Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
1
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program
Evaluation
‘Forum Theatre’ exercise performed by participants at Oxfam’s FPIC workshop in Cambodia,
June 2014. Photo: Worawan Sukraroek/Oxfam
Final Report
Prepared for Oxfam Australia
23 July 2014
Dr Susanna Kelly
Independent Research and Evaluation
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
2
This evaluation was made possible with the support of the Australian aid
program, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
3
Oxfam Australia: Management Response to Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
Oxfam Australia would like to thank Susanna Kelly for her quality evaluation. We also
thank everyone who participated in the evaluation for sharing their insights and views
on our program. Oxfam believes the methodology, including the size and sector
inputs, have been useful to get a variety of perspectives, which has helped in
balancing feedback.
The evaluation and its recommendations are informing Oxfam’s wider Free, Prior and
Informed Consent (FPIC) work in 2014/15: this includes plans for a workshop on the
program’s Theory of Change and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework.
An updated program work plan will also developed in conjunction with this workshop.
We are also working with Oxfam country teams and partners to design and
development resources to assist them better support communities understand their
FPIC rights, and in conducting training with civil society. This builds off the evaluation
workshop held in Cambodia in June 2014 and our new FPIC trainer’s manual.
Oxfam is particularly excited by the interest in the ‘Forum Theatre’ methodology and
we are in dialogue with partners about how to expand this.
Our responses to the evaluation’s recommendations follow:
Recommendations Response How Oxfam will implement
Program effectiveness
1. Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.
Agreed We will: Continue to offer training and capacity
building opportunities, including Train the Trainer
Continue to develop FPIC resources, including to supplement and strengthen the quality and usefulness of our existing resources
Support CSO organisational strengthening efforts in the areas of policy influencing and project engagement
2. Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.
Agreed We will Work with Oxfam Country teams and
local partners to understand barriers to women’s participation in decision making processes – in doing so we recognise the importance of analysing and responding to the local context
Use the Integral (gender) Framework to inform our thinking on including gender in program design, implementation and monitoring
3. Consider how to meaningfully include
Agreed We will Include youth and disability advocates
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
4
Recommendations Response How Oxfam will implement
marginalised groups such as youth and people with disabilities in program design and implementation.
and organisations in all aspects of program design and implementation
Ensure that the FPIC program complies with relevant Oxfam program policies, such as the Disability Inclusion Policy
Explore specific opportunities for engagement and partnership with youth and disability experts and focused organisations to ensure inclusion of these groups in the FPIC program
Program efficiency
4. Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.
Agreed We will Prioritise our FPIC investments to
align with programming against the Oxfam Australia Strategic Plan’s goals on ‘right to be heard’ and ‘fair sharing of natural resources’
Be responsive to country and regional programs
5. Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society FPIC capacity.
Agreed We will: Consider the multiple delivery
methods available to implement the program
Respond to and engage with requests from those interested and/or working in this area
Prioritise working with others to adapt and utilise our existing resources to and in local contexts
Program impact
6. Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer interrogation of theory of change assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation and Learning framework that collects meaningful data to assess the theory of change.
Agreed We will convene a workshop to develop a strengthened program Theory of Change and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework to be then implemented during 2014/15. The workshop will involve country and regional teams, and possibly partners.
7. Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.
Agreed We will work with Oxfam country and regional teams, and local partners to implement this recommendation. In doing so we will consider ways to support local partners strengthen their strategies on FPIC, and recognise the importance of responding to the local context.
Global advocacy context
8. Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on
Agreed In implementing this recommendation we will: Collaborate and partner with
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
5
Recommendations Response How Oxfam will implement
FPIC by investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases and challenges/trouble shooting)
indigenous peoples’ organisations, networks and their representatives
Collaborate with Oxfam country and regional teams to develop case studies and other resources to provide the evidence base for FPIC advocacy
9. Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.
Agreed We will continue to engage with and monitor industry initiatives that should or could address FPIC. In doing so, Oxfam will always work in close collaboration with indigenous peoples’ networks and organisations, so that we have a shared analysis and approach to engaging with these specific initiatives.
If Oxfam adopts an ‘insider’ strategy we will consider initiating an advisory group for accountability purposes that includes indigenous peoples’ representatives
Christina Hill, Serena Lillywhite, Michael Simon and Gary Lee on behalf of Oxfam
Australia’s Mining Advocacy and People, Infrastructure and Environment teams.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 7
1. Preface .......................................................................................................................... 8
2. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Evaluation findings and conclusions ....................................................................... 9
3. Background ................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 The Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program ................................................... 13
3.2 Evaluation purpose and objectives ....................................................................... 14
3.3 Evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 15
3.4 Evaluation methodology ...................................................................................... 16
4. Findings ....................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Effectiveness of the FPIC Program ........................................................................ 18
4.2 Efficiency of the FPIC Program ............................................................................. 24
4.3 Impact of the FPIC Program ................................................................................. 26
5. Oxfam Australia’s wider FPIC role ................................................................................ 31
6. Learnings & Recommendations ................................................................................... 38
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 42
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
7
ABBREVIATIONS
AIPP Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
ANCP Australian Non Government Organisation Cooperation Program
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
CBO Community Based Organisation
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
DTP Diplomacy Training Program
ERI Earth Rights International (Mekong School)
FPIC Free Prior and Informed Consent
HSAF Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum
HSAP Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol
ICMM International Council of Mining and Metals
IFC International Finance Corporation
IFI International Financial Institutions
IHA International Hydropower Association
NGO Non Government Organisation
NRM Natural Resource Management (Program)
PIE People Infrastructure and Environment
PNG Papua New Guinea
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
SABL Special Agriculture Business Lease
ToC Theory of Change
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
8
1. PREFACE
This report for the independent evaluation of the Free Prior and Informed Consent Program 2011-14 was prepared for Oxfam Australia by Susanna Kelly.1 The report also includes a strategic case study review of Oxfam Australia’s contribution to FPIC policy and practice globally over the same period.
The report includes:
The evaluation purpose, objectives and questions
Evaluation data sources
Data collection methodology
Analysis and evaluation findings
Appendices, including evaluation tools.
The evaluation report follows the roadmap outlined in the evaluation plan developed for the evaluation (Oxfam Australia 2014b). The evaluation report is based on a review of key documents relating to the FPIC program, in-depth stakeholder interviews and a quantitative online survey. Program partners and civil society stakeholders had the opportunity to review the draft report and provide feedback at a
workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 9 June 2014.
The evaluator would like to acknowledge the contribution of evaluation participants who generously gave their time and insights to the evaluation process.
1 Dr Susanna Kelly [email protected]
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
9
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 BACKGROUND
The Building Regional Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program
2011–14 was funded under the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade ‘Australian NGO Cooperation Program’ (ANCP). Free, Prior and
Informed Consent (FPIC) is a specific collective right enshrined in the United Nations
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). Following the
adoption of UNDRIP, increasing attention has been given to FPIC as part of
corporate social responsibility and human rights due diligence.
The program’s overall intention was to build national and regional civil society
understanding of FPIC rights in the Asia Pacific region. This increased understanding
was intended to strengthen civil society organisations’ (CSOs) ability to use FPIC and
related human rights instruments to support Indigenous Peoples and other project
affected peoples hold private sector companies and their own governments
accountable to FPIC rights (Oxfam Australia 2011).
The program sought to strengthen civil society capacity through two primary means:
Development, translation and dissemination of FPIC resources; and
FPIC training programs and workshops.
The program was coordinated by Oxfam Australia’s Mining Advocacy team and
jointly implemented with the People, Infrastructure and Environment (PIE) team. It is
important to note the program is a small part of wider Oxfam Australia work on FPIC,
principally the Mekong regional program led by the PIE team. Over 2011-14, the
FPIC program was increasingly designed to intersect with other Oxfam initiatives and
country programs to create complementarity of effort and budget.
The overall purpose of the evaluation was dual: to provide an end-of-program
assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the FPIC program; and to
examine Oxfam Australia’s global FPIC role through two case examples: the Hydro
Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP, 2011) and the International Council of
Mining and Metals (ICMM) 'Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement' (May
2013).
The evaluation was undertaken between March and June 2014. A range of data
sources were drawn on to address the evaluation objectives: desk review of key
documents; program monitoring data; in-depth interviews; and an online survey
questionnaire. An evaluation findings workshop was held with stakeholders in Phnom
Penh, Cambodia on 9 June 2014.
2.2 EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the FPIC program succeeded in its intended objective to strengthen national
civil society understanding of FPIC rights. The program achieved progress towards
achieving desired outcomes (increased civil society capacity to use FPIC to support
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
10
communities and to influence policy and practice). The degree to which this
strengthened CSO capacity is sustainable is not yet clear.
Program Effectiveness
The program succeeded in achieving most of its intended outputs (training,
workshops, and translated resources) although the delivery of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual was very slow. CSOs demonstrate increased awareness of FPIC and how it applies to communities’ rights, but questions remain over gender outcomes. The omission of marginalised groups (e.g. youth, people with disabilities) from program design is also evident. CSOs are using FPIC in their advocacy and programming work. The evidence that CSOs have used and adapted program resources indicates an added value beyond program expectations. Delivery of program activities and outputs were therefore consistent with the program’s intended objective to strengthen civil society.
Oxfam Australia’s position as technical experts on FPIC has been enhanced by the program. The training and technical support delivered to CSOs, Oxfam
Australia’s peer engagement with independent experts (e.g. reviewing the FPIC Trainers’ Manual) and other Oxfam country offices have raised the profile of Oxfam Australia as FPIC experts. This expertise is well recognised and respected. The Guide is very highly regarded across all stakeholder groups as both a conceptual introduction to FPIC and a practical guide. Some stakeholders had suggestions to improve the balance of text/pictures for use with communities and to review the
language around rights and legal frameworks.
Significant steps were made towards strengthening CSOs’ FPIC knowledge
and capacity to support communities and influence policy. The ways the
program connected to other Oxfam programs and initiatives created crucial synergies
that enhanced program effectiveness in achieving progress towards these outcomes.
The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement of outputs
and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ capacity. Program
intersections with other Oxfam initiatives was particularly enhanced in the Mekong
region due to the large regional program and maturity of partner relationships.
In this context, the following recommendations for program design and delivery can
be made:
Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to
understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.
Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous
gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.
Consider how to meaningfully include marginalised groups such as youth and
people with disabilities in program design and implementation.
Program Efficiency
Over 2011-14 the program cost AUD 212, 648. The main cost drivers were: Oxfam
Australia salaries; direct grants to program partners; travel to deliver
training/workshops; and resource production. Overall, the program delivered good
value for money, producing high quality outputs for relatively low investment. These
program outputs contributed to progress towards desired outcomes. There is
evidence the program leveraged available resources, including complementarity of
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
11
effort and budget with program partners and other Oxfam programs, to maximise the
efficiency of program delivery. Direct support to the Diplomacy Training Program
(DTP) to host its Indigenous People’s Rights Program is a more cost intensive model
to deliver training on FPIC than other models (e.g. piggybacking on in-country
programs or solely providing resource/technical support as with the Earth Rights
Mekong School (ERI)). The use of a volunteer to develop the first draft of the FPIC
Trainers’ Manual illustrates leveraging of indirect resources must be approached
carefully. In the case of the Trainers’ Manual, an initial cost saving resulted in
considerable time inefficiencies. The program was able to utilise Oxfam Australia’s
organisational structures and systems to deliver.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other
Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.
Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of
FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support
with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society
FPIC capacity.
Program Impact
The program reached a significant number of CSOs (77) and participants (307)
and important steps towards increased CSO capacity have been achieved.
Incremental steps have been made toward CSOs providing effective support to
communities, including proactive use of resources and individual examples of
applying FPIC knowledge. There are signs of increased CSO capacity to use FPIC
knowledge and resources to influence policy and practice (e.g. REDD+ monitoring
and consultation). However, stakeholders point out the significant challenges CSOs
face, including political sensitivities, corruption and weak legal protections. Some
opportunity to network has occurred as a result of the program but the breadth and
depth of this is not clear.
The program built on Oxfam Australia’s previous FPIC work, principally, the
Guide to FPIC produced in 2010, and earlier work with NGO partners. This included
training workshops with Papua New Guinea partners aligned with the PNG Natural
Resource Management program, previous policy work on International Financial
Institutions (IFI) standards, as well as workshops/technical assistance provided under
the Mekong Regional Program (Oxfam Mekong country offices and NGO partners)
which is jointly implemented by the PIE program. The 2011-14 ANCP FPIC program
thus created enhanced value and impact of this work. The program theory of change
(technical support to build CSO partners capacity) is a sound approach but program
impact could be strengthened by a more clearly articulated understanding of the
ways capacity building will occur as a result of the program and how this could be
supported by Oxfam Australia.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer
interrogation of theory of change assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation
and Learning framework that collects meaningful data to assess the theory of
change.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
12
Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to
support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.
Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region/globally
There is evidence Oxfam Australia has made a significant contribution to the
global ‘noise’ around FPIC. Stakeholders across all groups agree Oxfam Australia,
along with its Oxfam counterparts, has made a substantive contribution to pushing
FPIC onto industry, government and civil society agendas over the last three to five
years. Oxfam Australia is judged to have played a critical role influencing the FPIC
outcomes of the HSAP. Oxfam Australia is considered to have played (along with
Oxfam America), an important role in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM.
