What makes a bad one? What are some common mistakes that can doom a video's impact?

Steve Braker:
Hah! Well, we know that shakycam can work, and weird awkward editing can work. The kids these days...

But really, I think what makes bad video (bad print, bad marketing, bad communications...) is lack of a clear purpose that is actually supported by video. Also a lack of understanding of what video is good and bad at. A few statistics won't hurt, but generally people won't remember them. What people remember is the FEELING that they got from the video - a feeling for what the subject or organization does, a feeling of empathy, a feeling that the wallet is weighing too heavily upon the pants. If the feeling is instead "huh? or "ugh" or "yuck", or even "ho-hum", it isn't an effective program.

Question from Amy Welsh, The Coordinating Center:
Any video we produce would be with limited equipment and probably then edited with Windows Movie Maker. Do you have an yguidelines or list of considerations before beginning?

Michael Hoffman:
The most important thing in your case is to have the end in mind before you start. Try to know what you are trying to capture before you shoot so you don't have to do massive amounts of editing. Also, focus on good sound. People forgive bad video, they do not forgive bad sound. Investing in an external/wireless microphone pays off.

Question from Michael Woolworth, The Connection, Connecticut:
Is there any caution against using consenting current clients or graduates in the video? If they recidivate, or backslide, that might prompt us to edit the video with someone else.

Mark Horvath:
ok, if i get this right you are asking if you put a graduate from a drug rehab in a video then the person goes out and uses is there a caution.

yes, you'll know if they are going to make it, but then again. lots of people fail. not because they are bad, it's just life.

i've been in this situation MANY times. usually if we find out the person has challenges we pull it from airing. that does not lesson their story or YOUR story because you helped them off drugs. in fact, it can be a good pitch to donors for more help because this is a serious issue

Question from Melissa, Montana State Univeristy:
I work as a fundraiser trying to raise foundation dollars for programs on campus. Many programs would benefit from online videos to bring attention to the great work that's being done - such as cancer prevention and awareness in tribal communities.

My question is, program officers are overworked and don't have time to do it, everyone's budgets are taxed, so who does it? What have other institutions done?

Sara Fusco:
We've recruited volunteers to put together a handful of videos for us (from local TV stations, students, friends of friends). But more importantly, we've focused a portion of our fundraising efforts on finding foundation money for staff time and outsourced projects.

This is, needless to say, really tough to do when your staff and budgets are stretched already. But making a commitment to build a comprehensive plan to create and use video can bring great rewards. It sounds like you have extremely compelling content that I'm sure a funder would be very interested in helping you create.

Question from Elisa, E.J. Associates:
We are producing a 20-minute documentary-style video for our nonprofit client. We have identified target audiences and are planning how to reach various segments, using the video as a key tool in our marketing/outreach efforts. We are planning campaigns ranging from events to targeted e-mails to Web 2.0. We've established a presence on Facebook and will start there. What are effective ways to get people on social networking sites to watch our video? Also, we haven't used viral marketing yet. How should we approach this?

Michael Hoffman:
I think you have to ask yourself and the client whether the 20-minute video by itself can achieve your goals. When we have a need for a longer form video (20-minutes counts as long-form in a world where the average web video is 1.5 minutes) we often create derivative content from this longer form video. I am sure you have enough content to create a 3-minute version, or better yet, several 3-minute versions that accentuate different aspects of the issue.

These shorter videos will likely get more traction in social networking sites. That is not to say that people won't watch longer video -- they will. The issue of length is what is the right length for the story.

In terms of getting people to watch, you need to have sharing functions built-in -- allowing people to easily embed the video on their own blogs, tell their friends through email, and post to their social networking profiles.

Mark Horvath:
there has always been a big debate about quality vs content. remember the most watched video of our time is the Rodney King video and it was shot on VHS. yes, work hard to have excellence but ALWAYS remember compelling content is what engages and motivates your audience!

Question from Peter Panepento:
Sara, what is the most worthwhile lesson you've learned about spreading your organization's mission through video?

Sara Fusco:
That it's a crowded world of video out there and it takes some hustle to really get your message heard. Creating great content can only get your so far...the success of any type of video campaign relies heavily on your outreach, responsiveness, blog promotion, etc.

Question from Maureen, Conservation Northwest:
How much of a video catalog should be kept? We have been collecting, shooting, and producing video for more than 20 years. Some of the video has no sort of tells as to what is being shown (For example, a shot of a clearcut, but where and when is unknown, or a mountain as the sun sets, or a stand of healthy trees). Should we invest to rip all the video off VHS or batamax tapes we have?

Steve Braker:
That's a tough question, Maureen. From the language it sounds as though you might rather it all just go away. But you know that as soon as they are thrown away or become unplayable, you'll want them. I would suggest getting them at least digitized, and ideally into some higher form than DV (at least DV50). When you do want them, you'll thank yourself for doing this. During the process you can be selective and let things go, or you can save that for later (at a higher digital storage cost). I can recommend a Mac product called Frameline (frameline.tv) for capturing, clipping, applying metadata to your media. I'd b hapy to be more specific in person.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:
Michael, wonder if you can explicate some more on your answer on using social networking...any specific examples on getting the message out to people through a social network as opposed to having them come to you?

Michael Hoffman:
Sure. The key to social networking is authentic conversations and so building a community on social networks is something that should extend beyond the goals of one particular video or another.

You should start by mapping the community -- where are the people you want to reach? Then make your media portable. Send the embed code to key bloggers in your community of interest, with a good reason for them to view it and use it. Join groups of like-minded people and share the video in those forums. Again, this must be seen as authentic conversation -- which involves listening! -- and should not be seen as just pumping your issue.

There is more information about this in our Guide To Online Video - http://see3.net/guide

Question from Peter Panepento:
Mark, what are some quick tips you can offer nonprofit groups that are trying to produce videos on a tight budget?

Mark Horvath:
i always work backwards. what is the result you want? phone to ring? people to write? people to show up? who do you want to take action?

i've seen big budgets hurt a campaign so just because you have limited resources don't feel less than. look at the solution and not the problem. be creative.

Robert Rodriguez has a great book "Rebel without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker With $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player"

for anyone doing video keep it short, engaging, target your audience, and get it to them FAST. lost of times nonprofits will shoot something and work on it for months and then the urgency is gone

Question from Peter Panepento:
What do you think of nonprofit groups spending big money to create videos for annual dinners and other events? Is this the best use of their resources in today's environment -- or are there more effective ways to produce and distribute video?

Michael Hoffman:
The dinner video can be useful. But if that's where it starts and ends you are missing out.

The dinner video is a product everyone understands and as such can be used to do a lot of production for your organization. The key is to use the raw material to create MANY video products -- for the dinner yes, but also for your website, for your social communities, etc.

A dinner video we did for the American Jewish World Service became 25 different video products. Some needed an additional day or shooting, but many were just repurposed from the raw material. Make sure you get all the raw footage from your dinner video work, and that investment will be much more useful.

Question from Peter Panepento:
Michael, this medium has changed significantly in the past few years. What opportunities do you see emerging for nonprofit groups over the next few years as it relates to video?

Michael Hoffman:
Remember when your organization didn't have a Web site? And then they got one, and it was bad, and people asked "Why do we need that?" It wasn't so long ago.

We are in the same place with video today. The infrastructures of the Web and TV are coming together and so while text content won't go away by any means, the mindshare -- of donors and policymakers and volunteers -- will drift toward those who are telling compelling stories. These stories need to be authentic and transparent (about real challenges and real operations) and they will attract people.

