ELIZABETH: In the course of doing this work, what has surprised you, for better or for worse?
MAT: I hate to admit this, but when I started out, I was surprised at how knowledgeable and capable the local organizations we work with are. And I was definitely surprised when, after I’d been looking around Oxfam for in-house experience with peacebuilding, AHN partners told me that they had been doing this work for years–having taken over an Oxfam program 15 years ago! I’ve also been surprised at how inventive local groups have proven to be when it comes to getting big results from small budgets. And, on the downside, at how entrenched the traditional attitudes and practices of INGOs are. We need to be collaborating in ways that benefit local organizations, but we’re working in a system that fosters competition. Something that can take me by surprise sometimes is the feeling of FOMO [fear of missing out]. When we cede space and funding and visibility we once claimed to local organizations, it isn’t always comfortable. I mention it here because it’s something INGO staffers need to face, admit to, and commit never to act on.
ELIZABETH: Can you say a little more about accountability?
MAT: Okay, so, one level of accountability is to communities, to be sure they feel empowered to report any kind of misbehavior on the part of Oxfam or AHN. We offer a toll-free number and access to independent investigators who can follow up on complaints. We want to be sure any instance of abuse, fraud, or diversion of aid is reported and the accusations acted on. One level of accountability is Oxfam’s responsibilities to our funders; for that, we monitor how local partners—members of the AHN—spend the money we transfer to them, and we solicit input from community members about the effectiveness of the projects. But there is another kind of accountability that we need to come to grips with: the speed with which we provide funds to partners for emergency response. At Oxfam, there are systemic obstacles to moving money quickly; our processes are aimed at ensuring accountability to donors, but unless we can streamline them, we put small organizations into the position of having to spend money they don’t have in order to get their projects underway before the Oxfam funds arrive. If we fail to deliver money in a timely way, partners and communities should hold us accountable for that.
ELIZABETH: What do you see as the appropriate role in international humanitarian work for INGOs, local and national govt, and the private sector? What’s your vision?
MAT: The goal of all the organizations involved in humanitarian and development work needs to be to put ourselves out of a job—leaving communities in the hands of capable, honest, well-resourced governments. For now, we have an important role as a conduit for funds that would not otherwise be available to local organizations. Some donors are not willing or able to transfer funds to local groups directly, so this work is critical.
Another role for organizations like Oxfam is to help amplify local voices, and to help local actors reach international platforms with their messages. We can and do provide tools and support for advocacy and for enabling humanitarian response. We provide technical support, introduce innovations, and help uphold standards of safety and quality.
And we are in a position to advocate with international donors on a host of issues surrounding outcomes and risks that will improve results for poor and disaster-affected communities. With our knowledge of the situation on the ground, we can help donors avoid certain pitfalls and incentivize good long-term outcomes.
Ultimately, INGOs like Oxfam need to shift our roles away from delivering services to helping local actors press government duty-bearers to do their jobs. Communities should be able to look to elected officials and government agencies for resources and leadership before, during, and after disasters. Pressuring the government to fulfill this role is crucial, but it’s best done by local organizations; when an INGO steps in, we can suck the air out of the room, so we need to support from the sidelines. Just to be clear, it is not just Kenya’s government that needs to be urged to fulfill its responsibilities around disaster management. Look what happened in the United States when Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico. This kind of advocacy probably needs to take place in every country of the world.
The private sector has very important roles to play in the humanitarian and development ecosystems. For example, we rely on telecommunications and mobile money networks to carry out cash distributions in emergencies. And merchants and companies with technical expertise are critical to restoring goods and services in the wake of a disasters. We always need to have safeguards in place when working with the private sector: we are not the marketing arm of any company. That said, when it comes to reducing poverty and suffering, businesses can bring a lot to the table.
ELIZABETH: International donors often lack trust in local and national organizations, which inhibits the direct flow of funds to them. What are your thoughts on how to remedy that?
