One Small Voice

Oxfam, Towards Global Equity, Oxfam International’s Strategic Plan, Promises to Keep, UN Reform, United Nations, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Save the Children

It is encouraging to note that at least one organisation appears to be taking note of increasing concern and criticism on the effect and impact of International Organisations in the work that they claim to be doing by producing a report on the evaluation of the implementation of "Towards Global Equity," Oxfam International’s Strategic Plan, 2001 – 2006” (http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/promises_to_keep.pdf). It is the first comprehensive, independent evaluation of the joint work done by Oxfam International and Oxfam affiliates over the last five years. The report assesses the impact that this organization has and includes a report of their response to the conclusions and recommendations of both the internal and external evaluation at http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/promises_to_keep_oi_response.pdf

Oxfam makes two very important claims “We are committed to openness and transparency because this is important to public accountability. This evaluation has been a major input into our new six-year plan that builds on our strengths and corrects our shortcomings. It is right that it be available for scrutiny.”
“We are aligning and developing collective systems and standards across our very diverse confederation – but this is a gradual process that will take a bit of time to get right. That said, this is not an excuse for poor performance and in "Demanding justice" we will explicitly address this issue by building in a much stronger emphasis on evaluation and learning.”

Furthermore they also encourage stakeholders, particularly partners, to read and engage with Oxfam International around the issues raised in this evaluation and invite anybody who would like to be part of the feedback process, to please email us to register your interest.
(I would, for example, criticize Oxfam for their continued apparent reliance on such nonsense as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) and PRSP’s. It would be far more useful to concentrate on concrete challenges as defined by beneficiaries and affiliates rather than vague truisms conjured up by bureaucrats in New York, Washington and Brussels.)

This is certainly a very encouraging development, disturbing only because, amongst the hundreds of organizations of this type, only one has thus far made the decision to take such a step and has done so voluntarily.
One can only hope that in the near future, reports such as these would be found sector-wide and that they would be found because there are enforceable guidelines and rules that make this sort of reporting obligatory. As constructive as this initiative by Oxfam is, it also serves forcefully as a reminder as to how lacking, in general, the Humanitarian and Development sector is in even the most basic minimum standards for accountability and meaningful reporting.

Organizations such as Save the Children, an organization that by all accounts has reasonably strict internal controls and effective evaluation, should now also follow this example by making their findings public and inviting stakeholders (and Africans should take up this invitation) to participate in the feedback.

For organizations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) to rise to this standard they would first need to employ better quality staff (much, much better), become more aware of the social and political environments into which they interfere, and then become substantially more critical of the impact of this interference. (The huge proliferation of this sort of Emergency Health Organization, a related but essentially separate problem, would also need to be addressed. Demanding greater effective public transparency could only contribute to the solution of this issue.)

The United Nations, an institution that one would expect to take the lead in accountability and transparency, as embodied by Oxfam, remains to date obsessed with the production of glossy reports, that in no way ever reflect what they are in fact doing; as well as the ever obsessive concern with hiding the criminals within their ranks from any type of scrutiny and accountability.

On a personal note, it is interesting to note that at the end of 2004, when I made very similar recommendations as those contained in the Oxfam report to the Danish Refugee Council, their management response was swift, vindictive and severe. They were not interested in anything other than the fact that they could comfortably demand and then receive money from their donors.

It is worth reading through the full Oxfam reports. For those disinclined to do so, I copy here some of the key points. Some of them are very specific to Oxfam but most are of general interest:

Perceptions of some key actors
In addition to looking at Oxfam’s work in the Trade, Education, Humanitarian and Gender sectors, we also considered some of the wider issues facing the confederation. We did this on the basis of interviews with a number of Executive Directors and Lead Regional Managers. The responses summarised below provide a snapshot of the perceptions of some of the confederation’s senior managers about the state of, Oxfam’s challenges, successes and failures; organisational issues and how Oxfam should develop.