The opportunity is for those to begin building their capacity to move beyond the one video and create a library of images and video and audio that is constantly being repurposed into messages, long and short, for your site and for all of the networks in which your audience lives online.

Steve Braker:
Just want to emphasize what Mark said: "compelling content is what engages and motivates your audience!" That's key. You may or may not need professional help depending on your slills and other factors. But Compelling is really the key word.

Steve Braker:
Steve's windup: There are many many ways to approach a video project. I think the most important things are that you as the producer or collaborator believe in the message, the approach, and your collaborators, and that the project will make the right fit with the organization, other marketing messages, donors, and supporters.

I invite you to connect and continue with questions and discussion after the session: http://worthwhilefilms.com/contact.html

Michael Hoffman:
I want to thank everyone that asked a question today. Online video is here to stay so the main take-away should be GET STARTED!

Two things I want to draw your attention to. The first is the 3rd Annual Nonprofit Video Awards. This is a great opportunity to get some recognition for your work, but more importantly it is a great opportunity to learn about what other organizations are doing that works well. You can find it at http://www.dogooder.tv/contest2009/

The second is the Guide To Online Video - a series of short videos about how nonprofits can use video. This is available at http://www.see3.net/guide/

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Thank you for taking the time to join us today and a special thanks to our four fantastic guests, who provided some excellent information. I'd like to note that we have a special live discussion scheduled for tomorrow at noon Eastern time on President Obama's proposal to change the charitable deduction for taxpayers earning more than $250,000. You can find that discussion here: http://philanthropy.com/live/2009/03/obama/

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
And as a final reminder, you can read transcripts of all of our previous discussions and get information about upcoming events at http://philanthropy.com/live. Also, you are always welcome to contact me with questions or suggestions at peter.panepento@philanthropy.com. Thanks.

Зроби свій голос почутим: 10 кроків комунікації в третьому секторі

Враховуючи сильну конкуренцію на сучасному ринку, кмітливі громадські організації постійно шукають успішні комунікаційні підходи. До Вашої уваги десять кроків, які ви можете застосувати прямо зараз, аби змінити власний підхід до комунікацій.

1. Зрозумійте, хто ви є. Почніть з виявлення слів та фраз, що характеризують вашу організацію. Що наразі ваш бренд ідентичності - те, чим ви відрізняєтесь від інших, що каже про вас? Які теми виникають, коли вас згадують? Пам’ятайте, що ваш бренд – це набагато більше, ніж просто логотип; це взаємовідносини, які ви маєте зі своїми ключовими аудиторіями. Ці відносини включають в себе всі ознаки – добрі чи погані, що розповідають про історію вашої організації та важливу роботу, яку ви робите.

2. Знайте свою ключову аудиторію. До кого ви звертаєтесь? Хто може допомогти вам досягти свою місію? Аудиторії можуть включати в себе донорів, компанії, політичних чи громадських лідерів, медіа, волонтерів, працівників організації або інші групи.

3. Розмежуйте аудиторії за пріоритетами. Іноді ми хочемо задовольнити всіх, хто взаємодіє з нашою організацією, але коли ресурсів обмаль, ключовим є саме правильна розстановка пріоритетів. Визначте три найважливіші аудиторії й запишіть все, що ви може з ними зробити. Які їхні демографічні показники? Яка їхня мотивація? Потім визначте, що ви хочете, аби робила кожна аудиторія. Яку вигоду вони отримають, долучившись до вашої організації, які цілі на їхньому шляху і як їх можна досягти?

4. Створіть ключові повідомлення (меседжі). Слова та вирази, які ви використовуєте в розмові про свою організацію, є передумовою вашого успіху. Якщо ви знаєте тих, до кого хочете достукатись, створіть теми для розмови, що чітко сформулюють те, що ви хочете, аби робила кожна аудиторія. Також покажіть вигоди від цих дій та мінімізуйте реальні та уявні виклики для членів цієї аудиторії. Можливо, ви також захочете переоцінити свою місію та установчі засади, аби пересвідчитись, що сформулювали вірну місію та бачення вашої організації.

5. Говоріть з ключовими аудиторіями. Створіть перелік ключових зацікавлених осіб (стейкхолдерів), які допоможуть вам виявити потреби, кроки на майбутнє, нагальні дії та сфери вдосконалення стосовно вашої організації. Члени такої аудиторії можуть включати в себе донорів, програмних працівників, керівників правління, наглядових рад та інших. Перед тим як завершити створення меседжів, важливо відповісти на всі питання, що можуть виникнути щодо ваших аудиторій – як внутрішні, так і зовнішні. Не робіть припущень про те, чого вони хочуть: тлумачення ваших меседжів чи своєї мотивації до дій. Розшукуйте членів потенційної аудиторії й діліться своїми думками та ідеями. Ставте їм питання, багато питань! І важливо - слухайте їхні відповіді.

6. Залучайте працівників та членів правління. Сила ваших комунікацій залежить від тих, хто їх здійснює. Будьте впевнені, що кожен член вашої команди, правління та групи волонтерів має чітке розуміння головних тез меседжів і знає, як їх поширювати. Переконайтесь, що кожен чітко розуміє цілі комунікації і не має невирішених питань чи намірів, яких не торкнулися. Розробіть комунікаційний порадник, який можна застосовувати всередині організації, аби забезпечити зрозумілість ваших очікувань щодо того, як має ширитись бренд організації.

7. Чітко висловіть свій меседж. Визначте найкращу маркетингову діяльність задля просування вашої організації. Будьте впевнені, що вона включає вірний підхід задля досягнення ваших ключових аудиторій і місце, де вони отримуватимуть інформацію. Ця діяльність має включати в себе медіа-розповсюдження, пряму поштову розсилку, партнерські можливості та спеціальні заходи.

8. Зробіть кінцевий аналіз можливих перекосів. Переконайтесь, що ви оцінили всі аспекти свого бренду. Чи ваш логотип та підзаголовок (гасло) підтримують той образ, що передається через вербальні та невербальні канали комунікації? Якщо ні, то як (йдеться про інформування щодо бренду, фінанси, час) розробити нові візуальні образи, які краще підтримають імідж бренду, що ви вибудовуєте? Чи ваш веб-сайт, брошура, прес-кіт (статті для медіа, що включають прес-реліз, роздатковий матеріал, додаткові довідки тощо), фірмовий бланк, емейл, листівка чи пропозиція для донорів мають бути вдосконалені задля найкращої підтримки іміджу бренду? Чи вони відповідають потребам кожної аудиторії? Чи вони не суперечать один одному? Переконайтесь, що кожна складова підсилює послідовну комунікаційну платформу.

9. Працюйте як одна команда. Якщо ви вже сформували основу для сильного бренду, який можна презентувати вашим аудиторіям наочно та послідовно, будьте впевнені, що кожен/кожна розуміє його/її роль в досягненні та підтримці успіху організації. І не важливо, чи це прямі послуги, фандрайзинг, організація подій, поточна робота чи відповіді на телефонні дзвінки – кожна особа має знати власну роль в донесенні історії та місії своєї організації.

10. Оцінюйте, оцінюйте, оцінюйте! Важливо оцінювати ваші успіхи та виклики регулярно, аби мати впевненість, що камені спотикання оминаються, успіхи поширюються та розбудовуються, а ключові аудиторії залучаються до роботи. Звіряйтесь зі своїми аудиторіями, що саме спрацьовує, а що потрібно доробити. Будьте чесними щодо необхідних змін і робіть ці зміни. Тримайте ваших працівників та членів правління у відповідальності за власні ролі в успішності організації. Запитуйте зворотній зв'язок та надавайте відповідну підтримку в разі потреби.

