Issuu on Google+

Terms of reference Review of the experiences of global advocacy in IBIS’ AAP and LAPI programmes

1. Background IBIS counts on two global advocacy programmes Africa Against Poverty (AAP) and Latin America against Poverty and Inequality (LAPI) aimed at strengthening IBIS’ and key partners’ international advocacy. Both programmes are managed from IBIS HO in Denmark and integral to IBIS policy work currently focused on extractive industries and tax, climate change and indigenous peoples’ rights in Latin America. LAPI was launched in late 2010 and focuses on national and international advocacy as well as regional networking on climate change and extractive industries with a special attention to indigenous peoples’ situation and rights. Moreover, the programme aims at creating and maintaining a Danish engagement in Latin America and strengthening IBIS’ relative position on Latin America. Africa Against Poverty (AAP) has a longer history as it was launched in 2006 and is in its 3rd phase. The programme has become increasingly focused on capital flight and taxation of natural resource extraction in African countries, linked to Danish and European awareness raising and advocacy, as well as the aid effectiveness process. It has been decided to review the two programmes together in order to systematize and learn from the various approaches for doing global advocacy that have developed between IBIS and her partner organisations. In the following, the background and objectives of the two programmes are outlined zooming in on the particular processes that should be the focus of the review.

2. Programme objectives and major developments Africa Against Poverty - AAP Development objective: In the African countries where IBIS is active, civil society’s voice and influence on the extraction of natural resources and the redistribution through tax systems have been strengthened through support to south-south and north-south alliances for advocacy at the international, regional and national level resulting in more sustainable extraction of natural resources with larger economic benefits for poor countries and people. Furthermore, the political space for civil society has been improved and civil society has at a regional level a stronger voice for quality education for all. Immediate objectives:  Extractive industries: IBIS, partners and networks are in alliances advocating for; socially and environmentally sustainable extraction of natural resources respecting peoples rights; transparency and accountability; an end to illicit capital flight; increased economic and developmental benefits


  

for the countries through taxation of natural resources and redistribution to the poorest segments of the population; and strengthened local procurement and employment in the extractive sector. Tax justice: IBIS and partners have through analyses of tax systems a better understanding of propoor and redistributive tax systems and advocate for tax justice. Democratic space for civil society: Based on analyses IBIS and partners promote democratic ownership and create awareness for the defence of the policy space for civil society. Education for Change: Regional and international advocacy for education for change has been strengthened through support to regional activities in close coordination with IBIS education programmes. Emerging agendas: IBIS maintains agility to respond adequately to new and challenging agendas emerging outside the direct objectives of the programme.

AAP start-up: AAP was started in 2006. Initial activities were seen as a continuation of activities from the MakePovertyHistory campaign and the ambition was to cooperate on national, regional and international advocacy with regional African networks like CIVICUS, AFRODAD and national platforms of the GCAP campaign, etc. The expectation was that cooperating with these stronger organisations would be feasible through the AAP structure with the programme coordinator based in Copenhagen, and that those African partners and IBIS jointly could contribute to national, regional and particularly international advocacy processes. An assessment of this strategy is that it only partial has been successful. Regional African organisations like AFRODAD are often fragile, particularly their relation to national partners is questionable and they are often dependent on individuals. AFRODAD emerged into an organisational crisis and IBIS had to abandon the partnership, among other reasons because supporting the organisational development through a crisis is impossible with management based in Copenhagen and with only limited understanding of the confusing organisational challenges AFRODAD was facing. Further the MakePovertyHistory campaign was coming towards the end and the GCAP campaign never really took footing in African countries. Aid Effectiveness process, Democratic Ownershiip and space for civil society Based on an IBIS analysis of the development of international aid thinking, and out of the cooperation with CIVICUS, grew a commitment to work with the aid effectiveness process. In late 2007 AAP invited global partners from North and South to initiate what became the Better Aid CSO coordination group on Aid Effectiveness. IBIS with the Alliance2015 partners started activities in Mozambique and Ghana (as well as Bolivia and Cambodia) as preparation towards the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra 2008 (HLF3). In Mozambique it was to some extent an agenda imposed on the civil society, and it never really took ground in the country, while in Ghana, host to the HLF3 many partners engaged in the preparations, and IBIS’ activities were crucial for the huge CSO involvement. The advocacy process consisted in a combination of activities: IBIS and partners in Ghana co-organised the international CSO-sideevent with 800 participants, a strong mobilisation campaign in Ghana, a coordinated advocacy process in Denmark and internationally through the Better Aid Coordination Group engaging directly with policy makers in OECD, EU and other forums, and research carried out by IBIS/the Alliance on Aid Effectiveness and Democratic Ownership. In this process IBIS/AAP contributed to establishing a global CSO advocacy group (Better Aid