The tension between FPIC for Indigenous People versus FPIC for all project
affected peoples remains but there is growing momentum for FPIC to guide
best practice in community consultation and negotiations. Whilst some
stakeholders stress FPIC is a right specific to Indigenous Peoples, there appears to
be growing pressure from global civil society to expand the application of FPIC to
include all project affected peoples. Most stakeholders agree, however, that the issue
is no longer focused on the principle of FPIC, but rather, its implementation on a
project by project basis. Many stakeholders feel Oxfam Australia’s scrutiny of
industry implementation of FPIC is highly important. All stakeholders (expert
independent commentators, global civil society, government and industry
stakeholders) agree Oxfam Australia’s FPIC expertise, particularly in the extractive
sector, has a part to play in shaping/monitoring future policy and practice.
Stakeholders identified key areas of need:
Communities’ need for information and up-skilling on FPIC rights in the
context of specific development projects. This need is magnified in contexts
where communities are especially vulnerable or under pressure to agree to
large scale development projects.
CSOs’ need for context specific support in applying FPIC and guidance on
seeking redress when FPIC goes wrong/does not happen.
Private sector developers’ need for technical ‘know how’ on implementing
good faith FPIC processes with communities.
A continuing need to convince policy decision makers to respect FPIC.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on FPIC by
investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases
and challenges/trouble shooting)
Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry
implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
13
Free, Prior and
Informed Consent
(FPIC) is a specific
collective right
enshrined in the
United Nations
Declaration of the
Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP).
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 THE FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT PROGRAM
The Building Regional Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program
(the ‘program’) was funded under the Australian Government’s Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT, previously the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID). The program consisted of three annual grants over 1 July
2011 – 30 June 2014 funded under the Australian NGO Cooperation Program
(ANCP).2 Oxfam Australia is one of eight Australian Non-Government Organisations
(NGOs) to enter four year ANCP agreements. The program straddles two such
agreements: 2008-12 and 2013-17.
Following the adoption of the 2007 United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) by the United Nations General Assembly,
increasing attention has been given to Free Prior and
Informed Consent (FPIC) as part of corporate social
responsibility and human rights due diligence. Oxfam
recognises that Indigenous Peoples (and ethnic minority
peoples) around the globe have the inherent right to
FPIC over their lands, territories and resources. In
accordance with the principles espoused in UNDRIP and
the International Bill of Rights3, Oxfam Australia has
stressed the rights of all project affected peoples (not
just Indigenous Peoples) to meaningful consultation and
negotiation, consistent with the principles underlying
FPIC, in decisions that affect their lands and livelihoods (Oxfam Australia 2010: 10).
The program’s overall intention was to build national and regional civil society
understanding of FPIC rights in the Asia Pacific region. This “practical, regional and
local level understanding” was intended to strengthen civil society organisations’
(CSOs) ability to use FPIC and related human rights instruments to support
Indigenous Peoples and other project affected peoples hold private sector companies
and their own governments accountable to FPIC rights (Oxfam Australia 2011).
The program sought to strengthen civil society capacity through two primary means:
Development, translation and dissemination of FPIC resources; and
FPIC training programs and workshops.
The program partnered with the Diplomacy Training Program (DTP)4 to support its
‘Indigenous People’s Rights Program’ with a direct annual grant and to deliver FPIC
2 The ANCP was established in 1974 and provides grants to AusAID (now DFAT) accredited Australian NGOs to undertake international development programs in supplement to NGOs own activities. 3 The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. 4 The DTP’s ‘Indigenous People’s Rights Program’ delivers training to young indigenous activists and
advocates from across the Asia Pacific region and Australia. DTP was established in 1989 and is hosted
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
14
training to DTP participants. The program also partnered with the Earth Rights
Mekong School (ERI)5 to support ERI curricula by providing FPIC resources and
support to develop ERI training on FPIC.
The program was coordinated by Oxfam Australia’s Mining Advocacy team and
jointly implemented with the People, Infrastructure and Environment (PIE) team. It is
important to note the program is a small part of wider Oxfam Australia work on FPIC.
Examples of closely aligned and separately funded programs include the PIE team’s
advocacy work to promote Indigenous Peoples’ rights to FPIC with International
Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as the Asian Development Bank’s safeguards
policies for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. Other wider Oxfam Australia FPIC advocacy
work includes policy monitoring and reviews of Bank Accountability Mechanisms and
other safeguard policy areas (e.g. involuntary resettlement and environmental
protection). This work seeks to advance the rights and interests of project affected
peoples to assert their rights to information and to be active stakeholders within the
context of project development following appropriation of land and resources. The
PIE team has also provided multi-year funding to the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
(AIPP) to develop an IFI - Indigenous Peoples Policies Monitoring program. This has
been a key mechanism to advance FPIC across East and South Asia AIPP member
organisations and to help AIPP be an effective influence and monitor on Bank
implementation and compliance.
A key example of the synergy between the program and wider Oxfam Australia work
on FPIC is the Mekong regional work led by the PIE team. The regional program
supports NGOs in broader CSO networks concerned with Indigenous Peoples, ethnic
minorities and project affected peoples in the Mekong region. This has included PIE
team support to establish the ERI Mekong School in 2006 and to provide on-going
training and resources on Asian Development Bank Great Mekong Sub-region
program and projects and ADB safeguard policies.
3.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The overall purpose of the evaluation was dual:
1. Provide an end-of-program assessment of the ANCP funded FPIC program;
and
2. Examine Oxfam Australia’s role in contributing to FPIC policy and practice
change globally.
Oxfam Australia determined a number of evaluation objectives, namely to:
1. Assess the extent to which program outputs were successfully delivered
2. Assess the extent to which the program achieved its intended outcomes
3. Assess the efficiency of the program
by the Law Faculty, University of New South Wales. DTP is also a long standing partner of Oxfam’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples’ Program 5 EarthRights International's EarthRights School Mekong (ERI) delivers a seven month-long training program to civil society advocates from the Mekong Region (China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam) who are working on environmental and human rights issues. ERI (Mekong) is based in Chiang Mai, Thailand and was established in 2006. The PIE team has supported ERI (Mekong) school since its establishment.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
15
4. Assess perceptions of Oxfam Australia’s role in FPIC policy and practice
change through two case examples: the Hydro Sustainability Assessment
Protocol (2011) and the International Council of Mining and Metals
'Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement' (May 2013).
3.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Effectiveness
1. To what extent did the program achieve its intended outputs?
2. To what extent did the program achieve its intended outcomes?
To what extent were program outcomes inclusive of women/other
marginalised people?
3. What factors facilitated or impeded achievement of outputs and outcome?
4. Were there any unintended program outcomes (positive or negative)?
Efficiency
5. To what extent was program management and implementation efficient?
What factors facilitated or impeded program efficiency?
6. To what extent did the program partnership approach work?
7. To what extent has the program delivered value for money?
What do stakeholders define as program value for money?
Could better outcomes been delivered for the same investment?
Could the same outcomes been delivered for less investment?
Impact
8. To what extent has the program had a longer term and sustainable impact on
CSO capacity and practice for:
Advocacy and support on communities’ FPIC rights?
Successful engagement with government and industry?
Learnings
9. What lessons can be learned to improve future program design and delivery?
10. What lessons are there for the Oxfam Australia program Theory of Change?
11. What lessons are there for the Oxfam Australia program MEL framework?
Oxfam Australia’s role in contributing to FPIC policy and practice in Asia
Pacific /globally
12. How is Oxfam Australia’s role and perceived value understood by different
stakeholders (government, industry and civil society) in the following case
examples?
Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol (2011)
International Council of Mining and Metals 'Indigenous Peoples and
Mining Position Statement' (May 2013).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
16
3.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation was undertaken between March and June 2014. A range of data sources were drawn on to address the evaluation objectives and associated questions, as follows:
A desk review of key program documents provided background and contextual
information on the program, its design and delivery, intentions and desired outcomes,
as well as program partners and funder.
Program monitoring data and reports Program reports provided data on program
implementation over 2011-14, including costs.
In-depth semi-structured interviews were held with 31 key program stakeholders,
including managers, program partners, CSO beneficiaries and independent expert
commentators. Government, regional/global civil society and industry representatives
were interviewed on Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC regionally and
globally.
An online survey questionnaire was conducted with 31 FPIC training participants
from DTP and ERI.6 The survey asked training participants’ views on the relevance,
effectiveness and impact of the FPIC resource materials and training. The survey
was pre-tested for language comprehension and appropriateness. DTP’s 2012 and
2013 cohorts and ERI’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 cohorts were invited to participate (81
people in total). The final sample of completed surveys (n=29) represents a response
rate of 36%.
Please refer to Appendix C for data collection tools.
A program outcomes model and indicators were developed for the evaluation
(refer Appendix B). The model describes intended outputs and intermediate
outcomes specific to the program as well as impacts the program was intended to
contribute to.
Data collection was undertaken between 22 April and 23 May 2014. In addition, input
was received from an Indigenous Peoples’ organisation representative at the
evaluation findings workshop, 9 June 2014. A sample frame for the evaluation is
outlined in Table 1. The qualitative sample selection was purposive and pragmatic,
namely, to interview as many direct program stakeholders (Oxfam; delivery partners;
CSO beneficiaries) and in-direct program stakeholders (government; industry; and
regional/global civil society representatives) as possible. Two independent expert
commentators were also included in the sample to provide an external perspective
on the program and Oxfam Australia’s wider role contributing to FPIC policy and
practice. The quantitative sample sought all ERI and DTP training participants over
2011-13.
6 Due to limited internet inaccessibility in Papua New Guinea (PNG), the evaluation planned to include Papua New Guinean training participants (n=17) via a paper based survey administered by a visiting Oxfam Australia staff member. The staff member’s visit was postponed, however, which meant a sample of PNG stakeholders’ views were collected in phone and email interviews (n=4).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
17
Table 1: Evaluation sample frame
Stakeholder group Sample (n=)
Oxfam staff (Oxfam Australia and its country programs; other national Oxfam offices)
9
Program delivery partners (DTP; ERI) 7
Program beneficiaries (CSOs) 5
Regional and global CSOs 5
Independent expert commentators 2
Government representatives 2
Industry representatives 1 Total interviews 31
Training survey participants 31 Total 62
3.4.1 Evaluation scope and limitations
The evaluation covers the period 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2014.
In considering the findings of this evaluation, several limitations are noted:
The evaluation focus is on direct program beneficiaries (CSOs and individual
training participants). The evaluation did not speak with communities as
indirect program beneficiaries. This decision reflects evaluation resourcing as
well as program intent. Evidence of sustainable change (Refer Appendix B) in
the lives of women, men, girls and boys is therefore beyond the evaluation
scope. However, evidence of CSO activity and impact on communities is
assessed as this desired ‘flow-on’ impact is recognised in the program theory
of change (ToC).
No Asia Pacific government representatives were interviewed.
The evaluation was only able to speak with one industry representative.
The achieved survey sample size is small (n=29) and results must therefore
be treated as indicative only.
Having noted these limitations, the evaluator is confident evaluation findings are
robust and accurately reflect triangulated data from interviews; survey; and document
review.
3.4.2 Notes to the report
Program partners are defined as organisations that implemented program activities
with support from Oxfam Australia. They include DTP and ERI.
Program beneficiaries are defined as CSOs and individual training participants (DTP
and ERI). Training participants were from primarily from CSOs (a broad definition
covering established NGOs and Community Based Organisations), but were also
individual activists.
Stakeholders refers those who were interviewed for the evaluation.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
18
4. FINDINGS
4.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FPIC PROGRAM
4.1.1 Achievement of intended outputs
Over 2011-14, the FPIC program achieved most of its intended outputs. The
program:
Delivered 11 workshops and training with CSOs and DTP participants7
Supported DTP with a direct annual grant towards running its Asia Pacific
regional capacity building program on the rights of Indigenous Peoples
Reprinted 2,000 copies of the Community Guide to FPIC (the ‘Guide’)
(English)
Developed, tested and published a FPIC Trainer’s Manual (500 printed and
online publication)
Translated the Guide into two languages (Tok Pisin (5,000 copies printed and
published online) and Mongolian (online)
Supported development of a version of the Guide for India (translation and
adaption currently in development)
Supported two ERI Forum Theater workshops on FPIC.
Over 2011-14, program reach to direct beneficiaries included:
307 training/workshop participants (113 women/172 men)8
77 CSOs9
17 countries.10
The program has also reached indirect beneficiaries. These include other staff of
training participants’ organisations and those reached by dissemination of FPIC
resources (approximately 5,900 hard copies of the Guide and Trainers’ Manual have
been disseminated to date).11 In addition, all resources are available online.12
Annual planning allowed the program to be responsive to requests for FPIC training
and resource translation. Examples include the decision to develop a FPIC Trainers’
Manual following observation of FPIC training in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The
translation of the Guide into Mongolian is another example of program
responsiveness; a visit to Mongolia to speak at a mining and human rights
7 This includes the ERI Forum Theater workshop (Thailand 2013) which was supported by the FPIC program but does not include ERI Mekong School training 2011, 2012 and 2013. These latter trainings were delivered by ERI trainers using Oxfam Australia FPIC resources. 8 There is no gender disaggregation for one workshop (22 participants) in Mae Hon Son, Thailand, March 2013. 9 This figure does not include ERI participants from CSOs. 10 Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka. 11 4,000 Tok Pisin Guides, 1,700 English reprinted Guides and 200 Trainers Manuals (to date). The Trainers Manual was published in April 2014. 12
It has not been possible to count online downloads of FPIC resources.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
19
conference triggered the development of a Mongolian translation. A number of other
FPIC Guide translations were developed over the same timeframe, funded by other
program or Oxfam country office budgets (including Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese,
Portuguese and ten Myanmar languages).