Авторка - Джилл Расмусен (Jill Rasmussen), співвласниця компанії Promoting Public Causes, Inc. (PPC) – закликає розширювати цю тему, ділитись думками, історіями досягання успіхів та долання викликів у сфері комунікацій.

Переклад: Антон Альошин

Top 20 companies: Climate change leaders show the way

СlimateChangeCorp.com picks its favourite firms set to inspire others to follow their environmental lead

By Mike Scott

Climate change has gone from being a marginal issue to being at the forefront of business leaders’ minds. The scientific evidence has been growing for years and this year’s IPCC reports appear to have settled the debate about whether man-made climate change is happening.

However, the issue’s move to the centre stage has come about thanks to a range of disparate events, including Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which devastated the Gulf of Mexico coastline of the US in 2005 and were attributed, wrongly or rightly, to climate change.

Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth brought the subject to a mass audience, while The Economics of Climate Change by Sir Nicholas Stern, helped explain why action now was vital, rather than leaving future generations to deal with the problem.

The establishment of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, also in 2005, is starting to focus minds on the cost of carbon, but there is a case for saying that it was another event in the same year that really focused the minds of the business community – the launch of GE’s ecomagination initiative.

When a company as focused as GE announces that there is money to be made in providing environmental solutions, other companies sit up and take notice.

The companies highlighted in the following pages cover a range of economic sectors, illustrating that the climate change challenge is one that affects every section of the business community.

They are by no means the only companies in those sectors that are taking action, but they have all taken a lead on the basis that early action is not only vital for society as a whole but for the future performance of their business.

The opportunity picks show that it is not just the big beasts that are taking action – many of the most interesting and innovative technologies are emerging from smaller companies and some of the biggest growth stories will come from there, too.

The list also demonstrates that climate change benefits do not just come from the obvious areas such as wind turbines. Demand for products as diverse as high efficiency ball-bearings, ‘smart meters’, low energy computer monitors, financial services and household goods is driven by climate change.

ClimateChangeCorp.com’s top twenty climate friendly companies, large and small:

1) Oil and gas

Leader: Statoil

Ranked the top oil and gas company in the Dow-Jones Sustainability Index, the Norwegian oil and gas company has been storing CO2 from its Sleipner West field in a saline aquifer under the North Sea since 1996, in response to Norway’s introduction of a CO2 tax.

The Norwegian government’s 70% stake and policy that the country should be carbon neutral by 2050 are significant drivers in Statoil’s environmental efforts. The company aims to cut its CO2 emissions by 1.5bn tonnes a year by 2010.

It has invested $12.5m in the World Bank’s Community Development Carbon Fund, which provides finance to projects in the poorer areas of the developing world. In Sweden and Norway, it sells biofuel blends at its petrol stations.

Opportunity Pick: Cosan

Brazil’s largest sugar and ethanol producer is set to raise up to $2bn on the New York Stock Exchange and is expected to scale up production and accelerate acquisition activity in Brazil and Central America, leaving it well-placed to profit from explosion in demand for biofuels.

Sugarcane is a far more effective feedstock for ethanol than the corn that is used in the US and tariffs on Brazilian biofuels in Europe and the US are likely to come down over the long term.

Brazil has by far the most developed biofuels market in the world and the land to expand production to meet demand. The company says that cellulosic ethanol technologies will be more effective for sugarcane bagasse (the waste product from producing sugar) than for corn, further boosting the economics of its product.

2) Power generation

Leader: Iberdrola

The Spanish utility is the world’s largest provider of renewable energy, and has grown rapidly in recent years through acquisition, most recently buying Scottish Power earlier this year.

It has more than 44GW of renewable assets at different stages of development, 95% of it wind power. Most of its current capacity is in Spain, but its pipeline is strongest in the UK, the rest of Europe and, principally, the US. It also has biomass, solar and mini-hydro capacity.

Opportunity Pick: Ocean Power Delivery

A Scottish wave power company, OPD has leapt ahead of its rivals in attempts to bring its devices to market. Three of its Pelamis devices, which use the motion of the waves to drive hydraulic rams and produce energy, are being deployed in the world’s first commercial marine energy project in Portugal, and four machines are set to be installed in Orkney in a Scottish Power-funded project that will be the world’s biggest commercial wave project.

There are also plans for seven Pelamis machines Wave Hub, off the coast of Cornwall, which should be up and running by next year.

3) Retail

Leader: Whole Foods Markets

Despite the controversy over co-founder John Mackey’s e-mail comments about the company’s closest rival, which it wanted to buy, Whole Foods is going from strength to strength.

The company is surfing the wave of ethical consumerism both in the US and, with the opening of a flagship food hall in London, spreading into the UK, whose organic market is predicted to be worth £2.4bn by 2011.

It is committed to buying as much locally-grown seasonal food as it can, to reduce food miles and encourages reduced packaging and energy conservation. It also composts its food waste, cutting the amount it sends to landfill, its new stores are built with green building techniques and its fleet is being converted to biodiesel.

Opportunity Pick: Waitrose

The employee-owned UK supermarket chain focuses on locally-sourced produce, selling more than 1,200 products from within a 30-mile radius of its stores.

The company grows produce on its own farm in Hampshire, which is partly powered by wind and solar power and certified to LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) standards and grows its own feedstock for biofuels.

It has initiatives to reduce the number of miles driven per £million sales and supports research into community renewables initiatives. It has committed to cutting its CO2 emissions by 10% by 2010, from 2001 levels through a carbon management programme.

4) Transportation

Leader: MTR Corp

MTR operates Hong Kong’s mass transit railway system. It is set to merge Kowloon-Canton Railway Corp and has won a profile-lifting seven-year deal to help operate a new London rail service that will be a vital link for the 2012 Olympics.

In Hong Kong, an eight-year, HK$2bn platform screen doors (PSD) retrofit programme in all its 30 underground stations contributed to a 15% cut in energy use from 2002-2005. The installation of regenerative braking systems, an automatic control system that drives trains at optimum energy usage and monitoring of individual carriages to optimise air-conditioning has also cut power use.

Opportunity pick: Johnson Matthey

The company supplied platinum to Sir William Grove, inventor of the fuel cell, in 1839. Since then, it has become the world’s largest supplier of catalysts and components for fuel cells and is one of the companies best-placed to profit from the hydrogen economy when it eventually arrives.

It is also the biggest maker of catalysts to control emissions from vehicles, supplying one third of all catalysts ever made and a leader in catalysts that reduce volatile organic compound emissions from industrial processes.

Its CRT system can be retrofitted to diesel engines in buses, trucks, trains and stationary applications.

5) Engineering

Leader: SKF

The Swedish company is the world’s largest rolling bearing manufacturer. Its bearings reduce the friction involved with rotation and movement and therefore reduce energy consumption.

As industry strives to reduce energy consumption SKF is likely to see increased demand for its products, which are found in everything from oil refineries to in-line skates to the A-380, the world’s largest airline.

Its bearings can also be found in solar panels and wind turbines and its drive-by-wire products cut energy use and pollution by replacing hydraulic and mechanical processes. The company has a target of cutting its own emissions by 5% every year.

Opportunity Pick: Westport Innovations

Canadian company Westport Innovations has developed a mechanism for running diesel engines on directly injected natural gas.

The technology offers significant reductions in emissions, nitrogen oxides and particulates, compared to conventional engines. The company believes natural gas vehicles provide the bridge from petroleum to hydrogen.

Hydrogen-enriched Compressed Natural Gas (HCNG) improves combustion and offers a viable path, using readily available commercial vehicles, towards the eventual goal of pure hydrogen fuel, as well as offering immediate and material environmental benefits over even natural gas.