2


Coordination Group). CIVICUS has played a key role in the international CSO mobilisation around aid effectiveness. After the HLF3 IBIS/Alliance 2015 continue working on aid effectiveness and democratic ownership, primarily pushing for a more enabling space for civil society. IBIS/Allaince2015 also participated in the Busan High Level Forum 4 process and conference, preparing research from the ground in four countries and continuing to try to mobilise civil society in the countries towards Busan. Unfortunately, the aid effectiveness process at the international level has lost steam. Extractive Industries and taxation of Natural Resources In 2008 IBIS started to develop thinking around extractive industries (EI) leading to IBIS policy on Extractive Industries adopted in 2009. The analysis, driven by AAP, highlights how extractive industries have become an important social, environmental and economic factor in most developing countries with a strong potential of mobilisation as the consequences are directly felt at all levels. Today EI and tax has become the backbone of the AAP programme. The work on EI also changed the way AAP is operating. AAP started to engage directly with partners in the African countries where IBIS is present at the national and even local level, in close coordination with IBIS’ national programmes combined with regional activities with partners like Tax Justice Network Africa and AFRODAD and recently PWYP Africa providing research capacity and training and advocacy towards the regional and international arenas. Activities in Africa have been combined with awareness raising, lobby and advocacy in Denmark, EU and international fora, mainly been carried out directly by IBIS. In international arenas advocacy has been coordinated through different networks like Eurodad, PWYP, Tax Justice Network and ad hoc groups. These networks tends to be northern driven and only partially including global south partners in the direct advocacy and lobbying activities which often takes place in European capitals and international organisations. An excellent example has been advocacy towards the EU Directive on transparency. Education Education is the final component of the AAP. AAP has been supporting the regional education network ANCEFA to coordinate regional and international advocacy processes and support national education camapigns in specifiacally Liberia and Sierra Leone. ANCEFA is (yet an other) regional network facing challenges and the activities have had its ups and downs. ANCAFE as to some extent managed to become the regional voice of Africa in regional and international advocacy processes, while the lnk down to the national platforms is a challenge and so is the organizational functioning of the network.

Latin America Against Povery and Inequality – LAPI LAPI has since its inception focused on developing and strengthening partners’ existing experiences of regional networking and international advocacy around climate change, extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights.

3


Development objective: Civil society, in particular indigenous peoples, in Latin America has strengthened its voice and influence on issues that have direct impact on inequality, democracy and sustainable development. Immediate objectives: 1. Climate change component: IBIS and partners have contributed to ensure that public awareness, lobbying and advocacy actions from civil society networks’ have influenced the negotiations of the Central American and Andean positions under the UNFCCC’s COP16/COP 17 negotiations; and furthermore, influenced international institutions and national climate change policies/strategies toward sustainable development and ensure that indigenous peoples and the poor population are considered. 2. Extractive industries component: IBIS partners in Latin America have intensified their pressure in order to enforce existent and promote new national laws and international agreements and declarations for the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights to live in a sound environment, to have prior consultations and to have insights in revenue issues related to projects of the extractive industries. 3. Policy component: IBIS has – together with Latin American and international civil society organizations and networks – taken action on Danish, European and international advocacy opportunities to promote indigenous peoples’ rights, democracy and poverty reductions policies.

