free, prior and informed consent program evaluation - oxfam … · 2020-05-03 · free, prior and...

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation

1

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program

Evaluation

‘Forum Theatre’ exercise performed by participants at Oxfam’s FPIC workshop in Cambodia,

June 2014. Photo: Worawan Sukraroek/Oxfam

Final Report

Prepared for Oxfam Australia

23 July 2014

Dr Susanna Kelly

Independent Research and Evaluation

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2

This evaluation was made possible with the support of the Australian aid

program, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.


3

Oxfam Australia: Management Response to Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation

Oxfam Australia would like to thank Susanna Kelly for her quality evaluation. We also

thank everyone who participated in the evaluation for sharing their insights and views

on our program. Oxfam believes the methodology, including the size and sector

inputs, have been useful to get a variety of perspectives, which has helped in

balancing feedback.

The evaluation and its recommendations are informing Oxfam’s wider Free, Prior and

Informed Consent (FPIC) work in 2014/15: this includes plans for a workshop on the

program’s Theory of Change and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework.

An updated program work plan will also developed in conjunction with this workshop.

We are also working with Oxfam country teams and partners to design and

development resources to assist them better support communities understand their

FPIC rights, and in conducting training with civil society. This builds off the evaluation

workshop held in Cambodia in June 2014 and our new FPIC trainer’s manual.

Oxfam is particularly excited by the interest in the ‘Forum Theatre’ methodology and

we are in dialogue with partners about how to expand this.

Our responses to the evaluation’s recommendations follow:

Recommendations Response How Oxfam will implement

Program effectiveness

1. Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.

Agreed We will: Continue to offer training and capacity

building opportunities, including Train the Trainer

Continue to develop FPIC resources, including to supplement and strengthen the quality and usefulness of our existing resources

Support CSO organisational strengthening efforts in the areas of policy influencing and project engagement

2. Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.

Agreed We will Work with Oxfam Country teams and

local partners to understand barriers to women’s participation in decision making processes – in doing so we recognise the importance of analysing and responding to the local context

Use the Integral (gender) Framework to inform our thinking on including gender in program design, implementation and monitoring

3. Consider how to meaningfully include

Agreed We will Include youth and disability advocates


4


marginalised groups such as youth and people with disabilities in program design and implementation.

and organisations in all aspects of program design and implementation

Ensure that the FPIC program complies with relevant Oxfam program policies, such as the Disability Inclusion Policy

Explore specific opportunities for engagement and partnership with youth and disability experts and focused organisations to ensure inclusion of these groups in the FPIC program

Program efficiency

4. Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.

Agreed We will Prioritise our FPIC investments to

align with programming against the Oxfam Australia Strategic Plan’s goals on ‘right to be heard’ and ‘fair sharing of natural resources’

Be responsive to country and regional programs

5. Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society FPIC capacity.

Agreed We will: Consider the multiple delivery

methods available to implement the program

Respond to and engage with requests from those interested and/or working in this area

Prioritise working with others to adapt and utilise our existing resources to and in local contexts

Program impact

6. Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer interrogation of theory of change assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation and Learning framework that collects meaningful data to assess the theory of change.

Agreed We will convene a workshop to develop a strengthened program Theory of Change and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework to be then implemented during 2014/15. The workshop will involve country and regional teams, and possibly partners.

7. Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.

Agreed We will work with Oxfam country and regional teams, and local partners to implement this recommendation. In doing so we will consider ways to support local partners strengthen their strategies on FPIC, and recognise the importance of responding to the local context.

Global advocacy context

8. Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on

Agreed In implementing this recommendation we will: Collaborate and partner with


5


FPIC by investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases and challenges/trouble shooting)

indigenous peoples’ organisations, networks and their representatives

Collaborate with Oxfam country and regional teams to develop case studies and other resources to provide the evidence base for FPIC advocacy

9. Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.

Agreed We will continue to engage with and monitor industry initiatives that should or could address FPIC. In doing so, Oxfam will always work in close collaboration with indigenous peoples’ networks and organisations, so that we have a shared analysis and approach to engaging with these specific initiatives.

If Oxfam adopts an ‘insider’ strategy we will consider initiating an advisory group for accountability purposes that includes indigenous peoples’ representatives

Christina Hill, Serena Lillywhite, Michael Simon and Gary Lee on behalf of Oxfam

Australia’s Mining Advocacy and People, Infrastructure and Environment teams.


6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 7

1. Preface .......................................................................................................................... 8

2. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Evaluation findings and conclusions ....................................................................... 9

3. Background ................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 The Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program ................................................... 13

3.2 Evaluation purpose and objectives ....................................................................... 14

3.3 Evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 15

3.4 Evaluation methodology ...................................................................................... 16

4. Findings ....................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Effectiveness of the FPIC Program ........................................................................ 18

4.2 Efficiency of the FPIC Program ............................................................................. 24

4.3 Impact of the FPIC Program ................................................................................. 26

5. Oxfam Australia’s wider FPIC role ................................................................................ 31

6. Learnings & Recommendations ................................................................................... 38

Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 42


7

ABBREVIATIONS

AIPP Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact

ANCP Australian Non Government Organisation Cooperation Program

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CBO Community Based Organisation

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

DTP Diplomacy Training Program

ERI Earth Rights International (Mekong School)

FPIC Free Prior and Informed Consent

HSAF Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

HSAP Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol

ICMM International Council of Mining and Metals

IFC International Finance Corporation

IFI International Financial Institutions

IHA International Hydropower Association

NGO Non Government Organisation

NRM Natural Resource Management (Program)

PIE People Infrastructure and Environment

PNG Papua New Guinea

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

SABL Special Agriculture Business Lease

ToC Theory of Change

UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples


8

1. PREFACE

This report for the independent evaluation of the Free Prior and Informed Consent Program 2011-14 was prepared for Oxfam Australia by Susanna Kelly.1 The report also includes a strategic case study review of Oxfam Australia’s contribution to FPIC policy and practice globally over the same period.

The report includes:

The evaluation purpose, objectives and questions

Evaluation data sources

Data collection methodology

Analysis and evaluation findings

Appendices, including evaluation tools.

The evaluation report follows the roadmap outlined in the evaluation plan developed for the evaluation (Oxfam Australia 2014b). The evaluation report is based on a review of key documents relating to the FPIC program, in-depth stakeholder interviews and a quantitative online survey. Program partners and civil society stakeholders had the opportunity to review the draft report and provide feedback at a

workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 9 June 2014.

The evaluator would like to acknowledge the contribution of evaluation participants who generously gave their time and insights to the evaluation process.

1 Dr Susanna Kelly [email protected]



9

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 BACKGROUND

The Building Regional Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program

2011–14 was funded under the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign

Affairs and Trade ‘Australian NGO Cooperation Program’ (ANCP). Free, Prior and

Informed Consent (FPIC) is a specific collective right enshrined in the United Nations

Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). Following the

adoption of UNDRIP, increasing attention has been given to FPIC as part of

corporate social responsibility and human rights due diligence.

The program’s overall intention was to build national and regional civil society

understanding of FPIC rights in the Asia Pacific region. This increased understanding

was intended to strengthen civil society organisations’ (CSOs) ability to use FPIC and

related human rights instruments to support Indigenous Peoples and other project

affected peoples hold private sector companies and their own governments

accountable to FPIC rights (Oxfam Australia 2011).

The program sought to strengthen civil society capacity through two primary means:

Development, translation and dissemination of FPIC resources; and

FPIC training programs and workshops.

The program was coordinated by Oxfam Australia’s Mining Advocacy team and

jointly implemented with the People, Infrastructure and Environment (PIE) team. It is

important to note the program is a small part of wider Oxfam Australia work on FPIC,

principally the Mekong regional program led by the PIE team. Over 2011-14, the

FPIC program was increasingly designed to intersect with other Oxfam initiatives and

country programs to create complementarity of effort and budget.

The overall purpose of the evaluation was dual: to provide an end-of-program

assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the FPIC program; and to

examine Oxfam Australia’s global FPIC role through two case examples: the Hydro

Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP, 2011) and the International Council of

Mining and Metals (ICMM) 'Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement' (May

2013).

The evaluation was undertaken between March and June 2014. A range of data

sources were drawn on to address the evaluation objectives: desk review of key

documents; program monitoring data; in-depth interviews; and an online survey

questionnaire. An evaluation findings workshop was held with stakeholders in Phnom

Penh, Cambodia on 9 June 2014.

2.2 EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the FPIC program succeeded in its intended objective to strengthen national

civil society understanding of FPIC rights. The program achieved progress towards

achieving desired outcomes (increased civil society capacity to use FPIC to support


10

communities and to influence policy and practice). The degree to which this

strengthened CSO capacity is sustainable is not yet clear.

Program Effectiveness

The program succeeded in achieving most of its intended outputs (training,

workshops, and translated resources) although the delivery of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual was very slow. CSOs demonstrate increased awareness of FPIC and how it applies to communities’ rights, but questions remain over gender outcomes. The omission of marginalised groups (e.g. youth, people with disabilities) from program design is also evident. CSOs are using FPIC in their advocacy and programming work. The evidence that CSOs have used and adapted program resources indicates an added value beyond program expectations. Delivery of program activities and outputs were therefore consistent with the program’s intended objective to strengthen civil society.

Oxfam Australia’s position as technical experts on FPIC has been enhanced by the program. The training and technical support delivered to CSOs, Oxfam

Australia’s peer engagement with independent experts (e.g. reviewing the FPIC Trainers’ Manual) and other Oxfam country offices have raised the profile of Oxfam Australia as FPIC experts. This expertise is well recognised and respected. The Guide is very highly regarded across all stakeholder groups as both a conceptual introduction to FPIC and a practical guide. Some stakeholders had suggestions to improve the balance of text/pictures for use with communities and to review the

language around rights and legal frameworks.

Significant steps were made towards strengthening CSOs’ FPIC knowledge

and capacity to support communities and influence policy. The ways the

program connected to other Oxfam programs and initiatives created crucial synergies

that enhanced program effectiveness in achieving progress towards these outcomes.

The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement of outputs

and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ capacity. Program

intersections with other Oxfam initiatives was particularly enhanced in the Mekong

region due to the large regional program and maturity of partner relationships.

In this context, the following recommendations for program design and delivery can

be made:

Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to

understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.

Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous

gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.

Consider how to meaningfully include marginalised groups such as youth and

people with disabilities in program design and implementation.

Program Efficiency

Over 2011-14 the program cost AUD 212, 648. The main cost drivers were: Oxfam

Australia salaries; direct grants to program partners; travel to deliver

training/workshops; and resource production. Overall, the program delivered good

value for money, producing high quality outputs for relatively low investment. These

program outputs contributed to progress towards desired outcomes. There is

evidence the program leveraged available resources, including complementarity of


11

effort and budget with program partners and other Oxfam programs, to maximise the

efficiency of program delivery. Direct support to the Diplomacy Training Program

(DTP) to host its Indigenous People’s Rights Program is a more cost intensive model

to deliver training on FPIC than other models (e.g. piggybacking on in-country

programs or solely providing resource/technical support as with the Earth Rights

Mekong School (ERI)). The use of a volunteer to develop the first draft of the FPIC

Trainers’ Manual illustrates leveraging of indirect resources must be approached

carefully. In the case of the Trainers’ Manual, an initial cost saving resulted in

considerable time inefficiencies. The program was able to utilise Oxfam Australia’s

organisational structures and systems to deliver.

In this context, the following recommendations can be made:

Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other

Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.

Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of

FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support

with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society

FPIC capacity.

Program Impact

The program reached a significant number of CSOs (77) and participants (307)

and important steps towards increased CSO capacity have been achieved.

Incremental steps have been made toward CSOs providing effective support to

communities, including proactive use of resources and individual examples of

applying FPIC knowledge. There are signs of increased CSO capacity to use FPIC

knowledge and resources to influence policy and practice (e.g. REDD+ monitoring

and consultation). However, stakeholders point out the significant challenges CSOs

face, including political sensitivities, corruption and weak legal protections. Some

opportunity to network has occurred as a result of the program but the breadth and

depth of this is not clear.

The program built on Oxfam Australia’s previous FPIC work, principally, the

Guide to FPIC produced in 2010, and earlier work with NGO partners. This included

training workshops with Papua New Guinea partners aligned with the PNG Natural

Resource Management program, previous policy work on International Financial

Institutions (IFI) standards, as well as workshops/technical assistance provided under

the Mekong Regional Program (Oxfam Mekong country offices and NGO partners)

which is jointly implemented by the PIE program. The 2011-14 ANCP FPIC program

thus created enhanced value and impact of this work. The program theory of change

(technical support to build CSO partners capacity) is a sound approach but program

impact could be strengthened by a more clearly articulated understanding of the

ways capacity building will occur as a result of the program and how this could be

supported by Oxfam Australia.


Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer

interrogation of theory of change assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation

and Learning framework that collects meaningful data to assess the theory of

change.


12

Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to

support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.

Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region/globally

There is evidence Oxfam Australia has made a significant contribution to the

global ‘noise’ around FPIC. Stakeholders across all groups agree Oxfam Australia,

along with its Oxfam counterparts, has made a substantive contribution to pushing

FPIC onto industry, government and civil society agendas over the last three to five

years. Oxfam Australia is judged to have played a critical role influencing the FPIC

outcomes of the HSAP. Oxfam Australia is considered to have played (along with

Oxfam America), an important role in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM.