Its products are used in heavy-duty and light trucks, buses and passenger cars.

6) Household Goods

Leader: Unilever

One of the world’s largest household goods and food producers, Unilever has reduced CO2 emissions in its manufacturing operations by more than 30% over the past decade in absolute terms.

In 2006, it sourced 14.8% of its energy from renewable sources, of which 8.2% it generated itself. The company has installed video-conferencing facilities in five regional offices to help reduce business travel.

It has introduced ice-cream cabinets that use hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerants instead of CFC or HCFC gases. HC cabinets use up to 9% less energy than older technologies and HC refrigerant does not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases.

Opportunity pick: Ecover

The Belgian company offers phosphate-free cleaning products based on environmentally-friendly ingredients and produced using low-energy manufacturing processes at its eco-factories – it has just opened its third plant in Boulogne to cope with increased demand.

Because the company’s products use plant and mineral-based ingredients rather than fossil-fuel-based chemicals, their total carbon footprint is much lower than traditional cleaning products and they are biodegradable.

7) Financial Services

Leader: HSBC

The world’s third-biggest bank was the first to announce it would go carbon-neutral. It has introduced a range of energy efficiency measures, buys renewable electricity and offsets the emissions it cannot remove.

The bank has launched a $100m partnership on climate change with The Climate Group, Earthwatch Institute, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and WWF and Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the seminal report The Economics of Climate Change, has joined the bank as an adviser on its investments..

It has also introduced a global energy efficiency programme that will enable HSBC offices worldwide to showcase environmental innovation and share best practice.

Opportunity pick: Triodos

Netherlands-based ethical bank Triodos, which also operates in the UK, Spain and Belgium, was one of the first institutions to invest in wind power in the 1980s, after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and solar power in the 1990s.

Triodos Climate Clearing House, a clearing house for CO2 emission credits, processed its first transactions in 2001. It has invested in companies involved in wind, recycled heat, small-scale hydro-electric power – one of its most recent investments was in Marine Current Technology, which is working to develop the world’s first commercial tidal power scheme.

Triodos also offers customers the opportunity to invest in renewable energy projects through its Renewables Fund.

8) Construction & buildings

Leader: Lafarge

Cement production is one of the biggest emitters in industry, responsible for 5% of all emissions. Lafarge was one of the leaders in establishing the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Cement Sustainability Index.

It has committed to a 20% cut in net emissions per tonne of cement worldwide and a 10% cut in absolute emissions in industrialized countries by 2010, from 1990 levels.

Lafarge has also committed 11% of its R&D budget to carbon capture and storage and employs a range of energy efficiency measures including using materials ranging from rice husks to bone meal to scrap car tyres to heat its kilns.

The company aims to secure 14% of its fuel from alternative fuels by 2010.

Opportunity Pick: Itron

With buildings responsible for 40% of carbon emissions, there is a real focus on the sector’s energy performance. Itron is a ‘smart-metering’ company that allows remote meter reading.

Smart meters not only allow utilities to improve efficiency and improve demand response, they can also help consumers manage their domestic energy consumption more effectively.

The meters are vital in tracking energy distributed by micro-generation and sold back to the grid. With an increasing focus on energy efficiency, energy security and distributed generation, the demand for smart metering is likely to be strong and Itron has 50% of the market.

9) Electronics

Leader: Sharp

The Japanese consumer electronics giant is committed to reducing the environmental impact of all of its products including energy consumption during use. It has a target of 40% of its Japanese sales being from green products by 2010, by which time it also aims to be carbon-neutral.

The company’s Japanese manufacturing plant is one of the most environmentally advanced factories in the world. Its ‘Green Seal’ range of high efficiency products includes its range of LCD televisions, which have received the coveted EU Eco-label.

In addition, it is a world-leading producer of solar cells, which it has been producing for 45 years.

Opportunity Pick: Delta Electronics

Taiwan's Delta Electronics makes power management components for PCs, helping to make PCs more energy-efficient as well as providing low-energy visual display units.

As a supplier to companies including Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, GE and Sony, it is well-placed to benefit from the increased attention on the electricity use of computers.

Its subsidiary DelSolar makes solar cells and is set to expand production to 100MW per year by the end of 2007. Other energy efficiency or environmental products include electronic ballasts, mercury-free displays, AC motor drives, inverters for renewable energies, and fuel cell components.

10) Vehicles

Leader: Honda

While Toyota’s Prius hybrid has taken most of the plaudits, its Japanese rival, which has its own hybrid range, is rated the greenest vehicle maker overall by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US.

The company has demonstrated a fully-functional fuel cell vehicle, has a hydrogen production and refuelling station at its Los Angeles research unit and is introducing a clean diesel car to the US in 2009, offering lower emissions of both CO2 and particulates.

The company is working on new technology to produce ethanol from soft biomass, including waste wood and leaves, and has a unit that sells thin-film solar cells.

Opportunity Pick: Tanfield

Tanfield’s subsidiary, Smith Electric Vehicles a former milk float maker, is the world’s largest manufacturer of road-going commercial electric vehicles.

Its zero emission trucks and vans can travel at up to 50mph and have a range of 150 miles, making them ideal for commercial fleets within a closed environment, such as airports or with defined routes, such as supermarket home delivery services.

It has won orders from Marks and Spencer, J. Sainsbury, logistics company TNT and Scottish & Southern Energy.

Sales have doubled every year since 2004. The company is building a plant in the US that can produce 1,000 vehicles a year and expects to open another by 2009 that will lift US capacity to 5,000 vehicles a year.

Найкращі та найгірші практики соціальних медіа

НАЙКРАЩІ ПРАКТИКИ

1. Використання соціяльних медіа як інструмента фандрейзингу:

• Додайте кнопку або віджет "зробіть внесок" до вашого медіаканалу.
• Уповноважте людей збирати кошти від вашого імені, наприклад facebook causes
• З'єднайте людей безпосередньо з бенефеціарами, які потребують їх досвіду та послуг, або сприяння обміну досвідом

2. Побудова навколо спільної справи міцної громади: сфокусуйте ваш сайт на якісь конкретній темі, не розпорошуйте сили, змістіть акценти з простого надсилання месиджу на бесіду та обмін досвідом, використовуйте соціяльний networking для формування поінформованості та підтримки.

3. Використовуйте соціяльні медіа для advocacy

• Інформуйте людей та впливайте на публічну політику
• Забезпечуйте прихильників регулярними оновленнями стосовно того, що вони можуть зробити, аби адвокатувати вашу спільну справу
• Створіть інформаційний центр, де волонтери та прихильники можуть отримати усю інформацію для адвокації. Посильте інтерактивність шляхом додавання функцій "вставити відео", "вставити віджет", "вставити банер" тощо.

4. Моніторте простір соціяльних медіа, вивчайте досвід інших.

НАЙГІРШІ ПРАКТИКИ:

1. Застаріла інформація

2. Інформація, що надається нерегулярно

3. Недостатня контактна інформація

4. Непрофесійний веб-дизайн

• Недостатня інтерактивність
• Незручність у користуванні
• Мало фотографій, відео, деталей подій

5. Логотип і теги не відповідають місії та цілям організації

Перелік критеріїв оцінки соціяльних медіа

1. Перегляди сторінки
2. Кількість унікальних користувачів
3. Члени
4. Пости (ідеї, дискусії/теми)
5. Кількість груп (мережі, форуми)
6. Коментарі
7. Теги
8. Рейтинги
9. Час, проведений на сайті
10. Автори
11. Посилання
12. Завершені профайли
13. З'єднання (між учасниками)
14. Співвідношення: між членом та автором, між постом та коментарем, профайлом та постом
15. Періоди: щодня, щомісяця, щороку
16. Частота (візитів, постів, коментарів)

Brazil's foreign-aid programme

Speak softly and carry a blank cheque

In search of soft power, Brazil is turning itself into one of the world's biggest aid donors. But is it going too far, too fast?