Program activity took place in PNG and seven Asian countries (Laos, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and India). Program reach extended
further, however, with the wider reach of DTP and ERI alumnae (from 19 countries in
total).13 An outline of program activity is given below.
In Papua New Guinea, Oxfam Australia’s program partners were the Turubu Eco
Forest Development Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation.
The FPIC program team conducted FPIC training and piloted the draft FPIC Trainers’
Manual with both program partners and other local CSOs. The Oxfam Australia team
made two visits to PNG (February & November 2012).
The FPIC program activities undertaken in PNG ran alongside the Natural Resource
Management (NRM) Program.14 The NRM Program also worked with Turubu Eco
Forest Development Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation
as program implementing partners delivering FPIC awareness to affected
communities in the region and media and advocacy work. The Guide (Tok Pisin and
English versions) was used as a training resource. There is thus some difficulty in
maintaining clear boundaries between FPIC program and NRM program outcomes.
This report focuses on the former but a degree of overlap must be acknowledged in
the cumulative effect of the two programs in PNG.
In the Asia region, program activities included supporting workshops and training events delivered to CSOs, government representatives and Oxfam in-country staff in India (2012), Vietnam (2012), Laos (2013), Indonesia (2014) and Cambodia (2014). The Oxfam Australia program team also delivered FPIC training to DTP participants (Malaysia 2012; Cambodia 2013; and Myanmar 2014). The ERI curricula (three cohorts: 2011, 2012 and 2013) utilised Oxfam Australia FPIC resources. The program also supported the development of a Forum Theater methodology15 approach to community awareness raising of FPIC (2013) and utilising the methodology in ERI training (2014). The Forum Theater methodology was included in
the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.
Program activities did not actively seek the participation of youth or people with
disabilities.
13 DTP and ERI alumnae 2011-14 are from the following countries: Cambodia; Laos; Vietnam; Myanmar; Thailand; Indonesia; Malaysia; Philippines; Timor Leste; India; Sri Lanka; Pakistan; Bangladesh; Nepal; China; Tibet; Fiji; and Australia 14 Oxfam International in PNG conducted the Sepik Natural Resource Management Rights Program from July 2010 to June 2013. The aim of the project was to support East Sepik communities to increase equitable outcomes of the associated benefits of natural resource agreements and to minimise negative impacts of development. 15 Forum Theater is one of the various methodologies of ‘Theater of the Oppressed’, initiated by Brazilian theater practitioner Augusto Boal in the 1960s. Retrieved 30 May 2014 http://www.earthrights.org/blog/using-theater-address-social-challenges-refugee-communities
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
20
4.1.2 Achievement of intended outcomes
This section address Evaluation Objective 3: the extent to which the program
achieved its intended outcomes. These included:
Increased CSO understanding of FPIC and communities’ rights
CSOs deliver FPIC training to communities
Oxfam staff have increased understanding of FPIC and its applicability
Industry awareness of FPIC increases.
As a result of the program, participating CSOs, DTP and ERI trainees and
Oxfam in-country staff have increased understanding of FPIC and
communities’ rights. All stakeholders who participated in program training and
workshops strongly agree these learning events were successful in raising FPIC
knowledge, understanding of the complex issues involved and applicability to
participants’ own contexts. The training is viewed as highly empowering by number of
CSO stakeholders. Several trainer stakeholders note the high level of interest and
engagement of participants on FPIC training, in particular around applying FPIC to
local contexts. The knowledge and skill of the Oxfam Australia trainers is noted by a
number of stakeholders.
Survey respondents also report increased FPIC knowledge and ability to advocate for communities’ rights. When asked the extent to which FPIC training
had increased their knowledge of FPIC, all strongly agreed or agreed. Almost all (97%) agreed FPIC training strengthened their ability to advocate for communities’ rights. Over two thirds (76%) use an expanded range of FPIC tools in their role as a result of training. Significantly, the Oxfam Australia supported FPIC training was the only FPIC training most survey respondents (83%) had attended.
The Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent (Oxfam Australia 2010) is central
to the achievement of this outcome. The Guide is recognised as a high value
resource by all stakeholders. In particular, the seven steps are considered to be well
designed and to provide practical guidance for negotiations between communities
and developers/government. The format is highly regarded, with a good balance of
text and graphics appropriate to the target audience (CSOs), but perhaps less so for
illiterate/low literacy community audiences. The section on questions to ask the
project developer (Guide pp.16-17) is thought to be particularly useful by
stakeholders who use the Guide with NGOs. Also of great practical use are the
Flashcards which are valued because of their accessibility to different audiences.
Overall, translating the Guide into local languages increased its use value but
with important qualifications. Although producing a Tok Pisin Guide has increased
the Guide’s profile in PNG and supported delivery of training in Tok Pisin, its level of
use beyond CSOs is not clear. PNG CSOs report the Guide is too long and detailed
to be usefully distributed within communities. Stakeholders also point out a few
quality issues around appropriate language. The language in the Tok Pisin
translation is considered by PNG stakeholders to miss the mark with contemporary
audiences. A Mekong Region stakeholder commented on the difficulties translating
FPIC concepts into local contexts. Negotiating political sensitivities around FPIC was
an acknowledged difficulty in some translations.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
21
A number of points on improving Guide content were made by independent
expert commentators, FPIC trainers and participants. Although the content of the
Guide is considered to be quite well contextualised, these stakeholders feel the
Guide could increase its impact by including case study examples of communities
that have engaged in FPIC negotiations with government and industry.16 A few
stakeholders thought the Guide should also pay attention to guidance on remedy and
redress when rights are violated. A number of stakeholders also feel the section on
‘Where does FPIC come from? Who does it apply to?’ could benefit from revision to
tighten the alignment between rights to FPIC and relevant legal frameworks.
“The Guide has been well circulated and well used.” (Independent expert
commentator)
“Translating the Guide really allowed a practical approach….the Guide was an
extremely valuable resource, it was well developed and based on experience for
engaging with partners.” (Oxfam in-country staff)
“Guides like Oxfam Australia’s can be very useful in this situation, for a fair good faith
discussion. It is applicable to both sides.” (Independent expert commentator)
“What could improve the Guide would be illustrations or examples based on real
cases.”(Trainer)
“Invite leaders or communities (to give testimonies) whose FPIC were violated to give
further meat and first-hand experience to participants of the training.” (Survey
respondent)
“The materials in Tok Pisin are helpful, my own assessment though is that we need
more pictures to help people understand…the Guide is too wordy, it needs to be
more captivating.” (PNG CSO)
“I would request to have video version because many indigenous community could
not read Khmer language and that's is not really easy to get translator for them so if
you produce any video for them is much more easy for them.” (Survey respondent)
“I would add a note of caution with regards needing to be very careful how [the
Guide] explains where FPIC applies to Indigenous People and project affected
people…the particular legal framework that has emerged ties FPIC to the collective
rights of Indigenous Peoples enacted collectively…Oxfam Australia is very interested
in a wider application of FPIC for everyone tied to the right to development and self-
determination and I think the legal part of that is a little blurry.” (NGO)
PNG CSOs were the only program beneficiaries supported to deliver their own
FPIC training. This support (February 2012) built on previous Training of Trainers for
FPIC with PNG partners prior to the 2011-13 program (September 2010). PNG CSO
partners went on to deliver FPIC training in communities as part of the NRM
program. Oxfam in-country and Oxfam Australia head office staff observing this
training noted areas of difficulty, including accuracy of translation from English to Tok
16 An example given is Oxfam America’s case study of the Government of Bolivia’s Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy successfully applying FPIC during a gas exploration project in the indigenous territory of Charagua Norte e Isoso, Santa Cruz region. (Oxfam America 2010)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
22
Pisin and gender inclusiveness. Other program beneficiaries outside PNG report
using FPIC program training and resources to deliver training on FPIC to
communities (69% of survey respondents).
The program did not have explicitly stated gender objectives. However, the
program is situated within a broader Oxfam commitment to gender justice and within
this context a number of points on gender emerged during the evaluation:
The FPIC resources (especially the Guide) are not viewed as gender
responsive and program managers acknowledge the need to pay greater
attention to gender in program design within all the countries the program
worked in. This gap was addressed by foregrounding women’s participation
and decision making in the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.
Gender inclusion is not considered to have been mainstreamed in the PNG
NRM program design (Oxfam Australia, n.d.). FPIC program managers note
the limitations this subsequently imposed on gender mainstreaming in the
FPIC program in PNG.
Stakeholders across all regions commenting on efforts to mainstream gender
equity and women’s empowerment in community engagement work, stress
the challenges this poses. Despite these difficulties, survey respondents
report that following FPIC training, they have worked with communities to
include women (73%) and marginalised groups (77%).
“The FPIC Community Guide was ‘gender blind’ and so it’s not surprising we’re
struggling with gender engagement. We addressed this is in the Trainers’ Manual
which is gender responsive.” (Program manager)
“We try to promote gender equality even if this just means equal numbers of men and
women at village workshops….but cultural gender equality is not yet strong enough
in communities. There are some strong women speakers but overall, women do not
have a confident voice.” (Mekong CSO)
“We tried to get equal men and women [in training workshops] but this did not
eventuate because of cultural norms and values.” (Oxfam in-country)
The program intended to build FPIC capacity in other Oxfam programs and in-
country offices (Oxfam Australia 2011). There does not appear to have been a
formal delivery plan within the FPIC program to meet this objective. Program
managers acknowledge this stream of work was not formally planned and executed
but happened in an ad hoc and responsive manner alongside other work, for
example, alongside training workshops delivered to PNG or Mekong CSOs. The
FPIC Learning Event (for Oxfam staff) in the original program design (Oxfam
Australia 2011) did not happen. The program did deliver FPIC training to Oxfam staff
in Indonesia in April 2014, however, and some in-country Oxfam staff stakeholders
report FPIC training to be helpful to other areas of their work. Other synergistic
program initiatives, such as the Mekong program (jointly managed and implemented
by the PIE team), contributed to building Oxfam FPIC capacity. The Mekong program
developed a capacity building strategy and funding stream which worked with Oxfam
country teams to support civil society strengthening around environmental and social
policies and standards. This included Free, Prior and Informed Consent and used the
FPIC Guide.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
23
“The workshop was very useful, it built capacity and helped to create clarity around
our thinking on land.” (Oxfam in-country)
“The program’s capacity building of Oxfam staff in country offices was implied rather
than explicit.”(Program manager)
The evaluation did not find evidence the program resulted in increased
industry awareness of FPIC. However, the FPIC program is situated within Oxfam
Australia’s larger program of work on FPIC and in this context, there was an impact
on industry awareness of FPIC (see Section 5).
A number of facilitators and barriers to program achievement of outputs and
outcomes emerged.
The program’s synergy with other Oxfam Australia programs facilitated the
achievement of outputs and outcomes. Program intersections with other Oxfam
initiatives were particularly enhanced in the Mekong region due to the Oxfam
Australia regional program and maturity of partner relationships. In addition to the
PIE team managed Mekong program, examples of program synergy with wider work
streams include the strengthening of in-country Oxfam staff FPIC knowledge through
their work on Guide translations funded by other sources (e.g. Vietnamese, Lao and
Khmer translations of the Guide) and utilising other Oxfam country offices’ networks
to disseminate FPIC resources. In PNG, program outcomes were facilitated by NRM
program activities with partner organisations (Turubu Eco Forest Development
Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation).
The program built on previous and existing work of the Mining Advocacy and
PIE teams. This included policy work (e.g. monitoring Asian Development Bank and
World Bank safeguard policies); leading Oxfam International’s submission on IFC
performance standards; Oxfam Australia’s representation on the Coordination
Committee of OECD Watch17; knowledge products (e.g. analysis, production and
dissemination of resources on Bank policies; the Guide (Oxfam Australia 2010 ; the
annual Oxfam Sustainable Mining Symposium; research publications (e.g. Caer and
Oxfam Australia, 2013); targeted funding to lead NGOs including ERI and AIPP;
and capacity building within watchdog networks such as the NGO Forum on the
Asian Development Bank18.
CSOs’ capacity could potentially act as both facilitator and barrier to program
outcomes. The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement
of outputs and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ technical
capacity as well as their capacity to function within specific political and legal
environments. FPIC is highly politically sensitive in some countries and this acts as a
potential barrier by restricting CSO activity. Oxfam’s approach in such contexts is
highly adaptive and locally specific. In this context, stakeholders agree the program
objectives (to strengthen civil society) are highly relevant.
17 OECD Watch is an international network of civil society organisations promoting corporate accountability. The purpose of OECD Watch is to inform the wider NGO community about policies and activities of the OECD's Investment Committee and to test the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 18
NGO Forum on the Asian Development Bank was established in 1992 and is a collective of NGOs with a purpose of monitoring the Asian Development Bank and holding it accountable.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
24
The knowledge and expertise of the Oxfam Australia team facilitated the
achievement of program outputs and outcomes. There is a distance effect when
this expertise is delivered in short bursts however. In-country Oxfam staff point out
they can disseminate resources but do not have the technical capacity to provide
FPIC training or support (e.g. to local CSOs) themselves. Oxfam Australia’s FPIC
expertise is thus viewed as valuable but distant. Program managers also
acknowledge a ‘fly in fly out’ aspect to the FPIC support they provide.
