EVALUATION OF OXFAM NOVIB’S PRIORITY THEME:
ACCESS TO INFORMATION (A2I)
FINAL REPORT
JULY 29TH 2013
Seán Ó Siochrú, Bruce Girard, Valentina Pellizzer.
Nexus Research Cooperative.
EVALUATION OF OXFAM NOVIB’S PRIORITY THEME:
ACCESS TO INFORMATION (A2I)
Final Report.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ii
1.
Terms of Reference, Approach and Contents............................................................................... 1
1.1 Objectives and Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Proposed Methodology and Approach ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 Implementation in Practice .............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Contents and the Evaluation Question ............................................................................................. 7
2.
What does Access to Information Mean? .................................................................................... 9
2.1 ‘Access to Information’ in use ........................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Delineating the Concept ................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 The Implications .............................................................................................................................. 12
3. A2I In Three Countries ....................................................................................................................14
3.1 Contrasting Governance Dynamics ................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Configurations of A2I ...................................................................................................................... 16
4. ON Partners and A2I .......................................................................................................................21
4.1 The National Partners ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 The Role of Global, Regional Programmes and other Projects ....................................................... 28
4.3 The Gender Dimension ................................................................................................................... 32
5. Implementation of the A2I Priority Theme......................................................................................35
5.1 Process and Rationale of the A2I Priority Theme ........................................................................... 35
5.2 Implementation of the A2I Theme ................................................................................................. 36
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................42
6.1 A2I as a Priority Theme ................................................................................................................... 42
6.2 Should A2I be a Priority Theme?..................................................................................................... 43
6.4 The A2I Evaluation Questions ......................................................................................................... 47
6.5 Recommendations relating to A2I Priority Theme ......................................................................... 49
Annex 1: Evaluation Programme .........................................................................................................54
Annex2: Outcome Areas and Indicators for the A2I Priority Theme ....................................................55
Annex 3: General Considerations on ICTs and A2I ...............................................................................57
Annex 4: A2I Theory of Change Map ...................................................................................................63
Annex 5: Interviews and Survey Responses ........................................................................................65
Annex 6: Documents Examined ..........................................................................................................67
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the quality and level of support afforded to the evaluation by
the Oxfam Novib team of Yvonne Es and Miriam Rau, and the supportive and flexible approach they
took to the work.
We are also very grateful to all those who gave of their time and effort, including Oxfam Novib and
other Oxfam staff, the partners and former partners (who almost without exception were most open
and forthcoming), and the experts who agreed to be interviewed, often at length, at very short notice.
Seán Ó Siochrú, Bruce Girard, Valentina Pellizzer. Nexus Research Cooperative.
www.nexus.ie. Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer
All views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views
of Oxfam Novib or its partners.
Copyright © Oxfam Novib:
Oxfam Novib
Post Office Box 30919
2500 GX The Hague
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0) 70 342 16 21
Fax: +31 (0) 70 361 44 61
[email protected]
www.oxfamnovib.nl
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives, Methodology and Challenges
In 2010, Oxfam Novib (ON) decided to introduce a new priority theme called Access to Information
(A2I) into its 2011 – 2015 Corporate Plan. This report comprises a preliminary evaluation of the A2I
Priority Theme. Its objective is two-fold: To contribute to internal steering and learning, and to
enhance the accountability of partners by examining their relevant achievements and ON’s
contribution to them.
The evaluation questions relate to effectiveness (intermediate outcomes and ON’s role in them), and
the relevance of the theme, including ON’s theory of change. It was agreed from the outset that
outcome evaluation of interventions would, in the circumstances, rely on existing documentation, and
that a strong process orientation with regard to learning from the overall implementation of the
theme would be included.
The evaluation focuses on partners that received funding during 2011 and 2012. It covers all relevant
partners in Egypt, Myanmar, Nigeria and selected projects in Uganda and Senegal. Selected global and
regional programmes were also included.
Based on information contained in the ON database, a total of €20.8 million was spent on the
outcome indicators related to the A2I theme (see Annex 2), among all partners and programmes,
representing 44.6% of the total under Programme 4: Right to Social and Political Participation. For
reasons given below, this figure is indicative.
The methodology began with a broad-sweep examination of all relevant ON partners identified as
active in the A2I theme, compiling financial indicators and aggregating outcome and outputs. The
focus then narrowed to several selected countries and programmes. This was followed by field visits
to a three countries and interviews and surveys with others, including selected global and regional
programmes. A final synthesis yielded this report and its appendixes.
1
Implementing the methodology encountered a number of instructive challenges .
First, there was a mismatch between programme monitoring systems and the definition used, in
practice, in the A2I Priority Theme. This meant that the quantitative analysis, in both financial and
outcome/output aspects, was of limited value to assessing progress in the A2I theme in individual
projects or aggregated. Second, the extensive documentation available to the evaluation was mostly
developed for partner negotiation, management and reporting purposes and varied greatly in quality,
style and content. It did not allow an accurate individual or overall assessment of outcomes. A
number of project evaluations and other documents were, however, useful.
The field work in three countries yielded a rich and varied set of qualitative information. Where
possible interviews with partners were supplemented by those with Oxfam staff and with identified
experts. It also added very recent documentation.
These factors influenced but did not determine the final shape of the evaluation, which was agreed
between the evaluators and ON as the work progressed. This approach is characterised by:
1
A more detailed account of the methodological challenges and their implications has been submitted separately,
beyond what is contained in Section 1 below.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page ii
An initial process of clarifying the definition of A2I, to give it clarity and internal coherence, and
the use of Theory of Change as a tool to map the dynamics of A2I generally and in each country;
The contextualisation in each country of A2I in the historical context and in the wider governance
and political dynamics of change, as a means to identify where it has and might have an impact;
The mapping of individual partners and interventions within this context, including any evidence
of their outcomes, with a view to gaining an overall picture of where ON intervenes;
An examination of the implementation process of the A2I Priority Theme, and how that
influences whether it has achieved , and can continue to achieve, its goals.
How can Access to Information be usefully defined?
Information is generated, accessed and used in just about every human endeavour. It is one of our
defining features. Yet to be operationalised in a programmatic context, the concept of A2I must be
clearly delineated; lines drawn around what it is and is not. These boundaries must be drawn in a
manner that encompasses, to a reasonable degree, an interconnected and coherent whole. These
interconnections should point to ways in which, in reality, the different components of the concept
can reinforce, result from, depend on or otherwise relate causally and dynamically to each other.
The definition of A2I deployed here refers to accessing, generating, processing, and communicating
information in the context of governance structures that can contribute to the empowerment of
marginalised groups and accountability of duty bearers. Its central concern is with information that
people need in order to participate effectively, with dignity and as equals, in the wider governance
structures - political, economic and institutional - that affect their lives. ‘Governance structures’ here
refers to all those in positions of power: government; local to international institutions; private sector,
especially larger corporations; and civil society entities. And the concept of ‘duty bearers’ is
differentiated according to the different responsibilities associated with each of these.
It follows that A2I must be examined in the wider governance, inclusion/exclusion and gender
dynamics of a given country. There is no single roadmap, or even ideal in terms of a stable outcome.
Achieving A2I is part of the ongoing struggle between those with power and those marginalised.
Furthermore, interventions that focus on A2I are inevitably tools in larger strategies of that struggle,
and usually not ends in themselves. Furthermore, new media may be particularly useful in certain A2I
strategies at specific times, but technologies do not inherently support A2I. It is a matter, as always, of
matching suitable technologies, new or old, to the task at hand.
A2I in Empirical Reality
Three countries were selected for an in-depth analysis, each with a very different governance
trajectory offering a spectrum of possibilities for exploring the relevance of A2I.
Egypt began as a bottom-up revolution against authoritarian rule in January 2011 led by activists
seeking a more democratic and fairer society. Military rule, then presidential elections, were followed
by ongoing unrest during which the new government was accused widely of rowing back on the
revolution’s achievements. This led to ongoing struggle between activists and government. Since the
field visit in May, a dramatic turn of events has seen the return of militarily control, claiming
legitimacy from the very activists seeking democracy.
On the other hand, rapid change in Myanmar is driven from the top down. After decades of military
control, the ruling party – the political wing of the military – is trying to manage wide-ranging change,
at its own pace, while maintaining overall hegemony and handling internal factions. Securing the core
economic interests of the ruling class is a central goal, as well as attracting external investment to
build infrastructure and extract abundant natural resources. The speed of change is almost
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page iii
overwhelming for all stakeholders, and maintaining core elite interests while selectively opening to
democracy is a delicate balance that could yet collapse. Progressive and opposition forces are
somewhat disjointed, and the role of numerous ethnics groups could be decisive in the 2014
elections.
Nigeria, in contrast to both, has stabilised in recent years (except in the North East) having had a
successful electoral transition in 2011. Elections due in 2015 offer an opportunity to further deepen
the quality and level of participation, including more marginalised communities. Yet corruption is
endemic, especially in the oil and gas industries, in both government and corporate areas. Most
people in the Niger Delta are now poorer than when the first major oil finds were made in the 1950s.
The strategic relevance of A2I varies hugely from one country to the next in each of a set of
parameters examined: The quality and diversity of media; the use of social media and internet; access
to and use of public information; transparency of government budgeting and spending; and the
configuration of information access in the extractive industries, as an archetypically corrupt sector.
The manner in which each of these is implicated in the dynamics of change varies greatly between
countries. For instance different patterns of media ownership, journalistic skills available, media laws
and access to mainstream media among marginalised groups all influence the extent to which media
– and more specifically the information content – has a bearing on ongoing dynamics of transparency,
accountability and participation.
The picture painted is one of complex interweaving elements of A2I that collectively significantly,
often strategically, influence outcomes. The conclusion reached is that access to information, in the
contrasting governance contexts of these three countries, is a key strategic and contested arena
between marginalised and disadvantaged groups and governing elites. Attempts to access, process
and disseminate information, in very diverse ways, are seen by stakeholders as key tactical tools in
the struggle of those seeking to participate in their own governance and demanding accountability.
Where ON Partners Fit in
ON partners in each of the three countries have engaged in A2I interventions across many if not most
of the key areas identified as strategically most relevant to achieving change.
In Egypt, strategic litigation is pursued by a couple of partners, using the courts to extract and
distribute governance and policy related information that is not publically available. Documenting and
publicising human rights violations in media and elsewhere is also a central concern. Partners are
involved in new media, distributing independent information including on marginalised communities,
and also supporting their use among activists through building skills and capacities. Another partner
engages in ‘bottom-up monitoring’, using Web 2.0 to monitor government policies and actions.
Nigerian partners also engage extensively in supporting marginalised communities to access and use
effectively information for participation in governance, including in policy advocacy and development.
In the Niger Delta region, however, the main emphasis is on the extractive industries. Nigeria’s
membership of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is leveraged by partners by
analysing, distributing and using in advocacy the information revealed through the initiative, and they
build the capacity of journalists and communities to do the same. At the same time, another partner
engages in participative processes that enable communities to monitor and record the damage
caused by oil spills and gas flares, for use in lobbying for policy change and accountability and in
compensation claims. Budget expenditure, using funds centralised from oil income at Federal level
and intended for use for local development, is also tracked down to community level to discover the
discrepancies between proposals and the final outcomes, again with community participation.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page iv
After decades of pre-publication censorship and in a media landscape owned mostly by the state,
military and those close to them, a partner in Myanmar, returned from exile, produced quality
independent media across a number of platforms, including a magazine, Website and Facebook.
Another, following Nigeria, is involved in encouraging the government to join EITI, a process recently
officially launched. The arrival of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) offers an opportunity to set
standards in transparency and accountability in all their dealings with government, and a partner is
building the capacity of civil society to ensure that happens. A partner also works, through training, to
enable ethnic groups to participate more directly in State and local governance structures, demanding
transparency and accountability. And another published daily bulletins and supports a blogging
platform on civic education, policy and governance issues, open to all stakeholders.
In each country the Theory of Change has been used to schematically map partner interventions
against the dynamics there (see Appendixes).
Partners in Uganda and Senegal are also singled out as relevant to A2I. In Senegal, a highly successful
real-time election monitoring system using mobile phones and the Web has been extended to build a
platform for ongoing participation in governance among young people. In Uganda, a partner
consortium has successfully promoted a Citizen’s Manifesto as a mobilisation tool to improve
accountability and governance, a key component of which is the use of interactive ICT platforms and
centres to enable widespread participation. Also in Uganda ON supports a consortium that is building
100 internet centres to create employment and offer services. The A2I potential here lies in the
creation of a platform that they hope will be used by others to engage in participatory governance
activities.
There is no single governance context at the global or regional levels but ON partners work in three
ways: (i) they promote reform of global and regional institutions such as the World Bank, other
international finance institutions and the African Union; (ii) they facilitate the inclusion of local voices
and perspectives within international institutions; and; (iii) they facilitate networking, develop
capacity and provide technical support for partners at the country level. Global and regional partners
are usually network organisations and their work can include lobbying for greater transparency of
international institutions, developing the capacity of local partners to analyse and make use of
information, opening international spaces to civil society and voices from the Global South, offering
technical support to local partners, or focusing international attention on cases of abuse and
violations of rights.
Answering the Evaluation Questions
In some respects the evaluation goes beyond the questions posed in the Terms of References.
Conclusions regarding the latter are summarised first below, followed by wider issues.
a) To what extent have new media and mobile media actually facilitated transparency and
accountability of democratic processes?
The evidence shows that these can and do facilitate transparency and accountability of
democratic processes. However, they have many other capabilities and can contribute to many
other aspects of development. They can also be used as tools for oppression and exploitation.
More conventional ICT tools, such as radio, can also be effective in A2I, sometimes integrated
with new media. Thus simply enhancing accessibility or affordability will not necessarily improve
A2I. Rather specific interventions should focus on how these tools, new and traditional ICTs, can
2
be supported to reinforce the specific goals of A2I.
2
Annex 3 outlines some of the issues raised and points to some of the literature around this question.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page v
b) Specifically in relation to women, have access to information strategies strengthened their
political and social participation, and given them a meaningful voice in public decision making?
Evidence in relation to gender questions is thin on the ground. Most partners think of gender in
terms of internal institutional issues or of enabling women to participate in interventions. Few
consider the core issue: The different ways in which gender determines the extent and nature of
access to information, and the consequences of this. The evaluation thus produced very limited
results here. There is evidence that global and regional projects keep gender issues on the
agenda of their member organisations.
c)
To what extent has public access to (budget) information of government, business and institutions
been improved as a result of lobby and advocacy interventions?
Improving access to government, business and institutional information, budgetary and other, is
a key strategy of many partners. The analysis shows it takes many forms, almost all aimed at
improving accountability in a context where transparency can reveal evidence of corruption,
deception or mismanagement. There are numerous examples of information entering the public
domain as a result of partner interventions. These examples, however, allow no firm conclusion
to be drawn regarding their overall effectiveness at improving public access to information.
Bigger questions have also emerged, not addressed here. As a result of information getting into
the public domain, has accountability been improved? Have these governments, corporations and
institutions themselves become more transparent and are they releasing more information as a
matter of course?
As noted earlier, the challenges facing an evaluation of the outcomes of the A2I Priority Theme
(evident in the conclusions above), led in part to a greater emphasis on the process of implementation
of the Priority Theme, both at micro and macro levels. At micro levels, the evaluation sought to
answer a number of specific questions:
d) To what extent has ON been able to work in 2011/12 with partners who increase access to,
distribution and balanced and relevant information?
Overall ON did work with an appropriate set of partners, and in some cases added additional
partners or interventions to enhance the focus. Two country strategies already accorded A2I a
high priority, which meant that the additional impact was limited. The Global Link programme is
working with appropriate partners who see A2I as a central theme in what they do. This includes
two partners brought in in 2013, outside of the scope of this evaluation. Projects considered in
Senegal and Uganda are also clearly relevant. The Pan Africa Programme has many partners who
use A2I as a strategy and some who have campaigned on specific A2I issues such as access to
information legislation or media diversity, but no partners focus primarily on A2I issues.
e)
To what extent has ON facilitated exchange of knowledge and information through learning
initiatives and linking local to regional/global levels?
Only a few specific instances were identified by partners where the exchange of A2I related
knowledge was facilitated, learning initiatives were undertaken, and or local/global links
established. Such support was offered in a wider context (i.e. without specific references to the
A2I or to the Priority Theme), varying according to the circumstances in each country. Global and
regional partners do make global/local links, but with their members in general and not
specifically with ON local partners.
f)
To what extent has ON paid attention to efficiency and sustainability aspects of the development
and implementation of this new priority theme?
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page vi
Partners were largely unaware of the priority theme and it was therefore difficult to determine
from their answers whether ON had paid attention to efficiency and sustainability in relation
specifically to it. Responses from the survey of ON staff did not reveal actions in this area.
At the macro level of the implementation of the A2I Theme, the issues addressed were more implicit
than explicit in the Terms of References.
g) Was A2I an appropriate theme to select as a priority?
The evaluation concludes strongly that A2I is appropriate as a priority theme, and has significant
potential. This is based on a number of factors:
The strategic role that A2I evidently plays in all three very different national circumstances in
relation to influencing contrasting dynamics of governance and inclusion/exclusion.
The theme of A2I can offer opportunities for tactics and strategies that can bring about
desired change in terms of transparency, accountability and participation. The evidence here
is the success of partners in these areas.
A2I, in the contrasting governance contexts visited, is a key strategic contested arena between
the marginalised and disadvantaged and the elites that govern. Attempts to access, process and
disseminate information, in very diverse ways, are seen by stakeholders as key tactical tools in
the struggle of those seeking to participate in their own governance and demanding
accountability.
A final overarching question was also posed:
In choosing to launch the Priority Theme, Oxfam Novib hoped to achieve three goals: To improve
focus and enhance impact; to sharpen its substantive profile; and to develop an area of expertise.
h) Are these Priority Theme goals being met, and is the manner in which it is being implemented
likely to lead to them?
Answering this requires a brief description of its conception and implementation.
The A2I Priority Theme was conceived at central level and emanated outwards. It was defined
broadly and integrated into the 2011 – 2015 Business Plan. Loose targets were established for
increasing resources devoted to the Theme, and Programme Managers and Advisers were to
encourage partners to include it in their country, regional and global programmes. No specific
guidelines, supporting resources or dedicated events were developed, and it was introduced to
partners largely in passing.
Thus a fluid and flexible approach was adopted, and the initial period (up to, at least, this
evaluation) can be regarded largely as an exploratory exercise and a learning experience.
One consequence is that the level of understanding of the nature, goals and rationale of the
Theme becomes progressively vaguer among those more distant from its origins at headquarters.
The emphasis given to it was a matter for the Country/Programme Team, and this varies a lot.
Thus in relation to the first goal of improving focus and enhancing impact, any increase in
resources will most probably lead ultimately to enhanced impact overall. But there is no evidence
to indicate that having a stronger focus i.e. of concentrating more resources in one area as
distinct from dispersing it more widely, has led to an additional impact over and above what
would happen from the simple increase in resources. Such additional impact would require some
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page vii
form of mutual reinforcement or learning process, for instance between different partner
interventions, around the A2I theme.
The second goal is to develop a sharper substantive profile. Greater resources devoted to this
Theme will, in itself, increase its profile internally within the Oxfam Novib team and
headquarters. However, without follow-through activities, it is not likely to enhance its profile
externally, for instance among partners, governments, and the donor community. Such followthrough activities would be based on an ability to demonstrate credible and substantive valueadded results emerging from the Theme, in terms of outcomes and/or learning from the process.
In relation to the third goal of developing domain expertise in the A2I area: Partners, to the
extent that their interventions are engaging with the A2I Theme issues, are indeed enhancing
their domain expertise. ON Country/Programme Teams, through country strategy development,
negotiations with the partners, and their engagement with the interventions, will do likewise. At
present this is unstructured, unsystematic and largely isolated, and hence the learning possible is
not being optimised. Such optimisation would require a more explicit engagement with partners
on the A2I Theme, and a set of actions designed specifically to facilitate learning.
Although the goals set of the A2I Priority Theme have been achieved to only a limited extent so far, it
is early days yet and it is understood that the approach taken is to enable learning from the process.
Indeed this evaluation is intended as part of that. Additional actions are also planned to focus and
deepen the process. A wider conclusion here is also that the A2I theme is, potentially at least,
sufficiently succinct, coherent and substantial to enable Oxfam Novib to sharpen its profile, form the
basis of a definable area of expertise, and to develop a value-added impact.
Recommendations:
The recommendations focus on how the Priority Theme might be strengthened, by taken a more
concerted and substantial approach. This has two objectives, reinforcing the original goals:
1.
To improve outcomes for partners, and at country level as a whole, by supporting activities
relating to A2I carefully targeted at high-potential moments in the evolving governance dynamic;
2.
To improve effectiveness of ON investment at local, regional and global levels, by ensuring that
the experience and expertise emerging from partners and others is identified, documented and
shared, building a community of practice and turning ON into, in effect, a centre of excellence.
The actions proposed are schematically outlined:
1.
Clarify the concept of A2I and of the goals, interventions and monitoring of the Priority Theme.
2.
Identify a set of countries where it might prove effective and where ON Team support is strong.
3.
Undertake an in-country detailed analysis and facilitated workshop, possibly drawing on the
Country Reports here, with the local ON team, partners (including global and regional, as
appropriate), potential partners and local experts, to produce a common understanding of the
dynamics and place of A2I.
4.
Integrate the ideas emerging into the country strategy.
5.
Develop an A2I Country Platform to improve networking among partners, including regional and
global, and ON staff, focused on capturing learning and enabling synergies to develop.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page viii
6.
Build Wider Learning Communities, by connecting together the different country platforms, and
look beyond the national context. From this might emerge the idea of a centre of excellence, or
evidence-based knowledge repository for A2I.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page ix
Access to Information Priority Theme Evaluation:
Final Report.
1.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, APPROACH AND CONTENTS
1.1 OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The Terms of Reference for this evaluation, and the results sought, have gone through a process of
evolution during the course of the work. This is not unusual, and because of the preliminary nature of
this evaluation (it is described as a “building-block for a final evaluation” in the Terms of Reference),
considerable change did come about.
The evaluation objectives were twofold.
1.
Internal steering and learning: This was seen as moving in three directions.
3
The first was to sharpen Oxfam Novib’s Theory of Change on Access to Information (A2I) and to
further focus the theme. This included exploring whether there is evidence that improved access
to information (“to seek, receive and impart information”) does increase social and political
participation of target groups, including women.
A second and related goal was to assess the evidence as to whether the use of new and mobile
media can decentralise and democratise power in new ways.