The tension between FPIC for Indigenous People versus FPIC for all project

affected peoples remains but there is growing momentum for FPIC to guide

best practice in community consultation and negotiations. Whilst some

stakeholders stress FPIC is a right specific to Indigenous Peoples, there appears to

be growing pressure from global civil society to expand the application of FPIC to

include all project affected peoples. Most stakeholders agree, however, that the issue

is no longer focused on the principle of FPIC, but rather, its implementation on a

project by project basis. Many stakeholders feel Oxfam Australia’s scrutiny of

industry implementation of FPIC is highly important. All stakeholders (expert

independent commentators, global civil society, government and industry

stakeholders) agree Oxfam Australia’s FPIC expertise, particularly in the extractive

sector, has a part to play in shaping/monitoring future policy and practice.

Stakeholders identified key areas of need:

Communities’ need for information and up-skilling on FPIC rights in the

context of specific development projects. This need is magnified in contexts

where communities are especially vulnerable or under pressure to agree to

large scale development projects.

CSOs’ need for context specific support in applying FPIC and guidance on

seeking redress when FPIC goes wrong/does not happen.

Private sector developers’ need for technical ‘know how’ on implementing

good faith FPIC processes with communities.

A continuing need to convince policy decision makers to respect FPIC.


Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on FPIC by

investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases

and challenges/trouble shooting)

Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry

implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.


13

Free, Prior and

Informed Consent

(FPIC) is a specific

collective right

enshrined in the

United Nations

Declaration of the

Rights of

Indigenous Peoples

(UNDRIP).

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 THE FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT PROGRAM

The Building Regional Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program

(the ‘program’) was funded under the Australian Government’s Department of

Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT, previously the Australian Agency for International

Development (AusAID). The program consisted of three annual grants over 1 July

2011 – 30 June 2014 funded under the Australian NGO Cooperation Program

(ANCP).2 Oxfam Australia is one of eight Australian Non-Government Organisations

(NGOs) to enter four year ANCP agreements. The program straddles two such

agreements: 2008-12 and 2013-17.

Following the adoption of the 2007 United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(UNDRIP) by the United Nations General Assembly,

increasing attention has been given to Free Prior and

Informed Consent (FPIC) as part of corporate social

responsibility and human rights due diligence. Oxfam

recognises that Indigenous Peoples (and ethnic minority

peoples) around the globe have the inherent right to

FPIC over their lands, territories and resources. In

accordance with the principles espoused in UNDRIP and

the International Bill of Rights3, Oxfam Australia has

stressed the rights of all project affected peoples (not

just Indigenous Peoples) to meaningful consultation and

negotiation, consistent with the principles underlying

FPIC, in decisions that affect their lands and livelihoods (Oxfam Australia 2010: 10).

The program’s overall intention was to build national and regional civil society

understanding of FPIC rights in the Asia Pacific region. This “practical, regional and

local level understanding” was intended to strengthen civil society organisations’

(CSOs) ability to use FPIC and related human rights instruments to support

Indigenous Peoples and other project affected peoples hold private sector companies

and their own governments accountable to FPIC rights (Oxfam Australia 2011).

The program sought to strengthen civil society capacity through two primary means:

Development, translation and dissemination of FPIC resources; and

FPIC training programs and workshops.

The program partnered with the Diplomacy Training Program (DTP)4 to support its

‘Indigenous People’s Rights Program’ with a direct annual grant and to deliver FPIC

2 The ANCP was established in 1974 and provides grants to AusAID (now DFAT) accredited Australian NGOs to undertake international development programs in supplement to NGOs own activities. 3 The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. 4 The DTP’s ‘Indigenous People’s Rights Program’ delivers training to young indigenous activists and

advocates from across the Asia Pacific region and Australia. DTP was established in 1989 and is hosted


14

training to DTP participants. The program also partnered with the Earth Rights

Mekong School (ERI)5 to support ERI curricula by providing FPIC resources and

support to develop ERI training on FPIC.

The program was coordinated by Oxfam Australia’s Mining Advocacy team and

jointly implemented with the People, Infrastructure and Environment (PIE) team. It is

important to note the program is a small part of wider Oxfam Australia work on FPIC.

Examples of closely aligned and separately funded programs include the PIE team’s

advocacy work to promote Indigenous Peoples’ rights to FPIC with International

Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as the Asian Development Bank’s safeguards

policies for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. Other wider Oxfam Australia FPIC advocacy

work includes policy monitoring and reviews of Bank Accountability Mechanisms and

other safeguard policy areas (e.g. involuntary resettlement and environmental

protection). This work seeks to advance the rights and interests of project affected

peoples to assert their rights to information and to be active stakeholders within the

context of project development following appropriation of land and resources. The

PIE team has also provided multi-year funding to the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact

(AIPP) to develop an IFI - Indigenous Peoples Policies Monitoring program. This has

been a key mechanism to advance FPIC across East and South Asia AIPP member

organisations and to help AIPP be an effective influence and monitor on Bank

implementation and compliance.

A key example of the synergy between the program and wider Oxfam Australia work

on FPIC is the Mekong regional work led by the PIE team. The regional program

supports NGOs in broader CSO networks concerned with Indigenous Peoples, ethnic

minorities and project affected peoples in the Mekong region. This has included PIE

team support to establish the ERI Mekong School in 2006 and to provide on-going

training and resources on Asian Development Bank Great Mekong Sub-region

program and projects and ADB safeguard policies.

3.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The overall purpose of the evaluation was dual:

1. Provide an end-of-program assessment of the ANCP funded FPIC program;

and

2. Examine Oxfam Australia’s role in contributing to FPIC policy and practice

change globally.

Oxfam Australia determined a number of evaluation objectives, namely to:

1. Assess the extent to which program outputs were successfully delivered

2. Assess the extent to which the program achieved its intended outcomes

3. Assess the efficiency of the program

by the Law Faculty, University of New South Wales. DTP is also a long standing partner of Oxfam’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples’ Program 5 EarthRights International's EarthRights School Mekong (ERI) delivers a seven month-long training program to civil society advocates from the Mekong Region (China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam) who are working on environmental and human rights issues. ERI (Mekong) is based in Chiang Mai, Thailand and was established in 2006. The PIE team has supported ERI (Mekong) school since its establishment.


15

4. Assess perceptions of Oxfam Australia’s role in FPIC policy and practice

change through two case examples: the Hydro Sustainability Assessment

Protocol (2011) and the International Council of Mining and Metals

'Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement' (May 2013).

3.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Effectiveness

1. To what extent did the program achieve its intended outputs?

2. To what extent did the program achieve its intended outcomes?

To what extent were program outcomes inclusive of women/other

marginalised people?

3. What factors facilitated or impeded achievement of outputs and outcome?

4. Were there any unintended program outcomes (positive or negative)?

Efficiency

5. To what extent was program management and implementation efficient?

What factors facilitated or impeded program efficiency?

6. To what extent did the program partnership approach work?

7. To what extent has the program delivered value for money?

What do stakeholders define as program value for money?

Could better outcomes been delivered for the same investment?

Could the same outcomes been delivered for less investment?

Impact

8. To what extent has the program had a longer term and sustainable impact on

CSO capacity and practice for:

Advocacy and support on communities’ FPIC rights?

Successful engagement with government and industry?

Learnings

9. What lessons can be learned to improve future program design and delivery?

10. What lessons are there for the Oxfam Australia program Theory of Change?

11. What lessons are there for the Oxfam Australia program MEL framework?

Oxfam Australia’s role in contributing to FPIC policy and practice in Asia

Pacific /globally

12. How is Oxfam Australia’s role and perceived value understood by different

stakeholders (government, industry and civil society) in the following case

examples?

Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol (2011)

International Council of Mining and Metals 'Indigenous Peoples and

Mining Position Statement' (May 2013).


16

3.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation was undertaken between March and June 2014. A range of data sources were drawn on to address the evaluation objectives and associated questions, as follows:

A desk review of key program documents provided background and contextual

information on the program, its design and delivery, intentions and desired outcomes,

as well as program partners and funder.

Program monitoring data and reports Program reports provided data on program

implementation over 2011-14, including costs.

In-depth semi-structured interviews were held with 31 key program stakeholders,

including managers, program partners, CSO beneficiaries and independent expert

commentators. Government, regional/global civil society and industry representatives

were interviewed on Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC regionally and

globally.

An online survey questionnaire was conducted with 31 FPIC training participants

from DTP and ERI.6 The survey asked training participants’ views on the relevance,

effectiveness and impact of the FPIC resource materials and training. The survey

was pre-tested for language comprehension and appropriateness. DTP’s 2012 and

2013 cohorts and ERI’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 cohorts were invited to participate (81

people in total). The final sample of completed surveys (n=29) represents a response

rate of 36%.

Please refer to Appendix C for data collection tools.

A program outcomes model and indicators were developed for the evaluation

(refer Appendix B). The model describes intended outputs and intermediate

outcomes specific to the program as well as impacts the program was intended to

contribute to.

Data collection was undertaken between 22 April and 23 May 2014. In addition, input

was received from an Indigenous Peoples’ organisation representative at the

evaluation findings workshop, 9 June 2014. A sample frame for the evaluation is

outlined in Table 1. The qualitative sample selection was purposive and pragmatic,

namely, to interview as many direct program stakeholders (Oxfam; delivery partners;

CSO beneficiaries) and in-direct program stakeholders (government; industry; and

regional/global civil society representatives) as possible. Two independent expert

commentators were also included in the sample to provide an external perspective

on the program and Oxfam Australia’s wider role contributing to FPIC policy and

practice. The quantitative sample sought all ERI and DTP training participants over

2011-13.

6 Due to limited internet inaccessibility in Papua New Guinea (PNG), the evaluation planned to include Papua New Guinean training participants (n=17) via a paper based survey administered by a visiting Oxfam Australia staff member. The staff member’s visit was postponed, however, which meant a sample of PNG stakeholders’ views were collected in phone and email interviews (n=4).


17

Table 1: Evaluation sample frame

Stakeholder group Sample (n=)

Oxfam staff (Oxfam Australia and its country programs; other national Oxfam offices)

9

Program delivery partners (DTP; ERI) 7

Program beneficiaries (CSOs) 5

Regional and global CSOs 5

Independent expert commentators 2

Government representatives 2

Industry representatives 1 Total interviews 31

Training survey participants 31 Total 62

3.4.1 Evaluation scope and limitations

The evaluation covers the period 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2014.

In considering the findings of this evaluation, several limitations are noted:

The evaluation focus is on direct program beneficiaries (CSOs and individual

training participants). The evaluation did not speak with communities as

indirect program beneficiaries. This decision reflects evaluation resourcing as

well as program intent. Evidence of sustainable change (Refer Appendix B) in

the lives of women, men, girls and boys is therefore beyond the evaluation

scope. However, evidence of CSO activity and impact on communities is

assessed as this desired ‘flow-on’ impact is recognised in the program theory

of change (ToC).

No Asia Pacific government representatives were interviewed.

The evaluation was only able to speak with one industry representative.

The achieved survey sample size is small (n=29) and results must therefore

be treated as indicative only.

Having noted these limitations, the evaluator is confident evaluation findings are

robust and accurately reflect triangulated data from interviews; survey; and document

review.

3.4.2 Notes to the report

Program partners are defined as organisations that implemented program activities

with support from Oxfam Australia. They include DTP and ERI.

Program beneficiaries are defined as CSOs and individual training participants (DTP

and ERI). Training participants were from primarily from CSOs (a broad definition

covering established NGOs and Community Based Organisations), but were also

individual activists.

Stakeholders refers those who were interviewed for the evaluation.


18

4. FINDINGS

4.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FPIC PROGRAM

4.1.1 Achievement of intended outputs

Over 2011-14, the FPIC program achieved most of its intended outputs. The

program:

Delivered 11 workshops and training with CSOs and DTP participants7

Supported DTP with a direct annual grant towards running its Asia Pacific

regional capacity building program on the rights of Indigenous Peoples

Reprinted 2,000 copies of the Community Guide to FPIC (the ‘Guide’)

(English)

Developed, tested and published a FPIC Trainer’s Manual (500 printed and

online publication)

Translated the Guide into two languages (Tok Pisin (5,000 copies printed and

published online) and Mongolian (online)

Supported development of a version of the Guide for India (translation and

adaption currently in development)

Supported two ERI Forum Theater workshops on FPIC.

Over 2011-14, program reach to direct beneficiaries included:

307 training/workshop participants (113 women/172 men)8

77 CSOs9

17 countries.10

The program has also reached indirect beneficiaries. These include other staff of

training participants’ organisations and those reached by dissemination of FPIC

resources (approximately 5,900 hard copies of the Guide and Trainers’ Manual have

been disseminated to date).11 In addition, all resources are available online.12

Annual planning allowed the program to be responsive to requests for FPIC training

and resource translation. Examples include the decision to develop a FPIC Trainers’

Manual following observation of FPIC training in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The

translation of the Guide into Mongolian is another example of program

responsiveness; a visit to Mongolia to speak at a mining and human rights

7 This includes the ERI Forum Theater workshop (Thailand 2013) which was supported by the FPIC program but does not include ERI Mekong School training 2011, 2012 and 2013. These latter trainings were delivered by ERI trainers using Oxfam Australia FPIC resources. 8 There is no gender disaggregation for one workshop (22 participants) in Mae Hon Son, Thailand, March 2013. 9 This figure does not include ERI participants from CSOs. 10 Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka. 11 4,000 Tok Pisin Guides, 1,700 English reprinted Guides and 200 Trainers Manuals (to date). The Trainers Manual was published in April 2014. 12

It has not been possible to count online downloads of FPIC resources.


19

conference triggered the development of a Mongolian translation. A number of other

FPIC Guide translations were developed over the same timeframe, funded by other

program or Oxfam country office budgets (including Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese,

Portuguese and ten Myanmar languages).

Program activity took place in PNG and seven Asian countries (Laos, Myanmar,

Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and India). Program reach extended

further, however, with the wider reach of DTP and ERI alumnae (from 19 countries in

total).13 An outline of program activity is given below.

In Papua New Guinea, Oxfam Australia’s program partners were the Turubu Eco

Forest Development Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation.