The following processes should be systematised and assessed as part of review process: Climate change advocacy and REDD In Central America LAPI has built on and continued a partnership with the Sustainability Watch civil society network with a view to strengthen the capacity for doing national and international advocacy on climate change negotiations and policies. The network was started in 2003 and counts on 92 member organizations. The members work on a variety of themes such as national and regional climate change policies, sustainable energy provision, vulnerability to climate change, adaptation strategies and reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The network has gained significant influence on national policies in Guatemala and Nicaragua, and participates actively at international climate negotiations where the network plays the role a key civil society interlocutor, which again positions the network nationally and regionally. In the past two years, the climate change component of LAPI has focused particularly on addressing the rights consequences of and proposals of indigenous peoples’ organizations for the REDD policies and programmes that were launched in the wake of the COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. The background rationale was that the REDD programmes display negative rights consequences at the local level, and that these to a large extent are financed by Nordic donors. The support has been a combination of support to partners’ studies within the area, their elaboration of policy proposals and their undertaking of national and international advocacy (towards UN-REDD, FCPF of the World Bank as well as the negotiations within the framework of the UNFCCC). IBIS has - together with other Danish and International NGOs (within the Danish 92 group and the Accra Caucus among others) – joint forces with partners in the international advocacy, but also elaborated her own case studies, organized conferences with participation of indigenous organisations, and advocacy initiatives to influence the policies of Nordic donors to these programmes. This

4


has been complemented with campaigning for Danish support to alternative models such as the Yasuní Initiative in Ecuador. Free Prior and Informed Consent Another focus of the programme continues to be indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent in relation to policies and programmes affecting their life, livelihood and rights. The debate over the right to consultation (ILO Convention no 169) is heated in several Latin American countries such as Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia, and goes to the heart of the concerns of indigenous peoples vis-à-vis the booming exploitation of natural resources, the negative effects of megaprojects and sometimes even of forest conservation efforts such as REDD. Hence, the concern for consultation cuts across the components of the programme. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has called for the development of guidelines on consultation. IBIS has commissioned and worked with Pachamama and Red Jurídica Amazonica to review national legislation, previous experiences of consultation on the continent, and to draft guidelines, which has subsequently gone through a process of validation with indigenous organisations and international human rights experts. The work is to be presented to the Permanent Forum in order to inform the global work on guidelines. The work – where IBIS has played a more proactive role - can also be used in advocacy towards other international institutions (such as the World Bank safeguard review). Extractive Industries and Taxation of Natural Resources Hitherto, IBIS’ work on extractive industries in Latin America has mainly focused on indigenous rights, but over the past two years LAPI (together with the governance programmes in Bolivia and Guatemala) has been building new experiences with addressing capital flight and taxation of extractive industries. The main partners are Latindad (Peru), Icefi (Guatemala), Cedla (Bolivia) and Calas (Guatemala), which work with particular cases (ex Cajamarca in Peru, Lithium in Bolivia) and At the national level this is to greater and lesser extent walks hand in hand with a more holistic attention to social and environmental effects and aim at influencing national policies (such as the mining law in Guatemala). Nevertheless, there is often a distance between indigenous organisations that employ rights instruments to promote their agenda and technical NGOs taking point of departure in an economic analysis; and few of these actors take part in the international processes. IBIS on her hand has been elaborating studies and policy briefs and, together with CONCORD, mainly focused on targeting the Danish and European debate around capital flight and taxation of extractive industries (revision of the EU directive on transparency and accounting standards, The EU commissions action plan on tax havens; World Bank/IFC policy on off-shore financial centres etc as also mentioned in the description of AAP).