Positive external developments at global and regional levels
The most frequently-mentioned positive external developments and trends included:
• The increasing power of G20 members vis-à-vis Europe and the US; coupled with the rise of India and China in particular. (There was also recognition that this could also have a negative impact by shifting attention away from the Least Developed Countries.) At a regional level the position of four West African countries on cotton negotiations was also cited as a positive development.
• The public’s response to the Tsunami;
• The establishment of the Millennium Development Goals was seen as an important opportunity for NGOs to exercise leverage;
• The opening up of political space for civil society in some countries of East Asia and the stabilisation of East Asian economies;
• The European-Mediterranean Agreement;
• Increasing awareness of international humanitarian law (though not increasing observance)
• Some indirect consequences of 9/11in the USA were cited, including increases in foreign assistance and support for debt relief.
• The security agenda was seen as presenting Oxfam with an opportunity to take on a more challenging role.

2. Negative external developments
• Almost unanimous mention of 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities; the “War on Terror” and the Iraq War; linked with Western emphasis on military solutions and the shifting of the international community’s agenda away from human security and the corrosive impact on official aid programmes, including increasing attempts to co-opt the humanitarian community into military strategies; the closing down of space for civil society in some South Asian countries; the tensions some of the post-9/11 developments have created within the confederation.
• The “mercantilisation”, or commercialisation of public goods, with states retreating from their duties to provide basic social services pushes Oxfam and other NGOs into gap-filling and away from the true meaning of a rights-based approach.
• The multiple impacts of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Southern Africa, including the changing nature of the region’s food security problems.
• The failure of the UN to address atrocities like Darfur;
• In the Middle East and Maghreb: failure to recognise downward trends in human development and the fact that 25% of the region’s people live in poverty;
• In Southern Africa, the increasingly dominant economic role of South Africa;
• In East Asia, the failure of ASEAN to play a constructive role in social development.
• Militarization and privatization of humanitarian response – should lead Oxfam and NGOs to play a stronger advocacy role and avoid co-option.

3. Oxfam’s significant achievements…
• Almost unanimous mention of Oxfam’s response to the Tsunami; including how Oxfam facilitated local voices in Acheh and Sri Lanka;
• Oxfam’s work in Darfur – helping ¾ million people (after a late start);
• The Make Trade Fair Campaign, changing the terms of the debate and campaigning on the MDGs and MDGs/GCAP;
• The Responsibility to Protect decision at the (otherwise dismal) UN 2005 Summit;
• Regionally, Oxfam’s work on HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa; cooperation on the Gaza Withdrawal response; progress on Zimbabwe (but see below); Oxfam’s preparations for Iraq; Labour Rights and NAMA work in South Asia; and the joint Malawi programme were cited as examples of success.
• In MEMAG: Oxfam is now on record as accepting that international humanitarian law applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict, has spoken out about abuses and has contributed to the demand for change;
• In West Africa, the education programme and Oxfam’s responses to drought and the food crisis were seen as successful;
• The work of the Campaigns Sub-Group;
• The impact of MTF on East Asian governments was mentioned: Oxfam’s reports are read “and used” in China.

4. …and failures
• In Southern Africa: lack of serious programming on the MDGs – while life expectancy is actually declining; lack of engagement by the RST in the MTF (and vice versa); and failure to continue the joint Zambia programme;
• In MEMAG also: failure to engage with MTF;
• In East Asia: lack of a common agenda in Indonesia; lack of progress on gender mainstreaming and violence against women;
• Among EDs: Oxfam’s inability to manage different (affiliate) views of risk (in relation to Israel-
Palestine);
• Failure to fulfil the potential of the Humanitarian Consortium in the country-level Tsunami response, with weak leadership in India;
• Failure of GCT and RST to resolve the Zimbabwe problem (but see above);
• Other specific failures cited included Bam (48 hours to respond); Angola, Gujarat; and the failure to get agreement on the Olympics campaign document;
• Labour (Olympics campaign) was “dilettantish”;
• The Trade campaign showed a lack of foresight (Oxfam could have anticipated the Hong Kong
outcomes several years earlier); short-termism and poor alliance work. The agenda was dominated by a few affiliates and this was a leadership failure by EDs. Some of the “failures” that were mentioned are reported below under “Organisational factors blocking progress”.