Program managers noted one positive unintended program outcome for the
Mining Advocacy team, namely the program resulted in stronger links and new
collaborations between the Oxfam Australia policy and advocacy team (based at
head office) and international program teams in country offices.
4.2 EFFICIENCY OF THE FPIC PROGRAM
This section address Evaluation Objective 3: Efficiency of the project. It includes
assessment of:
Efficiency of project management, including program partnership approach
Facilitators and barriers to project efficiency
Program value for money.
Project efficiency is understood as the relationship between project resource (inputs),
including time, money and personnel, and results (outputs and outcomes). The
evaluation was not able to access comparable Oxfam Australia programs to assess
value for money relative to similar projects.
4.2.1 Project management
The program was coordinated by the Oxfam Australia Mining Advocacy team
and jointly implemented with the PIE team (four staff members). There was no formal
FTE dedicated to the program. The direct annual grant to DTP to support its Asia
Pacific regional capacity building program on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was
the only formal partner agreement. There was a one-off grant to Oxfam India to
support the adaption of the FPIC Guide.
Program administration and donor reporting changed substantially over the
life of the program due to the program straddling two Oxfam Australia ANCP four
year agreements (2008-12 and 2013-17). It should be noted the ANCP funding was
drawn down annually in a competitive internal process. Annual Development Plans
outlining program objectives and deliverables for the coming year were submitted to
AusAID (now DFAT). This meant program managers were not able to plan a three
year program but rather a series of three annual plans. This restricted longer term
planning but also enabled the program to be highly responsive, for example
responding to requests for FPIC training or support (e.g. translation of resources).
A number of facilitators and barriers to program efficiency emerged:
Facilitators: Over 2011-14, the program was increasingly designed to intersect with
other Oxfam initiatives and country programs to create complementarity of effort and
budget. This complementarity facilitated efficiency and produced aggregated value
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
25
for the FPIC program. Examples include program participation in workshops funded
or supported by other budgets. The program also utilised existing networks and
relationships (e.g. to disseminate FPIC resources). Program outputs were supported
by Oxfam Australia’s back office functions (e.g. program quality and donor reporting).
There was no corporate overhead (excepting salaries) levied on the program budget.
Barriers: The use of a volunteer to develop a first draft FPIC Trainers’ Manual in
2012 was cost efficient but not time efficient, and resulted in an overly lengthy
production period. The Manual was published in April 2014. The requirement to
submit to three funding application rounds was time intensive. Program managers
are candid about the narrow timeframes used for FPIC program planning and design
and feel this could be improved.
4.2.2 Program Value for Money
Over 2011-14 the program cost AUD 212, 648.19 The main program cost drivers
were:
Oxfam Australia salary costs (31%)
Direct grants to DTP and Oxfam India (20%)
Travel (International and within Australia) to deliver training/workshops (17%)
Resource production (design, printing and distribution) (14%)
Workshop materials (8%).
The evaluation did not attempt to formally define and attribute a financial value to
outcomes. This approach is aligned with Oxfam Australia’s emerging thinking on
evidencing value for money (Oxfam Australia 2014d). The value for money
assessment deployed here is based on informed but subjective judgement of
whether the same outcomes could have been delivered for less investment, or
whether better outcomes could have been delivered for the same investment.
Overall, the program achieved good value for money. The program delivered
high quality outputs for relatively low investment. Program outputs contributed to
progress towards achievement of desired outcomes, but the extent to which this
progress is sustainable is not yet clear.
When asked for their perceptions on program value for money, evaluation
stakeholders (with the exception of program managers), were unable to comment. In
part this was due to lack of transparency around program costs but also indicates the
complexity of concepts of value in capacity building for advocacy and policy. A
number of points on program value for money emerge:
The program did not report on economy and efficiency of program
investment, particularly return on investment of direct annual grants to DTP.
The outcome of the grant to Oxfam India (2013/14) is not yet clear.
Primary cost drivers (salaries, travel and printing) could not be realistically
reduced. Program managers estimate salary allocations in terms of time
spent on the program are conservative. This may highlight other issues in
underestimating required staff resource. Oxfam Australia team travel (e.g. to
19
Consolidated financial acquittal at 30 June 2014
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
26
The FPIC program
Theory of Change
assumes Oxfam
Australia’s
technical support
and training to CSO
program partners
results in increased
capacity of those
actors/entities to
engage with
government and
the private sector
on the issue of
FPIC; to provide
effective support to
communities; and
to network with
wider civil society
to achieve greater
impact.
deliver workshops/training in-country) is central to the program’s delivery of
FPIC expertise.
Program value for money assessments include assessing whether available
alternatives exist. The evidence presented in this evaluation suggests Oxfam
Australia’s FPIC technical expertise and resources (Guide and Flashcards, as
well as translations) had a high and unique value in the Mekong Region and
PNG.
Based on the evidence available to the evaluation, it is doubtful the program could
have achieved the same outcomes for less investment or significantly better
outcomes for the same investment.
4.3 IMPACT OF THE FPIC PROGRAM
This section address Evaluation Objective 4: Impact of the project. It includes
assessment of the extent to which program outcomes contributed to CSOs’ capacity
to:
Deliver effective FPIC support to communities;
Influence policy and practice; and
Network with national, regional and global civil
society.
4.3.1 Impact on CSO capacity
Overall, evidence suggests the ToC is valid, but could be
refined and improved.
The program’s theory of change (ToC) (refer Appendix B) is
central to assessing the program’s impact on CSO capacity.
The logic of the ToC assumes Oxfam Australia technical
support (FPIC training and resources) to CSOs will result in
increased CSO capacity to support communities’ FPIC rights
and positively influence policy and practice. Evaluation
stakeholders agree the program ToC is a sound approach
but stress the ToC depends in large part on the effectiveness
of the partnership between Oxfam Australia and local
partners. Furthermore, the strength of the ToC for vulnerable
or marginalised groups (e.g. women, children/young people,
disabled) must be treated with particular caution.
The program ToC did not articulate a robust understanding of
how capacity building in CSOs would occur as a result of
Oxfam Australia’s technical support. Further, the ToC did not
detail the way this process would be supported by Oxfam
Australia. Nor did the ToC contain explicit assessment of the existing capacity and
operational environment of CSOs in PNG and the Mekong. Such an assessment
would include analysis of how and why capacity building is more/less effective, as
well as the enablers and constraints in the wider CSO operating environment (e.g.
political sensitivities and law and governance).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
27
Capacity building is a complex process affected by many factors and it is important to
note the Oxfam Australia ANCP funded FPIC program is just one factor contributing
to potential impact over 2011-14.
“The program theory of change is a good approach. International NGOs are not best
placed to support communities over time.” (Independent expert commentator)
“Oxfam Australia should continue to find and support high quality local partners;
savvy local actors in local spaces.” (Government stakeholder)
“Theory of change and how we measure policy and advocacy work is a really live
issue….expectations of civil society capacity are high.” (Government stakeholder)
Some incremental steps towards CSOs’ effective FPIC support to communities
can be seen:
CSOs are proactively using FPIC resources in their awareness raising and
advocacy activities.
Survey respondents report adapting the Guide for their own use (75%).
Examples include a PNG CSO’s development of an A4 size FPIC leaflet in
Tok Pisin and English to hand out to communities; and a Cambodian NGO
adaptation of the Guide into a more targeted community resource for use in
Rattanakiri province.
PNG CSOs20 have used FPIC in radio programs, media releases, quarterly
newsletters and Facebook posts.
A Mekong Region CSO has used FPIC program resources to support a
community to advocate for FPIC in a dam development project. This support
has included FPIC a staff members’ blog delivering information on FPIC
adapted from the Guide and the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.21
Survey respondents report successfully supporting communities to defend
their FPIC rights (65%).
Survey respondents report using the Guide to raise community awareness most
often (79%), followed by using the Guide for government advocacy (64%); and in
private sector advocacy (60%). A significant proportion report not using the Guide in
either government or private sector advocacy (29% and 40% respectively). This
aligns with stakeholders’ comments that CSOs have increased capacity to undertake
FPIC advocacy with communities but this is not mirrored in advocacy with
government or the private sector.
ERI stakeholders state the application of FPIC concepts are clearly evidenced in
alumnae ongoing research and advocacy work with communities. Other CSO
stakeholders spoke of the influence learning about FPIC good practice principles had
made on their own processes of consultation with communities. A number of CSOs
highlighted the program had enhanced the impact of existing community work. One
PNG CSO mentioned it has achieved greater reach into remote areas because of the
availability of FPIC resources in Tok Pisin. PNG CSO stakeholders stressed the
challenging political, legal and business environment for communities attempting to
20 This instance is an example of the close boundaries between the ANCP FPIC program and the NRM program as the same partner CSOs were involved in each. 21
http://www.wpiggy.blogspot.com/2013/11/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic.html
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
28
exercise their rights to FPIC. In particular, the complexities of land tenure systems
mean further challenges when Special Agriculture Business Leases (SABL)
processes are too swift or not inclusive, resulting in costly disputes. FPIC is
described by one CSO as both the way in, and the way out, of this complex
challenge.
“We work with communities and we have applied the FPIC Guide into our other
projects, such as monitoring Asian Development Bank and World Bank projects.”
(Mekong CSO stakeholder)
“After the training, I had to implement two projects which involved FPIC processes
with a number of communities. Inputs from Oxfam Australia's helped a lot.” (Survey
respondent)
“Oxfam's FPIC training complemented what the Forum was already doing,
particularly in terms of advocacy and awareness.” (PNG CSO)
“[Oxfam Australia’s FPIC work] has supported trainings that would take place
anyway.” (Mekong CSO)
“We haven't …deliver[ed] FPIC training at the community level due to limited staff
and funding. Instead we have made available these resources for the Eco-Forestry
Forum member organizations who are on the ground around the country to keep
delivering the messages on FPIC and the Forum only coordinating the activities. And
that makes a lot of work much easier.” (PNG CSO)
We “distribute FPIC materials in a range of fora, particularly human rights and
business related fora, training, resource provision to other groups [including] with
industry… when running responsible business seminars etc.” (Mekong CSO)
There has been increased opportunity for local CSOs to network as a direct
result of the FPIC program but there is no clear evidence of impact on CSO
networking nationally or regionally (Asia Pacific). Program workshops and training
brought together 77 CSOs and stakeholders valued the networking opportunities this
brought. 85% of survey respondents report new partnerships with other CSOs as a
result of FPIC training and resources. In PNG, local Sepik region CSOs report some
recognition of synergy between their organisations’ activities as a result of joint FPIC
training. An example is the reported synergy between Turubu Eco Forestry’s FPIC
work and Bismarck Ramu Group’s delivery of development awareness for
communities. Whether this synergy represents a step towards forming and sustaining
new partnerships and alliances is not clear however.
A number of workshops in the Mekong Region (Vietnam 2012; Laos 2013; Cambodia
2014) brought together a wide range of organisations. A one day land law workshop
was an opportunity for 15 Vietnamese CSO initiatives and coalitions to network with
each other (as well as Oxfam staff in Vietnam; academics; community members and
government institutions). The workshop focused on advocacy around inclusion of
FPIC in the Environmental Impact Assessment component of the revised Land Law.
The workshop also provided an opportunity for CSOs to share knowledge on
advancing FPIC in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
(REDD+) in Vietnam and promoting the World Commission on Dams in Vietnam.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
29
There is some evidence CSOs are using FPIC training and resources to
influence policy and practice. Survey respondents report some success in
influencing private sector policy and practice (42%) and to a lesser extent,
government policy and practice (30%). Stakeholders agree engaging government
and private sector interests on FPIC is significantly more challenging than engaging
communities. It is therefore not surprising CSOs are less likely to report successful
advocacy to government and the private sector. One PNG CSO reports using FPIC
knowledge to design a Memoranda of Understanding template for community
agreements with government and developers. Other CSO stakeholders have not
used FPIC directly in their advocacy work but have lobbied national government to
include community views in development projects.
Both PNG and Mekong CSOs have engaged in FPIC consultation and policy
monitoring of REDD+. Formal engagement with policy processes such as the
REDD+ FPIC consultation is an important step towards CSOs influencing policy
commitments from government and developers.
“Vietnamese CSOs are using FPIC as a core evaluative framework and basis for
amendments to the draft land law…on how people and communities have a voice on
land use planning, land use change and land confiscation…There are some
elements of increased participation included in the draft land law thanks to the work
of CSOs.” (Oxfam in-country staff)
Significant constraints exist for CSOs to achieve impact on FPIC policy and
practice. These include sensitive political environments where the language of
human rights and FPIC is particularly charged. One independent expert commentator
stressed achieving change (social, cultural, political) takes time and requires
committed and consistent program support. CSO evaluation stakeholders identified a
number of areas where support is needed:
Support from donor governments and international NGOs to challenge corrupt
and illegal business practices, both in government and the private sector.
Support to include FPIC into the Special Agriculture Business Lease (SABL)
process. Reconciling PNG’s traditional land tenure systems with the SABL
land administration system is identified by PNG CSOs as an exceptionally
challenging area that communities need specialist support on.
Help to access remote communities (e.g. transport and communication
technologies).
Sustainability of CSO themselves (lack of core funding, insecure/temporary
office premises).
Resources such as the Guide are useful general guides (e.g. on best practice
in community consultation) but CSOs also need specific technical support to
successfully advocate for FPIC and defend communities’ rights in context.
