A clearer understanding of the meaning of the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria is not however of direct help to peace actors who intervene in volatile and uncertain environments and try to figure out how they can be most relevant, effective, and efficient, nor for donors who try to assess the potential of different proposed interventions to be so. A second possible source of insight is what we have learned from the collective experiences in mediation and peacebuilding over the past 20 years.
This second briefing paper summarises key such insights. These are not ‘best practices’ that are valid across all contexts and at any moment. There is no blueprint design or technical-methodological manual that, if followed, is guaranteed to resolve the conflict. They constitute ‘good practices’ that seem to increase the likelihood that individual and collective efforts will, eventually (but no one can confidently predict when), have positive influences on a vicious circle of violence and distrust. When and how precisely to apply them will remain a matter of situational judgment by the peace actor. Access the paper here.
NEXUS-LOCALISATION-RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING. Are they connected and what does it mean in practice?
This briefing paper looks at what problem(s) ‘nexus approaches’ are supposed to address. It then explains how a ‘nexus approach’ or, as some prefer, ‘resilience programming’, is fundamentally reliant on local actors’ agency, and therefore directly linked to the active inclusion and support for local and national actors that the ‘localisation/national ownership/local capacities for peace’ commitments imply. It provides an overview of identified good nexus- or resilience programming practices, which are very similar to those supporting ‘localisation’. It acknowledges multiple good examples around the world, but also lists key factors that make the international aid system still unfit to enable this more systematically. Access the paper here.
EVALUATING PEACE MEDIATION AND PEACEBUILDING in ONGOING CONFLICT. Correct use of the OECD evaluation criteria and implications for evaluations and evaluators
Peace mediation and peacebuilding are notoriously difficult endeavours. Many actors are definitely beyond the ‘control’ of the mediators or peacebuilders, very difficult to influence or even hard to reach. Most conflicts evolve into a set of interlocking conflict dynamics, with international, regional, national and local layers that are interconnected but also have somewhat different driving factors and key actors.
Yet donors, as well as mediators, want to assess, even ‘evaluate’ the ‘effectiveness’ and ‘impact’ of their actions. The question is: What is the reference, what are relevant criteria? Two main reference sources can be used: the OECD evaluation criteria, and what we have learned, from years of comparative experience, about practices that increase the likelihood of having some positive influence or impact.
This brief focuses on the OECD evaluation criteria and how applicable they are to peace mediation and peacebuilding. It observes that there is significant misunderstanding, among those commissioning such evaluations and sometimes among evaluators themselves, about the realities of peace mediation and peacebuilding, certainly in ongoing conflict situations, and ignorance of how the OECD advises they be used.
It concludes with the observation that evaluating peace mediation and/or peacebuilding is by no means only a matter of methodological competence. That has important implications for the choice of reviewers and evaluators.
START NETWORK & START FUND LOCALISATION PILOT EVALUATION
In 2020-2022, the Start Network conducted an innovative ‘localisation pilot’. It was preceded by a new due diligence approach (DDA) that first created the ‘gold standard’ by comparing the requirements of different institutional donors, and then assessed and put agencies into three categories or ‘tiers’. Tier 3 agencies met the gold standard; Tier 2 agencies approached it but did not have all relevant practices formalised; Tier 1 agencies met minimum requirements for Start Network members even if they did not meet some core compliance requirements of donors. The ‘pilot’ consisted in offering direct funding national/local Tier 2 NGOs, for a first, fast, emergency response to a sudden onset crisis. The initial ceiling for direct funding was set at £ 30,000.
The evaluation shows that all stakeholders saw the pilot as positive: The tiered DDA opened up membership in the Start Network for more, often smaller, agencies. The direct funding tended to enable a faster response than when subgrants had to be formalised with an intermediary, and for some it provided ICR for the first time ever.