The FPIC program team conducted FPIC training and piloted the draft FPIC Trainers’

Manual with both program partners and other local CSOs. The Oxfam Australia team

made two visits to PNG (February & November 2012).

The FPIC program activities undertaken in PNG ran alongside the Natural Resource

Management (NRM) Program.14 The NRM Program also worked with Turubu Eco

Forest Development Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation

as program implementing partners delivering FPIC awareness to affected

communities in the region and media and advocacy work. The Guide (Tok Pisin and

English versions) was used as a training resource. There is thus some difficulty in

maintaining clear boundaries between FPIC program and NRM program outcomes.

This report focuses on the former but a degree of overlap must be acknowledged in

the cumulative effect of the two programs in PNG.

In the Asia region, program activities included supporting workshops and training events delivered to CSOs, government representatives and Oxfam in-country staff in India (2012), Vietnam (2012), Laos (2013), Indonesia (2014) and Cambodia (2014). The Oxfam Australia program team also delivered FPIC training to DTP participants (Malaysia 2012; Cambodia 2013; and Myanmar 2014). The ERI curricula (three cohorts: 2011, 2012 and 2013) utilised Oxfam Australia FPIC resources. The program also supported the development of a Forum Theater methodology15 approach to community awareness raising of FPIC (2013) and utilising the methodology in ERI training (2014). The Forum Theater methodology was included in

the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.

Program activities did not actively seek the participation of youth or people with

disabilities.

13 DTP and ERI alumnae 2011-14 are from the following countries: Cambodia; Laos; Vietnam; Myanmar; Thailand; Indonesia; Malaysia; Philippines; Timor Leste; India; Sri Lanka; Pakistan; Bangladesh; Nepal; China; Tibet; Fiji; and Australia 14 Oxfam International in PNG conducted the Sepik Natural Resource Management Rights Program from July 2010 to June 2013. The aim of the project was to support East Sepik communities to increase equitable outcomes of the associated benefits of natural resource agreements and to minimise negative impacts of development. 15 Forum Theater is one of the various methodologies of ‘Theater of the Oppressed’, initiated by Brazilian theater practitioner Augusto Boal in the 1960s. Retrieved 30 May 2014 http://www.earthrights.org/blog/using-theater-address-social-challenges-refugee-communities

http://www.earthrights.org/blog/using-theater-address-social-challenges-refugee-communities


20

4.1.2 Achievement of intended outcomes

This section address Evaluation Objective 3: the extent to which the program

achieved its intended outcomes. These included:

Increased CSO understanding of FPIC and communities’ rights

CSOs deliver FPIC training to communities

Oxfam staff have increased understanding of FPIC and its applicability

Industry awareness of FPIC increases.

As a result of the program, participating CSOs, DTP and ERI trainees and

Oxfam in-country staff have increased understanding of FPIC and

communities’ rights. All stakeholders who participated in program training and

workshops strongly agree these learning events were successful in raising FPIC

knowledge, understanding of the complex issues involved and applicability to

participants’ own contexts. The training is viewed as highly empowering by number of

CSO stakeholders. Several trainer stakeholders note the high level of interest and

engagement of participants on FPIC training, in particular around applying FPIC to

local contexts. The knowledge and skill of the Oxfam Australia trainers is noted by a

number of stakeholders.

Survey respondents also report increased FPIC knowledge and ability to advocate for communities’ rights. When asked the extent to which FPIC training

had increased their knowledge of FPIC, all strongly agreed or agreed. Almost all (97%) agreed FPIC training strengthened their ability to advocate for communities’ rights. Over two thirds (76%) use an expanded range of FPIC tools in their role as a result of training. Significantly, the Oxfam Australia supported FPIC training was the only FPIC training most survey respondents (83%) had attended.

The Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent (Oxfam Australia 2010) is central

to the achievement of this outcome. The Guide is recognised as a high value

resource by all stakeholders. In particular, the seven steps are considered to be well

designed and to provide practical guidance for negotiations between communities

and developers/government. The format is highly regarded, with a good balance of

text and graphics appropriate to the target audience (CSOs), but perhaps less so for

illiterate/low literacy community audiences. The section on questions to ask the

project developer (Guide pp.16-17) is thought to be particularly useful by

stakeholders who use the Guide with NGOs. Also of great practical use are the

Flashcards which are valued because of their accessibility to different audiences.

Overall, translating the Guide into local languages increased its use value but

with important qualifications. Although producing a Tok Pisin Guide has increased

the Guide’s profile in PNG and supported delivery of training in Tok Pisin, its level of

use beyond CSOs is not clear. PNG CSOs report the Guide is too long and detailed

to be usefully distributed within communities. Stakeholders also point out a few

quality issues around appropriate language. The language in the Tok Pisin

translation is considered by PNG stakeholders to miss the mark with contemporary

audiences. A Mekong Region stakeholder commented on the difficulties translating

FPIC concepts into local contexts. Negotiating political sensitivities around FPIC was

an acknowledged difficulty in some translations.


21

A number of points on improving Guide content were made by independent

expert commentators, FPIC trainers and participants. Although the content of the

Guide is considered to be quite well contextualised, these stakeholders feel the

Guide could increase its impact by including case study examples of communities

that have engaged in FPIC negotiations with government and industry.16 A few

stakeholders thought the Guide should also pay attention to guidance on remedy and

redress when rights are violated. A number of stakeholders also feel the section on

‘Where does FPIC come from? Who does it apply to?’ could benefit from revision to

tighten the alignment between rights to FPIC and relevant legal frameworks.

“The Guide has been well circulated and well used.” (Independent expert

commentator)

“Translating the Guide really allowed a practical approach….the Guide was an

extremely valuable resource, it was well developed and based on experience for

engaging with partners.” (Oxfam in-country staff)

“Guides like Oxfam Australia’s can be very useful in this situation, for a fair good faith

discussion. It is applicable to both sides.” (Independent expert commentator)

“What could improve the Guide would be illustrations or examples based on real

cases.”(Trainer)

“Invite leaders or communities (to give testimonies) whose FPIC were violated to give

further meat and first-hand experience to participants of the training.” (Survey

respondent)

“The materials in Tok Pisin are helpful, my own assessment though is that we need

more pictures to help people understand…the Guide is too wordy, it needs to be

more captivating.” (PNG CSO)

“I would request to have video version because many indigenous community could

not read Khmer language and that's is not really easy to get translator for them so if

you produce any video for them is much more easy for them.” (Survey respondent)

“I would add a note of caution with regards needing to be very careful how [the

Guide] explains where FPIC applies to Indigenous People and project affected

people…the particular legal framework that has emerged ties FPIC to the collective

rights of Indigenous Peoples enacted collectively…Oxfam Australia is very interested

in a wider application of FPIC for everyone tied to the right to development and self-

determination and I think the legal part of that is a little blurry.” (NGO)

PNG CSOs were the only program beneficiaries supported to deliver their own

FPIC training. This support (February 2012) built on previous Training of Trainers for

FPIC with PNG partners prior to the 2011-13 program (September 2010). PNG CSO

partners went on to deliver FPIC training in communities as part of the NRM

program. Oxfam in-country and Oxfam Australia head office staff observing this

training noted areas of difficulty, including accuracy of translation from English to Tok

16 An example given is Oxfam America’s case study of the Government of Bolivia’s Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy successfully applying FPIC during a gas exploration project in the indigenous territory of Charagua Norte e Isoso, Santa Cruz region. (Oxfam America 2010)


22

Pisin and gender inclusiveness. Other program beneficiaries outside PNG report

using FPIC program training and resources to deliver training on FPIC to

communities (69% of survey respondents).

The program did not have explicitly stated gender objectives. However, the

program is situated within a broader Oxfam commitment to gender justice and within

this context a number of points on gender emerged during the evaluation:

The FPIC resources (especially the Guide) are not viewed as gender

responsive and program managers acknowledge the need to pay greater

attention to gender in program design within all the countries the program

worked in. This gap was addressed by foregrounding women’s participation

and decision making in the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.

Gender inclusion is not considered to have been mainstreamed in the PNG

NRM program design (Oxfam Australia, n.d.). FPIC program managers note

the limitations this subsequently imposed on gender mainstreaming in the

FPIC program in PNG.

Stakeholders across all regions commenting on efforts to mainstream gender

equity and women’s empowerment in community engagement work, stress

the challenges this poses. Despite these difficulties, survey respondents

report that following FPIC training, they have worked with communities to

include women (73%) and marginalised groups (77%).

“The FPIC Community Guide was ‘gender blind’ and so it’s not surprising we’re

struggling with gender engagement. We addressed this is in the Trainers’ Manual

which is gender responsive.” (Program manager)

“We try to promote gender equality even if this just means equal numbers of men and

women at village workshops….but cultural gender equality is not yet strong enough

in communities. There are some strong women speakers but overall, women do not

have a confident voice.” (Mekong CSO)

“We tried to get equal men and women [in training workshops] but this did not

eventuate because of cultural norms and values.” (Oxfam in-country)

The program intended to build FPIC capacity in other Oxfam programs and in-

country offices (Oxfam Australia 2011). There does not appear to have been a

formal delivery plan within the FPIC program to meet this objective. Program

managers acknowledge this stream of work was not formally planned and executed

but happened in an ad hoc and responsive manner alongside other work, for

example, alongside training workshops delivered to PNG or Mekong CSOs. The

FPIC Learning Event (for Oxfam staff) in the original program design (Oxfam

Australia 2011) did not happen. The program did deliver FPIC training to Oxfam staff

in Indonesia in April 2014, however, and some in-country Oxfam staff stakeholders

report FPIC training to be helpful to other areas of their work. Other synergistic

program initiatives, such as the Mekong program (jointly managed and implemented

by the PIE team), contributed to building Oxfam FPIC capacity. The Mekong program

developed a capacity building strategy and funding stream which worked with Oxfam

country teams to support civil society strengthening around environmental and social

policies and standards. This included Free, Prior and Informed Consent and used the

FPIC Guide.


23

“The workshop was very useful, it built capacity and helped to create clarity around

our thinking on land.” (Oxfam in-country)

“The program’s capacity building of Oxfam staff in country offices was implied rather

than explicit.”(Program manager)

The evaluation did not find evidence the program resulted in increased

industry awareness of FPIC. However, the FPIC program is situated within Oxfam

Australia’s larger program of work on FPIC and in this context, there was an impact

on industry awareness of FPIC (see Section 5).

A number of facilitators and barriers to program achievement of outputs and

outcomes emerged.

The program’s synergy with other Oxfam Australia programs facilitated the

achievement of outputs and outcomes. Program intersections with other Oxfam

initiatives were particularly enhanced in the Mekong region due to the Oxfam

Australia regional program and maturity of partner relationships. In addition to the

PIE team managed Mekong program, examples of program synergy with wider work

streams include the strengthening of in-country Oxfam staff FPIC knowledge through

their work on Guide translations funded by other sources (e.g. Vietnamese, Lao and

Khmer translations of the Guide) and utilising other Oxfam country offices’ networks

to disseminate FPIC resources. In PNG, program outcomes were facilitated by NRM

program activities with partner organisations (Turubu Eco Forest Development

Program and the Central Sepik Rural Development Foundation).

The program built on previous and existing work of the Mining Advocacy and

PIE teams. This included policy work (e.g. monitoring Asian Development Bank and

World Bank safeguard policies); leading Oxfam International’s submission on IFC

performance standards; Oxfam Australia’s representation on the Coordination

Committee of OECD Watch17; knowledge products (e.g. analysis, production and

dissemination of resources on Bank policies; the Guide (Oxfam Australia 2010 ; the

annual Oxfam Sustainable Mining Symposium; research publications (e.g. Caer and

Oxfam Australia, 2013); targeted funding to lead NGOs including ERI and AIPP;

and capacity building within watchdog networks such as the NGO Forum on the

Asian Development Bank18.

CSOs’ capacity could potentially act as both facilitator and barrier to program

outcomes. The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement

of outputs and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ technical

capacity as well as their capacity to function within specific political and legal

environments. FPIC is highly politically sensitive in some countries and this acts as a

potential barrier by restricting CSO activity. Oxfam’s approach in such contexts is

highly adaptive and locally specific. In this context, stakeholders agree the program

objectives (to strengthen civil society) are highly relevant.

17 OECD Watch is an international network of civil society organisations promoting corporate accountability. The purpose of OECD Watch is to inform the wider NGO community about policies and activities of the OECD's Investment Committee and to test the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 18

NGO Forum on the Asian Development Bank was established in 1992 and is a collective of NGOs with a purpose of monitoring the Asian Development Bank and holding it accountable.


24

The knowledge and expertise of the Oxfam Australia team facilitated the

achievement of program outputs and outcomes. There is a distance effect when

this expertise is delivered in short bursts however. In-country Oxfam staff point out

they can disseminate resources but do not have the technical capacity to provide

FPIC training or support (e.g. to local CSOs) themselves. Oxfam Australia’s FPIC

expertise is thus viewed as valuable but distant. Program managers also

acknowledge a ‘fly in fly out’ aspect to the FPIC support they provide.

Program managers noted one positive unintended program outcome for the

Mining Advocacy team, namely the program resulted in stronger links and new

collaborations between the Oxfam Australia policy and advocacy team (based at

head office) and international program teams in country offices.

4.2 EFFICIENCY OF THE FPIC PROGRAM

This section address Evaluation Objective 3: Efficiency of the project. It includes

assessment of:

Efficiency of project management, including program partnership approach

Facilitators and barriers to project efficiency

Program value for money.

Project efficiency is understood as the relationship between project resource (inputs),

including time, money and personnel, and results (outputs and outcomes). The

evaluation was not able to access comparable Oxfam Australia programs to assess

value for money relative to similar projects.