“There is lots of pressure on communities from government and companies to quickly
approve Special Agriculture Business Leases….our laws are good, but law officers
can be bribed…in community training we raise issues of land administration and we
get lots of responses.” (PNG CSO)
“The key challenge to FPIC success is illegal and corrupt business practice.” (PNG
CSO).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
30
“Applying FPIC into reality is quite different and some steps cannot be applied…like
Step 4 on negotiations…there is very little communication between local communities
and developers. Normally that won’t happen in a project in my experience.” (Mekong
CSO)
“[T]here are instances where external forces are so immense which these
communities cannot overcome within their capabilities. For example, logging/mining
corporations colluding with individuals tampering with laws….Such issues need to be
addressed separately through investigation, lobby and advocacy efforts at the
decision making levels. Having that running parallel with the FPIC training to
communities could protect the interests of the communities.” (PNG CSO)
“Human rights activists can be blacklisted… [and] we need to be flexible around
words, for example, using ‘peace work’ rather than ‘campaign’, and avoiding
‘advocacy’ as this is perceived to be anti-government.” (Mekong CSO)
“[Key challenges to FPIC include] a lack of trust between parties and also
community capacity. There is a level of guidance in the Guide but for communities to
really engage with companies, specialist knowledge and technical assistance is
required.”(Independent expert commentator)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
31
“FPIC has been
bubbling away
for ten
years…2011 saw
a global policy
tipping point”
(Independent
expert
commentator)
“The work done
by Oxfam
Australia since
2011 builds on an
enormous
amount of work
done by CSOs and
Indigenous
Peoples.”
(Industry
stakeholder)
5. OXFAM AUSTRALIA’S WIDER FPIC ROLE
This section addresses Evaluation Objective 4: Examine Oxfam Australia’s role in
contributing to global FPIC policy and practice change through two case studies.
The context for the HSAP (2011) and ICMM Position Statement (2013) is a global
backdrop of concerted effort by many parties and, in particular, Indigenous Peoples’
and social justice organisations to campaign for industry to fully
accept IFI standards.
Industry, government and global civil society stakeholders, and
independent expert commentators, were asked to judge the
relevance, value and impact of Oxfam Australia’s role in the
development of the HSAP/ICMM and its handling of the issue of
FPIC. It is important to note evaluation stakeholders do not
represent a complete cross-section of industry, government or
global civil society. One Indigenous Peoples’ organisation was
consulted during the evaluation findings workshop, 9 June
2014.
5.1 HYDRO SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
(2011)22
The Hydro Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF) was initiated through a collaboration of the International Hydropower
Association (IHA) and World Wildlife Fund and The Nature
Conservancy. A process to develop a multi-stakeholder initiative
was commenced to ensure key stakeholder / expert groups
were represented as Forum members – these included seeking
representatives from industry, financing, social, environmental,
and government. Oxfam joined as one of the members of the
social issues area.
The four international NGOs (World Wildlife Fund; The Nature
Conservancy; Transparency International; and Oxfam Australia)
made up the social and environmental expert group. The Forum
operated as a quasi multi-stakeholder23 initiative with the purpose of reviewing an
earlier industry protocol developed by the IHA in response to the seminal World
Commission on Dams report (2000). Commitment to FPIC and the consent rights of
dam affected communities (resettlement) were key unresolved issues between the
IHA and other Forum members. The Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol
(HSAP) which was developed through the HSAF, provides a ‘good practice’
sustainability assessment applied to projects and includes commitments to FPIC as a
22 International Hydropower Association, 2011 23 Quasi MSI in the sense that some key stakeholder groups were not represented or invited to join – it was particularly highlighted by external observers that the following groups were not HSAF members - NGOs from developing countries, project affected peoples, resettles, resettlement experts and indigenous peoples
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
32
Key steps towards
FPIC
International Bill of
Human Rights
(1948)
Declaration on the
Right to
Development
(1986)
ILO 169
International and
Tribal Peoples
Convention (1989)
World Commission
on Dams (2000).
UNDRIP (2007)
IFC Performance
Standards (2011)
UN Special
Rapporteur on the
rights of Indigenous
Peoples (2011)
UN Working Group
on Business and
Human Rights
(2011))
HSAP (2011)
UN Global Compact
business guidance
in relation to
Indigenous Peoples
(2013)
ICMM Position
Statement (2013)
right for Indigenous People. Importantly, however, there are areas of non-consensus
on FPIC and involuntary resettlement.
Stakeholders judge the relevance, value and impact of Oxfam Australia’s role
on the Hydro Sustainability Assessment Forum very highly. Oxfam Australia’s
role as the sole social justice NGO at the HSAF table is viewed
as especially relevant. Oxfam Australia’s significant investment
of time and expertise is valued. By participating in the HSAF,
Oxfam Australia is seen as demonstrating its interest in
solutions and compromise, as well as commitment to social
justice. One stakeholder summed up Oxfam Australia’s
participation as representing a new style of advocacy for the
organisation; deliberately non-adversarial and attempting to
exert leverage in new ways. Social impact issues, and FPIC in
particular, are noted to have taken up a lot of Forum time.
Oxfam Australia played a critical role influencing the FPIC
outcomes of the HSAF and the agreement of the HSAP.
Oxfam Australia’s specific contribution to securing FPIC
outcomes is seen as instrumental by stakeholders. Although
there are clear areas of compromise on FPIC in the HSAP,
stakeholders feel there was more overall consensus than not.
The persistence on the part of NGOs, and particularly Oxfam
Australia, is noted by all stakeholders. One NGO Forum
member identifies an external development which critically
affected HSAP FPIC outcomes. This was a joint NGO
statement supporting UNDRIP. The launch of this statement
during HSAF meant two of the four NGO Forum members put
their weight behind Oxfam Australia’s push for FPIC inclusion.
Overall, the Oxfam Australia HSAF reference group is seen
as an appropriate mechanism to guide Oxfam Australia’s
interventions in the HSAF. Oxfam Australia’s HSAF mandate
did not include speaking on behalf of Indigenous Peoples and
dam affected communities (nor other social justice NGOs). As a
conduit for information and testing of ideas from Oxfam
Australia to wider civil society, the group function is thought to
have worked well but one stakeholder questioned the extent to
which the group was able to substantively support the Oxfam
Australia representative (for example with detailed feedback on
HSAF documents).
Stakeholders note there is very limited published evidence
to date on HSAP implementation with projects affecting
Indigenous Peoples. The impact of Oxfam Australia’s
contribution, however, is that the inclusion of FPIC within the
HSAP is viewed as fundamentally changing the policy
discussion. A number of stakeholders would like to see Oxfam
Australia play an active oversight role in the implementation of
the HSAP. Suggested involvement includes: sitting on the
HSAP Governance Committee; conducting thematic analysis of
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
33
the way the Protocol has dealt with FPIC in implementation; and scrutinising the
HSAP to ensure it stays true to its origins as a genuine multi-stakeholder initiative
and is not captured/solely used by industry. Another key issue pointed out as
requiring critical oversight are the actions of national governments in Protocol
implementation.
“The Protocol would not have had the same acceptance it has had without Oxfam
Australia’s inclusion of social impact issues. It is hard to separate Oxfam Australia
from the inclusion of FPIC we ended up with.” (HSAF member)
“The Protocol gives a powerful framework for pushing FPIC on the ground…so many
projects are not even close …so the Protocol can be used as a minimum value
statement written by and accepted and advanced by industry. This is powerful.”
(HSAF member)
“Oxfam Australia had a particular role to play in this context…doing high level policy
orientated work…arguing about what was proven, feasible, and possible.” (NGO
stakeholder)
“The hydropower industry had never accepted FPIC as feasible…. [but following] the
IFCs safeguards move towards FPIC and UNDRIP, it became an ever harder
position to maintain that FPIC was not possible.” (Forum member)
“There were many organisations that did not want to be part of the HSAF. Oxfam
Australia had the courage to go into discussions with the hydropower industry and to
push them.” (NGO stakeholder)
“There is a critical oversight role for NGOs like Oxfam Australia [in Protocol
implementation]” (NGO stakeholder)
“FPIC was a difficult topic in the Forum and I have to commend [Oxfam Australia’s
representative] for being very effective and consistent even when standing
alone.”(Forum member)
“[Agreeing to FPIC commitments is one thing], proof is in implementation though.
This is the challenge – how on earth do you get FPIC to work on the ground.
Communities need to know, NGOs need to know, companies need to
know…Everybody is scrambling in the land business to say ‘how do we do this?
Oxfam Australia’s experience of negotiating FPIC on the ground is invaluable.” (NGO
stakeholder)
5.2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MINING AND METALS “INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES AND MINING POSITION STATEMENT” (2013)
In May 2013, the ICMM released a Position Statement requiring its 22 member
companies to integrate FPIC into their practices around engagement with indigenous
communities (ICMM 2013). 24The adoption of FPIC by an extractives industry
24 The ICMM Position Statement was ‘soft launched’ at the 2013 Oxfam Sustainable Mining Symposium which focussed on the issue of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and mining. The Symposium is an annual event. 80 people attended in 2013 and received the ICMM statement. The Oxfam ‘Right to
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
34
association is agreed by all evaluation stakeholders to represent a significant shift in
the sector’s approach to corporate social responsibility and human rights due
diligence. The 2013 ICMM “Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement”
significantly moved the sector’s best practice principles from Free Prior and Informed
Consultation (2008 Mining Statement on Indigenous People) to Free Prior and
Informed Consent for Indigenous People.
In partnership with Oxfam America, Oxfam Australia is agreed to have had
important input in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM. This is based on two main
factors: Oxfam Australia’s work with Oxfam America to comment on a draft Position
Statement; and Oxfam Australia’s bilateral relationship with ICMM members. Oxfam
Australia’s past representation on the BHP Billiton Stakeholder Advisory Group is
particularly recognised. The industry stakeholder states the ICMM recognised the
“locus of leadership” on Indigenous People and FPIC within Oxfam Australia and
Oxfam America. Running parallel to ICMM engagement with Oxfam was consultation
on the draft with organisations/advocates focused on Indigenous Peoples. Both
processes allowed ICMM to take civil society soundings and report back to ICMM
member CEOs, an important step in building industry consensus.
The revision to the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance
Standards (2011) to include FPIC for Indigenous People is identified by ICMM
as the key driver behind the ICMM adoption of FPIC. It should be noted Oxfam
America and Oxfam Australia also lobbied the IFC on this inclusion of FPIC. Other
critical shifts in the global policy landscape include the formal UN approval of
UNDRIP in 2007, but also, critically, the subsequent adoption of UNDRIP by the
Australian, New Zealand, USA and Canadian governments in the years following.
Many of the 22 ICMM member companies are based in these four countries. Overall,
the role of civil society actors (including Oxfam Australia) in influencing national
governments to adopt UNDRIP is thought by ICMM to have been more influential
than specific input into the development of the Position Statement.
Similar to the HSAP, evaluation stakeholders hold desires to see Oxfam
Australia take a lead in following up the implementation of the ICMM Position
Statement. Oxfam Australia’s in-depth research and policy knowledge in the
extractives sector is considered valuable in scrutinizing the ways ICMM members will
implement the Position Statement. Another suggestion for Oxfam’s next direction is
to step up on-the-ground training with CSOs to translate the ICMM policy in order to
support communities negotiating with mining companies.
“It’s hard to separate Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America in this space….they gave
challenging but constructive feedback…we [ICMM] would be less inclined to push the
boundaries without the sustained advocacy of Oxfam and others.” (Industry
stakeholder)
“The fundamental shift in the revision of the ICMM position was the change in the IFC
Performance Standard to include FPIC for Indigenous People.” (Industry stakeholder)
“There has been a shift in terms of industry perspective…it is much more difficult for
industry to dismiss FPIC. Companies are talking the language of rights but respect
for the outcome [of FPIC process] is still unclear.” (Independent expert commentator)
Decide: company commitments and community consent’ report (Caer and Oxfam Australia, 2013) was also launched at this event.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
35
“We used Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America’s work on FPIC and the extractive
sector to inform land [grabbing] work. It formed an intellectual basis for our campaign
targeting agribusiness.”(Oxfam International)
“We were very conscious that unless the Position Statement had recognition from the
advocacy world there was probably more to be lost than gained in revising the 2008
statement.” (Industry stakeholder)
“Oxfam Australia have been working on FPIC for a long time. They’ve done some
very useful thinking and work [especially] in extractive industries. They are very
sensitive and clever about the way they do it and their level of expertise and skill has
weight.” (NGO)
“Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America played an important advocacy role in the
background with those Australian and US member companies who then joined the
discourse at ICMM.” (Industry stakeholder)
“Oxfam Australia contributed to a critical mass that had built up on FPIC and
Indigenous Peoples in the extractives industry.” (NGO stakeholder)
A key issue in both the HSAP and ICMM Position Statement was the
interpretation of whether FPIC solely applies to Indigenous Peoples as a
collective right or whether other project affected peoples can also call on FPIC as a
human right. Inherent within this distinction is a tension between collective rights and
individual rights and the foundational basis of FPIC. Some stakeholders question the
helpfulness of enforcing a distinction between Indigenous Peoples and other project
affected peoples. These stakeholders feel FPIC advocacy should call more clearly on
Human Rights instruments to widen rights to FPIC for all project affected peoples.
Such instruments include the right to self-determination in the international human
rights framework (United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). An example of recent civil society advocacy
on FPIC for all can be seen in Oxfam International’s Land Campaign.25 Other
stakeholders, however, emphasise Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC stems from
UNDRIP and is founded in their collective right to self-determination as an entity with
collective decision making and collective customary land tenure (defined in their own
terms). These stakeholders do not feel FPIC can, or should, be applied to all. Such
stakeholders find Oxfam International advocacy to widen FPIC to apply to all affected
communities problematic.