3. Purpose of the review The processes described above represent different ways at approaching partners’ participation in global advocacy as well as different modes of engaging as IBIS in global processes in order to obtain concrete policy results. Based on various criteria (further outlined below) these approaches may be assessed against

5


each other, and against experiences of comparable international organisations working within similar contexts and thematic areas. Compared to other European advocacy organisations IBIS has a much stronger direct reference to experiences and knowledge from developing countries as the AAP and LAPI coordinators are not only directly doing advocacy and lobby, but also are directly responsible for programme activities in developing countries. This creates a strong potential for strengthening the link between local realities and international processes. In sum, the purpose of the review is to undertake a review of the programme activities of the first phase of LAPI and the third phase of AAP in order to systematize experiences and good practices with doing international advocacy. This should be done by focusing on a limited number of processes; following them from the local/national to the international level. The review should provide recommendations on how to improve the quality and effect of the programmes and IBIS’ global advocacy work The review should furthermore assess the progress towards programme objectives, the adequacy of the organization and division of work around programme implementation, and provide concrete recommendations and guidance for a next phase of LAPI and AAP respectively.

4. Focus areas of the review: 1) Identify and document key LAPI and AAP experiences in global advocacy on taxation of extractive industries, climate change and indigenous rights. Outline most important models; 2) Assess the main results of LAPI and AAP respectively, and the progress towards programme objectives; 3) Assess and document strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches for doing global advocacy based on key criteria (effect on political agenda hereunder effect of networks and platforms; strengthening of partners through participation (i.e. ability to engage in similar processes), accountability to partners, adequacy of roles and division of work, added value of IBIS) and with due attention to contextual differences. Outline main dilemmas. 4) Assess programme set-up, management, and division of work around programme implementation. The review should pay particular attention to the synergy with national governance and educational programmes. 5) Based on the findings and lessons learned provide recommendations on how to strengthen IBIS global advocacy work and improve the quality of AAP and LAPI respectively. Hereunder, provide recommendations for further development on thematic capacity, particularly on extractive industries.

5. Process and Methodology LAPI target five Latin American countries and APP four African countries. Furthermore, the advocacy processes involve the targeting of several international institutions and policy processes such as the EU, the

6


World Bank, the UNFCCC, the Aid Effectiveness Process and forums, as well as Danish policies on overseas development assistance. The review team is therefore expected to select a limited number of advocacy processes, which they document and assess in dept. Partners and other stakeholders should be engaged in the evaluation of the effect and performance of the programmes. This is complemented with review of documents, interviews etc. in order to assess the results of the programmes. 1) Review of relevant documents including partner and programme reports, programme documents and relevant policy documents (policy on extractive industries, policy on climate change, partnership strategy) 2) Facilitation of group discussions and internal evaluation by AAP and LAPI 3) Participation in relevant partner seminars or other relevant fora, facilitation of participatory assessment. 4) Interviews with selected partners, staff, stakeholders and peer NGOs. Interviews with stakeholders outside the countries visited could be done via skype.

6. Current partners and projects LAPI Partner COICA

Acci贸n Ecol贸gica SusWatch

CAOI

Country 9 Amazon Basin countries Ecuador Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Bolivia + regional 5 Andean countries

Consejo de Mujeres y Biodivesidad Blue Energy

Guatemala + regional CAM

Ome Yasuni

Ecuador

Nicaragua

Keywords/objective Climate change (REDD), extractive industries, indigenous peoples rights Climate change (REDD) Climate change advocacy

Timeframe 2011-2012

Climate change and extractive industries. Indigenous peoples rights Climate change (adaptation), indigenous peoples rights Climate change (adaptation) Climate change, extractive industries, Indigenous peoples rights (Yasuni campaign)

2011-2012

Budget

2011-2012 2010-2013

2012-13

2012-13 2012-13

7


CALAS (e) ICEFI (e) Latindad FECONACO CEADESC CEDLA (e) Red Jur铆dica Amaz贸nica (Pachamama)

Guatemala Guatemala + regional Peru Peru Bolivia Bolivia Regional

AAP Partner CIP

Country Mozambique

WACAM

Ghana

Oil and Gas PLatform ISODEC SEND

Ghana

CEDAL NCOM NMJD

Ghana Ghana Sierra Leone

CIVICUS

Global

Tax Justice Network - Africa ANCEFA AFRODAD

African

Ghana Ghana

African African

Extractive Industries Extractive industries

2012-13 2012-13

Extractive industries Extractive industries, indigenous peoples rights Extractive industries Extractive industries Indigenous rights (consultation) linked to both EI and CC.