4.2.1 Project management

The program was coordinated by the Oxfam Australia Mining Advocacy team

and jointly implemented with the PIE team (four staff members). There was no formal

FTE dedicated to the program. The direct annual grant to DTP to support its Asia

Pacific regional capacity building program on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was

the only formal partner agreement. There was a one-off grant to Oxfam India to

support the adaption of the FPIC Guide.

Program administration and donor reporting changed substantially over the

life of the program due to the program straddling two Oxfam Australia ANCP four

year agreements (2008-12 and 2013-17). It should be noted the ANCP funding was

drawn down annually in a competitive internal process. Annual Development Plans

outlining program objectives and deliverables for the coming year were submitted to

AusAID (now DFAT). This meant program managers were not able to plan a three

year program but rather a series of three annual plans. This restricted longer term

planning but also enabled the program to be highly responsive, for example

responding to requests for FPIC training or support (e.g. translation of resources).

A number of facilitators and barriers to program efficiency emerged:

Facilitators: Over 2011-14, the program was increasingly designed to intersect with

other Oxfam initiatives and country programs to create complementarity of effort and

budget. This complementarity facilitated efficiency and produced aggregated value


25

for the FPIC program. Examples include program participation in workshops funded

or supported by other budgets. The program also utilised existing networks and

relationships (e.g. to disseminate FPIC resources). Program outputs were supported

by Oxfam Australia’s back office functions (e.g. program quality and donor reporting).

There was no corporate overhead (excepting salaries) levied on the program budget.

Barriers: The use of a volunteer to develop a first draft FPIC Trainers’ Manual in

2012 was cost efficient but not time efficient, and resulted in an overly lengthy

production period. The Manual was published in April 2014. The requirement to

submit to three funding application rounds was time intensive. Program managers

are candid about the narrow timeframes used for FPIC program planning and design

and feel this could be improved.

4.2.2 Program Value for Money

Over 2011-14 the program cost AUD 212, 648.19 The main program cost drivers

were:

Oxfam Australia salary costs (31%)

Direct grants to DTP and Oxfam India (20%)

Travel (International and within Australia) to deliver training/workshops (17%)

Resource production (design, printing and distribution) (14%)

Workshop materials (8%).

The evaluation did not attempt to formally define and attribute a financial value to

outcomes. This approach is aligned with Oxfam Australia’s emerging thinking on

evidencing value for money (Oxfam Australia 2014d). The value for money

assessment deployed here is based on informed but subjective judgement of

whether the same outcomes could have been delivered for less investment, or

whether better outcomes could have been delivered for the same investment.

Overall, the program achieved good value for money. The program delivered

high quality outputs for relatively low investment. Program outputs contributed to

progress towards achievement of desired outcomes, but the extent to which this

progress is sustainable is not yet clear.

When asked for their perceptions on program value for money, evaluation

stakeholders (with the exception of program managers), were unable to comment. In

part this was due to lack of transparency around program costs but also indicates the

complexity of concepts of value in capacity building for advocacy and policy. A

number of points on program value for money emerge:

The program did not report on economy and efficiency of program

investment, particularly return on investment of direct annual grants to DTP.

The outcome of the grant to Oxfam India (2013/14) is not yet clear.

Primary cost drivers (salaries, travel and printing) could not be realistically

reduced. Program managers estimate salary allocations in terms of time

spent on the program are conservative. This may highlight other issues in

underestimating required staff resource. Oxfam Australia team travel (e.g. to

19

Consolidated financial acquittal at 30 June 2014


26

The FPIC program

Theory of Change

assumes Oxfam

Australia’s

technical support

and training to CSO

program partners

results in increased

capacity of those

actors/entities to

engage with

government and

the private sector

on the issue of

FPIC; to provide

effective support to

communities; and

to network with

wider civil society

to achieve greater

impact.

deliver workshops/training in-country) is central to the program’s delivery of

FPIC expertise.

Program value for money assessments include assessing whether available

alternatives exist. The evidence presented in this evaluation suggests Oxfam

Australia’s FPIC technical expertise and resources (Guide and Flashcards, as

well as translations) had a high and unique value in the Mekong Region and

PNG.

Based on the evidence available to the evaluation, it is doubtful the program could

have achieved the same outcomes for less investment or significantly better

outcomes for the same investment.

4.3 IMPACT OF THE FPIC PROGRAM

This section address Evaluation Objective 4: Impact of the project. It includes

assessment of the extent to which program outcomes contributed to CSOs’ capacity

to:

Deliver effective FPIC support to communities;

Influence policy and practice; and

Network with national, regional and global civil

society.

4.3.1 Impact on CSO capacity

Overall, evidence suggests the ToC is valid, but could be

refined and improved.

The program’s theory of change (ToC) (refer Appendix B) is

central to assessing the program’s impact on CSO capacity.

The logic of the ToC assumes Oxfam Australia technical

support (FPIC training and resources) to CSOs will result in

increased CSO capacity to support communities’ FPIC rights

and positively influence policy and practice. Evaluation

stakeholders agree the program ToC is a sound approach

but stress the ToC depends in large part on the effectiveness

of the partnership between Oxfam Australia and local

partners. Furthermore, the strength of the ToC for vulnerable

or marginalised groups (e.g. women, children/young people,

disabled) must be treated with particular caution.

The program ToC did not articulate a robust understanding of

how capacity building in CSOs would occur as a result of

Oxfam Australia’s technical support. Further, the ToC did not

detail the way this process would be supported by Oxfam

Australia. Nor did the ToC contain explicit assessment of the existing capacity and

operational environment of CSOs in PNG and the Mekong. Such an assessment

would include analysis of how and why capacity building is more/less effective, as

well as the enablers and constraints in the wider CSO operating environment (e.g.

political sensitivities and law and governance).


27

Capacity building is a complex process affected by many factors and it is important to

note the Oxfam Australia ANCP funded FPIC program is just one factor contributing

to potential impact over 2011-14.

“The program theory of change is a good approach. International NGOs are not best

placed to support communities over time.” (Independent expert commentator)

“Oxfam Australia should continue to find and support high quality local partners;

savvy local actors in local spaces.” (Government stakeholder)

“Theory of change and how we measure policy and advocacy work is a really live

issue….expectations of civil society capacity are high.” (Government stakeholder)

Some incremental steps towards CSOs’ effective FPIC support to communities

can be seen:

CSOs are proactively using FPIC resources in their awareness raising and

advocacy activities.

Survey respondents report adapting the Guide for their own use (75%).

Examples include a PNG CSO’s development of an A4 size FPIC leaflet in

Tok Pisin and English to hand out to communities; and a Cambodian NGO

adaptation of the Guide into a more targeted community resource for use in

Rattanakiri province.

PNG CSOs20 have used FPIC in radio programs, media releases, quarterly

newsletters and Facebook posts.

A Mekong Region CSO has used FPIC program resources to support a

community to advocate for FPIC in a dam development project. This support

has included FPIC a staff members’ blog delivering information on FPIC

adapted from the Guide and the FPIC Trainers’ Manual.21

Survey respondents report successfully supporting communities to defend

their FPIC rights (65%).

Survey respondents report using the Guide to raise community awareness most

often (79%), followed by using the Guide for government advocacy (64%); and in

private sector advocacy (60%). A significant proportion report not using the Guide in

either government or private sector advocacy (29% and 40% respectively). This

aligns with stakeholders’ comments that CSOs have increased capacity to undertake

FPIC advocacy with communities but this is not mirrored in advocacy with

government or the private sector.

ERI stakeholders state the application of FPIC concepts are clearly evidenced in

alumnae ongoing research and advocacy work with communities. Other CSO

stakeholders spoke of the influence learning about FPIC good practice principles had

made on their own processes of consultation with communities. A number of CSOs

highlighted the program had enhanced the impact of existing community work. One

PNG CSO mentioned it has achieved greater reach into remote areas because of the

availability of FPIC resources in Tok Pisin. PNG CSO stakeholders stressed the

challenging political, legal and business environment for communities attempting to

20 This instance is an example of the close boundaries between the ANCP FPIC program and the NRM program as the same partner CSOs were involved in each. 21

http://www.wpiggy.blogspot.com/2013/11/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic.html

http://www.wpiggy.blogspot.com/2013/11/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic.html


28

exercise their rights to FPIC. In particular, the complexities of land tenure systems

mean further challenges when Special Agriculture Business Leases (SABL)

processes are too swift or not inclusive, resulting in costly disputes. FPIC is

described by one CSO as both the way in, and the way out, of this complex

challenge.

“We work with communities and we have applied the FPIC Guide into our other

projects, such as monitoring Asian Development Bank and World Bank projects.”

(Mekong CSO stakeholder)

“After the training, I had to implement two projects which involved FPIC processes

with a number of communities. Inputs from Oxfam Australia's helped a lot.” (Survey

respondent)

“Oxfam's FPIC training complemented what the Forum was already doing,

particularly in terms of advocacy and awareness.” (PNG CSO)

“[Oxfam Australia’s FPIC work] has supported trainings that would take place

anyway.” (Mekong CSO)

“We haven't …deliver[ed] FPIC training at the community level due to limited staff

and funding. Instead we have made available these resources for the Eco-Forestry

Forum member organizations who are on the ground around the country to keep

delivering the messages on FPIC and the Forum only coordinating the activities. And

that makes a lot of work much easier.” (PNG CSO)

We “distribute FPIC materials in a range of fora, particularly human rights and

business related fora, training, resource provision to other groups [including] with

industry… when running responsible business seminars etc.” (Mekong CSO)

There has been increased opportunity for local CSOs to network as a direct

result of the FPIC program but there is no clear evidence of impact on CSO

networking nationally or regionally (Asia Pacific). Program workshops and training

brought together 77 CSOs and stakeholders valued the networking opportunities this

brought. 85% of survey respondents report new partnerships with other CSOs as a

result of FPIC training and resources. In PNG, local Sepik region CSOs report some

recognition of synergy between their organisations’ activities as a result of joint FPIC

training. An example is the reported synergy between Turubu Eco Forestry’s FPIC

work and Bismarck Ramu Group’s delivery of development awareness for

communities. Whether this synergy represents a step towards forming and sustaining

new partnerships and alliances is not clear however.

A number of workshops in the Mekong Region (Vietnam 2012; Laos 2013; Cambodia

2014) brought together a wide range of organisations. A one day land law workshop

was an opportunity for 15 Vietnamese CSO initiatives and coalitions to network with

each other (as well as Oxfam staff in Vietnam; academics; community members and

government institutions). The workshop focused on advocacy around inclusion of

FPIC in the Environmental Impact Assessment component of the revised Land Law.

The workshop also provided an opportunity for CSOs to share knowledge on

advancing FPIC in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

(REDD+) in Vietnam and promoting the World Commission on Dams in Vietnam.


29

There is some evidence CSOs are using FPIC training and resources to

influence policy and practice. Survey respondents report some success in

influencing private sector policy and practice (42%) and to a lesser extent,

government policy and practice (30%). Stakeholders agree engaging government

and private sector interests on FPIC is significantly more challenging than engaging

communities. It is therefore not surprising CSOs are less likely to report successful

advocacy to government and the private sector. One PNG CSO reports using FPIC

knowledge to design a Memoranda of Understanding template for community

agreements with government and developers. Other CSO stakeholders have not

used FPIC directly in their advocacy work but have lobbied national government to

include community views in development projects.

Both PNG and Mekong CSOs have engaged in FPIC consultation and policy

monitoring of REDD+. Formal engagement with policy processes such as the

REDD+ FPIC consultation is an important step towards CSOs influencing policy

commitments from government and developers.

“Vietnamese CSOs are using FPIC as a core evaluative framework and basis for

amendments to the draft land law…on how people and communities have a voice on

land use planning, land use change and land confiscation…There are some

elements of increased participation included in the draft land law thanks to the work

of CSOs.” (Oxfam in-country staff)

Significant constraints exist for CSOs to achieve impact on FPIC policy and

practice. These include sensitive political environments where the language of

human rights and FPIC is particularly charged. One independent expert commentator

stressed achieving change (social, cultural, political) takes time and requires

committed and consistent program support. CSO evaluation stakeholders identified a

number of areas where support is needed:

Support from donor governments and international NGOs to challenge corrupt

and illegal business practices, both in government and the private sector.

Support to include FPIC into the Special Agriculture Business Lease (SABL)

process. Reconciling PNG’s traditional land tenure systems with the SABL

land administration system is identified by PNG CSOs as an exceptionally

challenging area that communities need specialist support on.

Help to access remote communities (e.g. transport and communication

technologies).

Sustainability of CSO themselves (lack of core funding, insecure/temporary

office premises).

Resources such as the Guide are useful general guides (e.g. on best practice

in community consultation) but CSOs also need specific technical support to

successfully advocate for FPIC and defend communities’ rights in context.

“There is lots of pressure on communities from government and companies to quickly

approve Special Agriculture Business Leases….our laws are good, but law officers

can be bribed…in community training we raise issues of land administration and we

get lots of responses.” (PNG CSO)

“The key challenge to FPIC success is illegal and corrupt business practice.” (PNG

CSO).


30

“Applying FPIC into reality is quite different and some steps cannot be applied…like

Step 4 on negotiations…there is very little communication between local communities

and developers. Normally that won’t happen in a project in my experience.” (Mekong

CSO)

“[T]here are instances where external forces are so immense which these

communities cannot overcome within their capabilities. For example, logging/mining

corporations colluding with individuals tampering with laws….Such issues need to be

addressed separately through investigation, lobby and advocacy efforts at the

decision making levels. Having that running parallel with the FPIC training to

communities could protect the interests of the communities.” (PNG CSO)

“Human rights activists can be blacklisted… [and] we need to be flexible around

words, for example, using ‘peace work’ rather than ‘campaign’, and avoiding

‘advocacy’ as this is perceived to be anti-government.” (Mekong CSO)

“[Key challenges to FPIC include] a lack of trust between parties and also

community capacity. There is a level of guidance in the Guide but for communities to

really engage with companies, specialist knowledge and technical assistance is

required.”(Independent expert commentator)


31

“FPIC has been

bubbling away

for ten

years…2011 saw

a global policy

tipping point”

(Independent

expert

commentator)

“The work done

by Oxfam

Australia since

2011 builds on an

enormous

amount of work

done by CSOs and

Indigenous

Peoples.”