Overall, there is agreement among stakeholders that rights to FPIC are
complex and continue to be disputed. Despite this, there is consensus among
stakeholders across all sectors that the issue is no longer whether or not to agree to
FPIC, but how to successfully implement FPIC processes on a project by project
basis. Industry and policy stakeholders spoke of the immense challenges of
achieving good faith negotiations between communities and government/ the private
sector.
25 Oxfam International’s Behind the Brands campaign lobbies companies to commit to FPIC for all communities across their supply chains. The campaign been accepted by several multinational companies http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-11-08/coca-cola-company-declares-zero-tolerance-land-grabs-supply-chain ; Oxfam International (2012)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
36
Stakeholders were asked their views on strategic directions for FPIC and Oxfam
Australia’s future role. A number of points emerged:
Most stakeholders consulted in the evaluation concur there is a strong need
for ongoing FPIC education to communities and that this need is heightened
when communities are under immediate threat of development.
The idea of an independent third party in FPIC negotiations between
communities and developers/government emerged in interviews with a cross-
section of stakeholders. Several stakeholders suggested Oxfam Australia’s
position as a respected and trusted organisation made it an ideal candidate
for such a role.
Oxfam Australia’s Mining Ombudsman (historical) was mentioned by one
stakeholder as an excellent initiative that had impact in documenting adverse
effects and advocating with mining companies.
“It isn’t helpful to solidify FPIC as a right of this group but not that group….the
demand for FPIC is riding on the back of Human Rights respect for collective and
individual rights.” (Independent expert commentator)
“Oxfam Australia has helped in moving the debate from yes/no to FPIC to how is it
going to be realised.” (Independent expert commentator)
“It is now less an argument about whether FPIC should apply and more of a detailed
nuanced discussion on what is consent, by whom and for what in return? This is
going to be where the debate is.” (HSAF member)
“There is a real need for organisations like Oxfam Australia, because somebody
needs to be able to speak to the complexities of what FPIC would look like in
different places on the ground.” (HSAF member)
“It’s not just about international law and institutions…it is nice to have global
frameworks but ultimately, it is up to national governments, especially governments
that are very concerned about their sovereignty. There is a need to convince them
from the inside. The dilemma is that they can’t easily be influenced by outside
organisations. There is a need to develop a presence in country, in that domestic
political context. This is very important for organisations like Oxfam to resolve.” (NGO
stakeholder)
“Oxfam’s brand has value, companies respect Oxfam’s intellectual rigour. We’re
asking companies to go further than international law, government, international
institutions….now it is the private sector racing ahead and dragging institutions
behind. The missing piece is government. That is the next challenge.” (NGO
stakeholder)
“Unlike mining or hydropower, land grabbing’ is not an industry….it’s a much less
accountable space, a dangerous space with a lot of conflict. It would be good to see
Oxfam Australia have a strategy of constructive engagement with all (mining, hydro
and land), but you can’t only wave the FPIC flag as you’ll be marginalised…..[rather],
should take FPIC principles into different areas of engagement, such as greater
inclusion of civil society in resource management.” (Government stakeholder)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
37
“Oxfam’s great strength is that it plays a long game…that matters hugely. It
establishes legitimacy, builds relationships and moves the needle incrementally.”
(Industry stakeholder)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
38
6. LEARNINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This section draws conclusions from the evaluation findings and presents
recommendations for consideration.
Overall, the FPIC program succeeded in its intended objective to strengthen national
civil society understanding of FPIC rights. The program achieved progress towards
achieving desired outcomes (increased civil society capacity to use FPIC to support
communities and to influence policy and practice). The degree to which this
strengthened CSO capacity is sustainable is not yet clear.
An evaluation findings workshop was held with stakeholders in Phnom Penh
on 9 June 2014. The workshop purpose was to review evaluation evidence and
conclusions. Nine regional stakeholders, including Oxfam country program staff,
attended (see Appendix A). Overall, stakeholders agreed with the evaluation
findings. A number of key reflections and recommendations emerged:
Strengthening CSOs’ technical knowledge and capacity to utilise FPIC is
highly relevant to national and regional development contexts and should
continue to be supported. Capacity building must encompass a more
holistic approach that goes beyond just delivering training however.
The need for context specific tools, guidance and case studies of both
successful and unsuccessful FPIC was highlighted. The threat of FPIC
being co-opted by companies and government was identified, along with a
need for support to assess company performance, monitoring and
assurance. Closely linked to this is a challenge accessing information on
development projects.
The principles of FPIC are recognised as important for all project affected
peoples but there is a challenge in widening FPIC as a right beyond
Indigenous Peoples. AIPP’s position is that FPIC is a specific Indigenous
Peoples’ right anchored in collective self-determination over their
customary land and other resources.
FPIC is not a one-off event, nor is it a procedural checklist, but a free,
prior and informed process which may or may not lead to consent.
Further, FPIC must be undertaken within Indigenous Peoples’ own
customary processes. The application of FPIC is therefore highly context
specific. This brings considerable complexity to supporting FPIC
implementation with technical guidance.
Inclusion of women, youth and other marginalised groups within FPIC is a
critical issue, both within Indigenous Peoples’ customary norms and
decision making processes as well as community, business, and
government power structures. A stronger analysis of the biggest barriers
(e.g. cultural norms, capacity of Oxfam staff) to gender equality was
suggested.
There is a need to support business and government on how to conduct
FPIC and to advocate the positive benefits of FPIC for cost of business
(e.g. avoiding future disputes).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
39
Evaluation conclusions and recommendations for program effectiveness, efficiency,
impact and Oxfam Australia’s global role are presented below.
6.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Program Effectiveness
The program succeeded in achieving most of its intended outputs (training, workshops, and translated resources) although the delivery of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual was very slow. CSOs demonstrate increased awareness of FPIC and how it applies to communities’ rights, but questions remain over gender outcomes. The omission of marginalised groups (e.g. youth, people with disabilities) from program design is also evident. CSOs are using FPIC in their advocacy and programming work. The evidence that CSOs have used and adapted program resources indicates an added value beyond program expectations. Delivery of program activities and outputs were therefore consistent with the program’s intended objective to strengthen
civil society.
Oxfam Australia’s position as technical experts on FPIC has been enhanced by
the program. The training and technical support delivered to CSOs, Oxfam
Australia’s peer engagement with independent experts (e.g. reviewing the FPIC
Trainers’ Manual) and other Oxfam country offices have raised the profile of Oxfam
Australia as FPIC experts. This expertise is well recognised and respected. The
Guide is very highly regarded across all stakeholder groups as both a conceptual
introduction to FPIC and a practical guide. Some stakeholders had suggestions to
improve the balance of text/pictures for use with communities and to review the
language around rights and legal frameworks.
Significant steps were made towards strengthening CSOs’ FPIC knowledge,
and capacity to support communities and influence policy. The ways the
program connected to other Oxfam programs and initiatives created crucial synergies
that enhanced program effectiveness in achieving progress towards these outcomes.
The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement of outputs
and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ capacity. Program
intersections with other Oxfam initiatives was particularly enhanced in the Mekong
region due to the large regional program and maturity of partner relationships.
In this context, the following recommendations for program design and delivery can
be made:
Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to
understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.
Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous
gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.
Consider how to meaningfully include marginalised groups such as youth and
people with disabilities in program design and implementation.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
40
Program Efficiency
Overall, the program delivered good value for money, producing high quality outputs
for relatively low investment. These program outputs contributed to progress towards
desired outcomes. There is evidence the program leveraged available resources,
including complementarity of effort and budget with program partners and other
Oxfam programs, to maximise the efficiency of program delivery. Direct support to
DTP to host its Indigenous People’s Rights Program is a more cost intensive model
to deliver training on FPIC than other models (e.g. piggybacking on in-country
programs or solely providing resource/technical support as with ERI). The use of a
volunteer to develop the first draft of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual illustrates leveraging
of indirect resources must be approached carefully. In the case of the Trainers’
Manual, an initial cost saving resulted in considerable time inefficiencies. The
program was able to utilise Oxfam Australia’s organisational structures and systems
to deliver.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other
Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.
Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of
FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support
with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society
FPIC capacity.
Program Impact
The program reached a significant number of CSOs (77) and participants (307)
and important steps towards increased CSO capacity have been achieved.
Incremental steps have been made toward CSOs providing effective support to
communities, including proactive use of resources and individual examples of
applying FPIC knowledge. There are signs of increased CSO capacity to use FPIC
knowledge and resources to influence policy and practice (e.g. REDD+ monitoring
and consultation). However, stakeholders point out the significant challenges CSOs
face, including political sensitivities, corruption and weak legal protections. Some
opportunity to network has occurred as a result of the program but the breadth and
depth of this is not clear.
The program built on Oxfam Australia’s previous FPIC work, principally, the
Guide to FPIC produced in 2010, and earlier work with NGO partners. This included
training workshops with PNG partners aligned with the PNG NRM program, previous
policy work on IFI standards, as well as workshops/technical assistance provided
under the Mekong Regional Program (Oxfam Mekong country offices and NGO
partners). The 2011-14 ANCP FPIC program thus created enhanced value and
impact of this former work. The program ToC (technical support to build CSO
partners capacity) is a sound approach but program impact could be strengthened by
a more clearly articulated understanding of the ways capacity building will occur as a
result of the program and how this could be supported by Oxfam Australia.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
41
Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer
interrogation of ToC assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation and Learning
framework that collects meaningful data to assess the ToC.
Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to
support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.
Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region/globally
There is evidence Oxfam Australia has made a significant contribution to the
global ‘noise’ around FPIC. Stakeholders across all groups agree Oxfam Australia,
along with its Oxfam counterparts, has made a substantive contribution to pushing
FPIC onto industry, government and civil society agendas over the last three to five
years. Oxfam Australia is judged to have played a critical role influencing the FPIC
outcomes of the HSAP. Oxfam Australia is considered to have played (along with
Oxfam America), an important role in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM.
The tension between FPIC for Indigenous People versus FPIC for all project
affected peoples remains but there is growing momentum for FPIC to guide
best practice in community consultation and negotiations. Whilst some
stakeholders stress FPIC is a right specific to Indigenous Peoples, there appears to
be growing pressure from global civil society to expand the application of FPIC to
include all project affected peoples. Most stakeholders agree, however, that the issue
is no longer focused on the principle of FPIC, but rather, its implementation on a
project by project basis. Many stakeholders feel Oxfam Australia’s scrutiny of
industry implementation of FPIC is highly important. All stakeholders (expert
independent commentators, global civil society, government and industry
stakeholders) agree Oxfam Australia’s FPIC expertise, particularly in the extractive
sector, has a part to play in shaping/monitoring future policy and practice.
Stakeholders identified key areas of need:
Communities’ need for information and up-skilling on FPIC rights in the
context of specific development projects. This need is magnified in contexts
where communities are especially vulnerable or under pressure to agree to
large scale development projects.
CSOs’ need for context specific support in applying FPIC and guidance on
seeking redress when FPIC goes wrong/does not happen.
Private sector developers’ need for technical ‘know how’ on implementing
good faith FPIC processes with communities.
A continuing need to convince policy decision makers to respect FPIC.
In this context, the following recommendations can be made:
Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on FPIC by
investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases
and challenges/trouble shooting)
Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry
implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
42
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Evaluation Participants
The following stakeholders and independent expert commentators were interviewed
for this evaluation. Their names are included here with their permission.
Participant Organisation
Emily Greenspan Oxfam America
Phillippe Alan Oxfam Australia – PNG office
Kate Geary Oxfam GB
Christina Hill Oxfam Australia
Aidan Davey ICMM
Patrick Earle DTP
Lorelle Savage DTP
Joseph Wilde Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) OECD Watch
James Ensor Group Executive, BHPB (former Oxfam staffer)
Sabrina Gyorrary ERI
Hjalmar Joffre-Eichhorn ERI facilitator
Cathal Doyle Middlesex University
Virginia Dandan DTP trainer and UNOHCR
John Chitoa Bismark Ramu Group (PNG)
Gabriel Molok Turubu Eco Foresty Development (PNG)
Samson Kupale PNG Eco Forestry Forum
Dương Thu Hằng Warecod
Trinh Le Nguyen PanNature
Joerg Hartmann Independent consultant, Chair of HSAP Governance Committee
David Harrison The Nature Conservancy
Helen Tugenhaut Forest Peoples Programme
Richard Hackman Independent consultant
John Dore DFAT, Government of Australia
Chhuon La Oxfam Mekong Regional office
Bert Maarten Previously Oxfam Vietnam office
Judith Posenu Oxfam Australia – PNG office
Annie Sloman Previously Oxfam PNG country program
Tom Weerachat Earth Rights International, Mekong School facilitator
Bobbie Sta Maria Earth Rights International, Mekong School facilitator
Sarah Ransom DFAT, Government of Australia
David Allen Spectrum, Burma
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
43
Evaluation findings workshop, 9 June 2014, Phnom Penh
Participant Organisation
Khim Lay Oxfam America /PEM (Cambodia)
Priyajit Samaiyar Oxfam Australia, MRO
Nguyen Hoang Phuong Policy Program Coordinator, PanNature (Vietnam)
Nikki Richards EarthRights International (regional)
Bounthan Phou 3SPN (Cambodia)
Thien Huong Mekong School Alumni Vietnam
Robie Halip Asia Indigenous People's Pact (regional)
SOK ChanChhorvy Oxfam GB, Gender Justice Coordinator
Khamphoui Saythalat Director, PADETC, Laos
Serena Lillywhite Oxfam Australia
Christina Hill Oxfam Australia
Michael Simon Oxfam Australia
Gary Lee Oxfam Australia
Susanna Kelly Evaluation Consultant
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
44
Appendix B – Program outcomes model
Program Theory of Change
The FPIC program theory of change assumes building FPIC capacity in CSOs
results in strengthening CSOs’ support for Indigenous Peoples/project affected peoples’ FPIC rights and strengthens CSOs’ ability to successfully influence government and industry.