One of the most important insights from the pilot is that a compliance profile does not constitute a risk profile. DDAs provide information about the degree to which an organisation meets expectations or requirements and can therefore be considered a ‘compliance profile’. It says little to nothing about programmatic and contextual risks and is therefore inevitably incomplete. It cannot cover, for example, the sometimes-vital organisational capability to navigate a landscape full of political sensitivities. Due diligence assessments, the way they remain practiced in the international aid sector, fail to acknowledge that success depends on the collaborative action of different agencies in the ‘delivery/action chain’. Different agencies face somewhat different risks: collective action success requires more risk sharing, less risk transfer, often to those who are less well-resourced and less well prepared to manage it. The implication is that the compliance profile should not be the only consideration in the decision to provide funding to that organisation.
The second key finding is that an arbitrary ceiling for direct funding to national/local agencies in general, or to those that are in a Tier 2 category (where some INGOs may also find themselves), makes no sense. The initial £ 30,000 was considered too low for the CSOs to even apply for: it did not justify the transaction costs and it was so small that any meaningful coverage of even the ‘most vulnerable’ was impossible. During the pilot, the ceiling was raised to £ 60.000 – comparable to the current ECHO suggested ceiling of Euros 60,000. As Tier 2 agencies could access larger amounts from the Start Fund through a Tier 3 intermediary, even the raised ceiling remained a disincentive to go for direct funding. De facto, Start Fund’s ceiling was still based on the due diligence assessment, and therefore contradicted the insight that a compliance profile does not constitute a risk profile (as learned thanks to and during the pilot). Find here the full report in English; en français, en espagnol. And the summary in English.
MORE REFLECTIVE WORK ON POWER AND THE USE OF OUR POWER
Power inequalities in the aid sector, and abuses of power (between people but also between organisations) are now major attention points in the aid sector. For several years now, there have been calls, conference and research on ‘shifting the power’ - although some have asked whether ‘sharing power’ would not be more appropriate. Over the past 18 months, GMI on several occasions has designed and led reflection spaces on power, within and between organisations. Currently, we are running some with the Start Network. We recently updates two of our working papers: ‘Expanding our understanding of power’ and ‘An invitation for reflection on your own organisation’s use of power’. Thanks to our colleagues at the Start Network, these are now also available in French and in Spanish. They are available on our webpage on Facilitation and Partnership Brokering. https://www.gmentor.org/facilitation-and-partnership-brokering We are digging deeper in when the fine differences between a responsible use of power/authority, and abuse of power. Your insights and observations on this are warmly invited. Contact us!
How donors can promote equitable partnerships
The demand for system change in the international relief sector is increasing. Local actors in aid-recipient countries but also many individuals working in international relief agencies, want to see an end to the structures and behaviours of inequality, and a system that enables much more equitable inclusion of many local actors. Operational international agencies argue that donors prevent this from happening with their policies, procedures and requirements. Donors on the other hand state that it is the international relief agencies (UN, INGOs, but also private contractors) who are unwilling or unable to change. This paper provides practical tips but also questions for reflection for institutional donors, in the first place public aid administrations and some private foundations. The full paper is richly referenced; for a quick grasp of the key points, see the executive summary. Full report and the Executive summary.
Cultivating openness to change in the aid sector
The year 2020 was marked with opportunities to think differently and reflect on old patterns of behaviour and ways of working. Personally, there was a nagging feeling that something was not right. The conversations we were having with many leaders and staff from local organisations, INGOs, donors and the UN indicated to us that there is a profound problem in where we are. Something seems STUCK. I have been reflecting a lot on this “stuckness”, what it feels like and what it looks like. Going through “Awareness Practices For Leadership!” with U Academy, and the Presencing Institutes’ U Lab journey last year has clarified some things and opened up a whole new way of reflection. As I sit here today writing this in my reflective time I picked a card from “Be the Change” set of cards by Vanessa Jane Smith, which always inspires deeper reflections. The card that chose me today was “Integration”. The guidance book explains what is meant by Integration:
“From down on the ground and close up, difference is so apparent; this and that, here and there, good and bad, right and wrong. From down here there is little room to move between the separating walls of difference. But if you spread your wings and fly up above it all, new patterns form on the same ground below. Difference crumbles around its edges, and new colours, new shades, and new patterns appear, which connect and integrate across the planes. From up there the storyline of division transforms, and new conversations and associations can begin.”