(Industry

stakeholder)

5. OXFAM AUSTRALIA’S WIDER FPIC ROLE

This section addresses Evaluation Objective 4: Examine Oxfam Australia’s role in

contributing to global FPIC policy and practice change through two case studies.

The context for the HSAP (2011) and ICMM Position Statement (2013) is a global

backdrop of concerted effort by many parties and, in particular, Indigenous Peoples’

and social justice organisations to campaign for industry to fully

accept IFI standards.

Industry, government and global civil society stakeholders, and

independent expert commentators, were asked to judge the

relevance, value and impact of Oxfam Australia’s role in the

development of the HSAP/ICMM and its handling of the issue of

FPIC. It is important to note evaluation stakeholders do not

represent a complete cross-section of industry, government or

global civil society. One Indigenous Peoples’ organisation was

consulted during the evaluation findings workshop, 9 June

2014.

5.1 HYDRO SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

(2011)22

The Hydro Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF) was initiated through a collaboration of the International Hydropower

Association (IHA) and World Wildlife Fund and The Nature

Conservancy. A process to develop a multi-stakeholder initiative

was commenced to ensure key stakeholder / expert groups

were represented as Forum members – these included seeking

representatives from industry, financing, social, environmental,

and government. Oxfam joined as one of the members of the

social issues area.

The four international NGOs (World Wildlife Fund; The Nature

Conservancy; Transparency International; and Oxfam Australia)

made up the social and environmental expert group. The Forum

operated as a quasi multi-stakeholder23 initiative with the purpose of reviewing an

earlier industry protocol developed by the IHA in response to the seminal World

Commission on Dams report (2000). Commitment to FPIC and the consent rights of

dam affected communities (resettlement) were key unresolved issues between the

IHA and other Forum members. The Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol

(HSAP) which was developed through the HSAF, provides a ‘good practice’

sustainability assessment applied to projects and includes commitments to FPIC as a

22 International Hydropower Association, 2011 23 Quasi MSI in the sense that some key stakeholder groups were not represented or invited to join – it was particularly highlighted by external observers that the following groups were not HSAF members - NGOs from developing countries, project affected peoples, resettles, resettlement experts and indigenous peoples


32

Key steps towards

FPIC

International Bill of

Human Rights

(1948)

Declaration on the

Right to

Development

(1986)

ILO 169

International and

Tribal Peoples

Convention (1989)

World Commission

on Dams (2000).

UNDRIP (2007)

IFC Performance

Standards (2011)

UN Special

Rapporteur on the

rights of Indigenous

Peoples (2011)

UN Working Group

on Business and

Human Rights

(2011))

HSAP (2011)

UN Global Compact

business guidance

in relation to

Indigenous Peoples

(2013)

ICMM Position

Statement (2013)

right for Indigenous People. Importantly, however, there are areas of non-consensus

on FPIC and involuntary resettlement.

Stakeholders judge the relevance, value and impact of Oxfam Australia’s role

on the Hydro Sustainability Assessment Forum very highly. Oxfam Australia’s

role as the sole social justice NGO at the HSAF table is viewed

as especially relevant. Oxfam Australia’s significant investment

of time and expertise is valued. By participating in the HSAF,

Oxfam Australia is seen as demonstrating its interest in

solutions and compromise, as well as commitment to social

justice. One stakeholder summed up Oxfam Australia’s

participation as representing a new style of advocacy for the

organisation; deliberately non-adversarial and attempting to

exert leverage in new ways. Social impact issues, and FPIC in

particular, are noted to have taken up a lot of Forum time.

Oxfam Australia played a critical role influencing the FPIC

outcomes of the HSAF and the agreement of the HSAP.

Oxfam Australia’s specific contribution to securing FPIC

outcomes is seen as instrumental by stakeholders. Although

there are clear areas of compromise on FPIC in the HSAP,

stakeholders feel there was more overall consensus than not.

The persistence on the part of NGOs, and particularly Oxfam

Australia, is noted by all stakeholders. One NGO Forum

member identifies an external development which critically

affected HSAP FPIC outcomes. This was a joint NGO

statement supporting UNDRIP. The launch of this statement

during HSAF meant two of the four NGO Forum members put

their weight behind Oxfam Australia’s push for FPIC inclusion.

Overall, the Oxfam Australia HSAF reference group is seen

as an appropriate mechanism to guide Oxfam Australia’s

interventions in the HSAF. Oxfam Australia’s HSAF mandate

did not include speaking on behalf of Indigenous Peoples and

dam affected communities (nor other social justice NGOs). As a

conduit for information and testing of ideas from Oxfam

Australia to wider civil society, the group function is thought to

have worked well but one stakeholder questioned the extent to

which the group was able to substantively support the Oxfam

Australia representative (for example with detailed feedback on

HSAF documents).

Stakeholders note there is very limited published evidence

to date on HSAP implementation with projects affecting

Indigenous Peoples. The impact of Oxfam Australia’s

contribution, however, is that the inclusion of FPIC within the

HSAP is viewed as fundamentally changing the policy

discussion. A number of stakeholders would like to see Oxfam

Australia play an active oversight role in the implementation of

the HSAP. Suggested involvement includes: sitting on the

HSAP Governance Committee; conducting thematic analysis of


33

the way the Protocol has dealt with FPIC in implementation; and scrutinising the

HSAP to ensure it stays true to its origins as a genuine multi-stakeholder initiative

and is not captured/solely used by industry. Another key issue pointed out as

requiring critical oversight are the actions of national governments in Protocol

implementation.

“The Protocol would not have had the same acceptance it has had without Oxfam

Australia’s inclusion of social impact issues. It is hard to separate Oxfam Australia

from the inclusion of FPIC we ended up with.” (HSAF member)

“The Protocol gives a powerful framework for pushing FPIC on the ground…so many

projects are not even close …so the Protocol can be used as a minimum value

statement written by and accepted and advanced by industry. This is powerful.”

(HSAF member)

“Oxfam Australia had a particular role to play in this context…doing high level policy

orientated work…arguing about what was proven, feasible, and possible.” (NGO

stakeholder)

“The hydropower industry had never accepted FPIC as feasible…. [but following] the

IFCs safeguards move towards FPIC and UNDRIP, it became an ever harder

position to maintain that FPIC was not possible.” (Forum member)

“There were many organisations that did not want to be part of the HSAF. Oxfam

Australia had the courage to go into discussions with the hydropower industry and to

push them.” (NGO stakeholder)

“There is a critical oversight role for NGOs like Oxfam Australia [in Protocol

implementation]” (NGO stakeholder)

“FPIC was a difficult topic in the Forum and I have to commend [Oxfam Australia’s

representative] for being very effective and consistent even when standing

alone.”(Forum member)

“[Agreeing to FPIC commitments is one thing], proof is in implementation though.

This is the challenge – how on earth do you get FPIC to work on the ground.

Communities need to know, NGOs need to know, companies need to

know…Everybody is scrambling in the land business to say ‘how do we do this?

Oxfam Australia’s experience of negotiating FPIC on the ground is invaluable.” (NGO

stakeholder)

5.2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MINING AND METALS “INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES AND MINING POSITION STATEMENT” (2013)

In May 2013, the ICMM released a Position Statement requiring its 22 member

companies to integrate FPIC into their practices around engagement with indigenous

communities (ICMM 2013). 24The adoption of FPIC by an extractives industry

24 The ICMM Position Statement was ‘soft launched’ at the 2013 Oxfam Sustainable Mining Symposium which focussed on the issue of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and mining. The Symposium is an annual event. 80 people attended in 2013 and received the ICMM statement. The Oxfam ‘Right to


34

association is agreed by all evaluation stakeholders to represent a significant shift in

the sector’s approach to corporate social responsibility and human rights due

diligence. The 2013 ICMM “Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement”

significantly moved the sector’s best practice principles from Free Prior and Informed

Consultation (2008 Mining Statement on Indigenous People) to Free Prior and

Informed Consent for Indigenous People.

In partnership with Oxfam America, Oxfam Australia is agreed to have had

important input in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM. This is based on two main

factors: Oxfam Australia’s work with Oxfam America to comment on a draft Position

Statement; and Oxfam Australia’s bilateral relationship with ICMM members. Oxfam

Australia’s past representation on the BHP Billiton Stakeholder Advisory Group is

particularly recognised. The industry stakeholder states the ICMM recognised the

“locus of leadership” on Indigenous People and FPIC within Oxfam Australia and

Oxfam America. Running parallel to ICMM engagement with Oxfam was consultation

on the draft with organisations/advocates focused on Indigenous Peoples. Both

processes allowed ICMM to take civil society soundings and report back to ICMM

member CEOs, an important step in building industry consensus.

The revision to the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance

Standards (2011) to include FPIC for Indigenous People is identified by ICMM

as the key driver behind the ICMM adoption of FPIC. It should be noted Oxfam

America and Oxfam Australia also lobbied the IFC on this inclusion of FPIC. Other

critical shifts in the global policy landscape include the formal UN approval of

UNDRIP in 2007, but also, critically, the subsequent adoption of UNDRIP by the

Australian, New Zealand, USA and Canadian governments in the years following.

Many of the 22 ICMM member companies are based in these four countries. Overall,

the role of civil society actors (including Oxfam Australia) in influencing national

governments to adopt UNDRIP is thought by ICMM to have been more influential

than specific input into the development of the Position Statement.

Similar to the HSAP, evaluation stakeholders hold desires to see Oxfam

Australia take a lead in following up the implementation of the ICMM Position

Statement. Oxfam Australia’s in-depth research and policy knowledge in the

extractives sector is considered valuable in scrutinizing the ways ICMM members will

implement the Position Statement. Another suggestion for Oxfam’s next direction is

to step up on-the-ground training with CSOs to translate the ICMM policy in order to

support communities negotiating with mining companies.

“It’s hard to separate Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America in this space….they gave

challenging but constructive feedback…we [ICMM] would be less inclined to push the

boundaries without the sustained advocacy of Oxfam and others.” (Industry

stakeholder)

“The fundamental shift in the revision of the ICMM position was the change in the IFC

Performance Standard to include FPIC for Indigenous People.” (Industry stakeholder)

“There has been a shift in terms of industry perspective…it is much more difficult for

industry to dismiss FPIC. Companies are talking the language of rights but respect

for the outcome [of FPIC process] is still unclear.” (Independent expert commentator)

Decide: company commitments and community consent’ report (Caer and Oxfam Australia, 2013) was also launched at this event.


35

“We used Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America’s work on FPIC and the extractive

sector to inform land [grabbing] work. It formed an intellectual basis for our campaign

targeting agribusiness.”(Oxfam International)

“We were very conscious that unless the Position Statement had recognition from the

advocacy world there was probably more to be lost than gained in revising the 2008

statement.” (Industry stakeholder)

“Oxfam Australia have been working on FPIC for a long time. They’ve done some

very useful thinking and work [especially] in extractive industries. They are very

sensitive and clever about the way they do it and their level of expertise and skill has

weight.” (NGO)

“Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America played an important advocacy role in the

background with those Australian and US member companies who then joined the

discourse at ICMM.” (Industry stakeholder)

“Oxfam Australia contributed to a critical mass that had built up on FPIC and

Indigenous Peoples in the extractives industry.” (NGO stakeholder)

A key issue in both the HSAP and ICMM Position Statement was the

interpretation of whether FPIC solely applies to Indigenous Peoples as a

collective right or whether other project affected peoples can also call on FPIC as a

human right. Inherent within this distinction is a tension between collective rights and

individual rights and the foundational basis of FPIC. Some stakeholders question the

helpfulness of enforcing a distinction between Indigenous Peoples and other project

affected peoples. These stakeholders feel FPIC advocacy should call more clearly on

Human Rights instruments to widen rights to FPIC for all project affected peoples.

Such instruments include the right to self-determination in the international human

rights framework (United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). An example of recent civil society advocacy

on FPIC for all can be seen in Oxfam International’s Land Campaign.25 Other

stakeholders, however, emphasise Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC stems from

UNDRIP and is founded in their collective right to self-determination as an entity with

collective decision making and collective customary land tenure (defined in their own

terms). These stakeholders do not feel FPIC can, or should, be applied to all. Such

stakeholders find Oxfam International advocacy to widen FPIC to apply to all affected

communities problematic.

Overall, there is agreement among stakeholders that rights to FPIC are

complex and continue to be disputed. Despite this, there is consensus among

stakeholders across all sectors that the issue is no longer whether or not to agree to

FPIC, but how to successfully implement FPIC processes on a project by project

basis. Industry and policy stakeholders spoke of the immense challenges of

achieving good faith negotiations between communities and government/ the private

sector.

25 Oxfam International’s Behind the Brands campaign lobbies companies to commit to FPIC for all communities across their supply chains. The campaign been accepted by several multinational companies http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-11-08/coca-cola-company-declares-zero-tolerance-land-grabs-supply-chain ; Oxfam International (2012)

http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-11-08/coca-cola-company-declares-zero-tolerance-land-grabs-supply-chain

http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-11-08/coca-cola-company-declares-zero-tolerance-land-grabs-supply-chain


36

Stakeholders were asked their views on strategic directions for FPIC and Oxfam

Australia’s future role. A number of points emerged:

Most stakeholders consulted in the evaluation concur there is a strong need

for ongoing FPIC education to communities and that this need is heightened

when communities are under immediate threat of development.

