REVIEW OF OCHA’S HUMANITARIAN ADVOCACY WORK

Final Report by Wendy Riches,

June 8th, 2004

Executive Summary

There are disparate views among both internal and external audiences as to how the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) should interpret its advocacy mandate; how effective OCHA is at advocacy; and what the appropriate roles and responsibilities across OCHA (for advocacy) should be.

An analysis of OCHA’s humanitarian work reveals evidence that the amount and probably the impact of OCHA’s advocacy is increasing, but there are areas for improvement and action steps that could be taken to enhance performance and generate greater impact.

Advocacy is carried out in one form or another right across OCHA but there is currently no framework that sets a strategic direction and priorities for OCHA as a whole. The Advocacy and Information Management Branch (AIMB) has made a laudable attempt at making their advocacy strategy all-encompassing however this does not reflect the needs of other Branches and the Field. The situation is further complicated by the fact that job titles within AIMB (and the title of the Branch itself) imply overall leadership of advocacy, and this is the only part of OCHA with a Work Plan that reflects specific advocacy initiatives and performance measures.

Work Plans of other branches do not appear to contain specific advocacy strategies and performance measures. Nor is the responsibility for advocacy reflected in the TORs.

The level of advocacy training generally across OCHA is very low; nor are there established criteria for judging the success or failure of advocacy initiatives.

Against this background, it is the conclusion of this Report that OCHA needs to take a series of steps in unison to address a total package of requirements, as follows:

  • Create an OCHA “Charter for Advocacy” and publish this widely to ensure that the term is well understood in relation to OCHA’s work by both external and internal audiences.
  • Prioritize a series of initiatives that reflect OCHA’s primary aim of working in partnership with the broader humanitarian community to mobilize and coordinate humanitarian advocacy.
  • Make OCHA responsible for the job of crafting a core advocacy policy framework that reflects the way humanitarian needs from the Field drive OCHA’s advocacy agenda; the Policy Development and Studies Branch (PDSB) should take the lead role on developing this.
  • Articulate advocacy strategies within Branch and Field Work Plans; set metrics (through benchmarking), monitor effectiveness and performance.
  • Articulate advocacy responsibilities in job TORs for all Branches as appropriate incorporate advocacy training in general HQ induction and other training courses.
  • Adjust the Advocacy, External Relations, Information, Media Relations Branch’s (AIMB) strategy to reflect the Branch’s primary role in developing and delivering the appropriate messaging to support OCHA’s advocacy policy and initiatives.
  • Address staffing and structural issues within AIMB, and rewrite titles to better reflect AIMB’s refocused role.
  • Set up a separate Review to explore how a potentially larger role in advocacy could be created for the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), without jeopardizing its editorial independence (from the United Nations).
  • Define OCHA’s identity, set it in the context of the UN. Take steps that will substantiate the new positioning.

Purpose and scope of this review

The purpose of this independent review is to review OCHA’s current advocacy strategy and its products and to recommend what humanitarian advocacy initiatives OCHA should undertake and/or enable others to undertake and how to focus, prioritize and implement this work in ways that make best use of limited resources to achieve the impact necessary to deliver OCHA’s advocacy mandate.

The review analyzes current OCHA advocacy strategies, priorities, programs, campaigns and outputs in relation to OCHA’s mandate and in relation to the activities and outputs of other humanitarian actors. Including the balance between advocacy work undertaken directly by OCHA and work that OCHA enables and empowers other humanitarian actors to undertake.

Review methodology

The first four phases of the Review process began in March, 2004 and were concluded in May 2000 as follows:

Phase One: Start-up. Initial consultation and assistance with preparation of the project.

Phase Two: Desk Review of literature. Review of outputs generated by OCHA advocacy activities (press releases, written material, web sites) and comparative organizations. Review of literature pertaining to OCHA advocacy activities: David Phillips’ “Business Plan for Advocacy”; “Change Management Report” by Ed Tsui; Report of 13th OCHA Regional Workshop (30 June-02 July, 2003) by Valerie Julliard; Findings of Joint Advocacy and External Relations Section (AERS)/Regional Support Office (RSO) needs assessment mission to East and Central Africa (12-23 May, 2003); Global Management Retreat papers, including Draft Advocacy Handbook and Draft Public Information (PI) Handbook, IRIN Evaluation Report, March 2003 (and other literature relating to IRIN). “Study Four: Changes in Humanitarian Financing: Implications for the United Nations” by Mark Dalton, Karin von Hippel, Randolph Kent, Ralf Maurer.

Phase Three: Stakeholder interviews with Staff and Donors. Series of individual and focus group interviews in person and by telephone with OCHA staff in New York and Geneva. Discussion with donors at a Donor Support Group meeting in Geneva (March 30, 2004.)

Phase Four: Analysis and drafting Report.

The Consultant at OCHA management’s convenience will carry out phase 5 - a concluding half-day workshop with key advocacy staff and debriefing session to Senior Management.