Wow there it is. In the last five years GMI has had the privilege to be down on the ground listening to different voices, those differences, “us”, “them”, “good”, “bad”, “trust”, “distrust”, “powered”, “empowered”, “disempowered” were very apparent. Last year we had the privilege to take a bird’s eye view to look at the systems wide panorama on localisation in 9 countries and more broadly. We see from our bird’s eye view that there are many networks and organisational processes going on from the Grand Bargain, Charter 4 Change, GBV localisation, GPC Localisation of Protection and many individual and joint projects on localisation at the Start Network, ODI, CHS Alliance, Bond UK, Venro etc. However, we also see that progress is slow and in some places stuck with focus on risk and lack of trust.
What is becoming ever more clearer to me is that the egos and individual voices of judgement, cynicism and fear are driving the humanitarian aid sector, creating the divisions, competition, prejudices, discrimination, exploitation and abuse of populations in crisis and partners on the ground and driving the lack of diversity and inclusion. The hierarchal structure is no longer serving humanity but entrenching those old attitudes and behaviours, as the humanitarian crisis grow and the resources are shrinking. What if we approach our work with more open mind, open heart and open will, what would we see from the bird’s eye view? Can we transform the landscape and initiate new, deeper listening and conversations, associations and actions that are built on trust, compassion and hope?
Firstly, we notice the voice of JUDGEMENT about “them” on the ground are deep seated and is dominating the mind-set. Judging their capacity, integrity, commitments, accountability, ... the list is long. The judgments lead to inequity, injustice, unfair treatment, prejudice, exclusion and retaliation against those who speak out. What would happen if we all suspend superiority and these judgements, listen more deeply and come to the discussions with an open mind. For that to happen we need to create spaces for deep listening to our conscious and unconscious biases, racism and prejudices first. What steps will you take this year to suspend superiority and judgement?
Secondly, SOLIDARITY which is the basis of humanitarian action requires engagement of the HEART and SOUL. “Human” part of the humanitarian, the heart and the soul seems to be missing in action. Cynicism seems to be winning the day. Some are cynical that things can change. They are looking for change in others but the change starts with us. When individuals connect with their heart, consciousness and self they can move mountains. What if we suspend our cynicism and open our heart and soul to trust. Trust should be the basis of any partnership and solidarity. This will bring back heartfulness back in humanitarian action. We have seen in the response to Covid where people’s kindness and compassion has been rekindled. Individual citizens, community groups and others have come together showing their support and solidarity. When we dig deep in our hearts we find resilience and find ways of coping. We become more innovative, we open our minds to new ways of working, we open our hearts with compassion for others. How will you cultivate a more open heart in your work?
Thirdly, there is the fear. Fear of change, of others, losing control, losing power, losing market share, losing funding, losing constituency, losing grounds to others, losing face and fear of appearing weak. The reports that have come out over the last few years of the toxic internal organisational culture, PSEA and in light of Black Lives Matter movement the reflection on racism and prejudice in the aid sector should be time for deeper reflection and listening and action. These are not new, with political will from those who fund humanitarian action, and organisational leaders and individuals, change can happen, from old ways of working and hierarchy to new ways of working. We can move from EGO system of working to ECO system of working where we appreciate, values and acknowledge everyone’s role. There is room for every voice at the table and focus on the higher purpose, ensuring that all people have the resources to be at their full potential. What Covid has taught us is that where there is will there is a way. Willingness of working together to find a vaccine in record time, now how will we ensure that it will also be used for greater good and be distributed to all, not only the rich who have the resources. What then needs to happen to change the aid system and de-colonise aid? How will you demonstrate the will to confront your own fears this year and be open to change? What will you do together with your team and organisation to effect this change and what will you do with others?
Join us in the journey in constructing spaces to cultivate the deeper listening with open mind, open heart and an open will to act. Be in touch if you are curious and want to know more. spatel@gmentor.org.