The third was to explore in what ways global or regional partners have been able to improve A2I
at national level.
2.
Accountability: The second objective is to “triangulate information from counterparts” about
their achievements, and to consider ON’s contributions to these achievements.
The specific evaluation questions, under two headings, reflected these:
Effectiveness:
1. To what extent have ON’s intermediate outcomes been achieved during the evaluation period?
a) To what extent have new media and mobile media actually facilitated transparency of and
accountability of democratic processes?
b) Specifically in relation to women, have access to information strategies strengthened their
political and social participation, and given them a meaningful voice in public decision
making?
c) To what extent has public access to (budget) information of government, business and
institutions been improved as a result of lobby and advocacy interventions?
2. To what extent has ON contributed to the changes?
a) To what extent has ON been able to work in 2011/12 with partners who increase access to,
distribution and balanced and relevant information, with the goal of empowering citizens and
increasing monitoring of democratic processes (especially with new ICTs and gender)?
3
The abbreviation A2I is used where it refers to the specific use of ‘access to information’ in the context of the priority
theme. For other uses, access to information is spelled out fully.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 1
b) To what extent has ON facilitated exchange of knowledge and information through learning
initiatives and linking local to regional/global levels?
c) To what extent has ON paid attention to efficiency and sustainability aspects of the
development and implementation of this new priority theme?
Relevance:
3. What do the observed changes say about the relevance of Oxfam Novib’s theory of change?
4. What is the relevance of the observed changes in view of the context in which the projects are
implemented?
As the work progressed it tended to focus more on the learning aspects, on the nature of access to
information and the challenges and implications of designing and implementing this Priority Theme,
and less on its actual outcomes so far. This shift was agreed at every step between the Evaluation
Team and the ON staff responsible for the management of this evaluation.
Based on information contained in the ON database, a total of €20.8 million was spent on the
outcome indicators (see Annex 2) related to the A2I theme as a whole (including all partners)
between 2011 and 2012. This represents 44.6% of the total under Programme 4: Right to Social and
Political Participation. Of this 58% was spent at national level, 12% on regional programmes, and 30%
on global and other programmes. For reasons given below, the figure is indicative and does not fully
accurately reflect the amount invested in the Theme.
The evaluation focuses on selected partners and projects receiving funding during 2011 and 2012. It
covered all relevant partners in Egypt, Myanmar, Nigeria and projects in Uganda and Senegal
identified as particularly relevant. Selected projects from global and regional programmes were also
included. This explains some unevenness in this evaluation i.e. detailed information is provided on
projects in three countries in the Country Reports appended to this report. The other country, global
and regional projects are referenced here alone. Ultimately this was because the country-level field
studies allowed a more detailed analysis not just of these partners and projects but also of the wider
context and how they fit within them.
1.2 THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
The original methodology has, in broad terms, been pursued as anticipated. The approach envisaged
was at once cumulative, each step extracting what it needed from the previous one; and selective,
each step narrowing in focus to the more essential topics.
It begins with an examination of a broad sweep of all relevant ON partners, identified through
involvement of the selected A2I Outcome Indicators, compiling financial indicators and aggregating
Outcome and Outputs from the ON information systems. The focus then narrows to a small number
of countries and programmes that have been selected under a set of criteria. This is followed by field
visits to and primary data gathering from a sub-set of these. And then the final stage of synthesizing
the work into the Report stage.
The Terms of Reference describes them as follows, in two main Phases following the Inception stage:
Phase 1: Desk Study
1. Production of a General Analysis of the A2I Priority Theme across all countries and programmes,
based on the management information systems; the preliminary research for the A2I Preliminary
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 2
4
Research ; internal budget monitoring, evaluation and other documentation
2. A set of In-depth Analyses of relevant partners in an agreed set of five countries, and set of global
level partners and of Regional Level partners. This was to be completed using all existing project
and partner documentation, supplemented with some ON staff interviews as required.
Phase 2: Primary Data Gathering
This involved primary data collection in three countries, and the production of Country Reports.
3.
For Global and Regional programmes, this meant a set of interviews with key staff and partners.
The usual liaison, reporting, revision and draft and final report production tasks were also envisaged.
This methodology was, on the whole, followed with a few minor variations.
1.3 IMPLEMENTATION IN PRACTICE
Unsurprisingly in a multi stage evaluation, challenges were encountered at each step during
5
implementation that required a degree of flexibility and revision. The steps are presented below in
logical sequence, at the same time indicating where the research results emerging from each are
presented further on in the report or in Annexes and Appendices. Annex 1 summarises the main
activities, deliverables and dates.
S TEP 1: C OMING TO G RIPS WITH T ERMINOLOGY
The first challenge facing the inception stage evaluation was to come to grips with the terminology
used and concepts deployed by Oxfam Novib, and to determine the relationship between them and
how the A2I Priority Theme was configured within them. The documentation provided revealed a
complex and multilayered conceptual framework as a backdrop to the A2I priority Theme. The
operational terms and concepts include the five ON Programmes, the three change perspectives and
the interventions strategies. Monitoring introduced the outcome indicators (OIs) and associated
output indicators linked to each intervention strategy.
The A2I Priority Theme falls under Programme 4: Right to social and political participation, and is
6
linked to five of the ten Programme 4 Outcome Indicators: OI 37, 39, 41, 43 and 44. These OIs in turn
have 14 quantitative output Indicators distributed between them. But it was agreed between the
evaluation team and ON staff that the A2I Priority Theme Outcome Areas, a more discursive
description reproduced in the Terms of Reference, offers the clearest, most succinct, departure point
for scope of the A2I Priority Theme, and that it would be used to guide this stage of the evaluation.
7
The four outcome areas are, for short :
1) Increasing availability and quality of information channels;
2) Enhancing capacity of marginalised groups to receive share, search and use information;
3) Promoting an environment conducive to free flow of information; and
4
This is the Introductory Paper (Preliminary Research): Priority Theme Access to Information. Final Version January 29th
2013. It draws together the existing thinking on the Theme for the benefit of this evaluation. It is referred to here as the
A2I Preliminary Research, for brevity.
5
A more detailed account of the issues arising and of the learning points emerging during the evaluation has been
provided to Oxfam Novib.
6
See Annex 2 for the Outcome Indicators and the associated output indicators.
7
See Annex 2 for the complete description.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 3
4) Demanding transparency from duty bearers.
Most, though not all, envisage the use of ICTs (including new and traditional). Supporting gender
mainstreaming is considered as a horizontal area.
It was clear that these various layers had evolved over a period of time, and that the linkages
between them all were not always explicit. Nor was a overall illustrative scheme available. However,
having absorbed and assimilated the concepts and terminology, a yet bigger challenge lay in
reconciling them in practice in the context of the first formal deliverable, the General Analysis.
This report attempted two things.
S TEP 2: R ECONCILING THE C ONCEPTS AND D ATA
The first was to use internal financial data and ON Monitoring Reports, for both 2011 and 2012, to
attempt a quantification of the outcomes and outputs so far of the A2I Priority Theme.
Termed an ‘effort to outcome’ review of the A2I Priority Theme, the hope was that it would yield an
overview of, on the one hand, ON partner efforts in the area of the Theme as measured by the
payments to partners, and on the other, the results achieved in terms of the Outcomes and Output
Indicators.
For a number of reasons to do with data compatibility and inconsistency, it could not be completed in
8
the manner anticipated. But the analysis instead offers a summary of expenditure in each of the five
relevant Outcome Indicators, in 2011 and 2012, by Country and Programme.
S TEP 3: R EVIEWING THE A2I T HEORY OF C HANGE
The other task of the General Analysis was to review the A2I Theory of Change as contained in the A2I
9
Preliminary Research and in the Terms of Reference (primarily the Outcome Areas).
The approach taken was to disaggregate the description in these documents into their component
features as a means to ‘unpick’ the different aspects and explore their relationships, thus throwing
into relief the implicit assumptions contained within them.
Some general observations were also added by the Evaluation Team about the priority theme, and
10
especially the role of ICTs, along with references as suggested further reading in the field. This also
11
enabled a re-aggregation into a more conventional Theory of Change map.
The results of this process are presented in Section 2 below.
8
These are fully discussed in the Access to Information Evaluation: General Analysis itself, delivered on 18th of April.
9
The Theory of Change presented was first described in the Oxfam Novib’s original request for MFS-2 funding, annex 23
submitted to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
10
These observations are presented in full in Annex 3.
11
This is outlined in Annex 4. A word of caution must be added here. Developing a Theory of Change is, in its normal
use, an intensive participatory process that must involve key stakeholders. It requires a major commitment to the
approach, and is used at the planning stage, and then for monitoring and learning. The ‘re-aggregation’ into a Theory of
Change map presented in Annex 4 was undertaken purely as a heuristic tool for this evaluation and specifically to
provide a framework for the next stage of the evaluation. The goal was to ‘overlay’ each of the countries onto it, and
therefore to be able to compare and contrast their features in a more systematic fashion. These overlay maps are in the
Country Appendices.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 4
S TEP 4: E XAMINING THE C OUNTRIES IN D ETAIL
Having established some clarity on the outlines of the concept of Access to Information, the process
of examining empirically the A2I Priority Theme at country level began with an analysis of the existing
documentation of selected country programmes.
A large volume of documentation – several hundred items – relating to these partners and projects
was sifted through, identifying and extracting the relevant aspects. The goal was to distil a first
consideration of the outcomes of the A2I Priority Theme from these, to be filled out in more depth
with field visits.
Five countries were identified based on four criteria: Financial (relatively high expenditure);
innovation (an innovative approach); an important global or regional role (for learning and steering
purposes); and regional spread (for the same reasons). The countries selected were Egypt, Nigeria,
Myanmar, Uganda and Senegal, the first three identified early on as most suited to a later field visit.
In each of these six to eight partners were identified, and their interventions examined. The process
was time consuming, since the documentation had, with a few exceptions, not been prepared for use
by an evaluation, and were intended for internal purposes. Further background documentation was
also examined, for a review of the wider governance situation.
The three in-depth documentary analyses of Egypt, Nigeria and Myanmar, delivered as separate
reports, provided the information needed for the field visits, in terms both of gaining a preliminary
understanding of the A2I context in each country, and of developing a good grasp of the focus,
activities and relevance of the partners to be visited. For Uganda and Senegal, specific partners
considered to be most relevant were identified for follow up by remote interview.
It was the field visits, however, that proved decisive to gathering the key information needed to draw
all the threads of the research into the context of a narrative around A2I.
The approach broke each country analysis into different parts.
The first examined the wider dynamic of access to information. In addition to partners, key selected
additional informants were interviewed – including media publishers and editors, ICT for
development practitioners; human rights experts; and Oxfam staff – and an extensive range of
documentation consulted.
This wide range of inputs allowed the construction of a coherent ‘narrative’ around A2I in each
country, to paint a picture in each of the dynamics of transparency and accountability, and the place
that A2I plays in it in the recent and current context.
Section 3 below uses this narrative, comparing and contrasting the governance and accountability
configurations in each country and how A2I relates to them.
The second part of the country examination focused on the partners themselves. The emphasis was
on those activities that focus on A2I, sometimes even where these were not supported by ON. The
goal was to identify how and where their actions related to the wider national or regional dynamic, as
well as to examine any existing evidence of outcomes. The Theory of Change map proved a useful tool
in discussion with many of those interviewed to explain what the evaluation was about and to explore
their relationship to the wider picture. And in a couple of cases it was concluded that the partner did
not engage in A2I activities as understood here, but they were included in the analysis order to
illustrate how activities directed, for instance, at personal empowerment could be seen as a
precondition to supporting A2I.
Reports on each of the three countries (called A2I Priority Theme Overviews) are in separate
Appendices to this report, and their activities are compared and contrasted in Section 4.1 below.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 5
The construction of a wider governance narrative, outlining key features and dynamics, and the
situating of partner interventions within that, lent itself naturally to the Theory of Change approach.
Thus each of the three Country Reports also has its own Theory of Change Map, adapted from the
generic version in Annex 4 below and presented in the appropriate Appendices. These illustrate (in
somewhat crude form) where partner interventions fit in to the larger dynamics.
This ‘big-picture’ approach emerged as one of the significant outcomes of this evaluation in the sense
that it informed the set of policy observations outlined in the final section of this report.
The three projects in Uganda and Senegal were used to supplement the possibilities and to suggest
potential new directions in these countries.
S TEP 5: L INKING THE G LOBAL AND PAF P ROGRAMMES
Seven global partners were selected by ON to be considered for the Global Link A2I evaluation. IFEX
and the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) were the only two partners
specifically added within the A2I priority theme. CIVICUS, Social Watch and Inter Press Service (IPS)
were already being phased out by the time the A2I priority theme was defined due to Oxfam Novib
guidelines that impose a 12 year maximum on the duration of partnerships.
12
Twenty-two partners were selected to be considered for the PAF A2I evaluation. An extended list
with an additional sixteen partners was offered by the Pan Africa Programme Director.
Review of the documentation for Global Link and PAF projects presented the same challenges as that
of the national projects described above. Other factors further complicated the task: (i) many of the
reports and evaluations pre-date the A2I priority theme and provide little useful information; (ii) the
reporting mechanisms of projects that receive core funding are primarily concerned with key
milestones rather than detailed outcome indicators and thus do not provide sufficient detail about
individual A2I-related components; (iii) some projects are in the very early stages of their work –
establishing their secretariats and building their networks, but not yet engaging in activities.
Additional documentation provided by partners and ON staff, including more recent evaluations and
narrative reports, was consulted. The websites of most of the partner organisations were also
reviewed, in some cases turning up new information and in others providing further evidence that
some projects were still in their initial phases and not yet engaging in publicly visible A2I activities.
Interviews were conducted via Skype or telephone with AMARC, IPS, BIC and CIVICUS, via email with
IFEX and in person with Social Watch. It was not possible to schedule an interview with a person
responsible for Evert Vermeer Stichting's Fair Politics. The ON staff person responsible for Global Link
was also interviewed as was the programme director for the Pan Africa Programme.
S TEP 6: A NALYSING THE P ROCESS OF A2I P RIORITY T HEME I MPLEMENTATION
During the course of the work, the question of how the A2I Priority Theme emerged in the first place,
and how it was implemented came to the fore. It emerged from early interviews with partners that
few of them knew much about the existence and operational implications of the Priority Theme,
throwing into relief the manner in which ON was aiming to achieve the Priority Theme goals and the
role of partners would play in that.
12
Eleven of these were members of the SOTU coalition
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 6
All partners were interviewed about their knowledge of the Priority Theme, but also and more
importantly about their relationship with ON and the support they received and the nature of
interactions concerning interventions in the A2I sphere. This was later supplemented with a very
brief survey of ON staff on the topic of the Priority Theme, and some interviews.
The results of this are presented in each of the three Country Appendixes. Key insights obtained
also contributed to the final conclusions and recommendations in Section 6.
1.4 CONTENTS AND THE EVALUATION QUESTION
The above account describes how the research results were generated and where they fit into this
reports, annexes and appendices.
Here the report contents are summarised indicating the evaluation objectives and the questions, as
outlined in Section 1.1 above, addressed in each:
Section 2 discusses the concept of access to information in general and clarifies the way in which it is
used for this evaluation, building on the ON documentation and other sources. The section
contributes to the evaluation objective of internal steering and learning, specifically to sharpen ON’s
focus on Theory of Change for A2I. It is also, from the Evaluation Team perspective, seen as a
prerequisite to achieving a coherent evaluation. Annexes 3 and 4 also contribute to this objective,
and the former to the internal learning objective which seeks to establish whether new and mobile
media can decentralise and democratise power in new ways.
Section 3 attempts, through an examination of three countries, to fill out the concept developed in
13
section 2 in empirical terms. Egypt, Myanmar and Nigeria are offered as examples of the dynamics
of A21 in practice. The wider governance dynamics are first described and their three very different
trajectories contrasted. This is followed by more detailed configurations of features of A21 In the
context of promoting accountability and democratic participation. This section thus contributes
further to the internal steering and learning objectives.
Section 4 examines the actual partners and projects, nationally, regionally and globally. By describing
in some depth the interventions of partners and, where possible the outcomes, it specifically
addresses the evaluation question concerning the achievement of ON’s intermediate outcomes
(Effectiveness question 1a and 1b) and in some respects ranges wider than the narrow focus of this
question. It also looks at the evaluation objective relating to the contribution of global and regional
partners to A2I; and considers the question of the evidence for whether improved A2I can enhance
the participation of women. Finally it contributes to the accountability objective by presenting new
research results.
Section 5 turns to the implementation of the A2I Priority Theme, describing its rationale and its
implementation on the ground. This contributes to the second evaluation question concerning
effectiveness, and to its three sub-headings, and explores the extent and manner in which ON has
itself contributed to what has been achieved during the evaluation period.
The concluding section draws on all the previous ones, and as such relates to the complete set of
evaluation objectives and questions. It begins by delivering conclusions on the high level question of
defining A2I, then exploring whether it was a good decision to create a Priority Theme around it. The
13
Myanmar has been preferred over Burma throughout this report as this is the term agreed by all stakeholder partners in
the Myanmar ON programme.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 7
next sub-section devotes particular attention to conclusions on the first evaluation question on
effectiveness, relating to outcomes. It ends with a set of recommendations.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 8
2.
WHAT DOES ACCESS TO INFORMATION MEAN?
An early conclusion from a consideration of the documentation on the ON A2I Priority Theme was
that no single, clearly delineated, concept was being deployed. Rather some core ideas and trends
were put forward, and the relationship between some of them made explicit. The boundaries of A2I
were not clear. This became immediately problematic when the question of whether individual
partners and – even more so – interventions should be included under the concept and hence
included in the evaluation.
This absence of clarity was also a major hindrance to interpreting the ON Theory of Change associated
with the concept – establishing clarity is one of the core goals of a theory of change in the first place.
A clear (if provisional and tentative) Theory of Change map would in turn assist the evaluators to
explore different dynamic narratives at country level and to consider the Theory of Change for the
Priority Theme as a whole.
Thus, clearly delineating the concept became critical to its deployment in the evaluation.
The task was not helped by the fact that it is used in widely differing ways in the existing literature
and practice, variations of which are very briefly reviewed below in the first sub-section. The next one
then presents the core of the concept as it has emerged from this work, initially as a working concept
before the field visits, and then refined afterwards. The section concludes with the key
considerations flowing from the analysis.
2.1 ‘ACCESS TO INFORMATION’ IN USE
There is no single accepted definition or usage of the term ‘access to Information’.
Perhaps the most common understanding of the concept, and also the narrowest, refers to the right
to access government or publicly-funded information, including, for example, census data and
scientific and social research produced with the support of public funds. This is the basis of access to
information or freedom of information laws in place in many countries that seek to ensure that
citizens have access to the information produced by their governments and also to mandate a certain
degree of transparency.
A broader interpretation refers to access to knowledge and its representations (documents, books,
databases, newspapers) and, especially in a development context, to communities or individuals
gaining access to information and knowledge which was previously not available to them. In this
interpretation access to information involves applying the information to improve livelihoods.
A third interpretation places a strong emphasis on technology, with access to information being
virtually equated with access to technology. This view became extremely popular among some
proponents of ICT4D, who felt that with access to the internet and minimal training communities
would be able to find and make use of the information that would enable them to better their lives.
Nevertheless, its roots can be seen in decades-earlier efforts to promote rural libraries.
Finally, access to information at its broadest can include all of these but with a multiple focus on the
ability to access, make sense of, and use information. This includes, for example, accessing
information about prices paid for crops and being able to use that information to decide when and
where to sell this year's harvest and to make decisions about what to plant next year. It also includes
people being able to use information and knowledge to demand respect for human and civil rights, to
address injustices, to insist on accountability and participation in the decisions that affect their lives.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 9
The A2I Preliminary Research takes a step further by including production and dissemination of
information by way of advocating activities such as citizen journalism, community media, and
influencing the media agenda. While these may be seen by some as beyond the scope of access to
information, they could also be understood as an essential part of the objectives of making sense of
information and putting it to use by both enabling collective reflection providing channels for the
expression of demands for change and the strategies to achieve it.
We do not propose to enter into a discussion of which is, in any sense, the ‘right one’. The issue for
14
us is how the concept can best be delineated in the context of the following questions:
What can a greater priority on access to information achieve for individual ON partners in their
concrete environments?
What can a greater priority on access to information achieve for the programme as a whole, in a
given country?
2.2 DELINEATING THE CONCEPT
To state the obvious, information is, in one sense, static and external. It is fixed in digital, physical or
other form. In the course of being used, however, information becomes dynamic and a key
component of an ongoing process, one that can influence the outcome of that process. Our interest is
therefore in access to information within a given process or set of processes. It is not an abstract
matter of being able to access the store of human knowledge; it is about the specific information that
is critical to understanding and engaging in social processes, being able to gain access to it when we
need it, and in forms that we can engage with and use to affect outcomes.
But information is implicated in just about every social human activity. Information is central to
economic development, to education, to health, to politics, and so forth. A report of the UN High
Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, published in May 2013,
reminds us that information is at the core of poverty eradication. It calls for a “data and information
revolution” and puts transparency, accountability and poor people’s participation in decision-making
15
and implementation at the heart of a strategy aimed to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.
Oxfam Novib is involved in human development, and seeks to empower people in all the above
sectors. It became clear early on in the evaluation that all ON partners use information extensively in
their activities, and for some projects, generating, analyzing, using and dissemination of information is
the core activity. But they are spread across very different and disconnected domains of activity.
If an A2I intervention is to have a discernible impact it cannot aim at all of these. The domains are
relatively discrete and each has a set of knowledge that is more or less identifiable and separate from
that of the others. Attempting to impact them all would lead to, at best, diffuse and dispersed
outcomes with little coherence or connection between them.
A precondition for achieving an impact is therefore the identification of a specific domain of
information, one that in itself can be defined as a coherent set of processes with meaningful and,
broadly speaking, identifiable boundaries.
14
A third relevant question here is addressed in Section 5 below: What is Oxfam Novib seeking to achieve with the
creation of an Access to Information Priority Theme
15
The report, A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development,
is available for download at http://www.post2015hlp.org/the-report/
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 10
The common usages of A2I and the A2I Preliminary Research overlap in one area: A central
component of the concept is information that, in the context of governance structures, can contribute
to empowerment of marginalised groups and accountability of duty bearers. Although the ON use of
the term opened the door to many wider possibilities, its central concern is with information that
people need in order to participate effectively and as equals in the wider political and governance
structures that govern their lives. The relationships between the concepts of governance,
accountability and empowerment, and the vast literature associated with them, are sufficiently clear
and defined to constitute the central theme here.