The idea of an independent third party in FPIC negotiations between

communities and developers/government emerged in interviews with a cross-

section of stakeholders. Several stakeholders suggested Oxfam Australia’s

position as a respected and trusted organisation made it an ideal candidate

for such a role.

Oxfam Australia’s Mining Ombudsman (historical) was mentioned by one

stakeholder as an excellent initiative that had impact in documenting adverse

effects and advocating with mining companies.

“It isn’t helpful to solidify FPIC as a right of this group but not that group….the

demand for FPIC is riding on the back of Human Rights respect for collective and

individual rights.” (Independent expert commentator)

“Oxfam Australia has helped in moving the debate from yes/no to FPIC to how is it

going to be realised.” (Independent expert commentator)

“It is now less an argument about whether FPIC should apply and more of a detailed

nuanced discussion on what is consent, by whom and for what in return? This is

going to be where the debate is.” (HSAF member)

“There is a real need for organisations like Oxfam Australia, because somebody

needs to be able to speak to the complexities of what FPIC would look like in

different places on the ground.” (HSAF member)

“It’s not just about international law and institutions…it is nice to have global

frameworks but ultimately, it is up to national governments, especially governments

that are very concerned about their sovereignty. There is a need to convince them

from the inside. The dilemma is that they can’t easily be influenced by outside

organisations. There is a need to develop a presence in country, in that domestic

political context. This is very important for organisations like Oxfam to resolve.” (NGO

stakeholder)

“Oxfam’s brand has value, companies respect Oxfam’s intellectual rigour. We’re

asking companies to go further than international law, government, international

institutions….now it is the private sector racing ahead and dragging institutions

behind. The missing piece is government. That is the next challenge.” (NGO

stakeholder)

“Unlike mining or hydropower, land grabbing’ is not an industry….it’s a much less

accountable space, a dangerous space with a lot of conflict. It would be good to see

Oxfam Australia have a strategy of constructive engagement with all (mining, hydro

and land), but you can’t only wave the FPIC flag as you’ll be marginalised…..[rather],

should take FPIC principles into different areas of engagement, such as greater

inclusion of civil society in resource management.” (Government stakeholder)


37

“Oxfam’s great strength is that it plays a long game…that matters hugely. It

establishes legitimacy, builds relationships and moves the needle incrementally.”

(Industry stakeholder)


38

6. LEARNINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This section draws conclusions from the evaluation findings and presents

recommendations for consideration.

Overall, the FPIC program succeeded in its intended objective to strengthen national

civil society understanding of FPIC rights. The program achieved progress towards

achieving desired outcomes (increased civil society capacity to use FPIC to support

communities and to influence policy and practice). The degree to which this

strengthened CSO capacity is sustainable is not yet clear.

An evaluation findings workshop was held with stakeholders in Phnom Penh

on 9 June 2014. The workshop purpose was to review evaluation evidence and

conclusions. Nine regional stakeholders, including Oxfam country program staff,

attended (see Appendix A). Overall, stakeholders agreed with the evaluation

findings. A number of key reflections and recommendations emerged:

Strengthening CSOs’ technical knowledge and capacity to utilise FPIC is

highly relevant to national and regional development contexts and should

continue to be supported. Capacity building must encompass a more

holistic approach that goes beyond just delivering training however.

The need for context specific tools, guidance and case studies of both

successful and unsuccessful FPIC was highlighted. The threat of FPIC

being co-opted by companies and government was identified, along with a

need for support to assess company performance, monitoring and

assurance. Closely linked to this is a challenge accessing information on

development projects.

The principles of FPIC are recognised as important for all project affected

peoples but there is a challenge in widening FPIC as a right beyond

Indigenous Peoples. AIPP’s position is that FPIC is a specific Indigenous

Peoples’ right anchored in collective self-determination over their

customary land and other resources.

FPIC is not a one-off event, nor is it a procedural checklist, but a free,

prior and informed process which may or may not lead to consent.

Further, FPIC must be undertaken within Indigenous Peoples’ own

customary processes. The application of FPIC is therefore highly context

specific. This brings considerable complexity to supporting FPIC

implementation with technical guidance.

Inclusion of women, youth and other marginalised groups within FPIC is a

critical issue, both within Indigenous Peoples’ customary norms and

decision making processes as well as community, business, and

government power structures. A stronger analysis of the biggest barriers

(e.g. cultural norms, capacity of Oxfam staff) to gender equality was

suggested.

There is a need to support business and government on how to conduct

FPIC and to advocate the positive benefits of FPIC for cost of business

(e.g. avoiding future disputes).


39

Evaluation conclusions and recommendations for program effectiveness, efficiency,

impact and Oxfam Australia’s global role are presented below.

6.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Program Effectiveness

The program succeeded in achieving most of its intended outputs (training, workshops, and translated resources) although the delivery of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual was very slow. CSOs demonstrate increased awareness of FPIC and how it applies to communities’ rights, but questions remain over gender outcomes. The omission of marginalised groups (e.g. youth, people with disabilities) from program design is also evident. CSOs are using FPIC in their advocacy and programming work. The evidence that CSOs have used and adapted program resources indicates an added value beyond program expectations. Delivery of program activities and outputs were therefore consistent with the program’s intended objective to strengthen

civil society.

Oxfam Australia’s position as technical experts on FPIC has been enhanced by

the program. The training and technical support delivered to CSOs, Oxfam

Australia’s peer engagement with independent experts (e.g. reviewing the FPIC

Trainers’ Manual) and other Oxfam country offices have raised the profile of Oxfam

Australia as FPIC experts. This expertise is well recognised and respected. The

Guide is very highly regarded across all stakeholder groups as both a conceptual

introduction to FPIC and a practical guide. Some stakeholders had suggestions to

improve the balance of text/pictures for use with communities and to review the

language around rights and legal frameworks.

Significant steps were made towards strengthening CSOs’ FPIC knowledge,

and capacity to support communities and influence policy. The ways the

program connected to other Oxfam programs and initiatives created crucial synergies

that enhanced program effectiveness in achieving progress towards these outcomes.

The CSO partnership approach to delivery meant program achievement of outputs

and outcomes was closely linked to those CSO partners’ capacity. Program

intersections with other Oxfam initiatives was particularly enhanced in the Mekong

region due to the large regional program and maturity of partner relationships.

In this context, the following recommendations for program design and delivery can

be made:

Continue to provide support to CSOs aimed at strengthening communities to

understand and advocate for FPIC and to influence policy and practice.

Ensure program design, implementation and monitoring includes rigorous

gender outcomes that reflect Oxfam Australia’s commitment to gender justice.

Consider how to meaningfully include marginalised groups such as youth and

people with disabilities in program design and implementation.


40

Program Efficiency

Overall, the program delivered good value for money, producing high quality outputs

for relatively low investment. These program outputs contributed to progress towards

desired outcomes. There is evidence the program leveraged available resources,

including complementarity of effort and budget with program partners and other

Oxfam programs, to maximise the efficiency of program delivery. Direct support to

DTP to host its Indigenous People’s Rights Program is a more cost intensive model

to deliver training on FPIC than other models (e.g. piggybacking on in-country

programs or solely providing resource/technical support as with ERI). The use of a

volunteer to develop the first draft of the FPIC Trainers’ Manual illustrates leveraging

of indirect resources must be approached carefully. In the case of the Trainers’

Manual, an initial cost saving resulted in considerable time inefficiencies. The

program was able to utilise Oxfam Australia’s organisational structures and systems

to deliver.


Continue to design complementarity of program activity and budget with other

Oxfam initiatives in order to maximise efficiency of program delivery.

Review the balance of program support across different delivery models of

FPIC training (direct grant support; delivery of training at invitation; support

with resources) to ensure the greatest value for money in building civil society

FPIC capacity.

Program Impact

The program reached a significant number of CSOs (77) and participants (307)

and important steps towards increased CSO capacity have been achieved.

Incremental steps have been made toward CSOs providing effective support to

communities, including proactive use of resources and individual examples of

applying FPIC knowledge. There are signs of increased CSO capacity to use FPIC

knowledge and resources to influence policy and practice (e.g. REDD+ monitoring

and consultation). However, stakeholders point out the significant challenges CSOs

face, including political sensitivities, corruption and weak legal protections. Some

opportunity to network has occurred as a result of the program but the breadth and

depth of this is not clear.

The program built on Oxfam Australia’s previous FPIC work, principally, the

Guide to FPIC produced in 2010, and earlier work with NGO partners. This included

training workshops with PNG partners aligned with the PNG NRM program, previous

policy work on IFI standards, as well as workshops/technical assistance provided

under the Mekong Regional Program (Oxfam Mekong country offices and NGO

partners). The 2011-14 ANCP FPIC program thus created enhanced value and

impact of this former work. The program ToC (technical support to build CSO

partners capacity) is a sound approach but program impact could be strengthened by

a more clearly articulated understanding of the ways capacity building will occur as a

result of the program and how this could be supported by Oxfam Australia.



41

Strengthen investment in up-front program design, including closer

interrogation of ToC assumptions and a Monitoring Evaluation and Learning

framework that collects meaningful data to assess the ToC.

Consider ways Oxfam Australia can strengthen its engagement with CSOs to

support CSOs to build on FPIC knowledge/skill gains for greater impact.

Oxfam Australia’s role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region/globally

There is evidence Oxfam Australia has made a significant contribution to the

global ‘noise’ around FPIC. Stakeholders across all groups agree Oxfam Australia,

along with its Oxfam counterparts, has made a substantive contribution to pushing

FPIC onto industry, government and civil society agendas over the last three to five

years. Oxfam Australia is judged to have played a critical role influencing the FPIC

outcomes of the HSAP. Oxfam Australia is considered to have played (along with

Oxfam America), an important role in the adoption of FPIC by the ICMM.

The tension between FPIC for Indigenous People versus FPIC for all project

affected peoples remains but there is growing momentum for FPIC to guide

best practice in community consultation and negotiations. Whilst some

stakeholders stress FPIC is a right specific to Indigenous Peoples, there appears to

be growing pressure from global civil society to expand the application of FPIC to

include all project affected peoples. Most stakeholders agree, however, that the issue

is no longer focused on the principle of FPIC, but rather, its implementation on a

project by project basis. Many stakeholders feel Oxfam Australia’s scrutiny of

industry implementation of FPIC is highly important. All stakeholders (expert

independent commentators, global civil society, government and industry

stakeholders) agree Oxfam Australia’s FPIC expertise, particularly in the extractive

sector, has a part to play in shaping/monitoring future policy and practice.

Stakeholders identified key areas of need:

Communities’ need for information and up-skilling on FPIC rights in the

context of specific development projects. This need is magnified in contexts

where communities are especially vulnerable or under pressure to agree to

large scale development projects.

CSOs’ need for context specific support in applying FPIC and guidance on

seeking redress when FPIC goes wrong/does not happen.

Private sector developers’ need for technical ‘know how’ on implementing

good faith FPIC processes with communities.

A continuing need to convince policy decision makers to respect FPIC.


Consolidate Oxfam Australia’s position as an expert commentator on FPIC by

investing in knowledge products (e.g. FPIC implementation success cases

and challenges/trouble shooting)

Consider Oxfam Australia’s potential role in scrutinising industry

implementation of FPIC in HSAP and ICMM.


42

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Evaluation Participants

The following stakeholders and independent expert commentators were interviewed

for this evaluation. Their names are included here with their permission.

Participant Organisation

Emily Greenspan Oxfam America

Phillippe Alan Oxfam Australia – PNG office

Kate Geary Oxfam GB

Christina Hill Oxfam Australia

Aidan Davey ICMM

Patrick Earle DTP

Lorelle Savage DTP

Joseph Wilde Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) OECD Watch

James Ensor Group Executive, BHPB (former Oxfam staffer)

Sabrina Gyorrary ERI

Hjalmar Joffre-Eichhorn ERI facilitator

Cathal Doyle Middlesex University

Virginia Dandan DTP trainer and UNOHCR

John Chitoa Bismark Ramu Group (PNG)

Gabriel Molok Turubu Eco Foresty Development (PNG)

Samson Kupale PNG Eco Forestry Forum

Dương Thu Hằng Warecod

Trinh Le Nguyen PanNature

Joerg Hartmann Independent consultant, Chair of HSAP Governance Committee

David Harrison The Nature Conservancy

Helen Tugenhaut Forest Peoples Programme

Richard Hackman Independent consultant

John Dore DFAT, Government of Australia

Chhuon La Oxfam Mekong Regional office

Bert Maarten Previously Oxfam Vietnam office

Judith Posenu Oxfam Australia – PNG office

Annie Sloman Previously Oxfam PNG country program

Tom Weerachat Earth Rights International, Mekong School facilitator

Bobbie Sta Maria Earth Rights International, Mekong School facilitator

Sarah Ransom DFAT, Government of Australia

David Allen Spectrum, Burma


43

Evaluation findings workshop, 9 June 2014, Phnom Penh

Participant Organisation

Khim Lay Oxfam America /PEM (Cambodia)

Priyajit Samaiyar Oxfam Australia, MRO

Nguyen Hoang Phuong Policy Program Coordinator, PanNature (Vietnam)

Nikki Richards EarthRights International (regional)

Bounthan Phou 3SPN (Cambodia)

Thien Huong Mekong School Alumni Vietnam

Robie Halip Asia Indigenous People's Pact (regional)

SOK ChanChhorvy Oxfam GB, Gender Justice Coordinator

Khamphoui Saythalat Director, PADETC, Laos

Serena Lillywhite Oxfam Australia

Christina Hill Oxfam Australia

Michael Simon Oxfam Australia

Gary Lee Oxfam Australia

Susanna Kelly Evaluation Consultant


44

Appendix B – Program outcomes model

Program Theory of Change

The FPIC program theory of change assumes building FPIC capacity in CSOs

results in strengthening CSOs’ support for Indigenous Peoples/project affected peoples’ FPIC rights and strengthens CSOs’ ability to successfully influence government and industry.