ONE of the most successful post-earthquake initiatives in Haiti is the expansion of Lèt Agogo (Lots of Milk, in Creole), a dairy co-operative, into a project encouraging mothers to take their children to school in exchange for free meals. It is based on Bolsa Família, a Brazilian welfare scheme, and financed with Brazilian government money. In Mali cotton yields are soaring at an experimental farm run by Embrapa, a Brazilian research outfit. Odebrecht, a Brazilian construction firm, is building much of Angola’s water supply and is one of the biggest contractors in Africa.

Without attracting much attention, Brazil is fast becoming one of the world’s biggest providers of help to poor countries. Official figures do not reflect this. The Brazilian Co-operation Agency (ABC), which runs “technical assistance” (advisory and scientific projects), has a budget of just 52m reais ($30m) this year. But studies by Britain’s Overseas Development Institute and Canada’s International Development Research Centre estimate that other Brazilian institutions spend 15 times more than ABC’s budget on their own technical-assistance programmes. The country’s contribution to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is $20m-25m a year, but the true value of the goods and services it provides, thinks the UNDP’s head in Brazil, is $100m. Add the $300m Brazil gives in kind to the World Food Programme; a $350m commitment to Haiti; bits and bobs for Gaza; and the $3.3 billion in commercial loans that Brazilian firms have got in poor countries since 2008 from the state development bank (BNDES, akin to China’s state-backed loans), and the value of all Brazilian development aid broadly defined could reach $4 billion a year (see table). That is less than China, but similar to generous donors such as Sweden and Canada—and, unlike theirs, Brazil’s contributions are soaring. ABC’s spending has trebled since 2008.

This aid effort—though it is not called that by the government—has wide implications. Lavishing assistance on Africa helps Brazil compete with China and India for soft-power influence in the developing world. It also garners support for the country’s lonely quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Since rising powers like Brazil will one day run the world, argues Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães Neto, the minister for strategic affairs, they can save trouble later by reducing poverty in developing countries now.

Moreover, aid makes commercial sense. For example, Brazil is the world’s most efficient ethanol producer, and wants to create a global market in the green fuel. But it cannot do so if it is the world’s only real provider. Spreading ethanol technology to poor countries creates new suppliers, boosts the chances of a global market and generates business for Brazilian firms.

The effort matters to the world’s aid industry, too—and not only because it helps offset the slowdown in aid from traditional donors. Like China, Brazil does not impose Western-style conditions on recipients. But, on the whole, western donors worry less about Brazilian aid than they do over China’s, which they think fosters corrupt government and bad policy. Brazilian aid is focused more on social programmes and agriculture, whereas Chinese aid finances roads, railways and docks in exchange for access to raw materials (though Brazilian firms are busy snapping up commodities in third-world nations, too).

Marco Farani, the head of ABC, argues there is a specifically Brazilian way of doing aid, based on the social programmes that have accompanied its recent economic success. Brazil has a comparative advantage, he says, in providing HIV/AIDS treatment to the poor and in conditional cash-transfer schemes like Bolsa Família. Its tropical-agriculture research is among the world’s best. But Brazil also still receives aid so, for good or ill, its aid programme is eroding the distinction between donors and recipients, thus undermining the old system of donor-dictated, top-down aid.

And all this has consequences for the West. Some rich-country governments cautiously welcome what Brazilians call “the diplomacy of generosity”, just as they do the soft-power ambitions of which aid is part. After all, if (as seems likely) emerging markets are to become more influential, Brazil—stable, democratic, at peace with its neighbours—looks more attractive and tractable than, say, China or Russia.

But if aid is any guide, a lot will have to change before Brazil occupies the place in the world that its president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, aspires to. Brazil seems almost ambivalent about its aid programme. The country still has large pockets of third-world poverty, and sending money abroad could be controversial. Brazilian law forbids giving public money to other governments, so legal contortions are inevitable. The ABC aid agency is tucked away in the foreign ministry, where its officials are looked down on as “Elizabeth Arden” diplomats (London–New York–Paris), not the “Indiana Jones” adventurers required. At least some aid, for example to Venezuela, seems to have been inspired by Lula’s soft spot for leftist strongmen. And the exponential increase in aid—the value of humanitarian contributions has risen by 20 times in just three years—means that both people and institutions are being overwhelmed. Stories abound of broken promises, incompetence and corruption.

Slowly, though, things are changing. Dilma Rousseff, the presidential candidate from Lula’s party, is thought to be mulling over the idea of a new development agency to raise aid’s profile, if elected. As Mr Farani says, Brazil needs more aid officials, with more operational independence and a greater emphasis on policy aims, not just piecemeal projects. Until it gets those, Brazil’s aid programme is likely to remain a global model in waiting—a symbol, perhaps, of the country as a whole.

Source - Economist

CHINA AND INDIA: Contest of the century

AS CHINA AND INDIA RISE IN TANDEM, THEIR RELATIONSHIP WILL SHAPE WORLD POLITICS. SHAME THEY DO NOT GET ON BETTER

Aug 19th 2010

A HUNDRED years ago it was perhaps already possible to discern the rising powers whose interaction and competition would shape the 20th century. The sun that shone on the British empire had passed midday. Vigorous new forces were flexing their muscles on the global stage, notably America, Japan and Germany. Their emergence brought undreamed-of prosperity; but also carnage on a scale hitherto unimaginable.

Now digest the main historical event of this week: China has officially become the world’s second-biggest economy, overtaking Japan. In the West this has prompted concerns about China overtaking the United States sooner than previously thought. But stand back a little farther, apply a more Asian perspective, and China’s longer-term contest is with that other recovering economic behemoth: India. These two Asian giants, which until 1800 used to make up half the world economy, are not, like Japan and Germany, mere nation states. In terms of size and population, each is a continent—and for all the glittering growth rates, a poor one.

Not destiny, but still pretty important

This is uncharted territory that should be seen in terms of decades, not years. Demography is not destiny. Nor for that matter are long-range economic forecasts from investment banks. Two decades ago Japan was seen as the main rival to America. Countries as huge and complicated as China can underachieve or collapse under their own contradictions. In the short term its other foreign relationships may matter more, even in Asia: there may, for instance, be a greater risk of conflict between rising China and an ageing but still powerful Japan. Western powers still wield considerable influence.

So caveats abound. Yet as the years roll forward, the chances are that it will increasingly come down once again to the two Asian giants facing each other over a disputed border (see article). How China and India manage their own relationship will determine whether similar mistakes to those that scarred the 20th century disfigure this one.

Neither is exactly comfortable in its skin. China’s leaders like to portray Western hype about their country’s rise as a conspiracy—a pretext either to offload expensive global burdens onto the Middle Kingdom or to encircle it. Witness America’s alliances with Japan and South Korea, its legal obligation to help Taiwan defend itself and its burgeoning friendships with China’s rivals, notably India but also now Vietnam.

This paranoia is overdone. Why shouldn’t more be asked from a place that, as well as being the world’s most-populous country, is already its biggest exporter, its biggest car market, its biggest carbon-emitter and its biggest consumer of energy (a rank China itself, typically, contests)? As for changing the balance of power, the People’s Liberation Army’s steady upgrading of its technological capacity, its building of a blue-water navy and its fast-developing skills in outer space and cyberspace do not yet threaten American supremacy, despite alarm expressed this week about the opacity of the PLA’s plans in a Pentagon report. But China’s military advances do unnerve neighbours and regional rivals. Recent weeks have seen China fall out with South Korea (as well as the West) over how to respond to the sinking in March, apparently by a North Korean torpedo, of a South Korean navy ship. And the Beijing regime has been at odds with South-East Asian countries over its greedy claim to almost all of the South China Sea.