5. Positive organisational developments in the confederation
• Not surprisingly the LRMs all cited the fact that RSTs are now taken more seriously by Oxfam’s senior management, coupled with the strengthening and support of the LRM position;
• The “one programme” architecture (the GCT); the development of the Humanitarian Consortium,
the Humanitarian Dossier and Contingency Planning; the establishment and strengthening of the advocacy offices in Washington DC, Geneva and Brussels and the growth of joint advocacy;
• The emergence of a new approach on “adding value to social change” – though this needs more work;
• Investments in France, the USA and Germany.

6. Organisational factors blocking Oxfam’s progress
This section attracted the most responses from both LRMs and EDs. Regional concerns included:
• Lack of alignment between affiliate and OI agendas; tension between “activist” and “reformist” affiliates;
• High staff turnover in some affiliates;
• Ambiguity and lack of clear leadership from EDs on country-level programming;
• Opportunism and lack of horizontal accountability: RST members (and GCT members and EDs) preach the importance of agreed (Oxfam-wide) strategies and policies when attending joint OI meetings, but back down and pursue narrow affiliate agendas when they are back at their own desks
• Another angle on this was the observation that “EDs want space for affiliate differences at ED level – but not for the RSTs”.
• A concern that Aims, SCOs and the related methodology (and jargon) obscure the human needs and dimensions of Oxfam’s work;
• Despite LRMs’ appreciation of the strengthening of their role, “OI work is still viewed (by affiliates) as additional, not core” work;
• Constraints on OI Secretariat due to “competitive” attitude of OGB;
• Oxfam’s inward-looking perspective;
• Failure to develop and exploit our main advantage – the partner basis of our work.

EDs cited the following concerns:
• Failure to address strategic issues including the financing of the confederation – lack of investment is holding back LAG, livelihoods, research and brand work; lack of clarity about role and financing of the Secretariat; equivocal attitude to “making the confederation happen”;
• Too many campaigns simultaneously (MPH was added but not resourced);
• Under-investment in Washington DC office;
• Strategic collaboration “still blurry”;
• The new architecture has not delivered: GCT still lapses into functional divisions; it depends on quality of membership (which is uneven);
• Persistence of ideological/political debates impeded action on agreements; lack of skills and
resources in some affiliates has “seriously compromised” some humanitarian responses;
• Persistence of ideological quarrels between affiliates (OGB and Novib Oxfam were specifically mentioned);
• Need to respond more coherently to RSTs and LRMs: “we set people up to fail”;
• Need to study the interaction between campaigning and impact on the ground;
• Oxfam still is – and is seen as – a Northern network (compare with Action Aid);
• Affiliates use structural/co-funding as an excuse for deviating from agreed OI priorities;
• Livelihoods work was seen as a weak area by several respondents; poor quality; too many microprojects not amounting to anything significant; need for stronger leadership at centre.

The report also provides a useful and open:
Summary of main recommendations
The following are summaries of the main recommendations, simply intended to provide a checklist. In most cases readers should refer to the full text for the context (the “conclusions and lessons”) on which the recommendations are based. In order to ensure capturing all the main recommendations, we have included the recommendations set out Executive Summary as well as the Main Report. This results in some unavoidable repetition.

1. Recommendations from the Executive Summary
Recommendations from the sector evaluations
• There is a need to consider focus and priority-setting in the Trade and Humanitarian sectors. Questions about the legitimacy, purpose and positioning of Oxfam’s work in the Basic Social Services sector need to be addressed.

Trade, markets and assets
• There is a clear need to set realistic and measurable objectives and to ensure that campaigns are sustained after Oxfam’s direct intervention.
• Oxfam should address the challenge of raising the quality, scale and significance of its field-level livelihoods programming and synchronizing it with the policy advocacy and campaigning wing of a truly integrated sustainable livelihoods strategy.
• Oxfam would benefit from institutionalizing and deepening the learning practices of the Hemispheric Reference Group and the Labour Rights Team. They would add more value if they documented and disseminated their experiences.
• In the next cycle, more balanced attention should be paid to components (other than campaigning) of integrating programming for the right to a sustainable livelihood.

Education
• Continuity and sustained pressure are essential to success
• Oxfam should think through the implications when a campaign is in a “low-key” phase.
• The education programme should focus on areas that are key factors in success in contributing to gender parity and deepening democracy.
• A defined level of strategic collaboration for participating affiliates should be obligatory, not optional.