Access to information is essential for enabling people to understand their problems, to monitor and
to hold government and other duty bearers to account, to enter into informed dialogue about
16
decisions which affect their lives, and to demand their rights and entitlements. In many situations,
however, significant legal, structural and political barriers impede access to information or the ability
to analyse and make use of available information. These barriers include governments and others
who do not want to or do not have the capacity to make information available and citizens who may
be unaware of or unwilling to exercise their rights to access information, unaware of the availability of
information, or without the capacity to analyse and make use of information.
‘Governance structures’ here refers to all of those in positions of power relative to others: the
structures of government at every level; local to international institutions; private sector especially
larger and multi-national corporations; and civil society organisations. And the concept of ‘duty
bearers’ is also accordingly differentiated according to the different responsibilities associated with
each of these.
We approached this evaluation, and especially the field research stage, with that core concept in
mind: A2I refers to accessing, generating, processing, and communicating information in the context
of governance structures that can contribute to empowerment of marginalised groups and
accountability of duty bearers.
If this is the core of the A2I concept that emerged from the evaluation, it is delineated most easily at
its external margins. The question of where to draw the line emerged most clearly for the evaluation
when the specific partner activities identified for inclusion were examined in more depth. A few
examples illustrate the point:
Enabling farmers to access information to improve their farming techniques and ultimately
their economic circumstances would not constitute a case of A2I; but enabling them to
access and to use effectively information to influence farming policies would be a case of A2I.
‘Edutainment’ i.e. offering learning in an entertaining way, can be an effective means to
disseminate socially important content, but it is relevant A2I only if that content relates to
governance and empowerment of people to participate in it;
Empowering girls in schools through gender and sexual health information is not A2I; but and this demonstrates the way that all spheres are ultimately linked – if that personal
empowerment makes them more inclined to question the governance structures, and if they
have the means for instance to demand access to information about that, then this last does
16
Our Rights Our Information: Empowering people to demand rights through knowledge is a good introductory text about
how the right to information serves to protect and sustain other human rights. Prepared by the Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative, the book includes a dozen case studies demonstrating how information has been used to claim rights
to education, health, life etc. http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/rti/our_rights_our_information.pdf
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 11
fall within A2I. Indeed one partner clearly demonstrated the natural progression from
personal empowerment to political empowerment, and the role that access to information
can play in that.
Access to information can flow in different directions, and horizontally, as long as the outcome is the
empowerment of marginalized groups and or greater accountability of duty bearers. The following,
for instance, could constitute A2I as defined here:
Enhancing the capacity of government workers to gather and present information in forms
better suited to use by the public, or to implement Freedom of Information Legislation;
Building the skills and providing the technical support to community based organisations to
communicate internally and with each other in order to mobilise about governance;
External scrutiny of government performance with a view to enhancing their accountability;
Government efforts to access information on, and understand the needs of the public, in
order to improve policies or services.
A2I is most certainly not limited to governments and includes:
Ensuring that large and multi-national private sector corporations (the extractive industries
are probably the most relevant examples) comply with their legislated transparency and
reporting requirements, including those of international law, through exposing noncompliance or corruption;
Training civil society to monitor the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as World
Bank, Regional Banks and the International Monetary Fund, to ensure they uphold the
highest possible standards of transparency and accountability in their relations with
governments and others, acting as an examples to all others;
Building the capacity of CBOs and NGOs, including international and external NGOs, to be
transparent and accountable as institutions and also in their interventions.
There is also little doubt that the concept as defined here has very specific gender implications - just
as it is clear that, in the context of governance, empowerment and accountability have gender
dimensions. Such implications might focus on the ‘double exclusion’ that women can experience: a
gender-based exclusion from decision-making and governance reinforced by further barriers to
accessing information. One of the challenges of this evaluation has been to identify gender-related
examples about access to information, that undoubtedly exist but are difficult to find.
In practice, a precise definition is not essential. More important is to have a clear core concept and to
explore the relationship between potential interventions and outcomes and that concept.
2.3 THE IMPLICATIONS
Certain matters flow from the above definition.
First, and most important, it is clear that a definition of A2I that embeds it in the wider processes of
governance and inclusion/exclusion must look to the specific circumstances of each place to
understand the role that access to information does and can potentially play. It follows that there is
no single road map that show the way how A2I can contribute to empowerment and accountability.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 12
The manner in which A2I can contribute, and the modalities that should be encouraged, will depend
17
on the current starting point and the dynamics of the situation in each country.
This is an important point as there can sometimes be a perception that achieving access to
information is a matter of putting in place a determined set of laws (Freedom of Information; Free
Speech; Media Diversity etc.) and ensuring they are implemented fully and properly. In part, this is
true. But these are more the formal outcome of a wider set of dynamics between governed and
governing, between ruling elites and marginalised groups. Put another way, the achievement of
these legislative milestones is more an expression of previous struggles and of a certain balance of
underlying forces than it is a goal in itself.
This also implies specific limits on the role of global and regional initiatives, which can effectively
support country-level change but in few cases can lead it. This support can be provided in a number of
ways, for example by working to reform global and/or regional institutions so they are more
transparent and more aware of and responsive to local needs, or by providing specialised expertise or
capacity-building to local actors.
Many different ways of accessing, using and disseminating information may be deployed as tools in
the struggle against dominant ruling elites and in the empowerment of marginalised groups, very
often with little or no reference to the legislative context. Conversely demands in the legislative
context whose apparent goal is to make public information transparent may be examples of tactical
litigation that in fact has a wider goal such as exposing the real intentions and activities of oppressive
governments.
Second, it includes no direct reference to technologies, in particular information and communication
technologies. ICTs and social media (and other technologies) in this context are treated as tools that
can facilitate a huge range of diverse activities. Most of them are nothing at all to do with A2I as
understood here; and where they are used in A2I related activities, their effects are not always
beneficial, and indeed often simultaneously support opposing and contradictory trends. They can be
used both to enhance access to information and empower people in governance and accountability of
duty bearers, and to restrict them.
Thus we reject a technological determinist approach: The potential and relevance of technology must
be considered on a case by case basis. Some general considerations that should be taken into
account when considering ICTs in the context of A2I are included in Annex 1.
17
Countries, as the main unit of governance, are taken as the key geographical unit here. But it is also true that on the
one hand, sub-national levels, and on the other regional and global levels, can also be a focus of attention since they
have their own governance structures.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 13
3. A2I IN THREE COUNTRIES
The field visits allowed an examination, however brief, of the wider governance dynamics in each of
three countries, Egypt, Nigeria and Myanmar, and specifically of the role that A2I is or can play in
them. As noted, with the assistance of ON country teams, local experts who were not partners were
interviewed in two of the countries; and in the third, Nigeria, it transpired that many partners were
also deeply involved in wider A2I activities.
*Population (Millions, 2010)
*GDP (USD Billions, 2010)
Egypt
Myanmar
Nigeria
Senegal
Uganda
81.1
48
158.4
12.4
33.4
193.67
12.95
17.01
218.89
*Human Development Index (2011,
Rank of 187 Countries)
113
149
156
155
161
*Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000
LIVE Births – 2010)
18.6
50.4
88.4
49.8
63
*Life Expectancy (2009)
72.73
64.2
50.95
58.63
53.07
*Literacy Rate (2010)
66.4%
92%
60.8%
49.7%
73.2%
118
172
139
94
130
49 -some
info
0 - no info
16 - scant/
no info
10 - scant/
no info
65 significant
info
*Press Freedom Index (2011-2012,
Rank 179 Countries)
166
169
126
75
139
†Mobile Phone Subscriptions per
100 Inhabitants (2012)
115.29
11.16
67.68
87.51
45.92
†Percentage of Individuals Using the
Internet (2012)
44.07
1.07
32.88
19.20
14.69
29.78
12.85
*Corruption Perception Index (2012,
Rank of 176 Countries)
**Open Budget Index (2012)
0 = no info; 100 = maximum info.
40.84
NA
13.71
‡Percentage of Internet Users Using
Facebook (2012)
Table 1: Development and access to information indicators for selected countries
Sources:
*Transparency International http://www.transparency.org/country
**International Budget Partnership http://survey.internationalbudget.org/
† ITU http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
‡Generated from Internet World Stats data available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_statistics
Individual reports for each country are available as separate Annexes. Here a comparative description
is attempted, exploring similar and contrasting features, and drawing conclusions from this form of
‘logical triangulation’. It should be stressed that the details of each national analysis are not
important. These countries are, in this context, being used as examples to draw wider conclusions
about A2I, and to fill out the point made earlier that A2I, and actions to support it, must be tailored to
the specific governance context.
As in the Country Report, it should be noted that opinions and statements that lack explicit references
to their respective sources (here or in the Country Report) are those of more than one of the experts
and partners interviewed.
3.1 CONTRASTING GOVERNANCE DYNAMICS
At the highest level, the contrasting governance context of the three countries is clear, and the offer a
spectrum of possibilities in relation to exploring the role of access to information.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 14
Egypt began a revolution against despotic rule in January 2011 lead by activists seeking a more
democratic and fairer society, based on human rights. After the Presidential elections, during which
the liberal opposition failed to unite, the revolution has stalled as the new Government led by
President Morsi attempts to consolidate power prior to future elections and establish a new alliance
with the powerful economic agents – many previously aligned to the ousted Mubarak regime. Neoliberal economically, the new Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to row back many of the gains of the
revolution in social terms and democratic, including in the area of gender. This has led to ongoing
struggle with the activists whose goal is to expose the intentions of the government and to regain
impetus before the next election in 2014.
A key point here in relation to A2I is that there is little room for compromise, and almost complete
polarisation of positions between the sides.
Myanmar, on the other hand, is experiencing a top-down revolution of sorts. After decades of
centralised military control, the ruling party – essentially still the political wing of the military - is
attempting to manage change across a wide range of areas, at its own pace, while maintaining its
overall hegemony and handling internal factions and conflict. Securing the core economic interests of
the ruling class is a central goal, while at the same time managing to attract external investment for
infrastructure but also to valorise its abundant endowment of natural resources. The speed and
volume of legislative and institutional change at government level is almost overwhelming to all
stakeholders, and the task of maintaining core ruling class interests while selectively opening to
democratic reform is very tricky – and the impetus could yet wane and the gains are by no means all
secure. The 2014 elections will probably be pivotal to the future of Myanmar. Progressive forces in
society are somewhat disjointed, and the opposition too is finding it hard to deal with the pressure of
change.
So many factors destabilised and evolving at the one time offers multiple medium and long term
opportunities and a myriad of possible pathways to change, and hence many possible areas for
promoting A2I. The challenge is in choosing those that are more likely to meet with success.
Nigeria is relatively stable in terms of government. Since the end of military rule in 1999, the quality
of elections were seen to decline until 2011 independent observers declared the ballot transparent
and the outcome fair. It is also believed that voting was based less than previously on tribal or other
affiliations, or on personalities, and more on policies. Elections are due again in 2015, and many see
this as an opportunity to further deepen the quality and level of participation of all people, including
more marginalised communities. Yet corruption is deep and widespread in Nigeria, especially in the
extractive industries of oil and gas, in both government and corporate areas. Most people in Africa’s
biggest oil producer are now poorer than when the first major oil finds were made in the 1950s,
especially in the southern Delta region in which most of the resources are located and transported
through. The level of environmental degradation and of livelihood destruction is enormous.
Relative political stability (notwithstanding the ongoing situation in the North Easter states) and a
possible deepening of democratic participation, combine with a lack of transparency around the
extractive industries offer a clear role for supporting access to information. Key potential for change
are seen in signs that the electorate is becoming more sophisticated in how they engage with
elections and governance, a process that can be reinforced through ongoing exposure of corruption
and incompetence. Such exposure is, of course, also aiming directly at stemming the huge loss of
investment potential for development.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 15
3.2 CONFIGURATIONS OF A2I
Each of these three different scenarios offers key national stakeholders a different configuration of
ways in which A2I can promote accountability and democratic participation. Creating, accessing,
analysis, disseminating and using information to influence these contexts can mean very different
things in each, and pursue different priorities.
Quality and Diversity of Media
Clearly, media play a critical role in access to information as defined here. Good quality reporting and
analysis and a legal and cultural environment that guarantees freedom of speech and of the press and
regulation to ensure diversity of ownership and content are fundamental. Freedom from government
censorship is only one among many ways in which media can be manipulated to promote the
interests of political and economic elites, as the three countries demonstrate.
The biggest changes in media have been in Myanmar, where the elimination of decades of prior
censorship, and the relaxation of publishing laws pending new legal structures has led to a huge
number new publications and the return of some important exiled media publishers. Yet major
challenges remain before the media can live up to its potential for governance and accountability.
Most major newspapers are owned by wealthy ‘cronies’ close to the military and government, and
are self-serving and often self-censoring when it comes to the political and economic interests of
elites. The quality of journalism, especially investigative journalism, is poor. The mostly- state run
television and commercial radio stations engage in little public interest reporting, although new laws
promise to encourage more diversity.
There is a major emphasis from external actors and internally to strengthen the media’s
professionalism and diversity, through training and support for exiled and other more independent
minded media. The plethora of media-related laws offers opportunities to embed progressive media
principles in the legislature, and there appears to be some openness to that. It may probably take a
second generation of media legislation before what Myanmar would reach international standards in
this area, and that is some time off.
This bears a resemblance to the situation in Egypt, but also shows differences. Major newspapers are
associated with business and political elites. Satellite and terrestrial television are also dominated
mainly by commercial and state interests, with media supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. No
community broadcasting is licensed, though internet community radio is gaining ground where
connectivity is adequate. But much reporting is nevertheless openly critical of government and there
exist many small independent media outlets and sources of alternative information, including over
the internet. Media are a key arena for contestation because of government efforts to stifle criticism
by charging, interrogating and imprisoning some journalists, editors and owners. These tactics of
intimidation are strongly resisted by activist and NGOs.
Overall, the media environment in Nigeria is much more settled, yet it shares some of the
characteristics of the other two. Much of the mainstream media in Nigeria is also controlled by very
wealthy media owners linked to the corruption of the extractive industries, and concerns for job
security means that some reporters are prone to self-censorship in that area. Reporters are often
very poorly paid and hence open to influence, and levels of professionalism can be low. Radio and
television licenses, including community radio which in theory is possible, must be personally
approved by the President, and there is a suggestion that they are granted for political advantage.
Among civil society the media do not appear to be regarded as a likely source of major change, or as a
strategic target for efforts to improve accountability of government. But there is a community radio
movement in Nigeria that could have potential, if the obstacles to its development were removed.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 16
Social Media and Internet
The role of social media, and especially Facebook Youtube and Twitter, in the Arab Spring has been
much written about. In Egypt there is little doubt they played an important role in mobilising around
the revolution and that they continue to be important organisational tools for activists. Beyond this,
websites with Web 2.0 tools are used to monitor and monitor government, to organise against
gender discrimination, to expose corruption and in a range of others ways. Social media are also used
by the security forces to disrupt the efforts of those seeking democracy and accountability to spread
their point of view. Access to the internet generally, however, is limited beyond the main urban
centres.
The other two countries have seen a much lower level of use of social media. There have been some
recent mass campaign successes in Nigeria, such as that over a government decision to raise petrol
prices, and the internet is credited more widely with exposing information on the extractive
industries. They are also increasingly used by young people a source of news. Their potential is
recognised and their use could yet grow rapidly, but for the moment social media are nowhere near
as pervasive or varied as it is in Egypt.
Social media in Myanmar are restricted primarily to Facebook. It is also use extensively like Twitter,
for short message feeds, including for news gathering and dissemination by journalists. There are a
number of credible Internet publications.
Access to mobile phones and to internet is very limited overall, and hence it is not used to mobilise
per se. But there is also strong evidence that Facebook has been used, backed by powerful groups, to
systematically incite violence against Muslims through the rapid dissemination of false information
including photographs that are subsequently printed and distributed. Nevertheless, the recent
awarding of two mobile phone licenses is likely to see very rapid growth in take-up, and social media
and other internet services could become an important lever of change within a couple of years.
Accessing Public Information
The polarised situation in Egypt has meant that a more conventional or straightforward approach to
advocating for access to information is not possible, or at least unlikely to achieve concrete results.
There is a Freedom of Information Bill being debated. Although it is seen as somewhat better than
the complete absence access to public information under Mubarak, it is nevertheless falls far short
both of international standards and also of having the potential to yield the kind of information that
could be used to influence the current stand-off. The most sensitive information held publicly relates
to the economic interests of the ruling classes, including those accused or corruption in the past, and
their ongoing interrelations with the Muslim Brotherhood. The other area of sensitive information is
regarding human rights, in terms of determining accountability both in the past and in the current
situation. In these cases, tactical litigation is used to extract as much information as possible, along
with advocacy and demonstrations.
Some public servants open for support change, can also be source of public information in nonsensitive areas that are nevertheless relevant to people lives.
In Nigeria, by contrast, a Freedom of Information Act has been passed after well over a decade of
advocacy by civil society. Although there has been some disappointment that it has yet to yield much,
and that it is limited to the National level, there is nevertheless considerable effort to extend it and
make it more workable. In the meantime, informal relations between key NGOs and Ministries are
resulting in greater ‘unofficial’ transparency and growing trust between the sides. Indeed, the filing
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 17
under Freedom of Information legislation is seen as potentially disruptive of these informal channels,
a issue that will recede as the FoI ACT becomes more widely used and is seen as less of a threat.
With a deepening of the broader democratic process the legislation could result in significantly
enhanced accountability, in the extractive industries but also more widely. In that regard the next
elections due in 2015 are widely seen as a key opportunity to strengthen political culture and
democratic participation.
Myanmar is different again.
The breakneck speed of legislation change is running well ahead of the capacity of the system to
process it effectively and to absorb it into institutional and political change. Comprehensive access to
public information – moving from among the least transparent regimes in the world – takes a back
seat at the moment to more fundamental reform of governance structures, human rights, freedom of
speech and other areas. Freedom of Information Legislation is only just coming onto the agenda of
civil society. At this stage it is difficult to know the level of opposition it might meet from
government. The government is aware that it has to seen to be making progress on transparency. ON
the other hand, there is no question they would readily offer information on sectors of the economy
in which the government/military complex is dominant (see the comment on EITI below). But it is by
testing the limits such as this that progress in Myanmar in general and in terms of A2I can be tested.
Under an autocratic regime, one of the key currencies of control is information, and keeping it secret
is how the value of that currency is maintained. It is released only if it can secure advantage. The idea
that information held in public bodies is in fact information for the public – belongs to the public - and
cannot be withheld without over an overriding public interest being involved is alien at every level of
such a mindset.
Changing that culture takes time, and strong direction from the top, which remains absent.
But such change can and has brought into relief major capacity limitations.
A significant issue in all three countries in relation to transparency and accessing information in the
public sector is the lack of capacity. Precisely because none of the three has a recent history or culture
of transparency, the skills that are required to render them transparent in practice are not present,
even if and when the opportunity arises. A case in point is implementing Nigeria’s Freedom of
Information Legislation where many public servants, even at senior level, have little understanding of
what is required of them and lack the skills to respond to requests under the legislation. More
generally, information can sometimes be held back because of a reluctance to admit the lack of
competence needed to gather and compile it in a useful manner. In Egypt, in particular, the quality of
information held by public bodies is often very poor, reinforcing a reluctance to release it.
Processing information in a manner that can, in principle, be made available to the public can mean
major institutional change and improvements in skills and capacities. Making that information
intelligible to those who require it, before it is released, is major related task. These can be
considered as some of the long term aims in the context of A2I.
Budget Transparency
As compared to what is generally covered by Freedom of Information legislation, budget transparency
is more about the facilitation of public participation in the various stages of process of the formation
of budgets as well as the analysis of them afterwards. It can open a door to decision- making in the
economic, social and built environment, and the priorities that government set. It implies a certain
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 18
proactive stance from the authorities that also includes a way of formatting and presenting
information.
In reality the biggest obstacle to budget transparency is what can be revealed – corruption and
incompetence sometimes on a grand scale. This is potentially true in all three countries, which is
probably why they are all rated at or near the bottom of the international scale in this area. But civil
society stakeholders prioritise it differently because of the circumstances. But there are also capacity
issues involved for many public bodies and government departments.
In Nigeria, budget transparency is currently high on the agenda of civil society. It is promoted by a
number of civil society actors across a number of sectors, including of course the extractive industries.
There is also some willingness in Ministries to support the process of improving their performance in
this area. And there is a clear lack of capacity within government, especially at local level to effectively
monitor, control and account for budgets and expenditure.
th
th
Egypt has slipped in the global budget transparency ratings from 64 globally to 76 , between 2010
18
and 2012 – after the fall of Mubarak. Under Morsi, virtually budgetary information is held as tight as
ever, and indeed it is probably complicit in activities to prevent publication by civil society. Gaining
access to and disseminating budgetary information has become one more tactical tool in the hands of
civil society to shed light on government agendas and corruption. The polarisation prevents any
effective cooperation in this area, and substantive progress in a more conventional sense is unlikely in
the current situation.
In Myanmar, despite (or probably more accurately) because of its score of zero on the Open Budget
Survey in 2012, it is an area in which some degree of cooperation between those seeking more
accountability and the government itself is possible. It is included as a ‘quick win’ within the
Framework for Economic and Social Reforms, though it is difficult to tell the extent to which that is
merely inspirational or indeed included for the moment only to impress international organisations.
Nevertheless, it is an area that is definitely worth testing to the limit. However, the huge direct and
indirect ownership by the military and senior government members of large sections of the economy
is likely to see opening here very carefully and selectively orchestrated not to reveal too much.
Extractive industries and EITI
Egypt does have a significant oil and gas industry. From 2005-2009, oil and gas accounted for 44 to 55
19
percent of total exports, and 6 to 10 percent of GDP. Since it is not a member of the Extractive
Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), there is no specific mechanism for enhance transparency in this
sector as compared others.
Both Myanmar and Nigeria, however, are members of EITI which means they are at least formally
committed to a process that should lead eventually to international standards of transparency in their
extractive industry sectors.
Nigeria is a far more advanced in the process, giving it statutory backing in 2007. With considerable
resources from state and donor sources, NEITI has certainly led to more transparency in the extractive
industries. But disappointingly little has changed in the industry itself in terms of accountability and
the elimination of corruption. While the press and public are more aware of the issues, the challenge
18
http://survey.internationalbudget.org/#timeline
19
See http://www.revenuewatch.org/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/egypt/extractive-industries
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 19
for civil society there is to further development this awareness and somehow to translate it into civil
society mobilisation and change on the ground.