India, too, is unnerved. Its humiliation at Chinese hands in a brief war nearly 50 years ago still rankles. A tradition of strategic mistrust of China is deeply ingrained. India sees China as working to undermine it at every level: by pre-empting it in securing supplies of the energy both must import; through manoeuvres to block a permanent seat for India on the United Nations Security Council; and, above all, through friendships with its smaller South Asian neighbours, notably Pakistan. India also notes that China, after decades of setting their border quarrels to one side in the interests of the broader relationship, has in recent years hardened its position on the disputes in Tibet and Kashmir that in 1962 led to war. This unease has pushed India strategically closer to America—most notably in a controversial deal on nuclear co-operation.

Autocrats in Beijing are contemptuous of India for its messy, indecisive democracy. But they must see it as a serious long-term rival—especially if it continues to tilt towards America. As recently as the early 1990s, India was as rich, in terms of national income per head. China then hurtled so far ahead that it seemed India could never catch up. But India’s long-term prospects now look stronger. While China is about to see its working-age population shrink (see article), India is enjoying the sort of bulge in manpower which brought sustained booms elsewhere in Asia. It is no longer inconceivable that its growth could outpace China’s for a considerable time. It has the advantage of democracy—at least as a pressure valve for discontent. And India’s army is, in numbers, second only to China’s and America’s: it has 100,000 soldiers in disputed Arunachal Pradesh (twice as many as America will soon have in Iraq). And because India does not threaten the West, it has powerful friends both on its own merits and as a counterweight to China.

A settlement in time

The prospect of renewed war between India and China is, for now, something that disturbs the sleep only of virulent nationalists in the Chinese press and retired colonels in Indian think-tanks. Optimists prefer to hail the $60 billion in trade the two are expected to do with each other this year (230 times the total in 1990). But the 20th century taught the world that blatantly foreseeable conflicts of interest can become increasingly foreseeable wars with unforeseeably dreadful consequences. Relying on prosperity and more democracy in China to sort things out thus seems unwise. Two things need to be done.

First, the slow progress towards a border settlement needs to resume. The main onus here is on China. It has the territory it really wants and has maintained its claim to Arunachal Pradesh only as a bargaining chip. It has, after all, solved intractable boundary quarrels with Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar and Vietnam. Surely it cannot be so difficult to treat with India?

That points to a second, deeper need, one that it took Europe two world wars to come close to solving: emerging Asia’s lack of serious institutions to bolster such deals. A regional forum run by the Association of South-East Asian Nations is rendered toothless by China’s aversion to multilateral diplomacy. Like any bully, it prefers to pick off its antagonists one by one. It would be better if China and India—and Japan—could start building regional forums to channel their inevitable rivalries into collaboration and healthy competition.

Globally, the rules-based system that the West set up in the second half of the 20th century brought huge benefits to emerging powers. But it reflects an out-of-date world order, not the current global balance, let alone a future one. China and India should be playing a bigger role in shaping the rules that will govern the 21st century. That requires concessions from the West. But it also requires commitment to a rules-based international order from China and India. A serious effort to solve their own disagreements is a good place to start.

Source - Economist

India and China: A Himalayan rivalry

Asia’s two giants are still unsure what to make of each other. But as they grow, they are coming closer—for good and bad

Aug 19th 2010 | Beijing, Delhi and Tawang

MEMORIES of a war between India and China are still vivid in the Tawang valley, a lovely, cloud-blown place high on the south-eastern flank of the Himalayas. They are nurtured first by the Indian army, humiliated in 1962 when the People’s Liberation Army swept into Tawang from next-door Tibet. India now has three army corps—about 100,000 troops—in its far north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, which includes Tawang.

With another corps in reserve, and a few Sukhoi fighter planes deployed last year to neighbouring Assam, they are a meaty border force, unlike their hapless predecessors. In 1962 many Indian troops were sent shivering to the front in light cotton uniforms issued for Punjab’s fiery plains. In a weeklong assault the Chinese seized much of Arunachal, as well as a slab of Kashmir in the western Himalayas, and killed 3,000 Indian officers and men. Outside Tawang’s district headquarters a roadside memorial, built in the local Buddhist style, commemorates these dead. At a famous battle site, below the 14,000-foot pass that leads into Tawang, army convoys go slow, and salute their ghosts.

In wayside villages of solid white houses fluttering with coloured prayer-flags, China’s two-week occupation of Tawang is also remembered. Local peasants, aged 60 and more but with youthful Tibetan features, light-brown and creased by the wind, recall playing Sho (Tibetan Mahjong) with the invaders. Many say they remember them fondly: the Chinese, they note, helped get in the wheat harvest that year. “They were little men, but they were always ready to help. We had no problem with them,” says Mem Nansey, an aged potato farmer. The Chinese withdrew to Tibet, their superiority established but their supply lines overstretched, barely a fortnight after they had come. “We weren’t sorry to see the back of them, either,” says Mr Nansey, concerned, it seems, that no one should doubt his loyalty to Delhi, 1,500km (930 miles) to the west.

His ambivalence is widely shared. China and India, repositories of 40% of the world’s people, are often unsure what to make of each other. Since re-establishing diplomatic ties in 1976, after a post-war pause, they and their relationship have in many ways been transformed. The 1962 war was an act of Chinese aggression most obviously springing from China’s desire for western Aksai Chin, a lofty plain linking Xinjiang to Tibet. But its deeper causes included a famine in China and economic malaise in both countries. China and India are now the world’s fastest-growing big economies, however, and in a year or two, when India overtakes Japan on a purchasing-power-parity basis, they will be the world’s second- and third-biggest. And as they grow, Asia’s giants have come closer.

Their two-way trade is roaring: only $270m in 1990, it is expected to exceed $60 billion this year. They are also tentatively co-operating, for their mutual enrichment, in other ways: for example, by co-ordinating their bids for the African oil supplies that both rely on. Given their contrasting economic strengths—China’s in manufacturing, India’s in services—some see an opportunity for much deeper co-operation. There is even a word for this vision, “Chindia”. On important international issues, notably climate-change policy and world trade, their alignment is already imposing.

Their leaders naturally talk up these pluses: at the summit of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) in Brasília in April, for example, and during celebrations in Beijing earlier this year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of India’s recognition of the People’s Republic. “India and China are not in competition,” India’s sage-like prime minister, Manmohan Singh, often says. “There is enough economic space for us both.”

China’s president, Hu Jintao, says the same. And no doubt both want to believe it. The booms in their countries have already moved millions out of poverty, especially in China, which is far ahead on almost every such measure of progress (and also dismissive of the notion that India could ever rival it). A return to confrontation, besides hugely damaging the improved image of both countries, would plainly jeopardise this movement forward. That is why the secular trend in China-India relations is positive.

Yet China and India are in many ways rivals, not Asian brothers, and their relationship is by any standard vexed—as recent quarrelling has made abundantly plain. If you then consider that they are, despite their mutual good wishes, old enemies, bad neighbours and nuclear powers, and have two of the world’s biggest armies—with almost 4m troops between them—this may seem troubling.