A FPIC program outcomes model and indicators were developed for the

evaluation (Figure 1). The model describes intended outputs and intermediate outcomes specific to the FPIC program and impacts that the program has contributed to. The model also depicts higher level impacts and ultimate goals the program is intended to contribute to, but which are subject to wide influence from other political, economic, legal and programmatic drivers.

The model makes explicit the expected relationship between program activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes and impacts. Through this process, key success criteria for the FPIC program are identified and agreed, providing a very clear foundation on which to make evaluative judgements.

It is important to note, however, that the outcomes model is not intended to depict a simplistic linear causal chain, nor capture every aspect of the FPIC program. Rather, the model is intended as a representation of the key changes the evaluation sought to test in the program theory of change. The model was validated with stakeholders.

Key policy and practice documents pertaining to civil society and development

effectiveness were consulted to develop the outcomes model, including the

Australian Government’s aid policy An Effective Aid Program for Australia: Making a

real difference – Delivering real results (Commonwealth of Australia 2011),

Comprehensive Aid Policy Framework (Commonwealth of Australia 2012) and

AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework

(AusAID 2012); AusAID Civil Society Engagement Framework (AusAID n.d.); the

Australian Council for Development Effectiveness Benchmarks for an Effective and

Accountable Australian Aid Program (ACFID 2014); and the Istanbul Principles for

CSO Development Effectiveness (Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness

(2011).

There are five tiers in the outcomes model, outlined over page (Table 1).


45

Table 1. Outcome tiers

Tier Explanation Scope

Program outputs Deliverables resulting directly from program activity and

immediately within the program sphere of influence

Within

scope Intermediate outcomes

Changes expected to result from program activities. Changes

are expected in the key program domains the program is

seeking to influence: CSOs; program partners; policy influence

and Oxfam.

Impacts

If desired intermediate outcomes have occurred, they are

expected to contribute to longer term program impacts. Program

impacts are influenced by other factors beyond immediate

program control, including existing CSO capacity, and policy

implementation.

Higher level impacts

Program impacts are intended to contribute to the achievement

of desired higher level impacts and ultimate goals. Higher level

impacts and ultimate goals are subject to wide influence from

other programs/initiatives, policies and political, economic and

legal drivers and, as such, are out of direct evaluation scope.

Beyond

scope

Ultimate goals

A Just World without

Poverty

Australian Government

Comprehensive Aid

Framework Strategic

Goals:

2. Promoting

Opportunities for

All

3. Sustainable

Economic

Development

4. Effective

Governance


46

FPIC Program Outcomes Model


47

Associated indicators


48

Checklist of indicator data sources and examples of evidence

Indicator Data source/examples of evidence

Intermediate Outcomes

Training participants rate FPIC knowledge increase (%) Survey responses

CSOs use a wider range of FPIC advocacy and awareness raising tools and approaches (%; Qualitative)

Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: CSOs letters/meeting notes to government and private sector; newsletters; media

FPIC training and resources judged to be gender responsive (%; Qualitative)

Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: CSO actively includes gender considerations in training, recruitment, partner selection, workshops; explicit understanding of FPIC and gender

CSOs deliver FPIC training to communities (% survey; Qualitative) Survey responses & Interviews Examples of evidence: Testimonials from communities; requests for FPIC materials

Oxfam staff apply FPIC knowledge to other areas of work (Qualitative) Interviews

Program partners assess partnership approach worked effectively (Qualitative)

Interviews

Impacts

FPIC resources adapted and used in new contexts (% survey; Qualitative)

Survey & Interviews

New partnerships/alliances between CSOs and national, regional and global organisations (n=)

Interviews

Examples: evidence of membership of networks; contributions to local,

national, regional fora, such as joint letters, events and other collective

action


49

Checklist of indicator data sources and examples of evidence

Indicator Data source/examples of evidence

CSOs engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues [including communities]

that hold government and private sector to account (Qualitative)

Interviews Secondary data Examples: Testimonials from communities; policy submissions; grievance mechanism submissions

Regulatory frameworks and industry standards adopt FPIC (n=) Interviews

Secondary data

National policy shifts to include FPIC (n=; Qualitative) Interviews

Secondary data

Examples: CSO letters; Oxfam FPIC materials are accepted reference

materials for CSOs/NGOs and Government

Oxfam identifies and engages in new partnership opportunities (Qualitative)

Interviews

Examples: New partners/allies in portfolio; new joint initiatives

Oxfam policy and implementing teams collaborate in new ways (Qualitative)

Interviews

Examples: Evidence of joint work/collaboration e.g. FPIC included in

Regional or Country Office programs/projects


50

Appendix C – Evaluation tools

1. Information sheet

2. Interview consent form

3. Discussion guides

4. Online survey

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Program Evaluation Plan

51

Information sheet

Oxfam Australia is doing an evaluation of its Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

work, including the FPIC program delivered under the AusAID NGO Cooperation

Program Partnership (ANCP). The evaluation is being conducted by Susanna Kelly,

an independent evaluator.

The ANCP FPIC Program (the ‘FPIC program’) began in 2011 and is due to end in 2014. The FPIC program was funded by the Government of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT, formerly AusAID). The FPIC program was implemented by Oxfam Australia and in-country partners. The program delivered FPIC training to Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and individuals in Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India and Indonesia. The evaluation is also examining Oxfam Australia’s wider role in strengthening FPIC in the Asia Pacific region and globally.

Why is the evaluation being done?

Oxfam Australia requires an end of program evaluation to provide an independent assessment of the FPIC program. In addition, Oxfam Australia wishes to understand

more about its contribution to strengthening FPIC overall.

What is the aim of the evaluation?

The evaluation will assess the FPIC program achievements, challenges and lessons

learnt over 2011-14 and will enhance Oxfam Australia’s understanding of its wider

role in strengthening FPIC. Evaluation findings will be used to guide future program

design and delivery.

Your involvement

Stakeholder interviews The evaluator (Susanna Kelly) would like to talk with as many

different stakeholders as possible to get a 360˚view of the FPIC program and Oxfam

Australia’s FPIC work. Interviews will be conducted in the weeks of 21st and 28th

April 2014. If you agree to participate, Susanna will contact you to arrange a time for

a Skype/FaceTime interview or group discussion that will take around 45-60 minutes.

Interviews will take place at a time that is convenient to you.

Depending on the nature of your involvement with Oxfam Australia’s FPIC work, the

interview will ask questions about your views on the FPIC program (achievements,

challenges and lessons learnt), and/or your views on Oxfam Australia’s role in FPIC

changes nationally, regionally and/or globally.

Online survey of FPIC training participants The evaluation is seeking the views of

FPIC training participants on the training content and impact. An invitation to

participate in an online survey will be sent to you in the week of 21st April 2014.

Your contribution to the evaluation is valuable and Oxfam Australia hopes you will be

able to participate.

If you have any questions about the evaluation please contact Susanna Kelly

[email protected] +64 4972 1748 or Christina Hill [email protected],

Serena Lillywhite [email protected], Michael Simon [email protected] or

Gary Lee [email protected]

Interview consent form







52

Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent Evaluation

Interview Consent Form

I (insert name) ………………………………………………………………………

of (insert organisation)……………..…………………………………………….. agree to participate in this interview for the Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation, as outlined in the information provided to me by Susanna Kelly.

I understand that:

My participation is voluntary and I can withdraw at any time.

Whether or not I participate will not affect any current or future relationships with Oxfam Australia or any other organisation/agency.

With my permission, the evaluator will list my name and role as a contributor to the evaluation in an appendix.

The evaluator will seek to keep my information strictly confidential. No information in the report will be attributed to individuals.

I can request any information collected from me to be withdrawn at any time up until the analysis stage.

If I withdraw, I can request that any information collected from me be returned or destroyed.

With my permission, the interview may be taped, and may be transcribed.

Digital recordings, notes, and summaries will be stored securely by the evaluator and will not identify me.

I understand the aims of the Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation, have read this consent form, and been given the opportunity to ask questions. I give my consent to participate in this interview.

Participant’s signature: __________________________

Date: _________________


53

Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation

Draft Discussion Guide – Program managers and delivery partners, CSO

program participants

Introductions

Introduce self

Evaluation purpose and how Oxfam Australia will use findings

Informed consent and confidentiality

Explain a little about the Oxfam FPIC program

Personal background

Please tell me a little about yourself and your current role

What has been your involvement with Oxfam’s FPIC program?

Effectiveness

In your view, to what extent have the FPIC related activities you have been

involved in helped to contribute to

o Increased understanding of FPIC and related tools (Oxfam staff and

CSOs)

o Increased understanding of communities’ rights (CSOs)

o Training of trainers to deliver FPIC training to communities (CSOs)

In your view, to what extent did you engage Indigenous Peoples, women and

other marginalised groups (youth, disabled) in your FPIC related activities?

Probe: program results for these groups, level and type of support received

from OA regarding engagement of women

In your view, what factors helped success? Probe: translation of guides?

Skills of trainers?

o What factors hindered success?

In your view, have there been any unexpected program outcomes (positive or

negative)? Probe: what are they?

This discussion guide is indicative and questions will be tailored according to specific

knowledge and expertise of the interviewee.

CSOs

Do you/your organisation have examples of how you have used FPIC

knowledge, e.g. submissions to UN, advocacy, media, discussion with

government/company?

What has your organisation done as a result of the FPIC training and

resources? Probe: innovative approaches

How do you/your organisation use the FPIC resources?

o Delivering gender responsive FPIC training to communities?

Probe: what makes it gender responsive?


54

Efficiency

Thinking about the value of program outcomes that have been achieved:

- Could the same results and quality have been achieved with less

cost? Probe: why/why not

- Could better results have been achieved for the same money? Probe: why/why not

To what extent do you think the program has been efficiently managed?

What factors helped or did not help efficient program management? Probe:

costs, activity/personnel management, factors beyond program partners’ control

Are you aware of any comparable capacity building programs? Probe:

comparison with FPIC outcomes cost/value

Impact

In your view, what long term and sustainable difference have the FPIC

training and resources made for you and/or your organisation’s work:

- Supporting communities to engage with private sector and

government on land, energy or water developments that will affect

them (Probe examples)

- Influencing policy and/or practice nationally/region

- ally (Probe examples)

- Networking/forming new partnerships and alliances with other

organisations

Does your organisation have any evidence of the difference it has made in

these areas? Probe: any other existing data e.g. national NRM decisions

Learnings

What would you change to improve the FPIC program?

What do you think should be done next on FPIC?

What if anything do you think Oxfam can contribute?


55

Oxfam Australia FPIC Evaluation

Discussion Guide – independent FPIC expert commentators, Global CSOs,

Government and Industry representatives

Introductions

Introduce self

Evaluation purpose and how Oxfam Australia will use findings

Informed consent

Personal background

Please tell me a little about yourself and your current role

FPIC

What has been your involvement with FPIC as a strategic tool?

What has been your involvement with Oxfam Australia?

How do you view Oxfam Australia’s strategic role in advancing FPIC?

What has been your involvement with the Oxfam Australia FPIC program

Probe: on effectiveness and value of FPIC training and tools

Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol 2011

What has been your involvement with the HSAF (Forum)?

In your opinion, what role did Oxfam Australia play in the development of the

HSAP and the issue of FPIC?

If you were to judge Oxfam Australia’s role in the HSAP and FPIC, how would

you rate:

o The relevance of Oxfam Australia’s role

o The value of Oxfam Australia’s role

o The impact of Oxfam Australia’s role

Do you think Oxfam could have done anything different on FPIC?

Do you feel there is an ongoing role for Oxfam? Probe: what should OA do

more/less of?

International Council of Mining and Metals ‘Indigenous Peoples and Mining

Position Statement (May 2013)

What has been your involvement with the ICMM position statement?

In your opinion, what role did Oxfam Australia play in the development of the

ICMM statement and the issue of FPIC?

If you were to judge Oxfam Australia’s role (via Oxfam America) in the ICMM

statement and FPIC, how would you rate:

o The relevance of Oxfam Australia’s role

o The value of Oxfam Australia’s role

o The impact of Oxfam Australia’s role

Do you think Oxfam could have done anything different on FPIC?

This discussion guide is indicative and questions will be tailored according to specific

knowledge and expertise of the interviewee.


56

Do you feel there is an ongoing role for Oxfam? Probe: what should OA do

more/less of?

Future directions

What do you see as effective strategies to achieve FPIC for indigenous and project

affected people?

Oxfam Australia’s Theory of Change

In your view, how valid is Oxfam Australia’s FPIC program TOC and overall strategic

model (‘top down, bottom up’ policy influence and project/community influence and its

insider and outsider approach)?


57

Survey Questionnaire

Email text to be sent 24 April 2014:

Subject: Help us to improve Oxfam Australia’s delivery of Free, Prior and Informed Consent support

Greetings,

Oxfam Australia has commissioned an independent evaluation of its Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Program 2011-14. The FPIC program delivered training on FPIC and other related Human Rights tools (e.g. OECD Guidelines, United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Translations of the FPIC resources were also produced and have been used around the world:

You have been invited to take part in this survey because you participated in FPIC training as part of your studies at the Earth Rights Mekong School/DTP. The FPIC training used Oxfam FPIC resource materials (Guide to FPIC shown above). We would like to hear your views on the training and resources. Some notes on the survey:

The survey will close on Wednesday 7 May 2014

The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete

The survey is voluntary and your contribution is confidential

By completing the survey you are giving your consent to take part

You can stop the survey at any time and your responses will be save to come back to later.