In Myanmar it also offers a lever to civil society. The government there is at the early stages of
commitment and probably views its participation in EITI as a balancing act. On the one hand there is
very extensive senior government and military economic involvement in all branched of the extractive
industries that generates huge a income for them and offers multiple opportunities for corrupt
enrichment. On the other, huge reserves of natural resources can be further developed only through
the participation of the international investment, which demands some level of transparency and
indeed political stability. Membership in EITI is done in stages, and civil society is involved from the
start. It therefore offers a vehicle through which civil society can gradually build impetus into the
process.
Governance Information at the Margins
This is a central challenge in all three countries, given that there is a feeling in all three that the next
elections could be pivotal to their respective futures, but the issue is wider in that it encompasses all
information relating to policy and governance, as well as rights and responsibilities. The nature of
the challenge involved in ensuring active and informed participation in the electoral process and in
wider opportunities to engage in governance structures varies between the three countries.
In Myanmar, the most acute problems in terms of lack of useful governance, electoral and rightsrelated information are in the ethnic States, with about a third of the population and generally
located at the geographic margins of the countries. Language differences compound their
remoteness, and they are extremely limited in terms of access to printed press, radio, television and
mobile phone, with the internet virtually absent. These Regions could easily become a major force in
the next elections, and are attempting to come together. A particular challenge for local leaders in all
these areas is to keep up with the frenetic rate of change at legal and policy levels, many of which will
have repercussions in these areas. Another key question is around rights and entitlements in relation
to extractive industries since most valuable minerals are located in these states.
However, local communities are eager for information and are likely, if given the opportunity, to use
it effectively and there is also significant NGO activity around this, both local and international. A few
unlicensed radio stations in these regions have also sprung up, possibly pointing to a future for
community and local radio there.
In Nigeria, with its huge and diverse rural population, is also challenging although with the exception
of the North most people would have English as well as their own language. The twin challenge for
those seeking to offer greater participation in governance to these communities is to get information
in appropriate forms to them and to encourage them to use it in ways that will serve their long term
interest –in particular to engage with governance structure and elections on the basis of policies,
rights and responsibilities rather than on ethnic, language, narrow material or other grounds.
It was more difficult to assess the situation in Egypt. But it is widely acknowledged that outside of the
few main cities, information of relevance is much more difficult to come by, and the population is less
likely to actively seek it. One of the great uncertainties of the next elections is how these communities
will respond to the difficulties facing and the ongoing turmoil in Egypt. There is considerable effort
among these seeking to promote further the revolution in reaching out beyond the urban areas with
independent and accurate information on governance there.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 20
4. ON PARTNERS AND A2I
In what ways are ON partners and projects involved in these A2I dynamics? The Country Reports
present more detail, but here they are summarised by country, with a focus on summarising their
relationship to dynamics and exploring outcomes.
This does not claim to be an outcome evaluation of the A2I Priority Theme although it does
incorporate the results of the very few credible external evaluations carried out of the partners and
their activities during the period under consideration. The analysis presented is thus intended as an
initial contribution towards answering some of the evaluation questions relating to effectiveness.
These were:
1. To what extent have ON’s intermediate outcomes been achieved during the evaluation period?
a) To what extent have new media and mobile media actually facilitated transparency of and
accountability of democratic processes?
c)
To what extent has public access to (budget) information of government, business and
institutions been improved as a result of lobby and advocacy interventions?
In fact the discussion ranges somewhat broader than the specific focus of these.
Each of the three countries is considered in turn (rather than in the thematic comparison of Section 3)
since the key concern is how the ON partner’s activities relate to the different components that make
up the national dynamic.
Additional national partners, as well as the global and regional partners, are considered later.
4.1 THE NATIONAL PARTNERS
E GYPT
ON Partners in Egypt are active in most of the key areas identified as most relevant to A2I, to different
extents.
Strategic litigation has been identified as especially useful in Egypt as a means to obtain information
relevant to the ongoing struggle, and two partners are at the forefront in a national context. The
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) focuses especially on media and freedom of
expression, including defending media workers. They have achieved undoubted success in being
instrumental to ensuring that many cases have failed in court and many more have been dropped
through combined litigation and campaign pressures. Not all is directly about media: an ongoing case
aims to weaken the culture of impunity, by ascertaining who was responsible for the shut-down,
resulting in a number of deaths, of the communication network during the revolution.
Hisham Mubarak Law Centre (HMLC) is the other partner engaging in strategic litigation, with a
broader focus but again with the goal of obtaining information that reveals the inner working of
government and its links to special interest groups. HMLC has also scored some notable successes
over more than a decade.
Both organisations engage in another key component of A2I: identifying, generating and publishing
information for use in wider civil society advocacy and mobilisation, for instance through the HMLC’s
Legislative Observatory, and ANHRI’s Annual Report on breaches of the right to freedom of
expression. Another partners, Support for Information Technology Centre (SITC) also produced a
publication on violations of media freedom.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 21
But a larger part of SITC’s work is in gaining access to public information by means other than
litigation. They work on Freedom of Information legislation but also on developing an Index of
Information Disclosure for public bodies and an accompanying guide to help evaluate the level of
disclosure. It has been applied to four ministries: health, education, housing and environment. In the
future, enhancing budget transparency is among their goals. SITC has published the State Budget
online which, despite legally being public documentation, was then subjected to sustained denial-ofservice attacks. Though they succeeded in getting it out, it suggests strong opposition to the
dissemination of such basic data. The Development Support Centre (DSC) is also involved in a coalition
working with International Budget Partnership.
SITC has shared examples of others groups’ efforts regarding the scrutiny of duty bearers, or
‘bottom-up monitoring’, using Web 2.0 and Internet, for instance to track where retired military
officers are being reemployed in senior public administration jobs; and to monitor and expose
selective electricity black-outs that discriminate against poor areas - in this case with a successful
outcome. Appropriate Communication Techniques for Development (ACT) is another partner
involved in this, through its Fouada Watch. This is a Website and Facebook page that monitors the
President’s fulfilment of promises regarding the participation of women, and incorporates a hotline
for reporting complaints about abuse and for mobilising a response to them.
A strong independent media is central to scrutinising government in a situation in which much of the
mainstream media is compromised. Hoqook, which is strongly associated with the revolution and the
activist groups, produces with its own journalists a significant amount of material, including multimedia and social media based. With five Facebook pages, YouTube, streaming videos and Twitter
feeds Hoqook is a source of independent and reliable news especially among young people. Their
internet radio channel listenership is also growing, and they are also interested in developing
broadcast community radio (as is ANHRI). Evaluating the quality and impact of this kind of activity,
however, requires a substantial research effort. (Also worth mentioning here is that ACT runs
seminar’s in mainstream media on issues relating to the rights of women.)
A potentially significant part of Hoqook’s work is to extend their networks beyond the main cities,
with about half their staff outside of Cairo and a policy of covering news from more remote parts of
upper Egypt. Though such coverage in important, getting independent information out to the more
remote areas of Egypt, to ensure that they have what they require to participate in elections and in
calling their politicians to account more generally, is an even greater challenge. Broadcast community
radio could play a role here but is not yet feasible. The evaluation is not in a position to know if other
actors are involved in this general area.
DSC works in 17 of the 26 governorates in Egypt. Their focus is on building capacity of civil society,
including media and communication skills such as online radio, video, building YouTube channels,
and graffiti. Such tools have proven to be important in organisation, mobilisation and dissemination,
especially in the more remote regions. DSC, as training and consultancy company, also produces its
own media, documentation and archiving developments. ACT also trains young film makers with a
gender focus; is involved in building the capacity of women to participate in local council elections;
and has an electronic Web based platform for women in Parliament.
Overall, then, these selected ON partners in Egypt are active in most of the strands of A2I of relevance
to the current governance dynamics there, but of course to differing extents. Reaching the more
remote communities and enabling them to participate is an area of least partner activity; with
perhaps strategic litigation to extract information and supporting independent media being among
the strongest. There is no doubt that some of these are achieving positive outcomes, but
considerably more research would be needed to assess the precise impact of most.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 22
It should be noted that not all the above activities are supported by ON, for instance the DSC work on
budget transparency. On the other hand, ON does sometimes provide core funding that underpins all
of an organisation’s actions.
N IGERIA
Perhaps even stronger than in Egypt, ensuring effective and informed participation in governance by
the entire population, including those in rural and remote areas, in policy development and in
elections in 2015, is seen as critical to consolidating the democratic process and deepening it in terms
of accountability and opportunities for popular participation.
The National Association of Nigerian Traders (NANTS) is heavily involved as part of the GROW
Programme in a range of actions with smallholder farmers, especially women, through their
associations and cooperatives. Ultimately a key goal is to build CBO capacity to assess their needs;
access and distil policy-related information; build campaigns and evidence-based advocacy; massmobilisation through media and other means; and ultimately to influence and participate in decisionmaking. A2I is central to most components. Another partner, EVA, focuses more on youth and
elections but in a similar manner enables assessment of needs and policy priorities, documenting
these effectively and representing them directly to the political system.
Livelihood and Governance in Niger Delta (ONLAG) aims at a similar goal but using an elaborate
methodology focused on rural communities in the region. Working with Community Development
Councils they undertake participatory needs assessment followed by Town Hall meetings where the
state and local government structures are described and discussed in depth. Participants then
undertake a review of services and facilities in each village to produce a Citizen’s Report Card,
including economic, social and governance aspects. An Advocacy Plan is developed, subsequently
implemented by community members with the support of the project. Again, the goal is to enable
village level participation in governance structures, in a process that builds capacity to continue the
process into the future.
The partners are at different stages of development, but each has recorded at least some examples of
successful outcomes.
The other related but also distinct area is government and corporate transparency and
accountability especially – since they account for such a huge proportion of government income – in
relation to the oil and gas industries. Three partners work on this in very different ways.
Civil Society Legislature Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) aims to strengthen the Nigerian Extractive
Industries Initiative (NEITI), the key forum for creating transparency within the sector, by publishing
and widely disseminating analyses and reviews of the NEITI Audits; promoting NEITI through policy
briefs; training NGOs in advocacy around it; and working with journalists. CISLAC’s work and that of
others has succeeded in raising awareness about the level and nature of corruption and the lack of
transparency. However, translating that into effective action, directly by government or in the form of
extensive mobilisation that might lead to change, has so far eluded them and the many others
working on the issue. It is nevertheless a critical area to continue work.
Environmental Rights Action (ERA) works with communities on the other side of transparency:
exposing and attempting to mitigate the damage caused to the environment, to communities and to
health by the oil and gas pipelines that pass through them. Using a ‘green phone’ line for alerts, a
support team is deployed to work with local people to produce a report that can be used as empirical
evidence of incidents and the damage caused, and to seek compensation. There have been direct
outcomes in that remedial actions have taken place and the reports have been used in compensation
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 23
litigation. The ultimate goal, however, is to enhance accountability of the sector and, to that end, ERA
also lobbies in the context of the Petroleum Industry Bill.
Niger Delta Budget Monitoring Group (NDEBUMOG) takes a different approach to transparency. A
significant proportion of the oil revenues are centralised into a Federal account for distribution back
to local level where they have largely failed to improve community well being. Using participatory
methodologies and working with local communities, NDEBUMOG examines the evidence on the
ground for development taking place, contrasting it with budgets allocated. It supports communities
to translate the information into advocacy material and to mobilise around the results. A new phase
of the work will see the partner and communities working more closely with the authorities to
achieve better outcomes on the ground.
Nigeria is a huge country, and the possibilities in terms of access to information are great. ON is
active in some of the key ones, including through the Niger Delta Strategy. There are of course other
potential areas. The media for instance, is to a large degree unwilling to address the government/
corporate elites that have enriched themselves too long at the expense of the majority. Community
radio is possible there and has bottom-up support. Freedom of Information Legislation has recently
been enacted at National level, but its implementation is weak so far, and it has been replicated in
only two states. Here too is a significant opportunity to leverage more change, if civil society can
sufficiently mobilise around it. Social media are also gaining in popular usage as a means to gather
information and to mobilise campaigns and advocacy.
ON Partners are not involved in these areas to any significant degree, and it has not been possible to
determine whether other civil society actors and donors are.
M YANMAR
The breadth and pace of change in Myanmar makes it difficult for all those involved, including the
government, to determine with any confidence how to influence its direction. It is highly dynamic
and the changes, coming top-down but with rippling and ricocheting effects through all aspects of
society, are complex and the eventual outcomes uncertain to all.
Nevertheless, some of the trends outlined earlier are addressed by ON partners.
Creating independent high-quality media has been a major focus of external donors, before, but now
after the apparent move towards democracy. Media organisations are owned mainly by the state or
military, or by those connected closely to them. An important exception is small independent
publishers, many returned from exile, willing to push to the limits the new openness and the
cessation of censorship. The Irrawaddy Publishing Group (IPG) is prominent among these, publishing a
hard copy magazine and an enhanced internet version, and increasingly using social media.
The Irrawaddy, according to other media experts interviewed, is widely known and respected for its
independence and quality of reporting (views confirmed by the evaluator’s review of several issues).
The question of whether this has translated into actual outcomes, and how, is not possible to answer
from the evidence available, but it is reasonable to assume that the wide circulation of improved
media information during times of rapid change will have an impact.
A major unaddressed challenge here is devising sustainable business models for previously exiled
media that have long depended on external support.
Government and corporate transparency is almost non-existent in Myanmar. Yet there is pressure on
the government to make improvements since it is seeking to attract foreign direct investment and to
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 24
secure funding from International Financial Institutions (IFIs). This seems to have led to an opening in
the area of Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, an area that ON partner SPECTRUM has been
actively pursuing. Some success is indicated by the inclusion in the government’s Framework for
Economic and Social Reform of a commitment to pursue full membership. Whether the sector
becomes more transparent, and then accountable, is a longer term question but this is a first step.
The Bank Information Centre’s work in Myanmar is related in that it aims to ensure that civil society
organisations can engage effectively with the IFIs, such as World Bank and Asia Development Bank, to
enhance transparency and accountability in their investments, and to demand that as duty bearers
they act as models of good practice in their interactions with the country. It is too early to assess
progress here.
Another major area in Myanmar, as it is in the other two countries, is in supporting opportunities
among marginalised communities to participate in governance, including but by no means limited to
elections. Information and capacity building of civil society is needed at all levels of government, local,
State/Regional and National. Partner Shalom Foundation, having previously enabled election
monitoring by local volunteers, is supporting a civic education programme in the more remote
regions, including the ethnic States, in an effort to build an active informed citizenry. Through training
of trainers who return to their communities both to train others and to engage in civil engagement
actions themselves, Shalom hopes to build widespread skills in areas such as accessing and using
governance information, campaigning for accountability, and engaging directly in elections and in
other governance opportunities. It has achieved limited outcomes so far, due in part to delays.
Myanmar Egress also works in building governance capacities, but with a focus on including all
stakeholders, including communities, government at different levels and in some actions the military.
Egress worked with civil society during the elections in 2010 and now engages in capacity building and
civic education. It also publishes a daily online bulletin and supports a blogging platform and Website
that covers governance-related topics both national and international. The civic education Website is
to be developed in local languages, a key issue especially in the ethnic states.
Access to information can play crucial roles in several more components of change in Myanmar.
Multiple media-related laws are coming before the Parliament for debate shortly, and there appear
to be significant opportunities to influence their content. Legislative change will continue for some
years to come, and such is the speed with which they are being enacted now, many laws are likely to
revisited for future amendment.
The expected rapid expansion of a high quality mobile phone network, and rapid growth in users,
might offer interesting opportunities. One partner, IPG, is planning to take full advantage of that by
adapting its news and publications. But there are other areas, for instance around governance
information, lobbying and election monitoring, that might become relevant in the near future. The
issue of local language information in the ethnic states is also important. Community radio would
certainly have potential there, and there is some interest in it.
General access to public information, for instance through advocating for Freedom of Information
legislation, is another potential area of work. Given the urgency of enacting even more fundamental
laws, such as in human rights and media, these are so far not high up on the agenda. But several
NGOs are moving in this area, and it could become more relevant in the near future.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 25
A DDITIONAL P ARTNERS
In addition to these three countries, consideration is given below to two projects in Uganda and one
in Senegal. These were identified as having considerable potential relevance to A2I and to the
learning objectives of this evaluation.
In Senegal, a partner based in the UK, OneWorld, led an election monitoring and youth participation
Project. It covered the two rounds of the February and March 2012 Presidential election, considered
crucial for the future of the country. Election monitoring is an important activity especially where
there is the risk of violence during but also after elections. Being able to report on fraud and
irregularities quickly and with authority makes for both a fairer election and a reduced risk of
violence.
However, election monitoring is in one sense a limited exercise. It is once-off, and offers nothing to
the ongoing process of governance. It focuses on preventing negative outcomes rather than enabling
high-quality participation and voting practices. What makes this example interesting is, first, just how
well it worked, but second, that it was accompanied by a second platform that encouraged wider
participation. Furthermore both platforms can easily be adapted to other uses.
The monitoring system itself, called Senevote2012, comprises an SMS to Google maps platform
developed specifically by OneWorld for this project working with COSCE (Collectif des Organisations
de la Société Civile pour les Elections), a coalition of NGOs. Almost 600 election monitors were
trained in the use of the system. They observed the election process and, using a series of codes,
reported whether everything was normal, whether there were specific types of irregularities, and the
numbers voting. Their messages were relayed throughout the elections day in real time back to a
central location and processed. From anywhere the results as they emerged could be viewed on the
Web. A parallel vote tabulation was conducted on the platform that pinpointed the result to within a
few percentage points mere hours after the polls closed. It was fully transparent, and it ensured that
should a candidate prematurely declare victory civil society would be armed with data to hold them
to account. The system was later used in the July local elections. It proved so popular with the
observers than some voluntarily used it again the local elections. This platform has since been
implemented in Sierra Leone and is about to be in Mali, in the upcoming sensitive elections.
The second platform aimed to increase democratic participation especially among young people.
Called Samabaat (‘our voice’ in Wolof), it supports blogging, news and social networking (including
Facebook and Twitter feeds) around the democratic processes and governance. The longer term goal
is to use the elections as a springboard for ongoing participation in governance. It is also integrated
with an Ushahidi Platform, and between them could in principle support a wide range of governance
related activities.
The potential of this kind of platform, in local languages, is clear in countries such as Myanmar, as the
availability of the internet and mobile phones rapidly increases in coming years.
A second project in Uganda goes even further in encouraging and enabling participation in
governance. The Citizen’s Watch-IT (CEW-IT) project is run by a consortium of four Projects called
RWECO (Rwenzori Consortium for Civic Competence). The consortium had previously been involved in
election monitoring, but felt that in the end it was a limited exercise with little influence on
governance in the long term.
CEW-IT coverage is nationwide but with a special focus on 30 districts. The core idea here is simple
but effective. After a process of wide consultation, a Citizen’s Manifesto (CM) was produced,
explaining and committing politicians, public servants, service providers, communities and the public
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 26
generally to the responsibilities and obligations involved in governance. It is based on the Ugandan
Constitution and International Agreements, and is designed to reclaim the rights of people by
advocating from within the system.
What is unique is the huge number and variety of modalities that were developed and deployed to
ensure its wide dissemination and implementation. The Manifesto is translated into five local
languages and produced as an illustrated cartoon book. Through running over 150 training of trainer
sessions, who in turn returned to work with hundreds of CBOs, 10,000 people had been trained in its
use by June 2012. Local politicians are also receptive and many have received the training and
committed to the Manifesto. It is promoted in about 100 different ‘platforms’, including:
Neighbourhood Assemblies, 45 in total, that meet monthly or bi-monthly and raise issues to be
brought to the authorities;
Drama groups of which 10 have been formed and trained;
CM mobilisation days, campaigns, advocacy and actions;
A total of 29 Dialogue Meetings and 10 Interface Meetings where the community members
meet with politicians and deliver their verdict on their performance.
These are also about 20 ICT-based platforms, including ten radio and television talk radio shows, and
seven web-based regional ‘e-platforms’ covering governance issues. CEW-IT has also established
three regional ICT centres, where governance information and services are made available in hard
copy and using ICTs.
Monitoring and evaluation tools have been developed to assess the degree to which government
locally complies. A SMS short code of 6030 has been approved for use in the ICT centres, by trained
CBOs and by the general public to report on the performance of the elected leaders, using SMS. These
are then displayed live on the web platforms for viewing. This ‘huduma’ platform has turned the ICT
centres into live and interactive places to visit.
CEW-IT has already recorded many outcomes in terms of improvements to services and addressing
issues at local governance level. Among the important lessons emerging so far is the central role that
CBOs play as intermediaries, for training, organising and other promotion and dissemination activities,
and their role has been brought to the fore as the programme continues.
It is, of course, not clear that such a coordinated multi-dimensional approach could be replicated in
the other countries with the same level of success. The existence of a network of active CBOs is a
critical component that may not be present elsewhere. But it is an example of where supporting
governance is brought well beyond election monitoring and into the sphere of ongoing participation.
The third project is Internet Now, still in a relatively early stage of development but ambitious in its
intent. With a large grant, a social enterprise, SINFA, has been established to create 100 internet
centres in the North of Uganda, towns and villages where currently the internet is entirely
unavailable. It is implemented by a consortium of local and international organisations. The Centres,
with two staff each, will provide a basic set of three services and over time generate, facilitate or host
others. These three are:
A Commodity Resource Platform to provide small scale farmers and producers with practical
agricultural information, a communication channel with advisers, real-time market
information and the possibility of selling their produce online. This is implement by ALIN, a
long established small farmer NGO working in the region.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 27
Affordable (about €0.25 an hour) high-speed internet access to the public, with the technical
side looked after by Inveneo, a non-profit development-oriented telecoms company based in
the US.
A ‘Microwork’ platform to provide distributed web-based work, such as data entry, in the
centres, with contracts sourced centrally by a third implementing partner specialising in this
called Samasource.
ON itself is the coordinating partner.
The centres themselves are shipped into the areas as pre-fabricated structures, and wired up in place
with solar panels for power. A dedicated point-to-point Wi-Fi network of masts will carry the high
speed internet to all the Centres, linking ultimately to the fibre optic cable to run from Mombasa
through the centre of Africa. And there is also a ‘Super Centre’ in Gulu, a larger town, which can
accommodate up to 50 workers.