Forget Chindia

There are many caveats to the recent improvement in their relationship. As the world’s oil wells run dry, many—including sober analysts in both countries—foresee China-India rivalry redrawn as a cut-throat contest for an increasingly scarce resource. The two oil-gluggers’ recent co-operation on energy was, after all, as unusual as it was tentative. More often, Chinese state-backed energy firms compete with all-comers, for Sudanese oil and Burmese gas, and win.

Rivalry over gas supplies is a bigger concern for Indian policymakers. They fear China would be more able to “capture” gas by building massive pipelines overnight. Water is already an object of contention, given that several of the big rivers of north India, including the Brahmaputra, on which millions depend, rise in Tibet. China recently announced that it is building a dam on the Brahmaputra, which it calls the Yarlung Tsangpo, exacerbating an old Indian fear that the Beijing regime means to divert the river’s waters to Chinese farmers.

As for Chindia, it can seem almost too naive to bother about. Over 70% of India’s exports to China by value are raw materials, chiefly iron ore, bespeaking a colonial-style trade relationship that is hugely favourable to China. A proliferating range of Chinese non-tariff barriers to Indian companies, which India grumbles about, is a small part of this. The fault lies chiefly with India’s uncompetitive manufacturing. It is currently cheaper, an Indian businessman says ruefully, to export plastic granules to China and then import them again in bucket-form, than it is to make buckets in India.

This is a source of tension. India’s great priority is to create millions of jobs for its young, bulging and little-skilled population, which will be possible only if it makes huge strides in manufacturing. Similarly, if China trails India in IT services at present, its recent investments in the industry suggest it does not plan to lag for long.

Yet there is another, more obvious bone of contention, which exacerbates all these others and lies at the root of them: the 4,000km border that runs between the two countries. Nearly half a century after China’s invasion, it remains largely undefined and bitterly contested.

The basic problem is twofold. In the undefined northern part of the frontier India claims an area the size of Switzerland, occupied by China, for its region of Ladakh. In the eastern part, China claims an Indian-occupied area three times bigger, including most of Arunachal. This 890km stretch of frontier was settled in 1914 by the governments of Britain and Tibet, which was then in effect independent, and named the McMahon Line after its creator, Sir Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of British-ruled India. For China—which was afforded mere observer status at the negotiations preceding the agreement—the McMahon Line represents a dire humiliation.

China also particularly resents being deprived of Tawang, which—though south of the McMahon Line—was occupied by Indian troops only in 1951, shortly after China’s new Communist rulers dispatched troops to Tibet. This district of almost 40,000 people, scattered over 2,000 square kilometres of valley and high mountains, was the birthplace in the 17th century of the sixth Dalai Lama (the incumbent incarnation is the 14th). Tawang is a centre of Tibet’s Buddhist culture, with one of the biggest Tibetan monasteries outside Lhasa. Traditionally, its ethnic Monpa inhabitants offered fealty to Tibet’s rulers—which those aged peasants around Tawang also remember. “The Tibetans came for money and did nothing for us,” said Mr Nansey, referring to the fur-cloaked Tibetan officials who until the late 1940s went from village to village extracting a share of the harvest.

Making matters worse, the McMahon Line was drawn with a fat nib, establishing a ten-kilometre margin for error, and it has never been demarcated. With more confusion in the central sector, bordering India’s northern state of Uttarakhand, there are in all a dozen stretches of frontier where neither side knows where even the disputed border should be. In these “pockets”, as they are called, Indian and Chinese border guards circle each other endlessly while littering the Himalayan hillsides—as dogs mark lampposts—to make their presence known. When China-India relations are strained, this gives rise to tit-for-tat and mostly bogus accusations of illegal border incursions—for which each side can offer the other’s empty cigarette and noodle packets as evidence. In official Indian parlance such proof is grimly referred to as “telltale signs”. It is plainly garbage. Yet this is a carefully rehearsed and mutually comprehensible ritual for which both sides deserve credit, of a sort. Despite several threatened dust-ups—including one in 1986 that saw 200,000 Indian troops rushed to northern Tawang district—there has been no confirmed exchange of fire between Indian and Chinese troops since 1967.

Hands extended—and withdrawn

It would be even better if the two countries would actually settle their dispute, and, until recently, that seemed imaginable. The obvious solution, whereby both sides more or less accept the status quo, exchanging just a few bits of turf to save face, was long ago advocated by China, including in the 1980s by the then prime minister, Deng Xiaoping. India’s leaders long considered this politically impossible. But in 2003 a coalition government led by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party—which in 1998 had cited the Chinese threat to justify its decision to test a nuclear bomb—launched an impressive bid for peace. For the first time India declared itself ready to compromise on territory, and China appeared ready to meet it halfway. Both countries appointed special envoys, who have since met 13 times, to lead the negotiations that followed. This led to an outline deal in 2005, containing the “guiding principles and political parameters” for a final settlement. Those included an agreement that it would involve no exchange of “settled populations”—which implied that China had dropped its historical demand for Tawang.

Left, India, right, China, salute

Yet the hopes this inspired have faded. In ad hoc comments from Chinese diplomats and through its state-controlled media—which often refer to Arunachal as Chinese South Tibet—China appears to have reasserted its demand for most of India’s far north-eastern state. Annoying the Indians further, it started issuing special visas to Indians from Arunachal and Kashmir—after having denied a visa to an Indian official from Arunachal on the basis that he was, in fact, Chinese. It also objected to a $60m loan to India from the Asian Development Bank, on the basis that some of the money was earmarked for irrigation schemes in Arunachal. Its spokesman described a visit to Tawang by Mr Singh, ahead of a general election last year, as “provocative and dangerous”. Chinese analysts warn against understanding from these hints that China has formally revised its position on the border. But that is India’s suspicion. And no one, in either country, is predicting a border settlement soon.

In fact, the relationship has generally soured. Having belatedly woken up to the huge improvements China has made in its border infrastructure, enabling a far swifter mobilisation of Chinese troops there, India announced last year that it would deploy another 60,000 troops to Arunachal. It also began upgrading its airfields in Assam and deploying the Sukhois to them. India’s media meanwhile reported a spate of “incursions” by Chinese troops. China’s state-controlled media was more restrained, with striking exceptions. Last year an editorial in the Global Times, an English-language tabloid in Beijing, warned that “India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.” Early this year India’s outgoing national security adviser and special envoy to China, M.K. Narayanan, accused Chinese hackers of attacking his website, as well as those of other Indian government departments.

Recent diplomacy has brought more calm. Officials on both sides were especially pleased by their show of unity at the United Nations climate meeting in Copenhagen last December, where China and India, the world’s biggest and fourth-biggest emitters of carbon gas, faced down American-led demands for them to undertake tougher anti-warming measures. A slight cooling in the America-India relationship, which President George Bush had pushed with gusto, has also helped. So, India hopes, has its appointment of a shrewd Mandarin-speaker, Shivshankar Menon, as its latest national security adviser and special envoy to China. He made his first visit to Beijing in this role last month; a 14th round of border talks is expected. And yet the China-India relationship has been bruised.

Negative views

In China, whose Communist leaders are neither voluble nor particularly focused on India, this bruising is mostly clear from last year’s quarrel itself. The Chinese, many of whom consider India a dirty, third-rate sort of place, were perhaps most obviously to blame for it. This is despite China’s conspicuous recent success in settling its other land disputes, including with Russia and Vietnam—a fact Chinese commentators often cite to indicate Indian intransigence. Chinese public opinion also seems to be turning against India, a country the Chinese have been wont to remark on fondly, if at all, as the birthplace of Buddhism. According to a recent survey of global opinion released by the BBC, the Chinese show a “distinct cooling” towards India, which 47% viewed negatively.