Humanitarian response
• Understanding the political context and establishing diplomatic relations at all levels needs further development.
• In countries with strong emergency response capacities (such as India) Oxfam should establish strong links with local authorities and agencies.
• Special action needed to ensure effective dissemination and application of the Code of Conduct and Sphere Standards among affiliates.
• The next strategic plan should translate rhetoric about gender, generation (i.e. age) and protection into action.
• The immediate challenge for the Humanitarian Consortium is to help affiliates put agreed standards and systems into practice consistently.

Gender equality
• Consider building a confederation-wide gender equality programme integrated in an area in which Oxfam has solid experience.
• Spending targets for gender should be established and honoured.
• Gender equality criteria for grant-making should be established by all affiliates.
• Use external resources to develop staff and partner capacities in integrating gender in all sectors.
• Confederation-wide monitoring and evaluation should take gender as a pilot for an enhanced LAG strategy.
• Report progress and setbacks at ED and Board levels.

Oxfam-wide issues
• Oxfam should face up to the challenge of managing relative affiliate size and balance within the confederation; recognize that the advantages of the confederation model outweigh the disadvantages and better manage the tensions that arise from the model.
• Oxfam should correct the tendency to ignore the views of other actors in alliances and avoid an “Oxfam-centred” viewpoint.
• Oxfam’s predominantly Euro-centric and Anglophone character should be corrected. Identity needs to be managed as well as brand.
• Leadership and support is needed to help staff with different professional backgrounds and responsibilities to achieve coherence in programme design and implementation.
• While Oxfam’s definition of “impact” should remain the ultimate goal, Oxfam should develop and define meaningful intermediate outcomes.
• Oxfam should decide on the level at which planning and programming should be focused for strategic collaboration: region or country.
• Oxfam’s policy-makers and planners should pay more attention to regions which do not conform to conventional patterns (MEMAG, the Pacific and EEFSU).

Recommendations regarding monitoring and evaluation
• Oxfam should study and agree on those areas of M&E which can best be done collectively and those which need to be done at affiliate level.
• Having defined the scope of collective M&E work, Oxfam should establish the necessary architecture, toolkit and resources.
• M&E needs to become and be seen as an integral component of management and as an essential (though not the only) foundation of learning and accountability.
• Oxfam should adopt a more robust attitude to quantitative, statistical and financial information as key ingredients in credible M&E work.

2. Recommendations from the Main Report
Chapter 2: Trade, markets and assets
(“Lessons for the future”)
• Be more explicit about goals regarding changing attitudes and beliefs. Use better metrics (including these used in the corporate sector) and be more rigorous.
• Oxfam needs to develop its own and partners’ capacity for more sophisticated power
analysis, including understanding the corporate/government interface.
• The support for women’s leadership evident in the Labour Rights and RTA campaigning
needs to be taken further in other areas of MTF.
• Oxfam should act on an apparent shift towards seeing the Regional Teams as allies rather than supporting players.
• The Labour and Coffee campaigns show that achieving changes in people’s lives require work at country and community levels to position partners to take advantage of policy improvements.
• Oxfam needs to ensure that the right competencies are in place and that staff are effectively supported. Oxfam should be more rigorous in selecting campaign leads and provide them with adequate support.

From the external evaluation of the Cotton Dumping Campaign
• Oxfam should (better) manage expectations by focusing on intermediate outcomes that are more reasonable and measurable.
• Enough has been achieved on the cotton file at the WTO to allow Oxfam to focus on the complex issues of poverty and rural dynamics in cotton-producing regions of WCA countries.

From the external evaluations of the Labour Rights Campaign
• On the issue of measuring impacts: Oxfam should make use of studies by (e.g.) UNRISD and ILO.
• Quantitative metrics need to be employed (for measuring changes in attitudes and beliefs).
These are relatively simple to develop and the technology exists that would allow their delivery to a representative group of stakeholders at a relatively low cost.
• Labour rights work needs a loner-term view and the identification of medium-term outcomes.
• Oxfam should review the positioning of its labour rights work: it might be appropriate to reposition it within the sustainable livelihoods area.
• Social Compass poses the following specific questions about Oxfam’s campaigning objectives that should be addressed:
o What is Oxfam’s commitment in time, financial and human resources?
o How does Oxfam measure “success”
o When should this measurement happen?
o What are Oxfam’s exit strategies when “impact” is achieved (or not achieved)?
o How should Oxfam ensure consensus among allies and partners about impact?
o What is the potential effect of being “hard-nosed” on partners and allies, and what is the cost-benefit?