Only a handful of centres have so far been built, with the goal of completing 75 by mid 2014. Within
three years they hope to have 100 centres, 45,000 people earning a living from them, and 200,000
people visiting and using the services. It faces many challenges, not least of which will be achieving
sustainability within the period. And the experience of this kind of ‘parachuted-in’ telecentre is, to
say the least, patchy. The implementing partners are aware of this, however, and are learning from
prior efforts.
From an A2I perspective none of the three core services are relevant in themselves. The A2I potential
lies in the creation of a platform for use by others who are concerned more centrally with
accountability and participation in governance. At the three existing remote sites (opened by partner
ALIN during 2010 in a ‘pre-project’ phase) collaborations with ‘hosting partners’ such as ACORD and
Environmental Alert were established. Depending on the business demands on SINFA, now running
these centres, collaboration with (hosting) partners on A2I could be established. They could include
any number of the activities described above in the three countries, from ‘bottom-up monitoring’, to
budget monitoring, to distributed advocacy campaigns.
The National Information Technology Authority Uganda (NITA-U) is also considering looking at
providing e-government services from the Centres, which could be configured to include participation
‘e-governance’ aspects.
4.2 THE ROLE OF GLOBAL, REGIONAL PROGRAMMES AND OTHER PROJECTS
The ON Global Link partner portfolio included partners active in A2I during the period studied. All of
the main areas of A2I were covered, although not all partners were equally involved in A2I.
As has previously been noted, support for three of the partners that were studied was phased out at
the same time that A2I was introduced as a priority theme. For two of these, Social Watch and
CIVICUS, A2I was not seen as a priority. They did seek to access information, distribute it and use it for
advocacy and/or to support the advocacy initiatives of others, but to say that A2I was an important
aspect of their work, requires adopting an understanding of A2I that includes any lobbying or
campaign initiative as an A2I activity. In the same vein, Evert Vermeer Stichting's campaigns to
influence the Dutch and European parliaments are important advocacy initiatives, but they are not
connected to access to information in the way we understand it.
Thus the analysis found a clear distinction between two types of partners. On the one hand, there are
those who seek to access and circulate information as part of a strategy to address issues such as
institutional reform and global inequality, and on the other hand those who also consciously focus
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 28
efforts on defending and promoting access to information and freedom of information e.g. who
approach A2I as both a strategy and a theme.
While the partners mentioned above employ information strategies in their advocacy work, the other
four – AMARC, BIC, IFEX and IPS – see access to information as a central theme, sometimes the
central theme, around which their efforts are organised:
AMARC is primarily concerned with promoting community radio as a way of giving voice to
marginalised sectors;
BIC promotes institutional reform within the World Bank and other international financial
institutions (IFI) generally, but access to information about WB and IFI activities is one of its
central pillars;
IFEX defends freedom of expression;
IPS makes a direct contribution to the quality and diversity of media with content and
capacity building;
While it is interesting to note that each of the central concerns mentioned above relates directly to a
different one of the four A2I outcome areas, and thus that all outcome areas are covered, in fact
there is also a good deal of overlap and all four organisations seek to contribute to more than one
outcome area.
1.
Increasing availability and quality of information channels (IPS, but also AMARC and IFEX)
2.
Enhancing capacity of marginalised groups, particularly women, to disseminate, receive,
search and use information (AMARC, but also IFEX, IPS and BIC)
3.
Promoting a conducive political, legal and economic environment for free flow of
information, independence and plurality of media (IFEX, but also AMARC and BIC)
4.
Demanding transparency from duty bearers (BIC)
Assessing the contribution of global partners is a challenging task and beyond the scope of this
evaluation. It is particularly difficult for large membership-based organisations (IFEX has 88 members
and AMARC has various regional offices and thousands of members) that see their role as advocating
both “upwards”, with a view towards influencing UN and other international bodies, and
“downwards”, with a view towards supporting grassroots practitioners seeking to change legislation
locally. How, for example, can we measure the contribution of lobbying efforts at the global level to
establish international norms regarding access to community broadcasting, and policies eventually
implemented (or not) at the national level in dozens of diverse countries and contexts?
However, while attribution may be difficult to prove, partners were able to describe cases in which
their interventions had both contributed to and supported their networks. AMARC, for example, told
of a case in 2012 when the government of India proposed to increase licence fees for community
radio stations by 450%. AMARC appealed to members of its worldwide network and was able to
quickly and economically gather precise information from 55 countries that demonstrated that it is an
international norm to establish low levels of licence fees for community radio or to waive them
entirely.
The results of this survey were sent to the government and AMARC explained that for community
radio to be accessible to the poor and the excluded, licences should be free and referenced the UN
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's statement that community radio "should benefit from
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 29
concessionary license fees". The results were also made available to India's Community Radio Forum
and other CSOs that in turn used it in their own advocacy campaigns. As a result of the combined
efforts of AMARC and the national community radio movement, the government of India decided to
reconsider the proposal.
In this case AMARC was able to draw on its network to gather evidence quickly and economically, use
its voice as a respected international body to intervene directly with Indian authorities and provide
support for the campaign being spearheaded by its local members. Finally, AMARC distributed the
survey report to its membership and posted it ion its website.
We do not know how widely this information was used or how it influenced the situation in other
countries, but AMARC reports that it knows it has been used by community media activists in
Morocco and Tunisia to develop proposals for their emerging community radio sectors and it believes
that it has been used to support numerous campaigns and initiatives.
This single action demonstrates many of the strategies employed by Global Link A2I projects:
research, support for local campaigns, direct intervention on behalf of members, and knowledge
exchange. Other strategies used by partners include advocacy work within international bodies
(seeking institutional reform or adoption of international standards favourable to A2I) and capacity
building.
The Bank Information Center (BIC) provides another example of how global projects are able to use
their networks to support change at multiple levels. BIC's main medium-term objectives are: (i) to
develop civil society capacity to create and occupy political spaces from which to advocate for
progressive policies and (ii) to promote institutional reform within the World Bank and other
international finance institutions. The two objectives are mutually reinforcing. As BIC works with its
Southern partners to build their technical and advocacy capacity, it also builds its own network's
capacity to advocate for institutional reform within the World Bank and other international finance
institutions. In other words, the more BIC contributes to the strengthening of its CSO partners, the
more capable it is of success in its efforts to promote institutional reform.
Oxfam's Pan Africa Strategic Framework puts its central focus on “supporting a strong and
autonomous pan African campaigning force of coalitions, alliances and social movements”
cooperating around three core justice pillars: economic justice, gender justice and democratic
governance and the already approved strategy of the Oxfam International Liaison Office on the AU.
The strategy proposes work on four levels:
Strengthening the policies of the AU by closely working with AU staff, providing input and
expertise, and by lobbying them together with African CSO’s.
Developing and supporting a strong and autonomous Pan African campaigning force of
coalitions, alliances and social movements, to become a critical force in the political arena.
Creating the space for civil society to exercise influence on AU, regional and government
level.
Working together with CSOs to popularise AU policies and international standards, and to
work towards implementation of these agreements on the national level.
The goal is to address the gap between the pro-poor and rights based policy standards and legal
instruments adopted by the African Union (AU) over the past decade, and the lack of implementation
at the national level. According to the framework document, the gap “reflects a breakdown of
governance” and one of the ways it can be addressed is by building capacity for citizens to monitor
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 30
and hold their governments accountable. “Where civil society organisations mobilise public
awareness and support African Governments to deliver on their promises, change can and does
20
happen.”
The PAF strategy puts a strong emphasis on communication and access to information. In addition to
lobbying, it notes the remarkable expansion of communication infrastructure in Africa over the past
decade and proposes to “[i]nvest in supporting partners and Oxfam staff to actively utilise the
opportunities of new and mainstream media to raise the voices of distinct interest groups especially
21
African youth.” In its 2013 Annual Plan, PAF expressed its interest in participating in the A2I priority
theme and noted that strengthening the use of social media by civil society is already a core feature
22
of the programme.
Like the Global Link programme, virtually all PAF partners work with information. They seek access to
it, they distribute it and they use it for advocacy and/or to support the advocacy initiatives of others.
An initial listing of thirty eight partners was reduced to twenty two, selected because of their formal
connection to the A2I Outcome Areas and Indicators. However, in practice there is little distinction
between those included on the short list and those excluded as virtually all of them work towards at
23
least one of the A2I Outcome Areas. The evaluation was unable to interview all of the projects but
the documentation suggests that many of them are primarily included because of the advocacy work
and, as with global projects, to say that A2I is an important aspect of their work, requires adopting an
understanding of A2I that includes any lobbying or campaign initiative as an A2I activity – a definition
too broad to be useful as a priority theme.
Nevertheless, a review of available documentation and an interview with the director of the Pan
African Programme indicates that there are projects that see access to information as a theme as well
as a strategy for their work. Examples include the work of FEMNET which included the focus area
Women and the Media and Freedom of Information and use of ICTs, which includes strategies to
involve women's organisations in freedom of expression lobbies and forums, to increase women's
access to and control over ICTs and to strengthen relations with media and improve capacity to report
on gender issues. FAHAMU is another organisation that has A2I at its core. Its Pambazuka Programme
includes a weekly newsletter which reports 660,000 readers while its Utetezi Programme “provides
platforms for Africa-centred advocacy that strengthens movements and citizens voices in policy
agenda setting and implementation while amplifying progressive African voices and decision-making.”
Utetezi employs a variety of media, including theatre, radio the internet and new media. The Civil
Society Coalition on the functioning of the Africa Development Bank has similar objectives as BIC,
although its focus is on the Africa Development Bank rather than the World Bank. It also employs
similar network and capacity-building strategies.
Other partners' information and communication related work places a much greater emphasis on
traditional lobbying and campaigns, and less on media and new media. The SOTU coalition, the AU
Liaison Office and AFRODAD provide examples. As noted in the March 2013 evaluation, for example,
the current strategy:
20
Oxfam Pan Africa Strategic Framework 2010-2013. Page3.
21
Ibid. Page 11.
22
2013 Annual Plan, p. 15.
23
See Annex 2 for a description of the Outcome Areas.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 31
“…has a strong focus on policy advocacy and lobby, and much less on research, media/
communications, and popular mobilisation. For the next strategic period, it is recommended that the
Programme develops a strategic vision of how to organise these four intervention types in a
(
coordinated manner”. p. 7)
A review of the websites of many partners, included those whose plans included significant use of
social media, demonstrated minimal presence of the campaigns in social media. While many of them
have visible links to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, most appear to have only a formal presence –
few followers and friends, and only very limited and sporadic posts. The recommendation of the 2013
evaluators is that more coordination is required of the various communication aspects of PAF.
As noted earlier, Global Link partners in this study place a high priority in access to information as a
theme – promoting access to media, freedom of expression and transparency, and the diversity and
quality of media. This contrasts sharply with the PAF partners, none of which has access to
information or communication as a primary theme.
4.3 THE GENDER DIMENSION
The gender dimension of A2I is considered here. The evaluation question was as follows:
b) Specifically in relation to women, have access to information strategies strengthened their
political and social participation, and given them a meaningful voice in public decision making?
There have been particular challenges in relation to gathering data during the evaluation on this
question.
First, the documentation examined during the in-depth analysis contains little that is useful. The
gender disaggregation is too uneven across partners and as discussed earlier, the categories of data
often too vague to yield a quantitative output-based answer. More seriously almost all the data,
quantitative and qualitative, relates to outputs; and the question is seeking an answer that relates to
outcomes for women.
In the interviews and other field work explorations, raising the question of gender and A2I usually
received a response that focused on the gender policy of the partner or as implemented within the
project. Thus the proportion of women staff employed and their position within the organisation was
recounted (though not recorded in any depth since it is not relevant here). Further probing might
reveal whether women were facilitated to participate in the project. Some organisations went to
great lengths to ensure that women would participate in training, by providing child-minding, by
scheduling sessions during certain hours, by choosing certain locations etc. Organisations that have a
strong gender remit would be particularly good on these. Certainly boosting the participation of
women in A2I-related projects would probably have positive gender implications in the outcomes
sought, often directly for the women who participate.
However, only very few partners have examined or considered the link between their A2I activities
and the strengthening of ‘voice’ and political and social participation of women. This goes beyond
whether women are appropriately represented in specific interventions, to whether the intervention
itself will do anything to redress the imbalances in relation to gender and A2I as articulated in the
evaluation question. And the reason a gender perspective is not designed in the first place into the
goals of interventions is, at least in part, because there is very limited understanding of what this
gender dimension actually is.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 32
The evaluator could cite many examples of A2I issues in general during the interviews, to aid an
exploration of the issues with partners. But when it came to the gender dimension, it proved for
more difficult to articulate or to identify examples.
ACT (Appropriate Communication Technique for Development) in Egypt was an exception. ACT has
gender issues at the core of its work. They understand the importance of gender disaggregated data
on government spending to reduce illiteracy among girls, or on spending on reproductive health
services for women, in the context of advocating for better policy in this area. They understand the
specific difficulties that women face in attempting to run for local and national elections; and that
they face after they get elected. Their activities focus especially on supporting women in parliament;
but also on training journalists on how to report on gender issues. Undoubtedly, in the domain within
which they work they have strengthened women’s political and social participation, and helped to
give them a meaningful voice in public decision making (though, as in other areas, is it not possible for
this evaluation to say by how much).
Another example of gender specific work is Hoqook, the online publishing and radio Website in Egypt.
Their efforts in relation to balance include not just recruiting more women journalists and ensuring a
better gender balance among those interviewed, but also explicitly covering gender issues more
extensively, for men and women. And there are other minor cases. ERA in Nigeria, for instance,
ensures that at least 30% of the community voices heard documenting damage done by oil spillages
and gas flares are women. ERA also runs a Giving Women a Voice programme (though not funded by
ON).
These few gender-related actions flow from the overall approach of these partner organisations and
only exceptionally from an understanding of the specific barriers to women and specific potential that
a gender perspective can bring to A2I interventions. In the absence of such an understanding the
outcomes in this area are likely to be less than they could be.
As noted earlier, assessing the outcomes of global and regional partners is a challenging task and
beyond the scope of this evaluation. Nevertheless, it is clear from the interviews and documentation
that global partners are concerned with the theme.
AMARC, for example, organises an annual on-air campaign to mark International Women's Day and
supports the 16 Days of Action against Gender-Based Violence campaign. During both events AMARC
encourages and facilitates the production and exchange of radio documentaries, interviews, debates,
poetry and music among member stations. AMARC also works with its members to promote gender
24
equality within stations. Its Gender Policy for Community Radio , available in sixteen languages,
explains what gender equality means in community radio and how it can be achieved. AMARC's
Women's International Network is also formally represented on the association's board of directors.
While the Bank Information Centre does not have a separate campaign for gender issues, gender
concerns occupy an important place in its work. This is clearly demonstrated in its 2012 annual report.
Fully four pages of the twenty page report discuss gender issues. The report describes BIC activities in
the thematic area (e.g. organising panels on gender at meetings of the World Bank and the IMF,
ensuring that gender was one of three topics discussed at a conference co-hosted with the World
Bank and IFC entitled Extractive Industries Review + 10: Looking Ahead) and it provides data
demonstrating significant participation of women in its various workshops and within its civil society
24
http://www.amarc.org/index.php?p=Gender_Policy&l=EN
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 33
partner organisations. BIC's gender policy commits it to the goal of gender equality, both internally
25
and in its advocacy work with the IFIs.
Like BIC, IFEX does not have a gender campaign, but it does report a significant proportion of women
in leadership positions within member organisations, with women being the principal contact for 36%
of its member organisations. At the IFEX 2011 Strategy Conference, women participants outnumbered
their male counterparts 78 to 65.
A number of Pan African projects have gender as a primary concern. FEMNET, AAWORD/AFARD and
SOAWR are networks of organisations working for women's rights while others, (ESAFF, PELUM,
ACORD, CCP-AU, CSO Coalition on AfDB, TCOE) report that gender is one of the issues they are
concerned with.
25
http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BIC_GenderPolicy.pdf
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 34
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE A2I PRIORITY THEME
This section focuses on how the A2I Priority Theme was implemented, from its original conception
through to what it looked like from the worm’s eye view of partners. It is based on interviews with
partners, on a very short survey of relevant ON staff (which included Senegal and Uganda, as well as
the other countries), on information provided to the evaluation team, and on a review of the relevant
documentation. However, it must be stressed that it is not a comprehensive analysis of the
implementation of the theme, as it is based on information from just a few countries and a very short
review at Oxfam Novib headquarter level. It is rather a quick overview of how it was perceived in
selected contexts.
This is intended to facilitate conclusions concerning the second set of evaluation questions that focus
on effectiveness. This considers, in the form of three sub-questions posed below, the extent to which
Oxfam Novib itself has contributed to changes that have been achieved during the evaluation period
2011 to 2012.
It begins with a review of the process and rationale of an A2I Priority Theme, and then addresses each
of the sub-questions.
5.1 PROCESS AND RATIONALE OF THE A2I PRIORITY THEME
The process of developing the A2I Priority Theme was broadly as follows.
26
In 2009, during the development of the corporate plan for 2011-2015 , each manager of the five
Programmes was asked to select one priority theme. Considerations for having priority themes were:
To improve focus and hence enhance impact;
To sharpen substantive profile: ON Programmes generally are quite broad and can contain
distinct subthemes, which presents a challenge to projecting a clear profile;
To develop expertise: The current business plan introduced a new intervention strategy,
called knowledge and innovation management (KIM). Thus, expertise development and
knowledge management is becoming more important.
Priority themes apply to the different countries, to the regional and Global Link programmes, and to
ON work in the Netherlands.
An internal version of the corporate plan, entitled Oxfam Novib on the Road to 2015 (October 2009)
identified a number of trends internationally, and these were used by directors to select seven
Priority Themes. The most relevant for A2I is probably that around Web 2.0, social media and ICTs
more generally are being used in campaigns, for reporting and blogging and offering new ways for
people to mobilise and collaborate, and to “…give a powerful voice to people living in poverty and [to]
their organisations”(p. 10). The Theme as described there (pp.18-19) also embodies a strong
emphasis on the potential of mobile phones, Web 2.0, ICTs and edutainment in the context of
demanding accountability. This confirms that the potential of these ICTs were a key determinant in
the decision to select access to information as a priority theme.
The Plan notes:
“At least half of all our activities are aimed at these priority themes. The other half is
determined with the help of detailed analysis of the local situation and the joint
26
Fair Future for All: Oxfam Novib’s Corporate Plan 2011 – 2015. June 2011.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 35
Oxfam strategy in each country. The situation per country or region determines
which themes and programmes are emphasised most in which country.” (p. 14)
It suggests, but is not stated explicitly, that the activities are (or will be) selected to ensure that at
least half in each country will be aimed at the Priority Themes, though whether that is financially or
numerically is not clear. It is also, of course, not possible to assess how different the national
programmes would be were priority themes not introduced at all. Since the aim in the above quote
refers to an aggregate of all seven Priority Themes, it is furthermore possible, even likely, that certain
Priority Themes will not feature at all in some countries. Indeed this is as it should be since the actual
selection must be based on the specifics of the local situation.
Programme Managers and Advisors encourage more focus on the A2I priority theme in the country
programmes, especially when new programmes are being developed. But beyond this there are few
27
specific guidelines or supports for implementation.
In terms of learning, the report continues: “We will expand our knowledge and expertise on these
themes, permitting us to make a difference (in due course).” (p.14)
A policy or position paper will also be produced relating to each Theme, and this evaluation will
contribute to that of the A2I Priority Theme.
Within each Programme a Community of Practice can be established. In the case of Programme 4, the
relevant one here, it was decided to build this Community on the entire Programme and not on the
Priority Theme alone. At a later stage, there is a proposal to establish a subgroup on A2I.
5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE A2I THEME
The Oxfam Novib teams in the three countries visited were somewhat in a state of flux. Nigeria had
recently decentralised, and a large new team was preoccupied with establishing itself over the
previous number of months. The team in Myanmar was relocating to Cambodia and still recruiting.
And the Egypt office is managed from The Hague. Overall Oxfam Novib funding was also reduced. The
global programme budget was reduced substantially at the same time the Priority Theme was
introduced. These factors made it more difficult to discern the specific influence of, and processes
associated with, the implementation of the A2I theme.
Note that more detailed analyses regarding the three evaluation sub-questions below are contained
in the three Country Reports, separately appended to this report. The focus here is on drawing an
overall conclusion.
E VALUATION Q UESTIONS
The first evaluation sub-question is:
To what extent has ON been able to work in 2011/12 with partners who increase access to,
distribution and balanced and relevant information, with the goal of empowering citizens and
increasing monitoring of democratic processes (especially with new ICTs and gender)?
The opinions expressed are based on interviews with relevant ON staff, and the descriptions on
documentation and the field visits.
27
It is understood that a Special ICT Project is underway that is linked to the Theme. This is not considered here.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 36
The Countries
The three countries visited all had a number of partners focused on different aspects of A2I.
Egypt was a clear case of multiple partners working across several domains of A2I, in a context in
which accessing, processing and distributing information are critical factors in the overall dynamic of
participation in governance and achieving accountability. The analysis found that A2I and the
dynamics associated with it during the revolutionary phase are critically important, even to an
unusual extent. Furthermore, all six partners visited are significant actors in their field of work, and
are fully aware of the importance of A2I in relation to their goals. The two most recent partners, SITC
and ANHRI, focus a major proportion of their work in this area.
However, the Egypt Country Strategy to 2015, written in 2010, already contained a strong reference
to access to information:
“In a context of very limited freedoms, economic, social and political exclusion of large
parts of the society and systematic human rights violations, attention to respect for
human rights, democratisation, accountability and access to information are crucial in
order to create an environment for people to participate in their own society, dare to
speak out and take their future into their own hands.” (p.14)
Thus the Country Team had already identified this area as critical, and the Priority Theme did not in
this sense impinge greatly at the strategic level. The Team also felt that the fact that A2I became a
priority allows them better access to the Knowledge Management Department, and greater support
from there. They discussed new or extended projects and partners with the Programme 4 Knowledge
and Programme Advisor, including the relevance to A2I and of ICTs, and the new projects and
revisions evolved in part from these interactions.
Access to information is also an important theme in Nigeria, in the overall dynamic of the evolution of
governance accountability and in the ON programme there, though perhaps not quite as central as it
is in Egypt. The Country Strategy 2011-2015 (updated in 2012) notes: “Given the relatively well
developed media, access to information is less of a priority, although many partners make use of this
medium.” (p.11) As defined here, this is only one component of A2I. But the strategy also puts major
stress at several points on accountability and transparency of both government and private sector,
especially in relation to the Niger Delta and oil revenues. Three key partners, CISLAC, NDEBUMOG and
ERA, were selected under their Niger Delta Strategy on transparency and accountability, and
enhancing the right to information was at the centre of discussions with partners in the preparation
of the strategy.