If you have any questions about the survey, please email Susanna Kelly [email protected]

If you have any questions about the evaluation please email Christina Hill [email protected], Serena Lillywhite [email protected], Michael Simon [email protected] or Gary Lee [email protected]

Your feedback is valuable and we hope you can take part. Thank you in advance for your time. Click here to start the survey [link]







58

You and your organisation

1. Which of the following best describes your organisation?

Non-Government Organisation

Civil Society Organisation

Community Based Organisation

Not applicable

Other organisation type (please specify)

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Training

Please tell us your views on the Free, Prior and Informed Consent training you participated in as part of your program.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [one response

per statement – rotate statements]

The FPIC training: Strongly

Agree Agree Neither

Agree or Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Don’t know

Not applicable

Was relevant to my role

Increased my knowledge of FPIC

Increased my understanding of gender rights in FPIC

Expanded the range of FPIC tools I use in my role

Strengthened my ability to advocate for communities’ rights

3. Have you participated in any other FPIC training? [single response]

Yes [please tell us what training]

No


59

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Resources

Please tell us your views on the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials (Guide to FPIC)

4. To what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements [one response per

statement - rotate statements]

I and/or my organisation:

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree or Disagree


Don’t know

Not applicable

Have used the FPIC Guide to raise community awareness of FPIC

Have adapted the FPIC Guide for our own use

Have used the FPIC Guide for private sector advocacy

Have used the FPIC Guide for government advocacy

Impact of the Free Prior and Informed Consent training and resources

Please tell us your views about the overall impact of the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials and the training you participated in.

5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [one response

per statement - rotate statements]

As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have:

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not Applicable

Delivered FPIC training to communities

Worked with communities to include women in FPIC events

Worked with communities to include marginalised groups (e.g. disabled, youth) in FPIC events

Created new partnerships with other civil society organisations

Successfully influenced private sector policy and


60

As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have:

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not Applicable

practice on FPIC

Successfully influenced government policy and practice on FPIC

Successfully supported communities to defend their FPIC rights

6. What was the greatest benefit to you of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed

Consent resources and the training you participated in?

[Open ended question]

7. What would improve the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources

and the training you participated in?

[Open ended question]

Profile

8. Lastly, please tell us a little about yourself. Are you (single response):

Male

Female

9. What country are you based in? [Drop-down menu]

Thank you for completing the survey. Your contribution will help Oxfam Australia provide effective FPIC support in the future.


61

Appendix D – Survey results

You and your organisation

Which of the following best describes your organisation? n=29

Non-Government Organisation n=19

Civil Society Organisation n=5

Community Based Organisation n=4

Not applicable n=0

Other organisation type n=4 Media n=2 HR Defender Org n=1 Legal Aid and Research Advancement Foundation LARA n=1

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Training

The FPIC training: n=29

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not applicable

Was relevant to my role 10 35%

16 55%

3 10%

Increased my knowledge of FPIC

19 66%

10 34%

Increased my understanding of gender rights in FPIC

6 21%

17 58%

5 17%

1 3%

Expanded the range of FPIC tools I use in my role

8 28%

14 48%

7 24%

Strengthened my ability to advocate for communities’ rights

15 52%

13 45%

1 3%

Other FPIC training

Yes n=5

No n=24


62

Free, Prior and Informed Consent Resources

I and/or my organisation: n=28

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not applicable

Have used the FPIC Guide to raise community awareness of FPIC

12

43%

10 36%

4

14%

1

4%

1

4%

Have adapted the FPIC Guide for our own use

8

29%

13

46%

4

14%

1

4%

1

4%

1

4%

Have used the FPIC Guide for private sector advocacy

6

21%

11

39%

8

29%

3

11%

Have used the FPIC Guide for government advocacy

5

18%

13

46%

7

25%

1

4%

2

7%

Impact of the Free Prior and Informed Consent training and resources

Please tell us your views about the overall impact of the Oxfam Australia Free Prior and Informed Consent resource materials and the training you participated in.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have: n=26

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not Applicable

Delivered FPIC training to communities

11

42%

7

27%

3

12%

2

7%

1

4%

2

7%

Worked with communities to include women in FPIC events

8

31%

11

42%

4

15%

2

7%

1

4%

Worked with communities to include marginalised groups (e.g. disabled, youth) in FPIC events

6

23%

14 54

2

7%

2

7%

2

7%

Created new partnerships with other civil society organisations

6

23%

16

57%

2

7%

2

7%

Successfully influenced private sector policy and practice on FPIC

1

4%

10

38%

6

23%

3

12%

1

4%

4

15%

1

4%

Successfully influenced government policy and practice on FPIC

2

7%

6

23%

9

35%

4

15%

1

4%

4

15%

0

Successfully supported communities to defend

5

12

5

2

1


63

As a result of the FPIC training and resources I and/or my organisation have: n=26

Strongly Agree



Don’t know

Not Applicable

their FPIC rights 19% 46% 19% 7% 4%

What was the greatest benefit to you of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed

Consent resources and the training you participated in?

1. Learned about valuable concept that ensure the good governance. 2. Help affected community by project watch dog statement 3. More understanding the FPIC, share with friends and using with my works. 4. Having resources to conduct training for local community level. By understanding fpic, my

trainees understand more to undrip. In my context, going directly to undrip is a bit challenging. So, fpic help the understanding of undrip with a great extent. Also, it benefits advocacy to international level, but it still challenging to local authority level in my context.

5. Introduction of FPIC itself was a great education to me and my organisation. Was able to absorbed it more through the Role plays conducted by the Trainer.

6. The Knowledge of FPIC 7. I work for indigenous people in mountain area, it help me to know the principle and how to

keep indigenous people's rights 8. It helps me to understand the rights of FPIC which can be used as a tool to claim

communities' rights during the development process. 9. It provided us with a clear and concise guide for the FPIC discussion in IP communities 10. All information/guidelines/training for the workshop is new and really great. 11. After the training, I had to implement two projects which involved FPIC processes with a

number of communities. Inputs from Oxfam Australia's helped a lot. 12. Increased my knowledge on FPIC for deepening my advocacy with indigenous peoples 13. The information in the FPIC is more clear and specific that is why the participants get to

understand easily. 14. Understand about OECD policy guideline and it is used in Cambodia. UPR is provided to

other NGOs and Communities. Access to information and community participation are very useful for our affected community to be ready for negotiation with company.

15. The greatest benefit to me is: Increased my knowledge about rights of Indigenous People in FPIC 1.Free Prior and Informed Consent is generally understood as the rights of indigenous people to approve or reject proposed actions or projects that may affect them or their land, territories or resources. 2. Indigenous People have the rights to the land, territories and resource which they have traditionally owned, occupied or have rights to use, develop and control the land, territories and resource that they possess by reason of traditional ownership. 3. Indigenous People shall not be forcibly relocated from their land and the states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous People concerned.

16. The greatest benefit to my organization of the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources are for sharing the communities to aware their rights all mention in FPIC. Moreover, we gave this as a good manual for them to keep on sharing to other members in their own villagers as well.

17. Policy Level Advocacy 18. As working with grassroots people, the FPIC resources and training were so helpful to me.

Since I understood the rights of affected people, there was a huge inspiration for me to seek for further information on IFIs safeguard policy and lead me to organise and work with the communities more effectively.

19. I have the further understanding to FPIC and get the knowledge on how to make the strategy responding to the possible impact and threat.


64

20. Inactually, my work are not really relative to FPIC. But after I particpated FPIC training, I thought it is very useful for every indegionouse people. It also could help communities get more informaion and know more their right.

21. Make the community feel confident to start or straighten their advocacy to deal with the company and the government.

What would improve the Oxfam Australia Free, Prior and Informed Consent resources and the training you participated in?

1. It is better, If it include some practical case studies that apply this concept 2. Should translate to local language 3. put the presser to the private sectors and government use FPIC when they have mega

projects 4. If it include how to combine some training activities like role play, game and so on, it will

much help to not only training but also the trainees. 5. Adapt the contents to the local context 6. have more example 7. More training concerning tools 8. Include further discussions on FPIC involving projects that are not extractive in nature

(mining, dams) but also projects like education, livelihood and agriculture-related . 9. I think it was already good enough. 10. Invite leaders or communities (to give testimonies) whose FPIC were violated to give further

meat and first-hand experience to participants of the training 11. I would request to have video version because many indigenous community could not read

Khmer language and that's is not really easy to get translator for them so if you produce any video for them is much more easy for them.

12. In the near future Oxfam should insert/focus in the agenda on advocacy by bringing case study which there is Human Right violation from some countries and follow up.

13. 1. trainer should slow down his/ her speaking because some participants can not catch up well with the explanation. 2. The training should include more topic on rights of indigenous people 3. Document package should cover only main document related to human rights and indigenous people rights 4. there should be more time for relax between lunch time and afternoon class.

14. I knew more about the FPIC after I attended the ToT with Diplomacy Training program (DTP) Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights Advocacy and Development Training Program. Moreover, I also attended the regional ToT with Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact [AIPP].

15. It should be more readers friendly, i mean it would be better to translate into concerned communities languages of the targeted areas.

16. After taking the FPIC theory, we were taken to the field to learn the practise, but it just happened in Thailand. There are so many particular cases along the Mekong region and I think the training could involve participants from different countries/cases to share about their experiences.

17. FPIC is good but now it only can be used in some areas due to different political situtaion, different trational and culture, and different level of civil society's development in different country context.

18. The FPIC should be translated into many and indegionouse language because it could be easy to understand for the people

19. Produce as much visual aid based on the meaning of FPIC as the local community is not familiarized much in reading and listening. And some of them may have limited knowledge in reading and listening. Involve the local authority in the training.

Profile


65

Lastly, please tell us a little about yourself.

Male n=10

Female n=15

What country are you based in? n=25

Cambodia 5

Laos 2

Vietnam 3

Burma 3

Thailand 2

Indonesia 0

Malaysia 2

Philippines 2

Timor Leste 0

India 1

Sri Lanka 1

Pakistan 0

Bangladesh 1

Nepal 0

China 3

Tibet 0

PNG 0

Fiji 0

Australia 0


66

Appendix E – References

AusAID (2012). AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

Framework (May 2012)

AusAID (n.d). AusAID Civil Society Engagement Framework – Working with civil society

organisations to help people overcome poverty

AusAID (2012). AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

Framework May 2012

Australian Council for International Development (2014). Benchmarks for an Effective and

Accountable Australian Aid Program

CAER and Oxfam Australia (2013). The Right to Decide: Company commitments and

community consent

Commonwealth of Australia (2011). An Effective Aid Program for Australia Making a real

difference – Delivering real results Updated June 2012

Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Helping the World’s Poor through Effective Aid: Australia’s

Comprehensive Aid Policy Framework to 2015-16

International Council on Mining and Metals. (2013). Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position

Statement, May 2013 Retrieved http://www.icmm.com/our-work/sustainable-

development-framework/position-statements

International Hydropower Association (2011). Hydro Sustainability Assessment Protocol

November 2010

Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness (2011). The Siem Reap CSO Consensus on

the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness Agreed by the Second

Global Assembly, Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, Siem Reap,

Cambodia, June 28-30, 2011

Oxfam America (2010). Case Study: Bolivian Government Consultation with the Guaraní

Indigenous Peoples of Charagua Norte and Isoso Oxfam America and Centro de

Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social (CEJIS) Retrieved from

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/case-study-bolivian-

government-consultation-with-the-guaran%C3%AD-indigenous-peoples-of-charagua-

norte-and-isoso/

Oxfam America. ICMM commits to Free Prior Informed Consent standard Policy blog retrieved

http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/05/24/icmm-commits-to-free-prior-

informed-consent-standard/

Oxfam International (2012). ‘OUR LAND, OUR LIVES’ Time out on the global land rush Briefing

note, Retrieved http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/%E2%80%98our-land-our-

lives%E2%80%99

http://www.icmm.com/our-work/sustainable-development-framework/position-statements

http://www.icmm.com/our-work/sustainable-development-framework/position-statements

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/case-study-bolivian-government-consultation-with-the-guaran%C3%AD-indigenous-peoples-of-charagua-norte-and-isoso/



http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/05/24/icmm-commits-to-free-prior-informed-consent-standard/

http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/05/24/icmm-commits-to-free-prior-informed-consent-standard/

http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/%E2%80%98our-land-our-lives%E2%80%99

http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/%E2%80%98our-land-our-lives%E2%80%99


67

Oxfam Australia (n.d.). Women’s participation and gender equality outcomes in the East Sepik

Natural Resource Management Program Draft Version 1 9-1-14 (2)

Oxfam Australia (2005). Land rights and development reform in remote Australia Centre for

Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), The Australian National University,

Canberra

Oxfam Australia (2010). Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent (July 2010)

Oxfam Australia (2011). ANCP Concept Note 2011/12

Oxfam Australia (2012). Seven Core Questions Tool Kit July 2012

Oxfam Australia (2014a). Evaluation Terms of Reference Evaluating Oxfam Australia’s ‘free,

prior and informed consent’ community and advocacy work January 2014

Oxfam Australia (2014b). Final Evaluation Plan Oxfam Australia’s Free Prior and Informed

Consent Program 15 April 2014

Oxfam Australia (2014c). The Power of People against Poverty Oxfam Australia Strategic Plan

2014-2019 Published 6 February 2014

Oxfam Australia (2014d). Australia Africa Community Value for Money March 2014

Voss, M. and Greenspan, E. (2012). Community Consent Index: Oil, Gas and Mining Company

Public Positions on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), Oxfam America Research

Backgrounder series (2012) Retrieved from

www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/community-consent-index

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/community-consent-index

free, prior and informed consent program evaluation - oxfam … · 2020-05-03 · free, prior and...

Documents