2012-13 2013-14

Keywords/objective Extractives policies and taxation; Aid Effectiveness; Aid Extractive industries communities affected by mining Oil and gas, Tax

Timeframe 2008-

Tax; Extractives Aid Effectivess; Budget tracking; Mining communities Mining network Mining, Tax, contracts, communities Aid Effectiveness; civil society space; governance Tax and extractives

20102007-2012

Education Extractives; Aid Effectiveness

20092007-2009

European Networks, Danish and International Partners Partner Country Keywords/objective Eurodad European Debt and development,

2011-12 2012-13 2012-13

Budget

2009-

2009-

2010201220102006-2012

2011-

Budget Continuous

8


Alliance2015 PWYP

European Global

TJN

Global

CIFCA

EU

Danish 92 group Accra Caucus CONCORD

Denmark Global Denmark + EU

Danwatch

Denmark

tax Aid Effectiveness Taxation of extractive industries Taxation of extractive industries, tax havens EU policies towards Central America Climate change, REDD REDD EU development policies; taxation of EI IFC/Peru tax haven study. Danish Pension fund investments in Marlin, Guatemala; Mining in Sierra Leone; E-waste in Ghana; Gold in Ghana.

Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous 2012Continuous

7. Review team The review team will be comprised of:   

Team leader with experience in evaluation of global advocacy initiatives by international NGOs; preferably Spanish speaking. Team member with expertise not covered by team leader (Spanish; extractives/climate/ indigenous rights) Senior advisor from IBIS as well as LAPI/AAP staff expected to participate in selected parts of review process (upon agreement when process is planned)

The team leader will be responsible for elaborating the reporting with support and input from the other two participants. Stine Krøijer will have the overall responsibility for managing the review process. The day-to-day management and planning of the mission will be the responsibility of the team with logistical support from AAP and LAPI staff and IBIS’ national offices.

8. Expected output 1) A debriefing note comprising the review teams key findings and recommendations; 2) A report systematizing and assessing key experiences with global advocacy (approx 30 pages);

9


3) A short report providing findings and recommendations and inputs for the formulation of new phases of the LAPI and AAP programmes (separated by programme) (max 15 pages).

9. Time schedule The review is scheduled for approximately 12 days of travel, 3 days of preparations, and 10 days for writing up. The travels are planned for April and May. Time February 12-13, 2013 April

April

Beginning of March

April/May 1 June 1 st week June 7 June 2013 20 June

Activity Internal evaluation, LAPI team

Participants Maria Isabel

Interview with programme coordinators and other relevant stakeholders in Copenhagen Guatemala: Participation in two partner seminars on consultation and climate change. Facilitation of partner assessment. Interview with partners and IBIS staff in Guatemala

Stine Krøijer Lars Koch and others

Travel to Bolivia or Ecuador Travel to Ghana Debriefing note and recommendations (product 1) Debriefing Copenhagen

Responsible

LAPI and governance partners; Maria Isabel Elisa and Stine Maria Isabel IBIS Guatemala Office LAPI partners Elisa Canqui Amin, Lars

Lars Koch, Stine Krøijer, International Dep.

Draft Report on global advocacy (product 2) A final report incorporating comments (product 2) and report with findings and reccomendations (product 3) are submitted

10. Relevant background documentation: AAP Programme document LAPI Programme document

10


OPS reports 2010-2012 Biannual planning of the policy unit Partner project documents and reports IBIS’ extractive industries policy IBIS’ climate change policy IBIS’ partnership strategy and gender policy Country strategies and governance programme documents when relevant Concept note on a Centre for Extractive Industries in Africa. Policy products (studies, analysis etc. produced by IBIS and partners) Alliance 2015 evaluation of aid effectiveness

11


Terms of reference for Review of AAP and LAPI programmes