Background

“The aim of OCHA for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is to mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action in partnership with national and international actors in order to:

  • Alleviate human suffering in natural disasters and emergencies
  • Promote preparedness and prevention efforts to reduce future vulnerability
  • Facilitate sustainable solutions by addressing root causes
  • Advocate for the rights of people in need.”

(OCHA Mission Statement, 2003)

OCHA’s advocacy mandate – to raise awareness of humanitarian issues – derives from GAR 46/182 that set up its predecessor, DHA, in 1992. The Secretary-General’s 1997 Reform reaffirmed this mandate, establishing advocacy as one of three pillars of OCHA work, along with policy development and emergency response coordination. Over the years, OCHA has interpreted this mandate to mean:

  • Raising the profile of humanitarian issues and principles in the political organs of the UN, and striving to ensure humanitarian requirements are given due priority by other bodies, such as the Department of Political Affairs and the Peacekeeping Department
  • Undertaking advocacy initiatives to promote adherence to humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law (IHL) in aid delivery. OCHA leads the development of codes of conduct or minimal operational standards that set ground rules for humanitarian action for all stakeholders, including the government and parties to conflict
  • Advocating increased support and commitment of resources for humanitarian initiatives and interventions, reaching out to donor governments and beyond – to tax payers and the public at large
  • Highlighting humanitarian crises through media and public information campaigns to ensure that the voices of victims of conflict, the weak and the vulnerable are heard by policy and decision-makers at national, regional and global levels

The Secretary-General’s 1997 Reform reaffirmed OCHA’s advocacy mandate, establishing it as the third pillar of OCHA’s work alongside policy development and emergency response coordination. This reaffirmation prompted a more formal approach to delivering Advocacy than had been previously adopted, including the appointment of an Advocacy Chief and restructuring of Public Information and Media Relations to incorporate Advocacy and create the Advocacy and Information Manangement Branch (AIMB).

Until this time, although humanitarian advocacy was already part of many of OCHA staff’s responsibilities, the approach had been somewhat unstructured. With the advent of a new Chief of AIMB, work began on developing an Advocacy Strategy.

This was first launched in 2002 and updated in 2003 (“OCHA Advocacy Strategy 2003-2004”) to reflect changes in OCHA’s strategic plans and improvements based on feedback particularly from the field, including initiatives such as holding OCHA’S first pilot workshops on Advocacy.

Analysis of the strategy

The review examines the strategy as it relates to key stakeholders: donors and staff.

Key stakeholders: Donor support Group

The Consultant attended the Donor Support Group meeting in Geneva of March 31, 2004 when the main agenda item consisted of an update on the implementation of OCHA’s Advocacy strategy. Following the meeting, a brief questionnaire was sent to donors inviting further input on the strategy and advocacy in general.

A cross-section of views from donors expressed at the meeting, combined with responses to the questionnaire, follows:

  • OCHA should focus on doing a few things well
  • Particular attention should be paid to using OCHA’s unique leverage to advocate at (and through) UN HQ in New York
  • OCHA should especially fulfill its advocacy role with recalcitrant governments and – in concert with others – press for adherence to humanitarian responsibilities
  • A key OCHA objective should be to do as much as it can to represent the joint positioning of humanitarian agencies and, recognizing some of the challenges of implementing advocacy in the field, to support and enable other humanitarian actors to do advocacy
  • Humanitarian Coordinators (HC) should be trained to see advocacy as mainstream to their jobs and to fulfill the role to the maximum
  • OCHA should review the Themes as set out in the advocacy paper and consider adding additional themes that are of general concern and/or interest to the humanitarian community
  • The implementation matrix accompanying the Advocacy strategy shows a step in the right direction towards measuring performance but more performance measures should be pursued
  • Swiss Government’s advocacy strategy was mentioned and any relevant elements should be incorporated into OCHA’s strategy, where possible
  • Work should be done on identifying how donors could support OCHA’s advocacy work
  • OCHA should take into account the views on advocacy expressed in the recent Report: “Study Four: Changes in Humanitarian Financing: Implications for the United Nations”, especially the section recommending the UN consider shifting to a more “normative” role.

Key stakeholders: Staff

The purpose of discussions with staff was to solicit their views on how effective OCHA’s current advocacy strategy and program are, at the same time as getting their input as to which humanitarian advocacy initiatives they (as the implementers of any strategy) felt OCHA should undertake, in what ways, to best deliver the advocacy mandate.

All those interviewed felt that Advocacy was a regular part of their work, and considered it to be very important for OCHA to be deeply involved in Humanitarian Advocacy.

A number of those interviewed either couldn’t remember reading the Advocacy Strategy, or hadn’t read it - the most common reason stated for this being other more important priorities. A lack of ownership of the Strategy was evident, and a feeling that it was not relevant to most people’s daily work and did not represent their particular responsibility for advocacy within OCHA. While staff viewed advocacy as one of their priorities, they did not view the implementation of the Advocacy Strategy as their priority, rather saw it as relating to AIMB.