Chapter 3: Girls’ access to education
From the Internal Evaluation Report
1) Oxfam should be explicit that it sees education as a cornerstone for sustainable livelihoods, peace, security, the right to be heard, regardless of gender and identity.
2) Strategic acupuncture on education: create a country-specific strategy in selected countries with a longer-term agenda and commitment.
3) Insist on strategic collaboration between (participating) affiliates.
4) Continue development of and investment in the Global Campaign for Education.
5) Consider having one joint M&E system with education as a pilot. Include education in
action to ensure Oxfam’s financial accountability.

From the External Evaluation Report
1) If Oxfam support for education is to continue:
o It should be sustainable, through multi-faceted interventions aiming to create a critical mass of participating citizens.
o It should continue to endorse humanistic philosophies as the basis of its practice, simpler than those currently applied, and find new ways to enrich technical interventions
o Consider the implication of consolidating parastatal education systems able to bypass rather than support government programmes.
o Improve quality: Oxfam’s interventions are good but not innovative. Address problems caused by high staff turnover and develop staff skills in working with partners.
o Review its rights-based approach and consider implications of uncritically accepting IFI and MLO thinking.

Chapter 4: Humanitarian response
From: Synthesis of lessons learned (from Internal Evaluation Report)
• Develop more explicit and integrated project frameworks to improve coordination and timing.
• Involve local staff in discussing advocacy and security strategies.
• Improve timely recruitment of experienced staff.
• Continue the investment in developing contingency plans.

Recommendations
• Reduce the gap between humanitarian vision and actual practice.
• Establish stronger links with competent (emergency response) authorities in countries such as India
• Improve timeliness of response through improving management capacities, the availability of trained staff and better analysis of field realities and government policies.
• Oxfam GB should review the logistical and human resource difficulties that appear to have affected the reviewed interventions.
• Building local staff preparedness is lagging behind in Africa.
• Affiliates and partners should strengthen their use of information and communication technology.
• Oxfam should develop an evaluation model for humanitarian response (taking the OI Ethiopian drought report of 2001-202 as a model).
• Take action to ensure dissemination and application of agreed standards. Transform rhetoric about gender, generation and protection into action.

Recommendations from the External Evaluation of the Humanitarian Consortium
• Consider making the HC more permeable – able to expand membership in particular situations.
• Consider workload of HCMG members and if necessary investment in the OI Secretariat.
• Make the Dossier and the Dashboard more user-friendly.
• Reduce (initially) the number of lead agency affiliates to 2 or 3 in conjunction with reviewing affiliate investment plans (for humanitarian response).
• Resource OI Secretariat to be able to support HC membership more effectively
• Study feasibility and cost of establishing an OI-wide humanitarian response information system.
• Agree on the basic parameters for monitoring, measuring and evaluating its humanitarian response work.
• Research on how best to work through local partners could add great value to Oxfam’s work
• Conduct an open and informed debate about neutrality and develop an OI-wide practice.

Chapter 5: Gender equality
Recommendations
1) Take forward one area of gender equality as a key local-to-global focus in the next strategic plan. Potential issues include:
• Women and violence
• Women’s labour rights
• Women as leaders in conflict resolution
• Stronger gender focus in primary education
• Women and PRSP’s
• Women and HIV/AIDS
2) Set increasing percentage allocations for stand-alone gender equality work.
3) Main Aim 5 programming the first integrated Oxfam programme on the model of CAMEXCA’s “Women and Rights” programme.
4) Make a process like the Novib Oxfam “traffic lights” system/Oxfam GB’s gender reporting or OxAus M&E framework) Oxfam-wide.
5) Invest in continuous training and capacity-building for staff and partners.
6) Use gender equality as a pilot for sector-led programming and a confederation-wide M&E system.
7) Report progress on gender equality programming to a senior Oxfam body on a regular basis.