Apart from the Niger Delta Programme, supporting greater participation in governance is a concern
for a few partners (e.g. NANTS as a partners in the GROW programme) as one part of a larger set of
development focused actions.
In Myanmar, A2I was not given explicit priority in the Strategy originally written in early 2010,
although it was a key strand in many partner strategies. However, how much emphasis was put on it
later on by ON staff is difficult to tell as not all relevant partners and staff could be consulted. The BIC
was a new partner for Myanmar introduced during the period and focuses very directly on issues
relating to A2I, suggesting a targeting of this area by the Country Team. Another, Spectrum, strongly
shifted its work during the period towards A2I related issues, encouraged by the Country Team.
Spectrum is proposing to strengthen this area further in a follow-up proposal.
The Senegal Country Team, not the subject of a field visit but consulted on this question, did confirm
that new partners were identified as a result of the new Theme – though it is noted that it is difficult
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 37
in retrospect to determine whether this was because the topic was already rising in significance or
whether it followed from the creation of the Priority Theme.
Thus it would appear that the existence of the Priority Theme since 2011 has had, in two countries,
Nigeria and Egypt, limited influence on the selection of partners and interventions as they already had
a strong commitment to this area. However, it should be noted that these countries were selected for
including in the evaluation precisely, in part, because they were innovating on this theme. In Senegal
and in Myanmar, the influence of the Priority Theme was more palpable in terms of influencing the
strategic direction of partners and the redirection of support.
Coming to a direct answer to the evaluation question, and based almost entirely on evidence from the
three countries visited: Oxfam Novib has worked to a significant degree during 2011 and 2012 with
partners who increase access to, and distribution of balanced and relevant information, with the goal
of empowering citizens and increasing monitoring of democratic processes.
In two countries, A2I-related goals were already central features of their strategies, and in one of
these the creation of the Priority Theme may have reinforced their approach to this. In the third,
Myanmar, there is a strong suggestion, not confirmed, that the A2I Priority Theme somewhat
influenced partner and project focus. The fourth country consulted gave a qualified confirmation that
the new Theme was a factor that influenced the identification of new partners.
In relation to ICTs specifically, many partners do indeed makes use of them – often innovatively –
especially in Egypt. The question is how much the Priority Theme has influenced this.
Recent refinements to the programme and projects in Egypt that reinforced ICT use may be related to
the greater emphasis on ICTs that accompanies the A2I Priority Theme, and innovation continues
there. Their value in the context of the revolution had already been widely acknowledged.
Edutainment also appears to be gaining a higher priority in Nigeria, as a means to disseminate
information. But its proposed use there appears to be, for the moment, outside the definition of A2I
as it is utilised here.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the issue of gender is extensively and systematically raised by ON
country teams in communications and interactions with partners.
To greatly differing degrees partners do incorporate gender considerations in their projects and
institutionally. However, there is little evidence that it has specifically been raised in the context of
the A2I Priority Theme in these countries. But in at least country, Senegal, there was discussion
among the Team of the implications of gender in the context of the A2I priority Theme, for instance
whether women in rural areas have the same access as men; whether women are less likely to be
linked to the internet, and whether modern young girls are quicker in adapting to ICTs than are men.
Global and Regional Programmes
Of the seven global partners included in the evaluation, support for three has been phased out since
the introduction of the A2I theme while two new ones were brought in.
Of the three that were phased out, CIVICUS and Social Watch were not centrally involved in access to
information. Both gather and distribute information but this is not enough to qualify them as working
in access to information. For the third partner that has been phased out, IPS, access to information is
a central theme. IPS not only seeks to give voice to marginalised sectors and to provide diverse
content to existing media, but also expends considerable effort training journalists, encouraging
professionalism in the use of new media and citizen journalism, conducting seminars and organising
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 38
meetings on media development and providing training and advice for media development initiatives
in various countries.
The two projects brought in since the introduction of the A2I priority theme, AMARC and IFEX, see
access to information as a central part of what they do.
IFEX's campaigns, advocacy and capacity building is almost exclusively aimed at promoting an
environment that is conducive to freedom of expression and the independence of media. AMARC
works at multiple levels to promote an environment favourable to freedom of expression and diverse
media and to enhance the capacity of marginalised groups, particularly women, to access and use
information. Among its activities, it conducts research and lobbies international bodies to adopt
standards favourable to independent and community media, it provides support to community radio
stations and associations lobbing at the national level, it organises training of broadcasters, and it
promotes gender equity and women's rights through its Women's International Network and its
gender equity guidelines for community radio.
The two continuing partners are the Bank Information Centre and Evert Vermeer Stichting. The
former is clearly engaged in Access to Information activities, employing a combination of strategies
that involve mobilising local actors and international networks to coordinate research, analysis and
advocacy efforts at many levels by building capacity, promoting networking, and supporting advocacy
work at the national level, internationally, and directly on World Bank and other IFI authorities. The
efforts are directed at increasing transparency of IFI's and ensuring that national partners have access
to information about IFI activities that enable them to intervene and advocate for local interests.
Evert Vermeer's Fair Politics project, on the other hand, is a more traditional lobbying initiative that
seeks to ensure that perspectives of the global South are heard within the European and Dutch
parliaments, but does not have a strong network of Southern partners to rely, report to, or to work
with.
Two new projects have been taken on in 2013 and are thus beyond the scope of this report. However,
our preliminary evaluation of them indicates that both Global Witness and Access are engaged in
important A2I activities.
The programme manager responsible for the A2I Global Link projects from the Netherlands was
aware of and well-informed about A2I.
The second sub-question here relates to networking.
To what extent has ON facilitated exchange of knowledge and information through learning initiatives
and linking local to regional/global levels?
This question, presumably, is posed not as a general one but rather as it relates to the aspects
relevant to A2I.
There were just a few specific instances identified by partners of where the exchange of A2I related
knowledge was facilitated, learning initiatives were undertaken, and or local/global links
28
established. But as such support might have been offered in a wider context (i.e. without specific
references to the A2I or to the Priority Theme), the question was put to them about support in more
general terms. The answers reflected specific conditions in each country.
28
A possible exception here is the Meanwhile in Egypt project, which is documented in the Egypt country report. But this
was not instigated specifically as a result of the A2I Priority Theme.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 39
In Myanmar, the partners spoken to were unaware of any partner meetings or exchanges having
taken place. But this was in part, at least, because some partners did not, in the past, wish to openly
acknowledge external funding and support due to the political circumstances there. Only three
partners and one former partner was spoken to about this.
The transition to a decentralised ON office i.e. based in Abuja, has affected the situation for partners
in Nigeria as the new team is still establishing itself. But the previous team, based in the Netherlands,
was widely acknowledged as being highly responsive. Longer term partners felt that the ON team
identified and brought to their notice what they believed to be opportunities inside and outside of
Nigeria (some of which may have been relevant to A2I).
In Egypt, several partners reported positively on the theme-based meetings help approximately
annually, bringing partners together with each other, experts and others. They found them well
organised, informative and useful, contributing to knowledge and networking. For global networking,
partners found the Country Team to be open to, and responsive to, requests, and it is there that the
few examples of A2I-relevant resources were mentioned: the Team had sourced videos, literature and
expertise elsewhere on specific topics
Among the global partners, at least two of the interviewees reported that they would like to see ON
take a more proactive approach to promoting networking and knowledge exchange related to A2I
across its network, facilitating better communication between global and national projects and
among global ones. This would enable global and regional projects to provide better support to
national ones.
One common thread (see below) is that the Toolbox development process was felt to be useful, and
opportunities may have emerged where ON staff have facilitated contacts and interactions in that
context.
The third sub-question considered was as follows:
To what extent has ON paid attention to efficiency and sustainability aspects of the development and
implementation of this new priority theme?
The short answer here is that partners were largely unaware of the A2I Priority Theme (see below)
and it was therefore difficult to determine from their answers whether ON had paid attention to
efficiency and sustainability specifically of the new priority. The responses from the small survey of
ON staff did not indicate that they took action in this area.
Efficiency and sustainability mean very different things across different thematic areas, but even
among interventions with the theme of A2I. The question is whether any aspects of efficiency and
sustainability arise that are specific to, or characteristic of, A2I interventions.
One such area arise in discussions with a media owner concerned with the specific transition from
being a donor supported organisation under repressive circumstances to being a sustainable media
enterprise in more relaxed circumstances. The transition to ‘normality’ in the media sector can be a
critical to the continuing A2I environment, since commercial imperatives can be as damaging to
media as political repression. All three countries exhibited examples where media have been
comprised by commercial interests, especially where they are interlinked with government
corruption.
The ‘Internet Now’ partner also raises sustainability issues that are peculiar to its particular approach,
citing the negative examples of prior experience. Their approach – establishing internet centres in
Greenfield sights with limited local intervention in their governance – is however not specific to A2I.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 40
Partners for these reasons may have found the question difficult to answer in relation specifically to
A2I – and it also makes it difficult to draw specific conclusions for this evaluation. However, partners
were willing to discuss the question of the attention paid by ON to efficiency and sustainability in
general.
The issue was raised mostly in the context of the early stages of developing a partnership and in the
context of developing the toolbox (the Opportunity and Risk Appraisal). Most partners felt that the
latter was a very useful exercise, particularly the exploration opportunities and risks which opened
into questions of sustainability in, for some, a new way. There were also contrasting comments: One
partner did feel under undue pressure during implementation to become sustainable without being
given the support to do so; and another felt they had been supported over time to significantly build
their institutional capacity. Overall the response was positive.
A DDITIONAL I MPLEMENTATION C ONSIDERATIONS
All partners were asked questions about how they first heard of the A2I Priority Theme, whether they
had been given specific documentation or resources, and generally what they thought of it.
Overall, there was very little awareness of its existence among partners. A few had heard mention of
it at a partner meeting; and one at a regional meeting. In Egypt longer term partners were better
informed about it than others. Among Global partners awareness of the A2I priority theme was
uneven. Contrasting with the national situation in Egypt, the global partners being phased out were
less likely to be aware of the theme than those that had been recently brought in. This is not
surprising as the new partners were brought in specifically because of the A2I theme.
This was confirmed by comments from ON Staff. The Theme might be mentioned during negotiations
with partners, and presented if a partner meeting were held. Senegal actively sought ideas from
partners, who responded with some enthusiasm. Since the theme was closely aligned with Country
Strategies in Egypt and Nigeria, it may have seemed almost redundant to mention it specifically.
Overall there was no systematic attempt to raise it with partners.
This is not to suggest that there should have been.
ON Country Teams are free to integrate it in whatever way they feel is appropriate. Furthermore, it
was given a relatively low profile within their interactions with headquarters. It was announced as
part of the new Strategic Plan in 2011, and leaflets were produced; and it was discussed in the
context of Outcome Indicators and other internal discussion. One Country Project officer noted that
the main difference it made to work was that there would be a need to report on the Theme more
explicitly than previously.
It is therefore not surprising that it did not feature highly in interactions with partners.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 41
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This concluding section begins with an overview of the A2I Priority Theme, and what this evaluation
has learned about it. The specific evaluation questions relating to the Theme are considered, and
conclusions drawn, in Section 5 above. Below these conclusions are implicit or summarised in the
context of answering the larger questions for this evaluation. What can be concluded about whether
it was a good idea to designed A2I as a Priority Theme? Is its implementation so far effective in terms
of reaching its declared objectives?
This is followed by a section that summarises conclusions that follow from the discussion in Section 4,
which are around effectiveness
6.1
A2I AS A PRIORITY THEME
The first challenge for this evaluation was to define clearly what access to information actually means,
in the context of the Priority Theme. Although there was some documentation available on it, it was
not fully consistent and pointed in several directions at once. The use of the term, the evaluation
team felt, had to emerge from the practice on the ground and in fact evolved over the course of the
work.
The analysis in this report does not claim to be a definitive, or even entirely accurate, account of the
role that access to information plays in the three countries visited or globally. Rather, it is intended to
demonstrate that access to information cannot be regarded as a simple concept, as a determined set
of societal and legal structures and institutions. It is multi-dimensional and dynamic, the meaning and
importance of which can change radically depending on circumstances.
There is thus no single road to, or ideal model of, access to information. It is potentially as three
dimensional and dynamic as the various roles that information itself plays in society. During times of
relative stability the ideal that might sustain access to information may seem relatively
straightforward – albeit more or less difficult to implement: Legislation guaranteeing access to public
information; free and diverse media with all the necessary check and balances; transparency and
accountability among government, businesses and institutions etc. This analysis concludes that these
formal structures are no more than the crystallised result – often fragile – of long struggles by people
to demand and wrest these rights from those in power; and furthermore that formal result are
achieved only through the strategic and tactical deployment of various tools and ploys that can
extract and share information, quite distinct from and indeed in stark contrast with, in both form and
content, the polite world of ‘freedom of information’ requests.
Having said this, to be operationalised in a programmatic context, the concept must be clearly
delineated; lines drawn around what is and is not access to information as the term is employed here.
These boundaries should be drawn in a manner that what is inside somehow constitutes, to a
reasonable degree, an interconnected and coherent whole. These interconnections should point to
ways in which, in reality, the different components of the concept can reinforce, result from, depend
on or otherwise relate causally and dynamically to each other.
The core of the concept as used in this evaluation is the idea that access to information, in the context
of governance structures widely defined, can contribute to empowerment of marginalised groups and
accountability of duty bearers. This encapsulates the core of the ON use of the term as well as the
most common usages in other contexts. Its central concern is with information that people need in
order to participate effectively, with dignity and as equals in the wider governance structures political, economic and institutional - that affect their lives.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 42
Thus when the term A2I is used here it refers to accessing, generating, processing, and
communicating information in the context of governance structures, in ways that can contribute to
empowerment of marginalised groups and accountability of duty bearers.
It should be stressed that ‘governance structures’ here refers to all of those in positions of power
relative to others: formal structures of government; local to international institutions; private sector
especially larger corporations; and civil society entities. And the concept of ‘duty bearers’ is also
accordingly differentiated according to the different responsibilities associated with each of these.
6.2 SHOULD A2I BE A PRIORITY THEME?
A key issue for this evaluation, implicit in the evaluation questions, is whether A2I merits it position as
a Priority Theme. Did ON make the rights decision in selecting it?
In Egypt it was striking how different strategies to access information were at the heart of attempts to
make the government accountable; and at the same time how they played the central role in
organising and mobilising the activists. In the new phase of the struggle – since the very recent
ousting of President Morsi and reinstallation of military control – new uncertainties arise but in time
new possibilities may also open such as the reintroduction of improved Freedom of Information
legislation, or licensing of community radio. The use of new media is at the forefront of some
struggles there, including in relation to women’s rights.
In Nigeria, leveraging the NEITI process, together with working with communities to collect, analyse
and disseminate information on the environmental and human cost of oil spills and gas flares and
community based budget monitoring, could make a significant difference in the key extractive
industries. There is also potential to extend the Freedom of Information legislation beyond national to
state level and to improve its implementation.
In Myanmar, the media are currently a central potential force for change, and the EITI process could
in time prove to be a key means to begin to demand transparency from the military/elite controlled
extractive industries. Access to information could also be the central factor in a new role for the
marginalised ethnic state in terms of participation in local and national governance, and in influencing
policy to achieve their rights. There are also opportunities for new media with the anticipated rapid
growth of a modern mobile network.
These countries were, in part, chosen precisely because they innovative in this area. Yet their
governance trajectories are very different, and the empowerment/participation, accountability and
transparency issues they face are typical of a large number of countries. This suggests that A2I would
also be relevant as a theme in many other situations.
In the absence of a single global or regional context, the role of global and regional actors is to
provide support for those leading change at the national level and to articulate various initiatives to
maximise learning and knowledge exchange across different countries.
The evaluation also raises questions to which, at this stage, only tentative answers can be offered at
this point.
In which specific circumstances (governance, transparency, accountability) does prioritising A2I offer
greatest potential?
This question can be asked at a macro level, relating to the high level trajectories as presented earlier,
and at a micro-level in terms of which specific types of interventions might be most effective in
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 43
different trajectories. Of course, each circumstance must be assessed in its own right, but certain
indications can be perceived.
1.
Where political factors largely deny people effective access to information from public bodies and
via media, the deployment of various strategies to access information – such as strategic
litigation, finding informal sources and ‘bottom-up monitoring’ – is one of the few ways in which
opposition can be effective in exposing what is actually happening to the wider population and
can thus contribute to building a movement for change. These are situations in which there are
more or less deliberate attempts on the part of ruling elites to hide the intent behind and effects
of their actions. The effectiveness of these A2I tactics in turn depends on other factors: Is part of
the judiciary independent? Are some public officials willing to take a risk? Are the ICT tools
available to engage in distributed monitoring, and are the skills present?
2.
A2I is vital to widespread mobilisation during times of rapid, even revolutionary, change, which is
where ICTs and new media have gained a high profile. There is some evidence that the initial
phase during which those mobilising against repression could use these media to better effect is
now moving on to a phase where their use, and sometimes abuse, is a feature of all sides.
Nevertheless, new uses do emerge in which they can strengthen such mobilisation, and longer
term organisation, to enhance transparency and accountability.
3.
A2I is particularly relevant not only in times of rapid change. It can also help to address endemic
corporate and government corruption within a relatively stable political situation, with the
extractive industries being the archetypical example. Extractive industries involve close
collaboration between government, public bodies and industry, are international by nature,
involve huge amounts of money, are very high-profile, often have major implications for
marginalised populations and exist within highly regulated situations. The massive sums involved
encourages, and the often highly technical and opaque nature of the processes lend themselves
to, corrupt practices which in turn puts secrecy and distortion of information at a premium.
The research suggests that A2I is a vital element – though not sufficient in itself – in combating
corruption in these industries. Information associated with extractive industries, for instance with
limiting the environment and human damage while maximising the public good, is distributed
across many areas, many but not all controlled by the industry and government. A2I tactics can
be both top-down and bottom up. For instance reinforcing the inter-governmental agreements
can be combined with community-based impact monitoring, as in Nigeria. The need to attract
foreign investment, related to the huge early investment involved in prospecting and then
extraction, offers leverage to those seeking transparency.
This is not to say that A2I is not relevant to other forms of corruption. Obviously, transparency in
anathema to all forms of corruption and A2I is always going to be relevant. What the extractive
industries offer is a wide range of options to use A2I, but they are also among the most deepseated and difficult to address – which is why (as in Nigeria) transparency is often not enough.
4.
A2I can play potentially a significant role in encouraging and facilitating the active and informed
participation of marginalised groups in the political processes. Election monitoring is, in a sense,
the least interesting of these. Though it can contribute to reducing electoral fraud and violence,
the bigger challenge is in enabling meaningful and informed participation by marginalised groups
not just during elections but in all areas and processes of governance that concern them. The
tasks of getting information to people in forms that can be used, of developing networks to
exchange that information and generate more, of building a voice and amplifying it, are among
the modalities of participation that are relevant to A2I. The need for this is apparent in all
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 44
countries visited, and various A2I activities are underway. The long-term potential in this area is
best seen in the Uganda CEW-IT consortium.
There is thus evidence of the potential for A2I to play a significant role in times of great turmoil and in
times of relative stability, and the overall focus might be different in each. The specifics, in turn, of
how and whether an A2I Priority Theme can contribute will depend on each case.
Returning to the question posed here. Is A2I an appropriate theme for prioritisation?
Based on the evidence of this evaluation from five countries, with the global and regional providing
support, the answer to this question is in the affirmative. The theme of A2I can offer opportunities
for tactics and strategies that can bring about the desired change. ON Partners interventions provide
concrete examples of this. Maximising this potential requires targeting at those circumstances that
can benefit most.
Access to information, in the contrasting governance contexts of the three countries focused on, is a
key strategic contested arena between the marginalised and disadvantaged and the elites that
govern. Attempts to access, process and disseminate information, in very diverse ways, are seen by
stakeholders as key tactical tools in the struggle of those seeking to participate in their own
governance and demanding accountability.
A further point can be added here.
The criteria for selecting a specific priority theme should include more than whether or not the
components of the theme, when implemented, can be judged potentially to have a significant impact.
Another set of criteria relate to whether it can achieve the objectives as outlined in Section 5.1 above:
i.e. to improve focus and hence enhance impact; sharpen substantive profile; and develop expertise.
Is the theme is sufficiently succinct, coherent and substantial to sharpen the profile, form the basis of
a definable area of expertise for Oxfam Novib, and to develop a value-added impact? Though no
definitive answer can be offered, the question is approached below. An initial comment is that it is
hoped that the effort in this evaluation devoted to clarifying the concept, as summarised in Section 2
above, can contribute to that possibility. The recommendations later on are also presented in this
light.
6.3 W AS I MPLEMENTATION OF THE A2I T HEME E FFECTIVE ?
The A2I Priority Theme was conceived at central level and emanated outwards. Selected by
Programme Managers and based on international trends, it was defined broadly and descriptively and
integrated into the 2011 – 2015 Business Plan. General objectives and loose targets were established,
and Programme Managers and Advisers were to encourage partners to include the Theme in their
country, regional and global programmes. No specific guidelines or supporting resources (other than a
leaflet) were developed, and there were no dedicated events associated with the theme. It was
introduced to partners at national and regional partner meetings, and at other opportunities.
In terms of monitoring and implementation, the Theme has understandably been to a large extent
obliged to fit within the existing structures, but at some cost to clarity and focus given the
29
inconsistent data categories and definitions used . While being a hindrance to monitoring and
evaluation, this need not impinge greatly on implementation.
29
A detailed analysis of the issues arising here has been delivered to the ON separately from this report.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 45
Thus it was not designed as a comprehensive exercise in precision planning and execution. A more
fluid approach was adopted, and the initial period (up to, at least, this evaluation) can be regarded to
a large extent as an exploratory exercise and a learning experience.
One consequence of this approach is that the level of understanding of the nature, goals and
rationale of the Theme becomes progressively vaguer in the minds of those more distant from its
origins at headquarters. The prominence given to it was a matter for the Country/Programme Team,
and it varied considerably. One Project Officer commented that the main difference it would make to
her work, as she understood it, was that it would require more explicit reporting on certain
Outcomes. Most partners were aware of it only dimly, if at all.
The evaluation question, therefore, is: What difference has the creation of the Priority Theme made?
What value-added has been achieved, and is the Theme achieving its goals?
