After my arrival in Mahendranagar, Jeff, Songyee and I had a little time to discuss how Jeff might lead his meeting. It did not take very much time for us to settle on a logical progression of topics that would hopefully help lead the participants to start developing a collective action plan for the region. Planning these meetings is easy but executing them is not. Perhaps the hardest parts of the process is getting people to make firm decisions and take the necessary responsibility to make the decisions turn into action as well as convincing different organizations to compromise and listen to ideas and issues different from their own. People were ready and willing to offer ideas and opinions as well as talk passionately about the issues that are important to them, but when it was time to decide what exactly to do about the ideas discussed people suddenly became quiet and almost ambivalent.

Jeff did a good job of trying to keep everyone on track and struggling to force the group into making decisions, but it took a lot of energy. Jeff led the group through the topics he had chosen carefully, with each new topic helping to narrow our discussions so that eventually they would produce a list of specific goals and activities that the regional NGOs wanted to conduct. For a day and a half this process was making slow and steady progress. In the afternoon of the second day a poor translation or misunderstanding suddenly thrust the scope of the conversation from specifics back into vague and general discussions. At that time it became very apparent that the participants had generally failed to grasp to concept of collective action and coordination of activities because all of the careful progress that had been made was suddenly thrown out while participants just started championing their own organization’s ides and focuses. Little or no thought was being given as to how these different topics might fit together. In the end Jeff was left with a lot of ideas from his members but very little direction on how they might be combined into a cohesive project.

This frustrating conclusion to what had been up until that point a good meeting suggests a challenge that COCAP faces in general. How can these 42 different groups with different ideas and focuses come together and act collectively. There are clashes of opinion and clashes of ego that often make it difficult to truly coordinate projects. For these reasons for COCAP to be most effective it needs either a unifying mission, like participating in ending the oppressive reign of a Monarch, or active and charismatic leadership. When the leaders are busy with other ventures and there is no clear unifying vision, the COCAP model becomes difficult to put into action. Luckily for Jeff and I as we try to make collective actions plans for these very different groups there is one more factor that can bring the groups together…money. If you can get the funding most of the NGOs will do anything you ask. They will redefine their mission, revise their scope of activities because access to funding is so competitive. Smaller groups only survive through constant redefinitions of themselves and the ability to be opportunistic when chances arise. The adaptability of Nepali NGOs is probably more of a weakness than a strength, as it prevents them from concentrating on one issue and really developing their strategy and efforts to tackle it, but for Jeff and I, who have been asked to design a program for all the diverse members to participate in, this weakness might actually be a great help.