In garrulous, democratic India, the fallout is easier to gauge. According to the BBC poll, 38% of Indians have a negative view of China. In fact, this has been more or less the case since the defeat of 1962. Lamenting the failure of Indian public opinion to move on, Patricia Uberoi, a sociologist at Delhi’s Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, notes that while there have been many Indian films on the subcontinent’s violent partition, including star-crossed Indo-Pakistani romances, there has been only one notable Indian movie on the 1962 war: a propaganda film called “Haqeeqat”, or “Truth”, supported by the Indian defence ministry.

Hawkish Indian commentators are meanwhile up in arms. “China, in my view, does not want a rival in Asia,” says Brajesh Mishra, a former national security adviser and special envoy to China, who drafted the 2005 agreement and is revered by the hawks. “Its main agenda is to keep India preoccupied with events in South Asia so it is constrained from playing a more important role in Asian and global affairs.” Senior officials present a more nuanced analysis, noting, for example, that India has hardly been alone in getting heat from China: many countries, Asian and Western, have similarly been singed. Yet they admit to heightened concern over China’s intentions in South Asia, and foresee no hope for a settlement of the border. Nicholas Burns, a former American diplomat who led the negotiations for an America-India nuclear co-operation deal that was concluded in 2008, and who now teaches at Harvard University, suspects that over the past year China has supplanted Pakistan as the main worry of Indian policymakers. He considers the China-India relationship “exceedingly troubled and perturbed” and thinks that it will remain “uneasy for many years to come”.

Fear of encirclement

For foreign-policy realists, who see China and India locked in a battle for Asian supremacy, this is inevitable. Even fixing the border could hardly mitigate the tension. More optimistic analysts, and there are many, even if currently hushed, consider this old-school nonsense. Though both India and China have their rabid fringe, they say, they are rational enough to know that a strategic struggle would be sapping and, given each other’s vast size, unwinnable. Both are therefore committed, as they claim, to fixing the border and fostering better relations. Yet there are a few impediments to this—of which two are most often cited by analysts in Beijing and Delhi.

One is represented by the America-India nuclear deal, agreed in principle between Mr Singh and Mr Bush in 2005. Not unreasonably, China took this as a sign that America wanted to use India as a counterweight to China’s rise. It also considered the pact hypocritical: America, while venting against China’s ally, North Korea, going nuclear (which it did a year later), was offering India a free pass to nuclear-power status, despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian analysts believe that China, in a cautious way, tried to scupper the deal by encouraging some of its opponents, including Ireland and Sweden, to vote against it in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 46-member club from which it required unanimous approval.

This glitch reflects a bigger Chinese fear of encirclement by America and its allies, a fear heightened by a recent burst of American activity in Asia. The United States has sought to strengthen security ties with South-East Asian countries, including Vietnam and Indonesia. It has also called on China, in an unusually public fashion, to be more accommodating over contested areas of the South China Sea—where America and India share concerns about a Chinese naval build-up, including the construction of a nuclear-submarine base on the Chinese island of Hainan. In north-east Asia, America has launched military exercises with South Korea in response to North Korea’s alleged sinking of a South Korean warship in March. Some Chinese analysts, with ties to the government, consider these a direct challenge to China.

China is deeply suspicious of America’s military campaign in nearby Afghanistan (and covertly in Pakistan), which is supported from bases in Central Asian countries. It is also unimpressed by a growing closeness between India and Japan, its main Asian rival. Japanese firms are, for example, expected to invest $10 billion, and perhaps much more, in a 1,500km “industrial corridor” between Delhi and Mumbai. In 2007 Japanese warships took part in a naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, also involving Indian, Australian and Singaporean ships and the American nuclear-powered vessels USS Nimitz and USS Chicago, which was hosted by India and was the biggest ever held in the region.

This seemed to back a proposal, put about by American think-tankers, for an “axis of democracies” to balance China. Officially, India would want no part of this. “We don’t want to balance China,” says a senior Indian official. But, he adds, “all the democracies do feel it is safer to be together. Is China going to be peaceful or not? We don’t know. In the event that China leaves the path of peaceful rise, we would work very closely together.”

India also fears encirclement, and with reason. America’s Pentagon, in an annual report on China’s military power released on August 16th, said China’s armed forces were developing “new capabilities” that might extend their reach into the Indian Ocean. China has also made big investments in all India’s neighbours. It is building deepwater ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh, roads in Nepal and oil and gas pipelines in Myanmar. Worse, it agreed in 2008 to build two nuclear-power plants for its main regional ally, Pakistan—a deal that also worried America, who saw it as a tit-for-tat response to its nuclear deal with India. (China has become Pakistan’s biggest supplier of military hardware, including fighter jets and guided-missile frigates, and in the past has given it weapons-grade fissile material and a tested bomb design as part of its nuclear support.)

Muffling Tibet

Hawkish Indians consider these Chinese investments as a “string of pearls” to throttle India. Wiser ones point out that India is too big to throttle—and that China’s rising influence in South Asia is an indictment of India’s past inability to get on with almost any of its neighbours. Under Mr Singh, India has sought to redress this. It is boosting trade with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and sticking, with commendable doggedness in the face of little encouragement, to the task of making peace with Pakistan. That would be glorious for both countries; it would also remove a significant China-India bugbear.

The other great impediment to better relations is Tibet. Its fugitive Dalai Lama and his “government-in-exile” have found refuge in India since 1959—and China blames him, and by extension his hosts, for the continued rebelliousness in his homeland. A Tibetan uprising in March 2008, the biggest in decades, was therefore a major factor in last year’s China-India spat. It led to China putting huge pressure on India to stifle the anti-China Tibetan protests that erupted in India—especially one intended to disrupt the passage of the Olympic torch through Delhi en route to Beijing. It also objected to a visit to Tawang by the Dalai Lama last November, which it predictably called a “separatist action”. This visit, from which leftover banners of welcome still festoon the town’s main bazaar, perhaps reminded China why it is so fixated on Tawang—as a centre of the Tibetan Buddhist culture that it is struggling, all too visibly, to control.

Mindful of the huge support the Dalai Lama enjoys in India, its government says it can do little to restrict him. Yet it policed the protest tightly, and also barred foreign journalists from accompanying him to Tawang. India would perhaps rather be spared discreet balancing acts of this sort. “But we’re stuck with him, he’s our guest,” says V.R. Raghavan, a retired Indian general and veteran of the 1962 war. Indeed, many Indian pundits consider that China will never settle the border, and so relinquish a potential source of leverage over India, while the 75-year-old lama is alive.

A dangerous child

After his death, China will attempt to control his holy office as it has those of other senior lamas. It will “discover” the reincarnated Dalai Lama in Tibet, or at least endorse the choice of its agents, and attempt to groom him into a more biddable monk. In theory that would end a major cause of China-India discord, but only if the Chinese can convince Tibetans that their choice is the right one, which seems unlikely. The Dalai Lama has already indicated that he may choose to be “reborn” outside China. There is talk of the important role Tawang has often played in identifying incarnations of the Dalai Lama, or even that the 14th may choose to reincarnate in Tawang itself.

For the abbot of Tawang’s main monastery, Guru Tulku Rinpoche, that would be a great blessing. “If his holiness chooses to be born in Tawang, we would be so happy,” he says in his red-carpeted monastic office, as half a dozen skinny lads file in to be inducted into monkhood. Silently, they prostrate themselves before the abbot, while he scribbles down their new monastic names. Outside his window, the early morning sun sparkles through the white clouds that hang low over Tawang. It is hard to think that this remote and tranquil spot could have caused such a continent-sized ruckus. Yet, if the abbot has his wish, it will cause a lot more trouble yet.