In terms of strengthening the focus on A2I through identifying appropriate partners, new or existing,
the experience varied. The strategies of two countries, Egypt and Nigeria, had already placed a high
priority on certain key intervention areas related to A2I, and were working with key partners. They
needed no additional reminding of the importance of the area. But it offered opportunities to
reinforce the area, and Egypt at least did find that the A2I Priority Theme meant they had better
access to headquarter staff and support. However, it does raise the issue of how meaningful it is to
implement a Priority Theme where the country strategy already has A2I (or its equivalent) as a key
component.
In Senegal, some new partners were identified, and some existing ones already aligned with the
Theme suggested some new interventions. It is likely that in Myanmar, additional interventions were
linked explicitly to the Theme. It might also be noted that new or existing partners may not, in the
context of negotiations that may result in an expansion of A2I interventions related to the Theme, be
explicitly aware of the existence of the Theme. In some cases the Priority Theme may not have
featured overtly in the discussions. This is more likely to be the case where nothing further ensues,
other than new or expanded interventions, from the existence of the Theme (such as dedicated
Theme-related events, resources or networking opportunities).
If the experience of these four countries (again, Senegal was consulted specifically on this issue) is
broadly representative of others in which Oxfam Novib operates, it is highly likely that some focusing
of effort on the A2I Theme did take place. At the global level programme staff was well aware of the
Theme as were the new partners identified as working within it: These new partners already regarded
access to information as one of their priority concerns. Within the Pan Africa Programme A2I is
defined so broadly as to include all partners who access and distribute information. As the director
Pan Africa Programme explained: “It seems like everything we do in the Pan Africa Programme fits
within that term [A2I], so then is the term still relevant?”
This is relevant to the first objective of the Priority Theme: To improve the focus and enhance impact.
Although precise overall impact cannot be assessed for reasons given earlier, any increase in
resources most probably lead ultimately to enhanced impact overall. But there is no evidence to
indicate that having a stronger focus i.e. of concentrating more resources in one area as distinct from
dispersing it more widely, has led to an additional impact over and above what would happen from
the simple increase in resources. Such additional impact would require some form of mutual
reinforcement or learning process, for instance between different partner interventions, around the
A2I theme.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 46
The second objective of the Priority Theme is to have a sharper substantive profile. Again, devoting
more resources explicitly to this Theme will, in itself, increase its profile internally within the Oxfam
Novib team and headquarters. However, without follow-through activities, it is not likely to increase
its profile externally, for instance among partners, governments, international organisations and the
donor and research communities. Such follow-through activities would be based on an ability to
demonstrate credible and substantive value-added results emerging from the A2I Priority Theme, in
terms of outcomes and/or learning from the process.
Finally, in relation to the third objective, of developing domain expertise in the A2I area: Partners, to
the extent that their interventions are engaging with the A2I Theme issues, are indeed enhancing
their domain expertise. This will gradually filter to the Country/Programme Teams, through country
strategy development, negotiations with the partners, and their engagement with the interventions.
At present this is unstructured, unsystematic and largely isolated, and hence the learning possible is
not being optimised. Such optimisation would require a more explicit engagement with partners on
the A2I Theme, and a set of actions designed specifically to facilitate learning.
A key part of this evaluation is to contribute to learning from the process of implementing the A2I
Priority Theme. The production later of a Concept Paper on the A2I theme is likely to begin a process
of more formal learning. The Programme 4 Community of Practice sub-group, when it is convened, is
likely to further reinforce this. Building an effective community of practice and extending it to
partners and others, however, would require considerably more explicit recognition, activity and
resources than are currently envisaged.
6.4 THE A2I EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Section 4 explored the evaluation questions and wider issues raised during the course of the
evaluation. It has set them in a wider context, in a sense redefining the dynamic of A2I more broadly
than is contained within these evaluation questions. Where possible, conclusions are drawn across
that wide range of areas, many of them tentative and preliminary.
Here the focus narrows again to the evaluation questions and the conclusions are summarised.
1. To what extent have ON’s intermediate outcomes been achieved during the evaluation period?
a) To what extent have new media and mobile media actually facilitated transparency and
accountability of democratic processes?
The evidence here is that these media can and do facilitate transparency and accountability of
democratic processes. A good number of examples are described in the Country Reports.
The wider point is that these ICT and media have many other capabilities. Some contribute
significantly to other aspects of development. They can also be used as tools for oppression
and exploitation. Furthermore, more conventional ICT tools, such as radio, can also be very
effective in relation to this goal, sometimes integrated with new media.
Thus, the issue for A2I as defined here is not how these technologies can be made more
widely available. It is not necessarily even that they are made more affordable to marginalised
groups.
If the goal is as stated, then the issue is that the specific interventions should focus more
directly on how these tools, new and traditional ICTs, can be supported to reinforce the
specific goal of transparency and accountability of democratic practices and effective
participation in democracy.
Availability and affordability may be prerequisites to this, but are not in themselves
objectives. Annex 3 outlines some of the issues raised and points to some of the literature
around this question.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 47
b) Specifically in relation to women, have access to information strategies strengthened their
political and social participation, and given them a meaningful voice in public decision
making?
It has been very difficult to gather evidence in relation to women and gender questions more
generally. It is not just that data is not readily available. The key challenge is that most
partners tend to think of gender questions in terms of internal institutional issues or of
enabling women to participate in their interventions (both rightly encouraged by ON). Only
very few cases address the core issue: The different ways in which gender determines the
extent and nature of access to information, and the consequences of this.
For those partners who do focus specifically on this issue, one exclusively, (and
notwithstanding the general points made about the difficulty of outcome analysis) it is
reasonable to assume that they have successfully contributed to these outcomes.
c)
To what extent has public access to (budget) information of government, business and
institutions been improved as a result of lobby and advocacy interventions?
Improved access to government, business and institutional information, budgetary and other,
is a key strategy of many partners. The analysis shows it can take many forms, almost all
aimed at improving accountability in a context where transparency can reveal evidence of
corruption, deception or mismanagement:
Accessing and informally disseminating national budgets where (as in Egypt) the
government refuses to make available information that is legally - but not actually - in
the public domain, as part of a campaign to insist on such publication;
Opening informal channels to access detailed budget and other financial information, to
feed into campaigns in a variety of areas – common among partners in all three
countries but subject to the limitations that such channels bring with them;
Monitoring existing budgets and project expenditure against actual expenditure, as in
the case of Nigeria where funds earmarked nationally and locally for communities are
compared against actual outcomes, something that a partner in Myanmar may also
begin;
Leveraging international agreements, specifically in this case the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative, to expose evidence of corruption and reinforce campaigns to
tackle it (bearing in mind that transparency is often only a first step towards achieving
accountability);
Enabling local civil society to lobby for transparency among international financial
institutions (IFI), one example being in Myanmar, but also the Bank Information Centre
which promotes reform of IFIs and supports groups working on this theme in dozens of
countries worldwide including in Egypt, and the Civil Society Coalition on the functioning
of the Africa Development Bank, which fulfils a similar role in Africa;
Partners in Egypt are advocating for better Freedom of Information Legislation and
global partners AMARC and IFEX are providing support in Egypt and many other
countries;
Strategic litigation, as practiced in Egypt and Nigeria, (which can just about be included
in the general family of lobbying or advocacy) to force the courts to reveal information
that exposes corruption, deception and the violation of human rights.
No conclusion can be drawn regarding their overall effectiveness at improving public access to
information. But numerous examples in the Country Reports and in Section 4 show that
information has been successfully put into the public domain.
There are bigger questions, however, not asked in the evaluation that must remain largely
unanswered here.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 48
As a result of that information getting into the public domain, has accountability been
improved? There are some examples in Egypt, but even the huge effort devoted to the NEITI
in Nigeria in terms of transparency has yet to yield much in terms of greater accountability
and reduced corruption.
A second question is: Have these governments, corporations and institutions themselves
become more transparent and are they releasing more information as a matter of course? A
potential example here is of the EITI in Myanmar. The government there, in part as a result of
lobbying from civil society (including one partner), is committed to joining the process. The
Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria also offers opportunities here.
However there are few examples overall and these are medium to long term goals.
6.5
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO A2I PRIORITY THEME
Among the conclusions so far are that A2I is appropriate theme to be given priority; that it can lead to
positive outcomes; and that, bearing in mind the approach adopted and that it is just over two years
going, it has so far achieved some of its goals in a limited manner.
The evaluators understand that additional work is proceeding to deepen the A2I Priority Theme,
including the preparation of a comprehensive Position Paper to which this evaluation will contribute.
There is also the proposal for a Sub-group on A2I within the Community of Practice in Programme 4.
The Position Paper will clarify the scope of A2I and how it relates to other domains, which will be
useful to Programme Teams and partners. The Sub-group will also, hopefully, manage to capture
some of the learning emerging. And other actions are no doubt intended.
What this final section recommends is to take a more substantial approach to the Theme, requiring
quite radical developments to its current form and implementation. The specific proposals are
schematic in nature as the likelihood of, and the potential nature of, a significant revision of the
Priority Theme have not been explored with ON staff. More detailed description would be justified
only if a decision in principle were taken to follow the direction suggested.
Pursuing this approach would demand a considerable additional expenditure of resources, and would
probably require a period longer than the five year span of a Strategic Plan. It would become at least
a medium-term objective. This evaluation is not in a position to estimate the investment required,
and whether such an investment would be justified in terms of the benefits that might accrue. That
would take considerably more work.
What can be stated with reasonable certainty is that a well-targeted and executed programme could
make a significant difference in certain national contexts. This follows from the argument above that
access to information can play a critical role in influencing the direction of evolving governance towards greater participation of marginalised groups, transparency and accountability - in certain
circumstances. It also follows that Oxfam Novib would benefit from establishing a profile in this area,
and becoming a recognised repository of knowledge in it.
It is also an option for Oxfam Novib to accept elements of the recommendations below and not
others.
O BJECTIVES OF THE A2I P RIORITY T HEME
The following scenario is presented as an exploration of how the A2I Priority Theme could be
implemented based on what has been learned from this evaluation. It is pointing to a more
elaborately prepared set of interventions, with implementation involving more resources and more
active participation from ON and its partners.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 49
The approach suggested has two objectives:
3.
To improve outcomes for partners, and at country level as a whole, by supporting activities
relating to A2I carefully targeted at high-potential moments in the evolving governance dynamic;
4.
To improve effectiveness of ON investment at local, regional and global levels, by ensuring that
the experience and expertise emerging from partners and others is identified, documented and
shared, building a community of practice among ON partners and staff involved in A2I and
turning ON into, in effect, a centre of excellence in the area of A2I.
These goals encompass the existing goals of improving focus to enhance impact; sharpen the ON
profile; and develop expertise and knowledge.
This approach could be accomplished in a number of steps. There are numerous possible variations of
these, and the following is just one set of possibilities. A key assumption is that the full potential of
the A2I Priority Theme can be achieved only through the full participation of all key stakeholders, and
especially ON Programme staff and partners.
D EEPENING U NDERSTANDING WITH S TAKEHOLDERS
Action 1: Clarity of Concept
The proposed A2I Position Paper will fully clarify (based, as appropriate on what has been
developed in this report) the scope, nature and dynamics of A2I as understood in the
context of the Priority Theme.
Several areas require significant additional clarification. The gender dimension of A2I, in
particular, has been poorly developed so far (including in this report) in large part because
few partners have any understanding of the issue and hence have no data on it.
Alongside this, or included in this, should be a clear statement of the background
objectives, scope, and proposed implementation and modalities of the A2I Priority Theme,
written in a manner that is directed at partners. It will also describe how it is relevant to
them and how they can participate in it. Efficiency and sustainability as they relate to
different dimensions of A2I may merit further analysis. What do they mean in the context
of A2I interventions such as strategic litigation, or moving from grant-supported media
towards a regulated media environment?
These may already be included in the current concept of the Position Paper.
The issue of monitoring and evaluation should also be considered, and specifically the
problem of the incompatibility of current monitoring processes and the scope or definition
of the theme. The existing monitoring might be adjusted somewhat to yield more useful
information on the theme, but there are limits to this.
In this situation a separate evaluation function might be considered for the Theme using
methodologies that do not rely on existing monitoring. This could be applied at different
levels and involve not just ON staff but also partners or external evaluators. It might be
possible to develop a modest monitoring tool, possibly online, to be implemented by
County/Programme Teams in combination with partners as part of their annual reporting
exercise, in parallel with existing monitoring instruments. The goal here would be to
develop a small set of meaningful quantitative and qualitative indicators of progress,
specific to the national context but using generic terms, and to jointly assess these.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 50
However, it might also be appropriate to incorporate such an evaluation function for the
Theme within the wider learning activities suggested below. The line between ON
monitoring and evaluation and the learning functions would have to be determined later.
Action 2: Country Selection
If a more intensive approach is to be taken to learning, with resource implications, then it
might be necessary or useful to limit, at least initially, the focus of the Priority Theme to a
selected number of countries in each region. The selection would be based on agreed
criteria (perhaps beginning from the ones used for selection in this evaluation) that might
suggest where the Theme would have the greatest impact and/or be most readily and
effectively implemented. Crucially, the selection would involve the ON Country Team who
should be enthusiastic to implement it.
It is noted above that where a country strategy already has a strong emphasis on A2I the
absence of specific additional funding or value-added measures to reinforce it (over and
above a selective reallocation of funds within the country budget towards partners or
interventions most relevant to A2I) may mean that the Priority Theme might have least
new impact there. This is because all resources available nationally may already been
directed towards this priority. (The evaluator is not familiar with how funding is allocated
between countries, and hence this point may not apply.)
Action 3: In-Country Exploration
At this point, a detailed analysis, involving the local partners and others, could be
undertaken.
This would explore and document the specific relevance of A2I in the general governance
context. The approach taken in the Country Reports appended to this report could be
taken to some degree as a starting point, in terms of a narrative approach and the link to
the wider context. The overall dynamics would be identified; the areas in which major
actors are already involved; where there may be gaps; and where and what type of
interventions might have the most impact. Specific issues for efficiency and sustainability,
and relating to gender, could be explored.
The Theory of Change approach would appear to be appropriate here as a tool to analyse
the environment and the possibilities. But it would have to be implemented in a much
more comprehensive manner that it has been in this evaluation, through Workshops and
an interactive process, and in the context of the participation of country stakeholders
including partners, potential partners identified and domain experts.
Expert facilitation would be required, but the goal would be to complete a country level
analysis that captures the knowledge present, and around which partners and others could,
in principle, agree to share information and possibly undertaken interventions.
Key relevant global and regional programme partners expressing an interest would also
participate.
Action 4: A2I Country Strategy Integration
Based on the ideas emerging, the A2I ideas would be integrated within the Country
Strategy. Interventions would be planned with new partners and on an ongoing basis with
relevant partners, including at global and regional levels.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 51
Action 5: In-Country A2I Platform
A key goal of the Priority Theme would be to improve communication and networking
among partners (including global and regional partners) and between them and ON, with
the objectives of:
1) Capturing the learning and sharing it internally/nationally and externally to other
countries and ON, possibly by regularly returning to review the Theory of Change
combined with other learning-capture methodologies;
2) Enabling a synergy to develop from the focusing of resources in this area. This may or
may not include new collaborations between partners, but the goal would be to capture
possible ‘added-value’ with a concerted investment of effort.
Action 6: Building Wider Learning Communities
Once several countries have implemented this process, it would be possible to connect the
national platforms with each other, and with ON headquarters and possibly domain
experts. This would allow a wider Community of Practice to emerge. A key goal here would
be to share experiences and skills directly among partners. For instance, even in the three
countries visited, linkages emerged between the EITI work and budget monitoring that
were immediately and directly followed up by one partner.
It would also allow for the development of more integral relationships between partners at
different levels, national, regional and global.
From the ON Perspective the objective is to build a scenario that looks beyond the
outcomes of individual partners or interventions, but rather sees them in the wider
evolution of the national, regional and global context. From this emerges the idea of a
centre of excellence or evidence-based knowledge repository on A2I.
The Terms of Reference note that the recommendations of this report should indicate what the
proposed 2014 evaluation should further look into. This report has highlighted a number of
challenges for the A2I Priority Theme for Oxfam Novib. It has also put forward suggestions on how
these can be addressed. It is possible that by 2014, the Theme will have considerably changed and
progressed, and many questions appropriate in that changed context cannot be anticipated now.
The following questions might help focus the development of Terms of Reference in the future.
Is the concept of A2I as articulated in this report a robust one? Can its coherence as defined
above (interrelatedness of components) be substantiated in a greater variety of situations?
(This would require a focused qualitative approach.)
How have the different Country and Programme Teams understood and implemented the
Theme? What changes have they made as a result? Similarly how have partners understood
it? (This could be addressed in the context of one or more short focused surveys.)
In which countries and circumstances can A2I make a significant difference, and why? (This
question might imply a narrow focus on a larger number of countries as part of the future
evaluation, but it would again face the limitations of data available.)
Given that the Priority Theme will by then have been in place a longer period, can its
outcomes be determined? (Here again are the challenges of outcome evaluation are an
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 52
issue. As noted above it might be possible to develop a small tool for ON Staff to use in their
annual reporting to address this.)
Following from this, can examples be identified where A2I interventions have reinforced
each other, such that discernible added-value has been generated?
What specific gender components and issues have been identified?
What has been learned from the implementation of the Priority Theme, and is it achieving its
objectives?
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 53
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION PROGRAMME
The following are the main features and delivery dates of the evaluation programme.
Communication throughout the evaluation (with the exception of one meeting in The Hague
alongside a Workshop to which the lead evaluator had been invited) between the Evaluation Team
and the responsible Oxfam Novib staff was by Skype and email. A Dropbox facility was established for
the project to enable the extensive exchange of documentation between all those involved in the
evaluation.
The inception stage of the evaluation began with a Skype conference between the Team Leader and
th
ON staff on February 19 2013.
th
The detailed evaluation plan was then produced in stages, beginning with that, on March 5 , for the
General Analysis.
th
The Access to Information Evaluation: General Analysis was delivered on 18 of April and, in addition
to the analysis itself, documented in detail the methodology to be used in the next stage of In-Depth
Analysis.
The In-Depth Analyses were delivered successively for each of the three Countries and the Global
nd
th
th
programme as follows: Egypt 22 April; Nigeria 26 April; Myanmar 8 May; and the Global
th
Programme 9 June. Each of the In-Depth Analyses provided detail on approach to be taken to the
next phase of the work, the Primary Data Collection and report writing.
The three countries were visited as follows, with extensive interviews and documentation gathering:
th
th
Egypt from 11 to 17 May;
th
st
Nigeria from the 27 to the 31 of May;
nd
th
Myanmar from the 2 to the 7 of June.
th
A mixture of personal interviews (taking place during the Workshop on June 26 in Den Haag
attended by the Evaluation Team leader) and phone interviews were used to supplement the
documentation relating to the selected Projects in Senegal and Uganda.
Interviews, by phone and Skype, for the Global Programme evaluation and the PAF programmes
primary data gathering took place during June.
th
The draft Final Report was delivered on Friday 5 of July, and comments received back from the
th
reviewers on 16 of July. This Final Evaluation report, taking into account the comments received,
th
was delivered on the 29 of July 2013.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 54
ANNEX2: OUTCOME AREAS AND INDICATORS FOR THE A2I PRIORITY THEME
The Terms of References indicated that Intermediate outcomes are sought in the following four
outcome areas. These are followed by the outcome and output indicators.:
a) Increasing availability and quality of information channels, including through ICT
The focus here is on providing the structure for the free flow of information. Information is never
passed on free of value, and (new) media channels fulfil an important role in encouraging diversity of
opinions. This is why Oxfam Novib supports a plurality of information channels and aims at improving
the quality of information passing through the channels. The information and communication
technology revolution warrants special attention. The ICT developments of recent years have had an
important impact on the way citizens have or acquire access to information.
Examples of interventions under this outcome area are Media for Development (e.g. training
journalists on gender sensitive reporting), Development of Media (e.g. supporting community radio
stations), Information Pedagogy (responsible handling of information).
b) Enhancing capacity of marginalised groups, particularly women, to disseminate, receive,
search and use information, including through use of ICT.
Access to Information is the oxygen of transparent and participatory governance which hinges on the
consent of informed citizens. Those in power either intentionally ignore the opinion of and
information from marginalised groups or are simply not aware as the information from these groups
is not available, incomplete or distorted. Information which is not available cannot be taken into
account in decision making processes. On the other hand, meaningful participation in decision making
and accountability mechanisms requires transparency, easy and timely access to relevant information
and informed stakeholders to work. This is why marginalised groups will be empowered to seek, use
and disseminate information. ICT offers new opportunities to receive and share information in costeffective and quick ways. Citizens are communicating directly with each other to mobilise the likeminded, and they also make their own news via new and mobile media.
Examples are promotion of citizen journalism and ICT for development including training in using new
and mobile media for civil activism.
c) Promoting a conducive political, legal and economic environment for free flow of
information, independence and plurality of media.
Additional to the ‘practical interventions’, it is essential to guarantee and promote through legislation
and regulation the right to information, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Access to
information is intrinsically linked with the freedom of expression and legislation regulating the media.
Much of the information citizens take in is obtained via the media and increasingly via new
information channels such as internet and mobile telephones. For this freedom of expression is a
precondition. The right to access publicly relevant information is not only important for the media,
but for all citizens and civil society organisations. It is about the accessibility of information from
governments, international (financial) institutions, civil society and businesses.
Typical activities supported under this point are the promotion and monitoring of Right to
Information Acts, denouncement of censorship, harassment and intimidation of journalists,
monitoring of the protection of freedom of expression and media regulations.
d) Demanding transparency from duty bearers.
Access to information is the precondition for transparency and accountability of duty bearers. The
provision of information and the (new) media have the potential to stimulate constructive relations
between informed citizens and (elected) representatives and businesses. Under this outcome area,
marginalised groups and organisations working with them or on their behalf are supported to
demand accountability from governments, international institutions and businesses. Activities include
demanding transparency of public budgets, electoral processes, and extractive industries (Publish
what you Pay.)
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 55
Outcome and Outputs Indicators
OI 37: No. of women and men (women in particular) in marginalised groups having access to
information and decision-making by using ICT and new media.
37A: projects that use a mixture of new media and traditional media (radio and television) for
communication about development themes.
37B: new media platforms that have been set up or improved by partner organisations or as
the result of adhoc online initiatives.
37C: projects of small-scale organisations (community, NGOs and small and medium-sized
enterprises) that are being facilitated via online platforms.
37D: developed training sessions about understanding and the use of new media, based on the
methodology and toolkits developed in cooperation with the Impact Alliance.