A FPIC program outcomes model and indicators were developed for the
evaluation (Figure 1). The model describes intended outputs and intermediate outcomes specific to the FPIC program and impacts that the program has contributed to. The model also depicts higher level impacts and ultimate goals the program is intended to contribute to, but which are subject to wide influence from other political, economic, legal and programmatic drivers.
The model makes explicit the expected relationship between program activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes and impacts. Through this process, key success criteria for the FPIC program are identified and agreed, providing a very clear foundation on which to make evaluative judgements.
It is important to note, however, that the outcomes model is not intended to depict a simplistic linear causal chain, nor capture every aspect of the FPIC program. Rather, the model is intended as a representation of the key changes the evaluation sought to test in the program theory of change. The model was validated with stakeholders.
Key policy and practice documents pertaining to civil society and development
effectiveness were consulted to develop the outcomes model, including the
Australian Government’s aid policy An Effective Aid Program for Australia: Making a
real difference – Delivering real results (Commonwealth of Australia 2011),
Comprehensive Aid Policy Framework (Commonwealth of Australia 2012) and
AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework
(AusAID 2012); AusAID Civil Society Engagement Framework (AusAID n.d.); the
Australian Council for Development Effectiveness Benchmarks for an Effective and
Accountable Australian Aid Program (ACFID 2014); and the Istanbul Principles for
CSO Development Effectiveness (Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness
(2011).
There are five tiers in the outcomes model, outlined over page (Table 1).
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
45
Table 1. Outcome tiers
Tier Explanation Scope
Program outputs Deliverables resulting directly from program activity and
immediately within the program sphere of influence
Within
scope Intermediate outcomes
Changes expected to result from program activities. Changes
are expected in the key program domains the program is
seeking to influence: CSOs; program partners; policy influence
and Oxfam.
Impacts
If desired intermediate outcomes have occurred, they are
expected to contribute to longer term program impacts. Program
impacts are influenced by other factors beyond immediate
program control, including existing CSO capacity, and policy
implementation.
Higher level impacts
Program impacts are intended to contribute to the achievement
of desired higher level impacts and ultimate goals. Higher level
impacts and ultimate goals are subject to wide influence from
other programs/initiatives, policies and political, economic and
legal drivers and, as such, are out of direct evaluation scope.
Beyond
scope
Ultimate goals
A Just World without
Poverty
Australian Government
Comprehensive Aid
Framework Strategic
Goals:
2. Promoting
Opportunities for
All
3. Sustainable
Economic
Development
4. Effective
Governance
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
46
FPIC Program Outcomes Model
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
47
Associated indicators
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
48
Checklist of indicator data sources and examples of evidence
Indicator Data source/examples of evidence
Intermediate Outcomes
Training participants rate FPIC knowledge increase (%) Survey responses
CSOs use a wider range of FPIC advocacy and awareness raising tools and approaches (%; Qualitative)
Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: CSOs letters/meeting notes to government and private sector; newsletters; media
FPIC training and resources judged to be gender responsive (%; Qualitative)
Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: CSO actively includes gender considerations in training, recruitment, partner selection, workshops; explicit understanding of FPIC and gender
CSOs deliver FPIC training to communities (% survey; Qualitative) Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: Testimonials from communities; requests for FPIC materials
Oxfam staff apply FPIC knowledge to other areas of work (Qualitative) Interviews
Program partners assess partnership approach worked effectively (Qualitative)
Interviews
Impacts
FPIC resources adapted and used in new contexts (% survey; Qualitative)
Survey & Interviews
New partnerships/alliances between CSOs and national, regional and global organisations (n=)
Interviews
Examples: evidence of membership of networks; contributions to local,
national, regional fora, such as joint letters, events and other collective
action
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
49
Checklist of indicator data sources and examples of evidence
Indicator Data source/examples of evidence
CSOs engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues [including communities]
that hold government and private sector to account (Qualitative)
Interviews Secondary data Examples: Testimonials from communities; policy submissions; grievance mechanism submissions
Regulatory frameworks and industry standards adopt FPIC (n=) Interviews
Secondary data
National policy shifts to include FPIC (n=; Qualitative) Interviews
Secondary data
Examples: CSO letters; Oxfam FPIC materials are accepted reference
materials for CSOs/NGOs and Government
Oxfam identifies and engages in new partnership opportunities (Qualitative)
Interviews
Examples: New partners/allies in portfolio; new joint initiatives
Oxfam policy and implementing teams collaborate in new ways (Qualitative)
Interviews
Examples: Evidence of joint work/collaboration e.g. FPIC included in
Regional or Country Office programs/projects
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation
50
Appendix C – Evaluation tools
1. Information sheet
2. Interview consent form
3. Discussion guides
4. Online survey
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
51
Information sheet
Oxfam Australia is doing an evaluation of its Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
work, including the FPIC program delivered under the AusAID NGO Cooperation
Program Partnership (ANCP). The evaluation is being conducted by Susanna Kelly,
an independent evaluator.
The ANCP FPIC Program (the ‘FPIC program’) began in 2011 and is due to end in 2014. The FPIC program was funded by the Government of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT, formerly AusAID). The FPIC program was implemented by Oxfam Australia and in-country partners. The program delivered FPIC training to Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and individuals in Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India and Indonesia. The evaluation is also examining Oxfam Australia’s wider role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region and globally.
Why is the evaluation being done?
Oxfam Australia requires an end of program evaluation to provide an independent assessment of the FPIC program. In addition, Oxfam Australia wishes to understand
more about its contribution to strengthening FPIC overall.
What is the aim of the evaluation?
The evaluation will assess the FPIC program achievements, challenges and lessons
learnt over 2011-14 and will enhance Oxfam Australia’s understanding of its wider
role in strengthening FPIC. Evaluation findings will be used to guide future program
design and delivery.
Your involvement
Stakeholder interviews The evaluator (Susanna Kelly) would like to talk with as many
different stakeholders as possible to get a 360˚view of the FPIC program and Oxfam
Australia’s FPIC work. Interviews will be conducted in the weeks of 21st and 28th
April 2014. If you agree to participate, Susanna will contact you to arrange a time for
a Skype/FaceTime interview or group discussion that will take around 45-60 minutes.
Interviews will take place at a time that is convenient to you.
Depending on the nature of your involvement with Oxfam Australia’s FPIC work, the
interview will ask questions about your views on the FPIC program (achievements,
challenges and lessons learnt), and/or your views on Oxfam Australia’s role in FPIC
changes nationally, regionally and/or globally.
Online survey of FPIC training participants The evaluation is seeking the views of
FPIC training participants on the training content and impact. An invitation to
participate in an online survey will be sent to you in the week of 21st April 2014.
Your contribution to the evaluation is valuable and Oxfam Australia hopes you will be
able to participate.
If you have any questions about the evaluation please contact Susanna Kelly
[email protected] +64 4972 1748 or Christina Hill [email protected],
Serena Lillywhite [email protected], Michael Simon [email protected] or
Gary Lee [email protected]
Interview consent form
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
52
Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent Evaluation
Interview Consent Form
I (insert name) ………………………………………………………………………
of (insert organisation)……………..…………………………………………….. agree to participate in this interview for the Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation, as outlined in the information provided to me by Susanna Kelly.
I understand that:
My participation is voluntary and I can withdraw at any time.
Whether or not I participate will not affect any current or future relationships with Oxfam Australia or any other organisation/agency.
With my permission, the evaluator will list my name and role as a contributor to the evaluation in an appendix.
The evaluator will seek to keep my information strictly confidential. No information in the report will be attributed to individuals.
I can request any information collected from me to be withdrawn at any time up until the analysis stage.
If I withdraw, I can request that any information collected from me be returned or destroyed.
With my permission, the interview may be taped, and may be transcribed.
Digital recordings, notes, and summaries will be stored securely by the evaluator and will not identify me.
I understand the aims of the Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation, have read this consent form, and been given the opportunity to ask questions. I give my consent to participate in this interview.
Participant’s signature: __________________________
Date: _________________
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
53
Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation
Draft Discussion Guide – Program managers and delivery partners, CSO
program participants
Introductions
Introduce self
Evaluation purpose and how Oxfam Australia will use findings
Informed consent and confidentiality
Explain a little about the Oxfam FPIC program
Personal background
Please tell me a little about yourself and your current role
What has been your involvement with Oxfam’s FPIC program?
Effectiveness
In your view, to what extent have the FPIC related activities you have been
involved in helped to contribute to
o Increased understanding of FPIC and related tools (Oxfam staff and
CSOs)
o Increased understanding of communities’ rights (CSOs)
o Training of trainers to deliver FPIC training to communities (CSOs)
In your view, to what extent did you engage Indigenous Peoples, women and
other marginalised groups (youth, disabled) in your FPIC related activities?
Probe: program results for these groups, level and type of support received
from OA regarding engagement of women
In your view, what factors helped success? Probe: translation of guides?
Skills of trainers?
o What factors hindered success?
In your view, have there been any unexpected program outcomes (positive or
negative)? Probe: what are they?
This discussion guide is indicative and questions will be tailored according to specific
knowledge and expertise of the interviewee.
CSOs
Do you/your organisation have examples of how you have used FPIC
knowledge, e.g. submissions to UN, advocacy, media, discussion with
government/company?
What has your organisation done as a result of the FPIC training and
resources? Probe: innovative approaches
How do you/your organisation use the FPIC resources?
o Delivering gender responsive FPIC training to communities?
Probe: what makes it gender responsive?
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
54
Efficiency
Thinking about the value of program outcomes that have been achieved:
- Could the same results and quality have been achieved with less
cost? Probe: why/why not
- Could better results have been achieved for the same money? Probe: why/why not
To what extent do you think the program has been efficiently managed?
What factors helped or did not help efficient program management? Probe:
costs, activity/personnel management, factors beyond program partners’ control
Are you aware of any comparable capacity building programs? Probe:
comparison with FPIC outcomes cost/value
Impact
In your view, what long term and sustainable difference have the FPIC
training and resources made for you and/or your organisation’s work:
- Supporting communities to engage with private sector and
government on land, energy or water developments that will affect
them (Probe examples)
- Influencing policy and/or practice nationally/region
- ally (Probe examples)
- Networking/forming new partnerships and alliances with other
organisations
Does your organisation have any evidence of the difference it has made in
these areas? Probe: any other existing data e.g. national NRM decisions
Learnings
What would you change to improve the FPIC program?
What do you think should be done next on FPIC?
What if anything do you think Oxfam can contribute?
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
55
Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation
Discussion Guide – independent FPIC expert commentators, Global CSOs,
Government and Industry representatives
Introductions
Introduce self
Evaluation purpose and how Oxfam Australia will use findings
Informed consent
Personal background
Please tell me a little about yourself and your current role
FPIC
What has been your involvement with FPIC as a strategic tool?
What has been your involvement with Oxfam Australia?
How do you view Oxfam Australia’s strategic role in advancing FPIC?
What has been your involvement with the Oxfam Australia FPIC program
Probe: on effectiveness and value of FPIC training and tools
Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol 2011
What has been your involvement with the HSAF (Forum)?
In your opinion, what role did Oxfam Australia play in the development of the
HSAP and the issue of FPIC?
If you were to judge Oxfam Australia’s role in the HSAP and FPIC, how would
you rate:
o The relevance of Oxfam Australia’s role
o The value of Oxfam Australia’s role
o The impact of Oxfam Australia’s role
Do you think Oxfam could have done anything different on FPIC?
Do you feel there is an ongoing role for Oxfam? Probe: what should OA do
more/less of?
International Council of Mining and Metals ‘Indigenous Peoples and Mining
Position Statement (May 2013)
What has been your involvement with the ICMM position statement?
In your opinion, what role did Oxfam Australia play in the development of the
ICMM statement and the issue of FPIC?
If you were to judge Oxfam Australia’s role (via Oxfam America) in the ICMM
statement and FPIC, how would you rate:
o The relevance of Oxfam Australia’s role
o The value of Oxfam Australia’s role
o The impact of Oxfam Australia’s role
Do you think Oxfam could have done anything different on FPIC?
This discussion guide is indicative and questions will be tailored according to specific
knowledge and expertise of the interviewee.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
56
Do you feel there is an ongoing role for Oxfam? Probe: what should OA do
more/less of?
Future directions
What do you see as effective strategies to achieve FPIC for indigenous and project
affected people?
Oxfam Australia’s Theory of Change
In your view, how valid is Oxfam Australia’s FPIC program TOC and overall strategic
model (‘top down, bottom up’ policy influence and project/community influence and its
insider and outsider approach)?