People who had read the paper agreed in general with the conceptual framework outlined in the Strategy, including the Goal, Objectives, and description of Stakeholders. But the Strategy left questions unanswered. There was confusion in people’s minds about what advocacy for OCHA is, and should be. Disparate views were expressed as to the appropriate tactics of how to put advocacy for OCHA into practice. And around such issues as: what constitutes a successful advocacy program, and whether the OCHA pushes advocacy far enough? Because of the disparity of views – opinions as to whether OCHA’s current advocacy activities are effective varied a great deal.

The following is an analysis of the strategy:

Strengths

  • Good that a strategy (and implementation plan) exists
  • Based on sound principles of humanitarian advocacy
  • Articulates well OCHA overall aims in advocacy.
  • Embraces laudable goals and objectives for AIMB
  • Themes provide a focal point for pulling advocacy initiatives together
  • Has an action plan for implementation

Weaknesses

  • Doesn’t clarify what advocacy in OCHA is
  • Sets goals AIMB cannot fulfill with current resource levels
  • Non-AIMB staff within OCHA feel strategy is not relevant to those parts of their jobs that also address advocacy
  • The strategy has not been explained and proselytized to the rest of OCHA
  • Strategy doesn’t leverage OCHA ‘s particular strengths

Opportunities

  • Get everyone in OCHA on the same page about advocacy
  • Define what advocacy is for OCHA
  • Combine advocacy activities to increase impact
  • Drive advocacy to the next level within OCHA

Threats

  • Create further confusion in people’s minds about what advocacy should be for OCHA
  • Advocacy section’s work continues to be viewed by some as not relevant to their department

Key points arising from staff interviews

Some of the differences the staff expressed arose from confusion and lack of clarity, especially around two “gray” areas.

1. There isn’t a shared understanding of important aspects of OCHA itself: in particular, the nature of its work and the identity of OCHA. Members of staff are not clear about how to portray OCHA in the context of the United Nations. These are fundamental policy matters that inform the way in which OCHA’s advocacy mandate should be implemented, in particular the tone, manner and positioning of advocacy.

It should be noted that one reason for this lack of shared understanding probably relates to the extremely complicated structure of OCHA itself. OCHA was set up as part of the Secretariat not as an agency in its own right; with a mandate to fulfill more than one role for the UN, to act as a coordinator rather than an operational agency and to represent the collective views of the Humanitarian community rather than being the voice for one set of victims – unlike the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Another unusual feature of the structure is that the Head of OCHA, the Under-Secretary General has another role, as Emergency Relief Coordinator in relation to the member agencies of the Inter-agency Standing Committee (IASC).

It should be noted that staff state this lack of a clear, consistent identity also affects working relationships with partners who seldom seem to fully appreciate OCHA’s unique mandate and status – for example, operational UN agencies do not automatically recognize OCHA as an equal partner in the field.

Another reason for the confusion may relate to the way in which OCHA is set up and run. OCHA consists of a series of specialist sections, often operating as independent silos (sometimes even from other sections with whom their work overlaps). Communication between different bits of OCHA is made more difficult by the issue of physical separation between the two headquarters and far-flung field operations.

2. It isn’t clear to those doing advocacy for OCHA to know how far they can/should go in applying overt pressure (for example, through the media);or what is expected of them in terms of advocacy and how their performance will be judged.

This is a difficult area since the nature of Humanitarian Advocacy is complex and sensitive in any organization but perhaps particularly so for OCHA, with its complicated structure, and coordination role rather than leadership. Whether at Headquarters or in the Field, it is challenging to get the balance right between different forms of advocacy: for example, speaking out versus exercising quiet diplomacy behind the scenes.

Although there is an established process for consultation between the desks and the Field (and from the field via the desks to the Advocacy Section) little exists in the shape of written guidelines, benchmarks of best practice, or case studies illustrating the difference between success and failure.

As a result, OCHA advocates have to more or less make it up as they go along. They run the risk of being judged harshly (especially by their peers) since – without agreed standards and boundaries - peoples’ expectations vary.

Summary analysis of OCHA’s current advocacy work

OCHA does a tremendous amount of advocacy of different kinds through many parts of the organization.

There is evidence that the amount and (probably) the impact of OCHA’s advocacy is increasing in some areas as these examples show:

  • Increased involvement on humanitarian issues by the Security Council
  • Increased media coverage of the Under-Secretary General’s (USG) comments and visits to the field
  • Expansion of IRIN into other locations and local radio
  • Development of an comprehensive communications package by the field, IRIN and AERS to attract world attention to a “forgotten emergency” in Northern Uganda, (plus plans to replicate a similar approach in other places)
  • Field workshops on advocacy training plus the creation of Advocacy (and PI) handbooks

However, opinions as to effectiveness of the work vary according to different stakeholders. Because of the lack of established ways to measure progress, it is difficult to be specific as to the beneficial impact of much of the work. For example, the much-admired Uganda package more than doubled pledges of funding but did not achieve its other advocacy objective of influencing behavior.