OI 39: No. of cases of demonstrably improved professionalism of southern media and citizen
journalists (bloggers) (among others in gender sensitive fashion)
39A: partner organisations that took part in development programmes on new media, the
ethics of journalism, and citizen journalism.
39B: professional training courses on new media and citizen journalism
39C: media organisations that have implemented programmes aimed at improving their
commercial and ideological independence as media.
OI 41: No. of cases revealing that globally linked citizens and globally operating partner
organisations have strengthened their capacity to hold governments, businesses,
international institutions and civil society organisation accountable for power abuse,
corruption and gender injustice, by using ICT and new media.
41A: global citizens' initiatives that make active use of new media in order to hold
governments, businesses and international institutions accountable in situations of power
abuse, corruption and gender injustice.
41B: global partner organisations that, partly due to their use of new media, have
strengthened their cooperation with regional, national and local organisations in order to
monitor and report on human rights violations.
41C: partner organisations that have taken on a pioneering role in the use of new media in
collecting and sharing information in order to call governments, companies and international
institutions to account.
OI 43: No. of cases revealing that countries and international institutions have improved public
access to (budget) information of governments, businesses and institutions, under pressure
from lobby by the Impact alliance and partner organisations. Due to this pressure
governments, (inter)national institutions and companies are accountable for the averse
effects of their interventions on human rights and especially women rights
43A: partners that undertake lobbying activities to demand access to information
from governments, companies and international institutions, while making use of
new media.
43D: lobbying trajectories that demand more transparency from international
institutions (including regional ones).
OI 44: No. of cases revealing that methodologies developed and exchanged by partner
organisations and knowledge institutes in joint knowledge processes resulted in improved
access of citizens to relevant and reliable information (amongst others by providing access to
government and corporate information, gender awareness in the media, edutainment and
protection of journalists)
44A: local and global partner organisations that, in association with knowledge institutions, are
involved in knowledge exchanges about access to information.
44B: local and international partner and knowledge institutions that lead or participate in
initiatives for exchanging knowledge and experiences about improving access to information
for, by and about citizens
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 56
ANNEX 3: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON ICTS AND A2I
The following are some general points to take into consideration when exploring the role of ICTs in
A2I. References are attached at the end.
1.
It is important that actions to promote A2I are based on a realistic assessment of which ICTs are
likely to be available to disadvantaged communities in the foreseeable future. In particular it
cannot be assumed that broadband, smart phones and Web 2.0 will be widely available and
affordable.
The Broadband Commission (2010) claims that smart phones linked to broadband are likely,
within a few years, to become as ubiquitous in developing countries and among disadvantaged
populations as basic mobile phones are today. If so, it could have significant potential for A2I
and development more generally. However, this depends on the emergence of a mutually
reinforcing virtuous circle between affordable bandwidth and smart phones, and relevant highbandwidth services. An in-depth analysis of current trends, dynamics and costs shows that the
likelihood that such a virtuous circle could be sustained long enough to reach the majority poor,
and especially in least developed countries, is negligible in the foreseeable future. Even with
steeply falling prices the proportion of income that poor families have to devote to such services
would put them beyond their reach.
A more likely scenario is that mobile broadband will become progressively more available,
including in rural areas. But the cost of handsets and the cost of bandwidth will confine
broadband usage to a limited number of better-off people, mostly in urban areas. In the absence
of convincing evidence of significant economic or other benefits, poorer households could not
justify even a small increase in expenditure of scarce disposable income on these services.
The analysis (undertaken by the author for UNDP and currently being prepared for publication)
is based on the following sources: Broadband Commission 2010, 2012a, 2012b; Ericsson 2012;
Cisco 2012; ITU 2010, 2012a, 2012b, and World Bank 2012.
2.
ICTs and Web 2.0 can reach marginalised populations, through hybrid ICTs.
Basic voice, SMS and data-enabled mobile phones will remain the main means of ICT
communication for the vast majority in poorer communities (while noting that they are still
beyond the means of much of the poorest). Broadband networks, both wireless and fibre-based,
will undoubtedly continue to expand rapidly and prices will fall in all areas, including remote
areas. This will offer affordable access to poor populations through telecentres, cybercafés,
schools and other public buildings. Furthermore, there are many services emerging (including
some supported by Oxfam/Novib) that comprise a hybrid of basic mobile phone and mobile 2.0.
These are used for a huge variety of activities, some relating to participation in decision-making
activities, and to enhancing transparency and accountability. They include election monitoring,
budget scrutiny, feedback on policy implementation, facilitating policy consultations, and
disaster and emergency situations
Between the two, basic mobile/Web 2.0 and telecentres do not fully match the capabilities of a
broadband smart phone in every pocket. But they offer many of the key functionalities: instant
one-to-many communication; combining isolated or geographically specific data from multiple
sources into coherent pictures then fed back to sources; targeted automated communication
and query; integration of different generations of ICTs such as radio and video; complex
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 57
networking of groups and individuals; and a level of access to those without even a basic mobile
phone.
3.
Gaining affordable access to ICTs (even broadband) may not in itself empower marginalised
groups.
From the earliest days, a major strand of critique has held that ICTs can potentially lead both to
control by the centre (or elites) over the periphery (or marginalised groups), as well as to
empowerment of the periphery. Numerous scholars and practitioners point to an unequal
distribution of advantages and disadvantages among different groups in society. In relation to
the internet in general, such critique is ongoing; and the debate on the ultimate impact of social
media and Web 2.0 is only just getting underway (e.g. Curran et al 2012, Lovink 2011, Morozov
2011, Turkle 2011). So far, the evidence on social media is, overall, less than positive. While
there are cases of social media contributing to empowerment, specifically in the context of rapid
mobilisation against oppressive governments, there are also many examples of where they are
used by governments to control populations. There are also major issues and concerns raised
about the impact of social media on cultural, identity and related matters. Like traditional
broadcast media, by far their most common use currently is recreational, and they are
increasingly driven by commercial criteria.
4.
Whether ICT-enabled services and applications facilitate access to decision-making and A2I for
marginalised groups depends to some degree on the content available, and on the terms on
which content is made available; which in turn is influenced by the ownership and governance
models involved.
The fact that mainstream social media are used primarily for leisure and entertainment is no
accident. Aside from the demographics of those who can afford to use them (young, middle
class), this also suits the business model of the corporations that control them. While these
services are often free to use, the business and sustainability model, and corporate governance,
nevertheless shapes what they can be used for.
This points to a wider issue of the relations of power established between the users and the
service providers, and in which the users are necessarily embedded. Certain characteristics of
the profit-motivated business model may compromise its long-term potential to contribute to
empowerment and to enhancing participation, to enriching the public sphere, or to enabling
access to information. The model influences both the personal-political self-perception and
identity of users, and directly intervenes in (sometimes even directly censuring) activities and
content. The concern is that the end result of most social networking will be the reproduction of
“an incessant version a 'daily me' that personalises and depoliticises public issues and simply reemphasises old inequalities while feeding corporations the necessary online marketing, business
promotion and the exploitation of private affairs...” (Fenton 2012: 124) If these concerns are
justified, then mainstream social media are unlikely to support, in the long term, A2I and
participation in decision making.
As ownership of social media concentrates into fewer larger corporations (Freedman 2012:8891) the case for a different form of governance is reinforced, in which people can participate
directly as users and through their being accountable to democratic institutions. What is often
called a 'commons based' model offers an alternative, more likely to lead to the emergence of
ICTs services that empower. The best known examples are Wikipedia and Mozilla (the producer
of Firefox), free and open source software (FOSS), peer-to-peer networking, Creative Commons
licensing and the many non-profit, collaborative projects. It is the most common model in
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 58
development oriented not-for-profit Web 2.0 services (examples include USHAHIDI) – and is also
used extensively in the Oxfam/Novib supported projects.
The difference is that the knowledge production process, and the labour involved in it, results
not in commodities being valorised on the market, but rather creates a common good; it adds to
the 'commons' which is shared equally by everyone. The challenge is sustainability: how to
harness resources needed to produce them in the long term. The ability of Web 2.0 to aggregate
the voluntary non-commercial effort of innumerable people is the key to this, through direct
creation motivated by personal interests and shared benefits. The commons governance model
is best suited to exploiting the potential of ICTs in ways that support empowerment and access
to information. It is a model that enables active participation in shared initiatives, can add to the
public sphere of knowledge, and can contribute to equity of access and use.
For a flavour of the critical literature in this area, also covering the alternative 'commons' model,
see for instance: Berners-Lee 2010, Curran et al 2012, Fuchs 2011, Lessig 2002, Lovink 2011,
Marwick 2005, Pariser 2011, Turkle 2011 and Zittrain 2008.
5.
Crowd-sourcing is effective only where ‘the crowd’ can access and use the information
generated.
Crowd-sourcing has a potential to be a powerful tool for producing, compiling and making visible
information from the poor and can contribute to development and social justice. Ushahidi, for
example, has developed a number of crowd-sourcing applications to gather information and
enable monitoring (and denouncing) of violence, fraud, medical and humanitarian crises, etc.
However, as democratic and participatory as it appears to be, crowd-sourced information will
only contribute to people's empowerment if they have access to and control of the information
they produce. Indeed the most common crowd-sourcing exercises are thinly-disguised marketing
tools but even in the case of organisations working for development, such as the World Bank
and various UN agencies, among the clients of Ushahidi, some observers note that they are
“wary of overtly signalling the power dimension of crowd-sourcing” (Wexler: 2011). It is not
enough to be able to participate in the collection of information. Ownership, access to, and
control of the information collected is equally, if not more, important.
6.
A comment on Gender and ICTs.
To understand the link between A2I and gender it is important to integrate and combine into the
gender analysis the manner in which ICTs bring about social change i.e. to examine if and how
much “...ICTs are really improving women’s lives and gender relations as well as promoting
empowering change at the individual, institutional, community and broader social levels”.
Gender analysis within an ICT context must look at power relations in the context of class, race,
ethnicity, age, and geographic location. It must also explore how gender inequalities relate to
social changes, and understand the gender disparities of access to and control over resources.
Women have multiple identities and those interact and define how women access technology.
In Anita Gurumurthy’s words:
“Access to new ICTs is still a faraway reality for the vast majority of people. The
countries of the South, particularly rural populations, have to a significant
extent been left out of the information revolution, given the absence of basic
infrastructure, high costs of ICT deployment, unfamiliarity with ICTs,
dominance of the English language in Internet content and indeed – lack of
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 59
demonstrated benefit from ICTs to address ground-level development
challenges.” (2004:1)
A2I in the digital age requires a balancing act between old and new technologies and a clear
understanding that the internet revolution is not equally present in the different part of the
world. Recently the discourse on gender issues in media and communication has accelerated,
and the focus is moving from “equitable access of women and women’s organizations to the
means of public expression … to a focus on women as controllers of information” (Gurumurthy
2004:11) which shifts the accent to enabling women to become producers and creator of their
own information/content and to disseminating their messages using the combination of old and
new technologies.
For a comprehensive approach of ICT issues from a gender equality perspective according to
Heike Jensen we need to be aware of five broad approaches embedded in the development
sector and development strategies. They are:
ICTs as contributors to macroeconomic growth
ICTs as a productive sector in their own right
ICTs as cross-cutting instruments of development
ICTs as enabling instruments for initiatives and applications
ICTs as tools for empowerment and voice.
In our case we should focus in particular on the last three approaches. To understand A2I we
need to unpack what gender digital divide means in all its aspects, spanning divides in access to
infrastructure, to content and to knowledge, and to the strategic use of technology. In this
regard, a gender sensitive deconstruction of A2I requires gender disaggregated data. This will
enable an analysis of the opportunities that women have to exercise their political and civil
rights in practice, and an exploration of the power dynamics embedded in each situation during
project implementation (and this means relevant information, in a timely and affordable manner
and in suitable and usable form). ICTs have been used by the women's movement and
organisations as tools to enhance social transformation and promote gender equality.
“Engendering ICTs is not merely about greater use of ICTs by women. It is about transforming the
ICT system” (Gurumurthy 2004:2).
References
Berners-Lee, Tim (2010) 'Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality'.
Scientific American, December. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-livethe-web
Broadband Commission (2010) A 2010 Leadership Imperative: The Future Built on Broadband.
Downloaded at: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Reports/Report_1.pdf
Broadband Commission (2012a) The Broadband Bridge: Linking ICT with Climate Action for a LowCarbon Economy. Downloaded at:
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/Climate/BD-bbcomm-climate.pdf
Broadband Commission (2012b) State of Broadband 2012. Downloaded at:
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/work/documents.aspx
Buckley, Steve, Tia Duer, Toby Mendel, Seán Ó Siochrú (2008) Broadcasting, Voice and Accountability:
A Public Interest Approach to Policy, Law and Regulation. World Bank Institute and University
of Michigan Press.
Cisco (2012) White Paper: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2011–2016
https://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_
paper_c11-520862.pdf
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 60
Curran, James, Natelie Fenton, Des Freedman (2012) Misunderstanding the Internet. Routledge:
London and New York.
Ericsson (2012) Traffic and Market Report. November. Downloaded at
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2012/ericsson-mobility-report-november-2012.pdf
Esplen, Emily with Emma Bell (2007) “Gender and Indicators Supporting Resources Collection” July
Fenton, Natalie (2012) 'The Internet and Radical Politics'. Chapter 6 of Curran et al (2012).
Freedman, Des (2012) 'Web 2.0 and the Death of the Blockbuster Economy'. Chapter 3 in Curran et al
(2012).
Fuchs, Christian (2011) 'A Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy of Google' in Fast
Capitalism, Volume 8 (1) ,
http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/8_1/fuchs8_1.html
Heeks, Richard (1999) 'Information and Communication Technologies, Poverty and Development'
Development Informatics: Working Papers, Institute for Development Policy and
Management, University of Manchester.
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/di_wp05.htm
Girard, Bruce (2003) 'Radio and Internet: Mixing media to bridge the divide' in The One to Watch:
Radio, New ICTs and interactivity. Rome: FAO.
Gurumurthy, Anita (2004). Gender and ICTs Overview Report. UK: Bridge, Institute of Development
Gurumurthy, Anita (2008) “Access and Connectivity in Least Developed Countries and Small Islands
Developing States in Asia-Pacific” (note submitted to the UN GAID Expert Group on
Connectivity and Access for the UN GAID Global Forum, Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia, 18-22 May
2008) http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk
ITU (2010) Monthly Price of Broadband Usage of % of GNI per capital 2010. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/treg/atlas/broadbandatlas.asp
ITU (2012a) Measuring the Information Society. Geneva. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/publications/idi/index.html
ITU (2012b) Statistics at a Glance (June)
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/KeyTelecom.html
Jensen, Heike (2009) 'ICTs and Gender' in The APC ICT Policy Handbook second edition APC
Lessig, Laurence (2002) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New
York: Vintage.
Lovink, Geert (2011) Networks Without Cause: A critique of social media. Polity Press, .
Mansell, Robin and Gaëten Tremblay (2013) Renewing the Knowledge Societies Vision: Towards
Knowledge Societies for Peace and Sustainable Development. Report prepared for UNESCO's
Towards Knowledge Societies for Peace and Sustainable Development: First WSIS +10 Review
Meeting, Paris 25-27 February.
Marwick Alice (2005) Selling Your Self Online: Identity in the Age of Commodified Internet. Washington
: University of Washington Press
http://microsoft.academia.edu/AliceMarwick/Papers/400482/Selling_Your_Self_Online_Iden
tity_In_the_Age_of_a_Commodified_Internet accessed 14 May 2012.
Morozov, Evgeny (2011) The Net Delusion: How not to liberate the world. Allan Lane, London UK.
Pariser, Eli (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the internet is Hiding from you. Penguin Press: New York.
Ramilo, Chat Garcia (ed.) (2005) Gender Evaluation Methodology for Internet and ICTs: A Learning
Tool for Change and Empowerment, Association for Progressive Communications Women’s
Networking Support Programme, December http://www.genderevaluation.net/?q=downloads
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 61
Studies, September. 31-32. Online.
http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/go/home&id=52909&type=Document&langID=1
Turkle, Sherry (2011) Alone Together: Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each
Other. Basic Books, New York.
Wexler, M. (2011) 'Reconfiguring the Sociology of the Crown: Exploring Crowdsourcing.' International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 31(1/2):6-20.
Wood, Peregrine (2005) Gender and Information Technology: Towards an Analytical Framework
World Bank (2012) Information and Communications for Development: Maximising Mobile.
Washington.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/extinformationandcommunicationandtechnologies/Reso
urces/IC4D-2012-Report.pdf
Zittrain, Jonathan (2008) The Future of the Internet and how to Stop it. Caravan books.
th
http://futureoftheinternet.org/static/ZittrainTheFutureoftheInternet.pdf Accessed 14 May
2012.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 62
ANNEX 4: A2I THEORY OF CHANGE MAP
A Theory of Change is usually constructed as a means to explore and help to understand how change
happens, at the beginning or early stages of an interventions. Later on it is revisited to see what has
been learned from the experience of attempting to bring about change, with a view to improving it in
future. The key concepts in Theory of Change are familiar: Objectives; Outcomes; Indicators;
Preconditions; Assumptions; Interventions; Rationale and a Narrative. It is the specific careful
articulation of these that makes it useful.
The Map overleaf has been developed based on a disaggregation of the ideas presented in the A2I
Preliminary Research and in the Terms of Reference for this evaluation. It is a way of reordering them
so that the interdependencies – and specifically which can be seen as preconditions of others – can be
more easily identified or at least explored.
The process of constructing a Theory of Change begins by agreeing the final objectives (the two boxes
at the top of the map), translating these into specific outcomes each with indicators (not shown). It
then looks at the key preconditions to these, and these then become outcomes sought, identified as
boxes number 1 and 2.
The preconditions to these outcomes are then identified, to perhaps become the medium term goals,
and so on. The question then becomes: How can ON staff and partners influence these outcomes
through their interventions, as one among many other influencing factors. And as they engage in
these actions (from the bottom upwards on a Theory of Change map), learning and self-reflection
about how things change can be attempted. At the very bottom the issues identified can be added,
since all the rest stems from these.
None of the details matter here, and in fact it was revised as a result of the field visits. The use made
of it in the evaluation was solely as a tool to explore these relationships and to demonstrate a certain
approach to thinking about the problem.
This map has been constructed using ActKnowledge’s Theory of Change Online tool. It can be viewed
and used at: http://toco.actknowledge.org/ Using the tool, the interventions, the outcomes,
indicators and so forth can be described and stored for later processing into a full Theory of Change.
The Map points to data that is not included here, but has been entered online:
Arrows superimposed with small numbered boxes indicate interventions required to achieve
outcomes.
A small box with ‘R’ superimposed on an arrow indicates that the online version contains an
explicit rationale. Normally every arrow should include a rationale.
These are included solely for illustrative purposes.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 63
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 64
ANNEX 5: INTERVIEWS AND SURVEY RESPONSES
The following is a list of interviews undertaken in each country, including the partners consulted. In
most but not all cases those interviewed from a given partner were interviewed as a group.
EGYPT
Oxfam Novib Country Director, Egypt
Oxfam GB, Egypt.
Projects
Appropriate Communication Techniques for Development (ACT)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Meanwhile in Egypt.
Hoqook.
Support for Information Technology Centre (also known as Da’am)
Development Support Centre: DSC
Hisham Mubarak Legal Centre (HMLC)
Experts
Arab Network for Media Support
Arab Forum for Alternatives
NIGERIA
Oxfam Novib, Nigeria
Oxfam in Nigeria
Partners.
Education as a Vaccine against AIDS: EVA
National Association of Nigerian Traders: NANTS
Civil Society Legislature Advocacy Centre: CISLAC
Community Development Partners: CODEP
Niger Delta Budget Monitoring Group: NDEBUMOG
Environmental Rights Actions (ERA)/ Friends of the Earth Nigeria
Girl Power Initiative. GPI
Leadership Initiative for Transformation and Empowerment (LITE, formerly Niger Delta
Professionals for Development)
MYANMAR
Oxfam, Myanmar
Partners:
Spectrum
Shalom (Nyein Foundation).
Irrawaddy Publishing Group.
Mizzima Media.
Proximity Designs.
Experts.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 65
Myanmar ICT for Development Organisations (MIDO).
Myanmar Freedom Daily.
Myanmar Independent Journal.
GLOBAL/REGIONAL:
Oxfam Novib Global Link.
Oxfam Novib Pan Africa Programme
Partners:
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters – AMARC. .
Social Watch.
IFEX.
Bank Information Centre
CIVICUS.
Inter Press Service – IPS.
OTHER INTERVIEWS:
Miriam Rau, Knowledge and Programme Advisor; and Yvonne Es Advisor Quality & Control. (Oxfam
Novib Evaluation Counterparts.)
Marco de Swart Program Manager - Right To Be Heard.
Martin van der Steen. Oxfam Novib. (Internet Now Uganda)
Lucy den Teuling, Oxfam Novib (CEW-IT Uganda)
Jeffrey Allen, OneWorld UK
Survey Respondents and other email communications with Oxfam Novib:
Andrei Angnged; Ilse Balstra; Clarita Benzon; Gertjan van Bruchem; Brigitte Obertop; Marleen Nolten;
Mirjam van Dorssen.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 66
ANNEX 6: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Different types and sources of information are used in different parts of this report. The approach
taken has therefore been to reference them in the context in which they are used rather than to
present them all at the end.
Central Oxfam Novib documents, such as the Oxfam Novib Corporate Plan, Country Strategies and ON
Annual Reports, are referenced - in footnotes if necessary - at the point at which they are mentioned.
Annex 3 above contains references to documentation that might be useful to gaining a deeper
understanding of the current literature around access to information, and especially in relation to the
role of ICTs.
Each of the three Country Report Appendices contains its own list of references. This comprises
primarily documentation relating to the general analysis of the country context and the dynamics of
A2I there. External Project evaluations are also referenced there.
By far the largest volume of material was internal to Oxfam Novib. In the In-Depth Analysis of Egypt,
Nigeria and Myanmar (which were internal to the evaluation and have not been circulated more
widely), reference is made to the specific internal documents used. The following is a list of the
document types relating to ON Projects and Programmes. All such documents available for each
partners/project have been consulted.
Opportunity and Risk Appraisal (Toolbox)
Counterpart and Project Description
Proposals for Funding
Narrative Reports for different periods
Progress Reports
Internal review and commentary
A wide range of partner documents, developed as outputs during the course of their work, was also
consulted. These are referenced only where they contribute to wider understanding of the context of
the country. Otherwise, they are used simply to inform the research but not referenced.
A21 Priority Theme Evaluation: Final Report
Page 67