MAT: Yes. Racism and colonial attitudes play into that. And the fact that small organizations may not have the staff and resources to invest in systems that donors feel are adequate. But sometimes it’s not about trust or intentions; it’s about expediency. An international government donor might not be able to engage with 30 or 300 different local partners in Kenya, because that would be incredibly difficult to administer, so they send their funds to intermediaries—INGOs that have invested in financial and HR systems and safeguarding—and let them do the more hands-on work. We can do that in the short term, but in the long run, we need to find ways to close the gap between international donors and local and national organizations. Part of the remedy is to give local organizations a chance to show the world what they can do. [Read stories about local leadership in action.]
ELIZABETH: Oxfam in Kenya is about to go through a transition from a satellite office of Oxfam to a Kenyan organization with its own board of directors and “affiliate” status within the Oxfam confederation, like Oxfam America and Oxfam Great Britain. What implications does this have for our partnerships in Kenya?
MAT: The affiliation process is all about who holds power and how that power is exerted. By enabling countries that bear the scars of colonialism to take their place beside their historical colonizers, Oxfam is trying to accomplish internationally what we in Kenya are trying to accomplish in country: cede power to those who are best informed about the problems and potential solutions to poverty and disasters.
When we officially become a Kenyan organization, it doesn’t make us “local” in the sense that we should consider ourselves entitled to funding and seats at decision-making tables that are reserved for local actors. We’ve seen INGOs that go national immediately start taking up space that wasn’t intended for organizations like them—groups that have access to resources and networks and certain kinds of expertise that far outstrip those of the truly local actors. Oxfam needs to be clear from the outset that we will not compete with local organizations for space and funding; if we fail to do that, the affiliation process could undermine years of investment in partnerships and local leadership. Local organizations are very concerned about how INGOs that register nationally will conduct themselves, and they should be. I wouldn’t advise any INGO to go national unless it’s dedicated to a local-leadership approach. [Read an article and blog on this topic.]
ELIZABETH: The push for “localization” kicked off internationally in 2016; do you think now that international or local/national actors are leading the charge? What is Oxfam in Kenya’s role in making this paradigm shift a reality?
MAT: There are lots of global initiatives, and they have provided impetus (and authority) for discussions to start. But where we have really seen change happen is when we put local-leadership principles into practice, when we learn from our mistakes, and when we are intentional in bringing others on board to keep the momentum going. We have seen a significant shift in terms of encouragement by international donors to better align with the localization agenda. That’s crucial, and it’s due in part to our advocacy efforts. We are constantly talking to donors. And we have been working with our peers, forming coalitions and consortiums with INGOs that share our commitment to change. They have started shifting their ways of working, from direct programing to providing technical and quality support. In my view, INGOs in Kenya that fail to adopt this way of working—who are attached to providing aid directly and also to waving their brand about—will become irrelevant. Left high and dry, unable to support large operational programs, and unable to show the value for money that their peers are able to achieve.
ELIZABETH: Any last thoughts you’d like to share?
MAT: Oxfam is going through a process of introspection in an effort to address past mistakes and move forward with a more equitable agenda for sharing power and resources. We are exploring what decolonization of aid and feminist approaches really mean in practice. Local leadership is aligned with this agenda, and we feel that we have been given a very strong mandate by the organization to put its principles into action.
But this is not just a matter of who hands out the hygiene kits. The communities we work with are living on the bleeding edge of the climate crisis, and the impacts and solutions are not all about the weather. They’re about good governance and gender justice. They’re about transparency and accountability. Every facet of these issues benefits from local leadership. Oxfam has important work to do in emergencies around the world, sometimes directly and sometimes as collaborators and supporters. We need to try and be the best possible partner to local organizations. That’s the challenge before us. Our work in Kenya is imperfect and incomplete, but I think we are on the right track, and I hope both the Oxfam confederation and the wider humanitarian system can benefit from our experience.
Credit: Source link