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
57
Survey Questionnaire
Email text to be sent 24 April 2014:
Subject: Help us to improve Oxfam Australia’s delivery of Free, Prior and Informed Consent support
Greetings,
Oxfam Australia has commissioned an independent evaluation of its Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Program 2011-14. The FPIC program delivered training on FPIC and other related Human Rights tools (e.g. OECD Guidelines, United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Translations of the FPIC resources were also produced and have been used around the world:
You have been invited to take part in this survey because you participated in FPIC training as part of your studies at the Earth Rights Mekong School/DTP. The FPIC training used Oxfam FPIC resource materials (Guide to FPIC shown above). We would like to hear your views on the training and resources. Some notes on the survey:
The survey will close on Wednesday 7 May 2014
The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete
The survey is voluntary and your contribution is confidential
By completing the survey you are giving your consent to take part
You can stop the survey at any time and your responses will be save to come back to later.
If you have any questions about the survey, please email Susanna Kelly [email protected]
If you have any questions about the evaluation please email Christina Hill [email protected], Serena Lillywhite [email protected], Michael Simon [email protected] or Gary Lee [email protected]
Your feedback is valuable and we hope you can take part. Thank you in advance for your time. Click here to start the survey [link]
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
58
You and your organisation
1. Which of the following best describes your organisation?
Non-Government Organisation
Civil Society Organisation
Community Based Organisation
Not applicable
Other organisation type (please specify)
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Training
Please tell us your views on the Free, Prior and Informed Consent training you participated in as part of your program.
2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [one response
per statement – rotate statements]
The FPIC training: Strongly
Agree Agree Neither
Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not applicable
Was relevant to my role
Increased my knowledge of FPIC
Increased my understanding of gender rights in FPIC
Expanded the range of FPIC tools I use in my role
Strengthened my ability to advocate for communities’ rights
3. Have you participated in any other FPIC training? [single response]
Yes [please tell us what training]
No
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
59
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Resources
Please tell us your views on the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials (Guide to FPIC)
4. To what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements [one response per
statement - rotate statements]
I and/or my organisation:
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not applicable
Have used the FPIC Guide to raise community awareness of FPIC
Have adapted the FPIC Guide for our own use
Have used the FPIC Guide for private sector advocacy
Have used the FPIC Guide for government advocacy
Impact of the Free Prior and Informed Consent training and resources
Please tell us your views about the overall impact of the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials and the training you participated in.
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [one response
per statement - rotate statements]
As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have:
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not Applicable
Delivered FPIC training to communities
Worked with communities to include women in FPIC events
Worked with communities to include marginalised groups (e.g. disabled, youth) in FPIC events
Created new partnerships with other civil society organisations
Successfully influenced private sector policy and
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
60
As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have:
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not Applicable
practice on FPIC
Successfully influenced government policy and practice on FPIC
Successfully supported communities to defend their FPIC rights
6. What was the greatest benefit to you of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed
Consent resources and the training you participated in?
[Open ended question]
7. What would improve the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources
and the training you participated in?
[Open ended question]
Profile
8. Lastly, please tell us a little about yourself. Are you (single response):
Male
Female
9. What country are you based in? [Drop-down menu]
Thank you for completing the survey. Your contribution will help Oxfam Australia provide effective FPIC support in the future.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
61
Appendix D – Survey results
You and your organisation
Which of the following best describes your organisation? n=29
Non-Government Organisation n=19
Civil Society Organisation n=5
Community Based Organisation n=4
Not applicable n=0
Other organisation type n=4 Media n=2 HR Defender Org n=1 Legal Aid and Research Advancement Foundation LARA n=1
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Training
The FPIC training: n=29
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not applicable
Was relevant to my role 10 35%
16 55%
3 10%
Increased my knowledge of FPIC
19 66%
10 34%
Increased my understanding of gender rights in FPIC
6 21%
17 58%
5 17%
1 3%
Expanded the range of FPIC tools I use in my role
8 28%
14 48%
7 24%
Strengthened my ability to advocate for communities’ rights
15 52%
13 45%
1 3%
Other FPIC training
Yes n=5
No n=24
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
62
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Resources
I and/or my organisation: n=28
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not applicable
Have used the FPIC Guide to raise community awareness of FPIC
12
43%
10 36%
4
14%
1
4%
1
4%
Have adapted the FPIC Guide for our own use
8
29%
13
46%
4
14%
1
4%
1
4%
1
4%
Have used the FPIC Guide for private sector advocacy
6
21%
11
39%
8
29%
3
11%
Have used the FPIC Guide for government advocacy
5
18%
13
46%
7
25%
1
4%
2
7%
Impact of the Free Prior and Informed Consent training and resources
Please tell us your views about the overall impact of the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials and the training you participated in.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have: n=26
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not Applicable
Delivered FPIC training to communities
11
42%
7
27%
3
12%
2
7%
1
4%
2
7%
Worked with communities to include women in FPIC events
8
31%
11
42%
4
15%
2
7%
1
4%
Worked with communities to include marginalised groups (e.g. disabled, youth) in FPIC events
6
23%
14 54
2
7%
2
7%
2
7%
Created new partnerships with other civil society organisations
6
23%
16
57%
2
7%
2
7%
Successfully influenced private sector policy and practice on FPIC
1
4%
10
38%
6
23%
3
12%
1
4%
4
15%
1
4%
Successfully influenced government policy and practice on FPIC
2
7%
6
23%
9
35%
4
15%
1
4%
4
15%
0
Successfully supported communities to defend
5
12
5
2
1
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
63
As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have: n=26
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Don’t know
Not Applicable
their FPIC rights 19% 46% 19% 7% 4%
What was the greatest benefit to you of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed
Consent resources and the training you participated in?
1. Learned about valuable concept that ensure the good governance. 2. Help affected community by project watch dog statement 3. More understanding the FPIC, share with friends and using with my works. 4. Having resources to conduct training for local community level. By understanding fpic, my
trainees understand more to undrip. In my context, going directly to undrip is a bit challenging. So, fpic help the understanding of undrip with a great extent. Also, it benefits advocacy to international level, but it still challenging to local authority level in my context.
5. Introduction of FPIC itself was a great education to me and my organisation. Was able to absorbed it more through the Role plays conducted by the Trainer.
6. The Knowledge of FPIC 7. I work for indigenous people in mountain area, it help me to know the principle and how to
keep indigenous people's rights 8. It helps me to understand the rights of FPIC which can be used as a tool to claim
communities' rights during the development process. 9. It provided us with a clear and concise guide for the FPIC discussion in IP communities 10. All information/guidelines/training for the workshop is new and really great. 11. After the training, I had to implement two projects which involved FPIC processes with a
number of communities. Inputs from Oxfam Australia's helped a lot. 12. Increased my knowledge on FPIC for deepening my advocacy with indigenous peoples 13. The information in the FPIC is more clear and specific that is why the participants get to
understand easily. 14. Understand about OECD policy guideline and it is used in Cambodia. UPR is provided to
other NGOs and Communities. Access to information and community participation are very useful for our affected community to be ready for negotiation with company.
15. The greatest benefit to me is: Increased my knowledge about rights of Indigenous People in FPIC 1.Free Prior and Informed Consent is generally understood as the rights of indigenous people to approve or reject proposed actions or projects that may affect them or their land, territories or resources. 2. Indigenous People have the rights to the land, territories and resource which they have traditionally owned, occupied or have rights to use, develop and control the land, territories and resource that they possess by reason of traditional ownership. 3. Indigenous People shall not be forcibly relocated from their land and the states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous People concerned.
16. The greatest benefit to my organization of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources are for sharing the communities to aware their rights all mention in FPIC. Moreover, we gave this as a good manual for them to keep on sharing to other members in their own villagers as well.
17. Policy Level Advocacy 18. As working with grassroots people, the FPIC resources and training were so helpful to me.
Since I understood the rights of affected people, there was a huge inspiration for me to seek for further information on IFIs safeguard policy and lead me to organise and work with the communities more effectively.
19. I have the further understanding to FPIC and get the knowledge on how to make the strategy responding to the possible impact and threat.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
64
20. Inactually, my work are not really relative to FPIC. But after I particpated FPIC training, I thought it is very useful for every indegionouse people. It also could help communities get more informaion and know more their right.
21. Make the community feel confident to start or straighten their advocacy to deal with the company and the government.
What would improve the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources and the training you participated in?
1. It is better, If it include some practical case studies that apply this concept 2. Should translate to local language 3. put the presser to the private sectors and government use FPIC when they have mega
projects 4. If it include how to combine some training activities like role play, game and so on, it will
much help to not only training but also the trainees. 5. Adapt the contents to the local context 6. have more example 7. More training concerning tools 8. Include further discussions on FPIC involving projects that are not extractive in nature
(mining, dams) but also projects like education, livelihood and agriculture-related . 9. I think it was already good enough. 10. Invite leaders or communities (to give testimonies) whose FPIC were violated to give further
meat and first-hand experience to participants of the training 11. I would request to have video version because many indigenous community could not read
Khmer language and that's is not really easy to get translator for them so if you produce any video for them is much more easy for them.
12. In the near future Oxfam should insert/focus in the agenda on advocacy by bringing case study which there is Human Right violation from some countries and follow up.
13. 1. trainer should slow down his/ her speaking because some participants can not catch up well with the explanation. 2. The training should include more topic on rights of indigenous people 3. Document package should cover only main document related to human rights and indigenous people rights 4. there should be more time for relax between lunch time and afternoon class.
14. I knew more about the FPIC after I attended the ToT with Diplomacy Training program (DTP) Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights Advocacy and Development Training Program. Moreover, I also attended the regional ToT with Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact [AIPP].
15. It should be more readers friendly, i mean it would be better to translate into concerned communities languages of the targeted areas.
16. After taking the FPIC theory, we were taken to the field to learn the practise, but it just happened in Thailand. There are so many particular cases along the Mekong region and I think the training could involve participants from different countries/cases to share about their experiences.
17. FPIC is good but now it only can be used in some areas due to different political situtaion, different trational and culture, and different level of civil society's development in different country context.
18. The FPIC should be translated into many and indegionouse language because it could be easy to understand for the people
19. Produce as much visual aid based on the meaning of FPIC as the local community is not familiarized much in reading and listening. And some of them may have limited knowledge in reading and listening. Involve the local authority in the training.
Profile
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
65
Lastly, please tell us a little about yourself.
Male n=10
Female n=15
What country are you based in? n=25
Cambodia 5
Laos 2
Vietnam 3
Burma 3
Thailand 2
Indonesia 0
Malaysia 2
Philippines 2
Timor Leste 0
India 1
Sri Lanka 1
Pakistan 0
Bangladesh 1
Nepal 0
China 3
Tibet 0
PNG 0
Fiji 0
Australia 0
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
66
Appendix E – References
AusAID (2012). AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
Framework (May 2012)
AusAID (n.d). AusAID Civil Society Engagement Framework – Working with civil society
organisations to help people overcome poverty
AusAID (2012). AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
Framework May 2012
Australian Council for International Development (2014). Benchmarks for an Effective and
Accountable Australian Aid Program
CAER and Oxfam Australia (2013). The Right to Decide: Company commitments and
community consent
Commonwealth of Australia (2011). An Effective Aid Program for Australia Making a real
difference – Delivering real results Updated June 2012
Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Helping the World’s Poor through Effective Aid: Australia’s
Comprehensive Aid Policy Framework to 2015-16
International Council on Mining and Metals. (2013). Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position
Statement, May 2013 Retrieved http://www.icmm.com/our-work/sustainable-
development-framework/position-statements
International Hydropower Association (2011). Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol
November 2010
Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness (2011). The Siem Reap CSO Consensus on
the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness Agreed by the Second
Global Assembly, Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, Siem Reap,
Cambodia, June 28-30, 2011
Oxfam America (2010). Case Study: Bolivian Government Consultation with the Guaraní
Indigenous Peoples of Charagua Norte and Isoso Oxfam America and Centro de
Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social (CEJIS) Retrieved from
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/case-study-bolivian-
government-consultation-with-the-guaran%C3%AD-indigenous-peoples-of-charagua-
norte-and-isoso/
Oxfam America. ICMM commits to Free Prior Informed Consent standard Policy blog retrieved
http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/05/24/icmm-commits-to-free-prior-
informed-consent-standard/
Oxfam International (2012). ‘OUR LAND, OUR LIVES’ Time out on the global land rush Briefing
note, Retrieved http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/%E2%80%98our-land-our-
lives%E2%80%99
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan
67
Oxfam Australia (n.d.). Women’s participation and gender equality outcomes in the East Sepik
Natural Resource Management Program Draft Version 1 9-1-14 (2)
Oxfam Australia (2005). Land rights and development reform in remote Australia Centre for
Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), The Australian National University,
Canberra
Oxfam Australia (2010). Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent (July 2010)
Oxfam Australia (2011). ANCP Concept Note 2011/12
Oxfam Australia (2012). Seven Core Questions Tool Kit July 2012
Oxfam Australia (2014a). Evaluation Terms of Reference Evaluating Oxfam Australia’s ‘free,
prior and informed consent’ community and advocacy work January 2014
Oxfam Australia (2014b). Final Evaluation Plan Oxfam Australia’s Free Prior and Informed
Consent Program 15 April 2014
Oxfam Australia (2014c). The Power of People against Poverty Oxfam Australia Strategic Plan
2014-2019 Published 6 February 2014
Oxfam Australia (2014d). Australia Africa Community Value for Money March 2014
Voss, M. and Greenspan, E. (2012). Community Consent Index: Oil, Gas and Mining Company
Public Positions on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), Oxfam America Research
Backgrounder series (2012) Retrieved from
www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/community-consent-index
Top Related